and Justice for All wrote:
But the very fact that we having this pseudo-argument over this with you taking the objection stance, kind of proves that a lot of men are clueless about this issue from a woman’s perspective, men just kind of assume that women’s insecurity is more of less the same as men’s or how men experience it. I’d argue that is not, it might be similar on some level and under a certain set of circumstances, yes. Is it the norm? No.
Just look at it from a global perspective, and how women are treated on a global scale. Women, are not just those in ‘west’ and even western women complain about insecurity more often than men, as an average.
Well we started with you objecting to something I said. I don't feel I'm objecting very strongly to what you're saying because I can see where you're coming from even if I have a different take.
I wouldn't myself want to think of women on a global scale because I think that gets very complicated - a woman in the UK would, I think, have a very different frame of reference and preoccupations to an Amazonian tribal woman. Or even I daresay to someone from a different background in the same country.
I think you can turn what you say on its head and say you might make assumptions about men's insecurities. I agree men's insecurities are probably generally different, but that still leaves insecurities and I think it's futile to try to get into whose is 'best'.
I think I'd stick to saying that most of us - male or female - are a bit fucked up to a greater or lesser degree.
Insulting or not, that’s why I said: “potential” as opposed to: “50% are XY&Z”. You did say it yourself: “Except in the broadest sense that technically we’re all capable of anything given the right circumstances” kind of the whole point of me saying ‘potential’ in the first place. And it’s true, it is sad state of affairs and it is deeply problematic. 100% agree with you there even though is like telling me the sky is blue. It sucks to live like that, yes. But it is what it is; as simplistic as it may sound.
Well I think "potential" has to mean "realistically likely" or else it becomes banal. All women are potential murderers in a broad sense. Very few actually are or are particularly likely to become one barring some crazy mind experiments or whatever. If we say someone is "potentially dangerous" we tend to mean there's a realistic chance they are dangerous and we should be careful. So my point is, I think it's just false to say men are potentially rapists or whatever in a
realistic sense - most men actually don't like violence against women, particularly sexual violence - rapists in prison aren't the most popular guys in the hierarchy. Though disempowering, 'traditional' paternalistic values have simultaneously carried notions of protecting the "weaker sex" -women excluded from military combat roles, "women and children first" when the ship sinks, the heroine slaps the guy round the face and he doesn't respond. Though it must be added this has carried a side where e.g. domestic violence behind closed doors has been tacitly accepted in some quarters as long as it's not blatant - it's complex. Modernity has blurred and challenged 'traditional' gender roles wherre it all gets a bit confused and different people think radically different things. Which leads me to -
So how do I know? I could give you plenty of details, shared personal experiences I heard/read/came across and anecdotes on the matter but I (and I presume others too) dislike walls of text, so I’ll try to be brief. Feminists circles alone, ain’t it btw. I could be patronizing and tell you that: women talk! They actually tell you how they feel and give their opinions etc. Although feminist (of all denominations) do tend to be more open about it and bring up the issue more frequently, that’s why I offered it as an example because you’re more likely to read about it there than say on a mommy’s forum, that’s all.
And these experiences are totally valid - but there are not the sum total of female experience. I'd suggest we've probably had different experiences not because I'm male but because we've met different people and moved in different social circles. I've had women tell me they don't even like talking to other women because women "are bitches" - I've heard that one several times. Myself, I prefer talking to women because I can't stand macho bullshit and women tend not to do macho bullshit - though I've also known some women who are very violent and will happily attack men.
And a lot of women have told me the problem they have with their men is that they
don't talk. And 'traditionally' men have not been supposed to talk about their feelings - that does not, of course, me\an they don't have them.
That’s true, some lesbian feminists look down on their fellow straight feminists and some outright call them traitors or worse. It’s a self defeating attitude but what you gonna do? You always gonna have extremists that take the wrong end of the stick on any group/movement.
Yes I think it becomes very self defeating. Like when some radical black activists decided white people are "devils". It stops being about
look - let's not pick on each other and turns into a war about who's best.
Yeah but I consider quantity to be a problem. A minor violent act that occurs more often (say a drunken fight on a Saturday night) gets kind of ‘normalized’ while an out of the blue act like this one is plastered all over the media. You said it; 0.01%. I find it rather unfair to compare intensity vs. quantity, I’m far more outraged at how common violence in general is than this shooter on a rampage story, worse still, I fail to see how kids being blown up by US drones are hardly news worthy at all. While I do understand than a death is a death and that there is obvious propaganda at play in both: over-hyping the shooter story and downplaying the drones death toll, I can’t help but notice a certain level of hypocrisy, mainly on people’s reactions to a story like this, which in turn does nothing at addressing the core issue that is: violence and its prevalence is human society.
Meaning... Hypocrisy is not a good starting point at trying to solve nor understand any issue, never mind this one.
Yes that is a fair point.
By 0.01% I simply meant homicidal loons that go on crazed killing sprees or violently attack people for no reason - the disturbed individual who bursts in and goes apeshit. I think it's a good point about drone attacks which are arguably far worse because they're ordered by people who are not crazed loons. They're people sitting in a cosy office who never really see what they've caused. And they're doing it for political reasons. But of course their cause is righteous - they are defending us from terrorists or whatever. I see the hypocrisy you're talking about.
But that is something different to the fear of each other. This is about state institutionalised violence. Something that will never be addressed as long as we fear each other.
I also agree it's terrible that casual violence is normalised. But I'd still maintain a fight on a Saturday night is not as bad as a mass killing. Though it is still bad.
