this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
575 points (75.7% liked)
Comic Strips
12434 readers
3716 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Honestly, I agree men's issues do need to be seriously discussed, but it's wrong to hijack discussion about women's issues to talk about men's issues. The reverse is also true.
I've actually seen the opposite happen more often than the former. Both online and irl. A guy starts complaining about things and a cacophony of women show up to tell him how he'll never understand what it's like to be a woman.
Whenever I do see the opposite and when the guy interjects all that's said is "there's a time and a place to talk about men's issues" but like when is it then?
Yeah I really don't see the situation in the comic often at all. I won't say it doesn't happen, but I've personally witnessed way more of this reactionary diversion when men are discussing their unique issues.
I think it is most often when these conversations happen online that vocal reactionaries try to derail the conversation. More often than not, local and private dialogues I've been apart of and around tend to be more civil. In fact, both men and women seem to be on the same side when they voice their issues to each other face-to-face. I think cameras can also sour the situation, since it can put people on edge to be recorded.
At the same time, while there is a massive amount of people who get behind feminist movements and those who back counter-feminist movements, there is very few of those same counter-feminists who seem to actually ever participate in man wellbeing support infrastructure, hence why that infrastructure does not materialize. It seems that a good portion of folks only seem to pipe up as a direct counter to women trying to advocate for themselves, and then are silent and frugal when men are trying to advocate for themselves non-adversarily. I'd argue there are many people who are trying to attack both as they try to uphold the status quo.
We saw this reactionary behavior against feminist advocacy during Gamergate, as a great example - specifically when talking about the events related to Anita Sarkeesian's 'Tropes vs Women in Video games'. I went back and watched that series, and overall the points are fair criticisms of videogame writing (and honestly tropes in media in general). I don't think that anything Anita pointed out was even that vilifying either. The overall response, however, was very toxic and dismissive, and was paired with a harassment campaign.
We saw a similar backlash from a vocal minority for most subsequent feminist actions surrounding cases of sexual abuse such as "Me Too" being countered by protests such as the "HimToo" movement. There's no reason both these conversations couldn't happen but it always seems that they only ever show up at the same time, and try to steal each others thunder.
We could also talk about the Depp v Heard court case, which had extreme levels of toxicity across the board, with large portions of folks on either side choosing to view one side as exclusively as a lying abuser and the other as completely exalted of any blame when what was being shown was an relationship full of mutual toxicity.
Remember The Bear?
Halsin would like a word.
Both scenarios are possible and it is shitty to use whataboutism in both scenarios.
When it’s not being used as a whataboutism.
Ever seen a discussion about men complaining that they are assumed to be a threat just for being male get derailed by comments that it isn't a problem worth complaining about compared to women's issues? Or when the topic of how sexual abuse of boys is extremely common gets derailed as not really being an issue and dismissed by crime stats that often exclude non-penatrating sexual assaults?
Yes it sucks when whataboutism is used to dismiss complaints, but it is also frustrating that the same whataboutism is used to silence discussion that is about the issues that men face.
No I haven’t ever seen that. But that would be an example of whataboutism so pretty shitty thing to say.
No I haven’t ever seen thing either but again that is dismissive and a terrible way to invalidate a legitimate problem.
So you feel whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men? Or do you agree that that is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender?
I am saying whataboutism is to commonly used to dismiss both men's and women's issues and it sucks in both cases.
Agreed
They're agreeing with you it seems to me, and sharing their anecdotes that despite that reality which they agree with, let me re-emphasize that, despite that reality (that using one gender's struggles to whatabout another's is considered both ineffective and borders on conflict-seeking, inherently), that in their experience, they have seen the same the same whatabout tactics used to dismantle discussion when a "male centric" issue is the discussion catalyst, as when it's a "female centric" issue originating the discourse.
I can't speak for that other commenter to your follow up question though, so I'll answer it for myself: I do not feel that whataboutism/dismissive responses are only used against men, no.
As a matter of fact, I feel that they're employed more often to stiffle discussions on "woman centric" concerns precisely because of how little Men's issues are discussed, and the reason for both is the same. That this is a side effect of the patriarchal systems in place doesn't absolve either side from the requirement to be genuine if genuine discourse is sought, though.
I have seen what the commenter is mentioning and right here on Lemmy to boot. Because whether male or female, a whatabout is an easy rhetorical blanket to reach for, and many do.
I believe that both genders (including and specially men, who must own up to the fact that collectively we're the gender with the greater frequency of offense against other genders if we're ever going to get to addressing why it's the same systemic patriarchal roots binding women's rights that choke out the existence of men's rights issues) have to be willing to communicate.
Women in aggregate are crying to be heard, but "TooManyMen" aren't listening that they're (women) speaking for them both too, and I feel those men who are able to hear some of that message need to help out in stopping the whataboutism wall in their brothers before they get going...
The same way that I believe there's women who need to do the same for many of their sisters in the public square.
Divided is how we've gotten to this, unapologetically more viscerally dangerous for womanhood world that pretty much always has been, but I feel that it is united that we'll reach any dreams of equity or widespread understanding between the genders, if we ever will.
In short, I agree "that that [whataboutism tainting discourse] is not a good way to respond to legitimate issues regardless of gender", but the mere axiomatic observation falls short of the next step:
Both sides need to acknowledge and give each other the room to voice out their feelings, views, ideas, etc, genuinely (trolls and agitators need not be entertained) while still keeping an eye for the possibility that unity lies not in knowing the correct answer but in the shared questioning.
Fellas let's do (and encourage our brothers to) better whether we think it's fair or not, and ladies, understand (and share with the sisters who it's safe to) that a hypocrite and someone whose barriers are breaking will appear briefly as the same before change is undergone.
I'm one of those "~~TooMany~~AllMen." My problem isn't women speaking about womens issues, my problem is when they do so with signs like we recently had an uproar about here on lemmy, signs that say stuff like "Not all men but always a man." To me that sign says "Fine, you bitch when we say every one of you does it? Here, not all of you do it, but no women do it ever, no man or boy has ever been raped by a woman." When I see some obvious bullshit like that, as a male rape victim of two different women, I'm calling it out. It is what it is.
Don't want me to call out obvious bullshit? Find better slogans than "All men™" "Not all men but always a man," or the all too common comment which graced that thread as usual when these things are discussed: "Men are trash." If I said "All women" do goddamn anything someone would be right here to tell me I'm a wrong incelbigot, if I said "women are trash" I might get whole ass instance banned, but when the turn tables all of a sudden it's "yaaasssss qween girlboss."
Why must we exclude victims, even lumping them in as de facto aggressors by gender? Why can't it be all victims vs all abusers? The men are in aggregate crying to be heard too, but we're told we need to "let women speak," at best. At least that's better than "You must've enjoyed it because of your body's natural uncontrollable biological responses, you're a gay pussy, she's hot stop complaining," or any of the other myriad of dismissals I've been told personally as have most male victims.
I don't think I've ever seen the opposite, where the dude is holding a reasonable opinion or complaint.
Meanwhile this comment section is an example of the comic itself
Not when women are discussing theirs. It's that simple.
It's like you didn't even read their comment.
It is very possible I misread it, my bad.
Man just going for irony right away, eh?
Probably not in the thread with the comic about womens issues being talked over by men, like you're doing now, would be a good choice.
EDIT: I'll eat the downvotes. Just wanted to say how embarrassing it is to be a man and hear 'but what about men's issues?' used in a non-ironic way. Sorry ladies, you don't deserve this crap. Also thanks for being the bulwark against fascism.
The downvotes are insane when you're demonstrably right.
There was a wave of, likely from reddit, 'mens rights' users who came over and this happens all of the time now. Any time a woman mentions issues with a man, it's "YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT" as if the things can't both exist.
I mean look what they're upvoting: 'I saw a feminist say she doesn't care about guys, I super swear guys!'
It's just fucking embarrassing how childish they are. Not even childish, because children can learn empathy. It's as if they quite literally have zero empathy, and can only engage in sympathy with someone who is somehow similar to them. Like should I just post this comic here, the one we all read, as a reply to these people?
Irony is completely lost upon them.
The Bear incident made this plenty clear.
And they'll just downvote anything you say, because you're the bad guy now, regardless of what you're talking about.
I'm just curious what it must be like to be so fragile. It's like any time they aren't being directly supported they fall apart and lash out at everyone around them. The hardest part is watching women calmly wait out the guys' tantrum, then try to carefully explain to him (and in a way that makes him Feel Like A Man still, ever holding his hand emotionally) what is happening and they will still freak out.
It really is just embarrassing.
I agree with this and I'd also add that bringing up men's issues to try to silence discussion of women's issues then harms men as well because people associate discussion of men's issues with that type of shit behaviour.
While I agree with this sentiment, IME it is very rarely intended to silence discussion of women's issues, and is usually related to hyperbolic statements like "men are trash" or protest signs like "not all men but always a man" (both from a lemmy post I partook in "attempting to silence" last month.) Imo it's reasonable to take offense, disagree, and express both of those feelings wherever I see it to call it out. I am not trying to silence women, I just want them to treat me with the same respect I treat them, if they don't want me to say "all women are trash" because two women have literally raped me (except for the definition of rape in my area calls for penetration specifically, so legally forcing me to have sex with them was at most "sexual assault," which while I'm mentioning it fuck that bullshit, but I digress), then they shouldn't get to call me trash because someone who is not me, I'm not friends with, and who I've never even met, raped them either. I, as a male rape victim, am expected to be able to separate "those women" from "all women" lest I be an "incel" (though, by the definition of incel I think being raped twice negates that alone, yet they still call you one for being a victim and mad about being lumped in with the aggressors for the crime of having the same genitals as their aggressor), and all I'm asking for is the same in return. We can stand with victims and against abusers, it doesn't have to be male victims vs woman victims vs abusers battle royale.
/rant.
Sorry, I happen to care about this topic a lot, being personally effected and all lol.
I understand the anger at the statements. They are visceral and immediately labelling. I've found that it is good to understand these taglines as simplified mantras, such as "don't talk to the police". It is meant as a heuristic for women's safety, and so long as you understand that you yourself aren't dangerous, the tagline does not apply to you. It also lets you know exactly where women are coming from: why they only use the restroom in groups, why they aren't going to give you an outright answer most of the time, and why they will keep their distance until they know you.
I'd argue that these behaviors should not be gender-coded and should be practiced by both men and women, and that vilification of violent outbursts , and similar sexist tropes, should also not only apply to men. It is explicitly sexism which puts this barrier up, where women being violent is downplayed, and men who use women's playbooks are viewed as less masculine.
These are issues of the same coin, which is a divide created by both genders applying different stereotypes to one another and then operating based on those stereotypes
I find it's also helpful to look at such "taglines" for what they are, generalizations. It just so happens that when we generalize about women it's sexist, when we generalize about races it's racist, and when we generalize about men it's "just a tagline." I know men aren't supposed to admit we have feelings or else we're weak, but we do. I've been cheated on 3 times and raped twice, all 5 were by different women, does that give me licence to ~~generalize~~ "create taglines" like "Women are trash?" Hell, I can't even use the word "female" to the degree where I sometimes write "males... and women..." instead, lest I be crucified as a pariah, but if I call out "Men are trash," literally, I'm still seen as in the wrong.
No. Something's gotta give, can't have it both ways. Either women's "taglines" are bad too or men can also generalize about women. Personally I lean towards "generalizations are stupid, tagline or not, and basically by using them you hurt yourself (your movement) in your confusion like a goddamn magikarp."
Tbf, the times I usually see it "hijacked" it's because of signs like "not all men but always a man" completely pretending that male rape victims don't exist, or comments like "men are trash" under the post. If I ever in my life saw a post about male victims that said "women are trash" or had comparable signs and women complained, I would see that as totally justified.
Rage bait. These posts aren't created to do anything other than get people mad at each other.
Then again, Hanlon's razor.
There's also plenty of room in there for less malicious situations as well (not that the malicious ones you speak of aren't happening...they are...but there's other cases as well).
I think a lot of the problems arise based on differing expectations, and ideas about what a "conversation" entails.
Too often, it seems like a conversation means "let me voice my grievances, assign blame, and explain my ideas about why it's like that and what should be done...and didn't you dare to disagree with me or question anything or point out flaws in my logic, because this is my space!"
And hey, you're free to do that...but that ain't a conversation. Conversation means you don't get to dictate the terms completely to everyone else.
I feel like those who do this do know, deep down, that they don't want a conversation at all... but "everyone shut up, let me say my thing, then agree with me" tends to draw in a smaller audience. You might be right, you might be wrong, but, "Listen to me and don't say anything I don't like." isn't a conversation.
Twitter normalized of extremely simplistic expression of complicated issues which leads to all kinds of kneejerk reactions. Some men misinterpret whatever complaint as being about them and turn defensive, and of course the most aggressive of those voices are amplified by social media. The inflammatory comments beget more inflammatory comments, reasonable people quickly exit the space and this is what you end up with.
I firmly believe it's social media that's to blame.
I think that's reasonable if the complaint is about men in general, or specifically calls out all men.
Do you think this comic calls out all men?
No
For sure social medias are a big part of it.
I understand that "all men are trash" and the likes are generalizations about men, not me specifically. But when you see these lines make rounds and rounds again, it can makes you question yourself even if you've done nothing wrong. And that's a big hit to self-esteem and anxiety.
I'd like to, whenever possible, move away from women's issues or men's issues towards people's issues.
It's a good thing to do that, but some issues really are heavily affected by gender
That is very true. Often, it is reactionaries coming in trying to deny the existence of those issues blocking progress, not advocates for either. There are many actively trying to stop the conversation, and those very same individuals actively pose as 'advocates' while spitting vitriol. "There's nothing wrong with how you act, it's all just those progressives faults! No, you don't need any help, it's all fake!" This is explicitly just to shut the conversation down and strengthen the divide between gender advocates.
That's the problem... When is it time to talk about men's issues? Specifically, in a group that doesn't listen to Peterson and Andrew Tate
I agree with what you said, but I think the solution is to talk about everyone's issues instead of men's issues. Men's issues aren't about the men, they're about how men relate to others.
Women's issues should have their place, but men don't need the same thing... Instead they need everyone to show up and talk about their own issues
Bring it up in a space, any space, that isn't there for the purpose of talking about women's issues. Make a community now. Write in it.
I'm giving the community a month before it gets flooded by Peterson and Tate types.
That's the problem. Some folks managed to create wholesome men's subreddits back in the day. Don't know how they're faring now.
And !comicstrips is a space that is here for the express purpose of talking about women's issues then? Or do you also believe this should be relegated to !feminists, too?
No and no. We're talking about issues raised by the comic here. Some men's, some are women's.
You can start a conversation.
Ok...I did. That's what I just did. You were there for it
What now? I pointed out the problem, I can tell you the answer at the end of the conversation. The answer is third places.
How do we get there?
There's a difference between starting a conversation and hijacking an existing one.
No, there's not.
This is not a Ted talk or a Wendy's, this is an entirely related post on social media. This is an appropriate place to bring up these ideas
You worded that better than I could, well done.