Important clarification/FAQ
I am not calling to coddle or excuse the behavior of bigoted men in any way!
I am calling to be kind and understanding to young men (often ages 10-20) who are very manipulable and succeptible to the massive anti feminist propaganda machine. Hope this clarifies that very important distinction. :)
Very good comments that express key points:
- Detailed summary of the situation if you're wondering what's going on
- The rhetorical value of the bear hypothetical and what this means for you
- One example of why the long-term rhetorical value of the hypothetical is poor, in the context of intersectionality
- What does disenfranchisement mean in this context?
- The importance of not asking women to tone down their expressions of fear and frustration
- "But why can't they just say it nicely?"
- The importance of participation in kindness toward young men, specifically outside the context of people speaking their experiences
Edit: This post has now been removed and restored twice. I want to encourage you all:
Be decent to one another
I think this post is a valuable thing given the current state of the Fediverse, please don't fuck it up for us by being toxic in the comments.
No, it's because they really did cause more crimes out of being in the desperate conditions, not due to their nature. And when those conditions got to improve, rates of criminal behaviors dropped too. Same would happen to a white population if they would end up in a ghetto. Similarly, the conditions that form criminal response in some men need to be addressed, if not out of respect, then at least because it actually works. When this was done to black people, the problem of black brutality disappeared as well. And I'm not referencing that out of racism - I literally imply racism doesn't hold any reasonable ground, that people are not born dangerous and that there are factors that influence their behaviors, and put it as an example of people being misguided in the judgment of others for a long time before coming to obvious conclusions that fixed the issue. We just had to listen to black people saying what to do all along.
Same with any oppressed groups. You understand their thinking, you address their needs and remove hostility, discrimination - and they just don't behave dangerously anymore. Muslims integrate amazingly in civilized and accepting societies (and they are amazing people!), revolutions don't happen when the worker's needs are met, etc. etc.
But when you ignore the issues, when you double down on hostility and discrimination, you get terrorism, you get black gangs, you get bloody revolutions, and yes, you have men that dream of restoring patriarchy.
My point is, you somehow make a difference between equal "venting" on black people and on men, even though we still talk about the absolute same act - publicly comparing people with some trait (race or gender) with bears in terms of how dangerous (i.e. bad) they are. And in both cases, this has consequences.
It's one thing to quickly answer an interview and the other to make a wave of shitposting about it, while turning it against men. And telling "it's not about you" is like telling "I don't care what you think of it, I'mma keep doing it anyway", which is not a basis for civil society. Nope, not gonna happen.
You are not being oppressed just because you're a man.
You're so very very close, but you just don't want to take that last step. So let's carry you the rest of the way.
We just had to listen to women saying what to do all along.
You're in a post filled with women sharing their SA stories and explanating why they choose the bear. Instead of crying that you're being attacked, why not try listening to them. Not suggest solutions, not tell that they are wrong for choosing the bear, not explaining how dangerous bears actually are, not taking things personally because these stories are not about you or what you would do. Just listen, and at least try to empathize. That's all. If you want to make a post to vent about how you're supposedly oppressed, go right ahead. But this post is not about you.
This post is far from being the first relating to the experience of sexual abuse, and I'm an active listener who is aware of the issues and experiences of women around it and sympathises with people who genuinely share their negative experiences, both women and men, without trying to incline with my own ideas.
This post is not that. It's a ragebait utilizing an attack that is designed to be easily discarded, posted in a community that is targeted at a general audience. They try to make point that men are and should be seen as more dangerous than bears.
In those circumstances, calling someone to listen and ignoring them telling you they see an attack in the way this is shaped is hypocritical at best.
As a wider point, I also say that we should listen not only to women (but to them too), but also to men, if we want to untangle the string of events that leads some men to abuse, similarly to how we need to hear out women when talking about abusive women developing those behaviors against their male partners, friends and others.
If your priority is prevention rather than pure shows of hostility, you better be a listener for both, regardless of the direction of abuse.
Yeah, and? So what if it's not the first one. There's no limit on the number of posts about sexual assault that women are allowed to create.
No, it's women sharing stories about why they choose the bear. You call it ragebait simply because you put yourself in the group that isn't being picked by women.
Yes, it is, which is why I don't understand why you keep doing it. This is not an attack against you. You've been told that several times now.
Fine. Great. Let's listen to men. But a post about how women are choosing the bear and why is not the place to insist that we must listen to men.
Right. Which is why you should stop talking about being attacked and just listen.