[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

Mr. Rogers isn't perfect and I don't see him as any kind of hero. He would most likely agree. I would love him for a neighbor, though.

Isn’t denial of being a hero one of the requirements of heroism for people though? It sure is for me. The last celebrity I know of who self referred as a hero was Chuck Norris and....well, you’re no hero, Chuck.

I don't think anybody's saying Mr Rogers was perfect. The two quotes I mentioned make it very clear that he agreed on that score. But everything I learn about him makes it clear that he handled fame far better than most and seemed to be a damn fine human being.

What makes a hero? Is a hero something that can only exist in fiction because real people fail and disappoint us? One definition is that a hero is someone whose behaviour is motivated by empathy and compassion. I like that one. Another is that a hero is a selfless, genuine person who gets the undivided attention of all of us and causes change. I think that one is pretty good too. Mr Rogers does pretty well by those measures.

To get back on topic, Rogers was fairly subversive with gender equality. For example, when Sara Saturday wed King Friday, she broke with tradition by dropping the promise ​to obey him.

peanut3141 wrote:

I don't think anybody's saying Mr Rogers was perfect. The two quotes I mentioned make it very clear that he agreed on that score. But everything I learn about him makes it clear that he handled fame far better than most and seemed to be a damn fine human being.

What makes a hero? Is a hero something that can only exist in fiction because real people fail and disappoint us? One definition is that a hero is someone whose behaviour is motivated by empathy and compassion. I like that one. Another is that a hero is a selfless, genuine person who gets the undivided attention of all of us and causes change. I think that one is pretty good too. Mr Rogers does pretty well by those measures.

To get back on topic, Rogers was fairly subversive with gender equality. For example, when Sara Saturday wed King Friday, she broke with tradition by dropping the promise ​to obey him.

Yeah, I don't actually think Rogers was perfect, just as close to a non-flawed role model as I could hope for.
And honestly, it's his humility that makes him so amazing to me. It's genuine and without a hint of shame.

Is it possible his first name was Steve? *mindblown.gif*

A hero is supposed to be someone who has attributes/behavior we aspire to emulate, the good things. It should come with an acknowledgement that no human is perfect. So, take the good, be mindful of how it relates to your situation and do your best.

Some of the folks in my own life that I look up to in certain ways have also done things I'd never want to emulate. Doesn't mean I can't still learn from the good they have done/are doing.

Top_Shelf wrote:

A hero is supposed to be someone who has attributes/behavior we aspire to emulate, the good things. It should come with an acknowledgement that no human is perfect. So, take the good, be mindful of how it relates to your situation and do your best.

Some of the folks in my own life that I look up to in certain ways have also done things I'd never want to emulate. Doesn't mean I can't still learn from the good they have done/are doing.

Yeah, it's something we (collectively) lost over time. And not that I'm an expert on Ancient Greece, but those heroes just did BIG things, not that they were necessarily virtuous paragons.

I really like how some works of fiction wrestle with this. In pop culture, Star Trek: TNG did a good job with this. Even the MCU at least tried.

Last Jedi tried, too.

For my money, Apocalypse Now nailed it.

lunchbox12682 wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

Some dudes have been stinking up the other feminism thread, and for once it WASNT ME! Believe me. I’m as surprised as anyone.

I almost did then checked the thread title and managed to stop myself.
It's really easy to do that at first. Of course, continuing to post after a mistake is another matter.

Oh boy, my ears are burning. Okay, let's talk about this.

We're on a subforum titled "Discussions & Debates". The thread title in question is "[Discussion] Feminism and social justice, plus FAQ!." And yes, I read the FAQ. There isn't a single damn thing mentioned there that indicates that thread is intended to be a safe space for women to discuss social issues. How the hell was I supposed to know? Maybe if you don't want dudes stinking up the thread move it to a different subforum (say Safe Spaces) or at least put the word Safe Space in the damn title. If I had known what the thread was before I made my comment I never would have posted there.

So I read the news about Whedon, saw a thread here talking about it, and added my comment. It was an innocent enough comment about how I now believe the allegations against Whedon, but instead I got sh*t on by everyone in that thread and now this thread for stepping into something I couldn't possibly have known about. Including getting shat on by a mod.

mudbunny wrote:

~mod~

I just want to point out that, once again, men are taking over the feminism thread. If men want to discuss how women should be dealing with abusive situations, I recommend the following:

1 - Don't.
2 - Don't.
3 - If you find it truly, honestly necessary to mansplain how women should be dealing with abusive situations, or tell them they are doing it wrong, go to the Men talking to men about Feminism thread

f*ck that. I never once told women how to do anything in that thread. All I did was comment on Whedon and not a single other poster or woman.

Djinn wrote:
lunchbox12682 wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

Some dudes have been stinking up the other feminism thread, and for once it WASNT ME! Believe me. I’m as surprised as anyone.

I almost did then checked the thread title and managed to stop myself.
It's really easy to do that at first. Of course, continuing to post after a mistake is another matter.

Oh boy, my ears are burning. Okay, let's talk about this.

We're on a subforum titled "Discussions & Debates". The thread title in question is "[Discussion] Feminism and social justice, plus FAQ!." And yes, I read the FAQ. There isn't a single damn thing mentioned there that indicates that thread is intended to be a safe space for women to discuss social issues. How the hell was I supposed to know? Maybe if you don't want dudes stinking up the thread move it to a different subforum (say Safe Spaces) or at least put the word Safe Space in the damn title. If I had known what the thread was before I made my comment I never would have posted there.

So I read the news about Whedon, saw a thread here talking about it, and added my comment. It was an innocent enough comment about how I now believe the allegations against Whedon, but instead I got sh*t on by everyone in that thread and now this thread for stepping into something I couldn't possibly have known about. Including getting shat on by a mod.

mudbunny wrote:

~mod~

I just want to point out that, once again, men are taking over the feminism thread. If men want to discuss how women should be dealing with abusive situations, I recommend the following:

1 - Don't.
2 - Don't.
3 - If you find it truly, honestly necessary to mansplain how women should be dealing with abusive situations, or tell them they are doing it wrong, go to the Men talking to men about Feminism thread

f*ck that. I never once told women how to do anything in that thread. All I did was comment on Whedon and not a single other poster or woman.

Dude, you made a mistake and made an apology over there. Take the L, learn, and move on (to this thread).
You are right that it isn't obvious that the other thread is not particularly for the input of men. Maybe there could be a better sign about (like a giant flashing "Hey idiots, don't post here!"), but it all grew out of repeated issues.

Agreed, and I am going to move on in a day or two, but in the short-term I'm going to be pissed about it. I'm allowed a rant.

Djinn wrote:

Agreed, and I am going to move on in a day or two, but in the short-term I'm going to be pissed about it. I'm allowed a rant.

Still you're miles ahead of 45 on the subject of the most recent presidential election.

I understand that you are upset. I'm posting this to help explain this to other readers. You say:

Djinn wrote:

f*ck that. I never once told women how to do anything in that thread. All I did was comment on Whedon and not a single other poster or woman.

Here is what I saw in the other thread:

Eleima wrote:
Djinn wrote:

Up until this point I had dismissed the concerns about Joss. His ex-wife complained about him and Ray Fisher made some vague statements about nothing? Yeah, whatever. I rolled my eyes. This is obviously quite a bit different. Multiple people who worked with him for years all speaking up? Yeah, I'm on board now.

As an “ex wife”, I really wish people would listen to us more often instead of rolling their eyes. You have NO IDEA of what goes on behind closed doors and when we do have the courage to speak up, it’s usually only to talk about the tip of the iceberg. Less eye rolling, more believing please.
Listen. Believe.

Eleima asks us to believe women. You reply with:

Djinn wrote:

I didn't mean to imply that I rolled my eyes at his ex-wife or Ray Fisher. What I meant was I rolled my eyes at the idea that I should condemn Whedon as easily as that. Believe women means taking their accusations seriously, but it doesn't mean treating everything they say as a fact.

Now you are redefining how we believe women. This is mansplaining.

If a woman is willing to share information about abuse, we need to believe them. End of story. That means treating it as fact.

Yeah you basically stated that any ex-wife or current wife that reports their spouse or partner was/is abusive isn’t worth much until at least a few other individuals report abuse. Yikes!

Aristophan wrote:

If a woman is willing to share information about abuse, we need to believe them. End of story. That means treating it as fact.

No. And I will not agree to that insane interpretation of Believe Women. Believe women means to take allegations seriously, but it does not mean treat accusations as facts. You still have to investigate.

TheGameguru wrote:

Yeah you basically stated that any ex-wife or current wife that reports their spouse or partner was/is abusive isn’t worth much until at least a few other individuals report abuse. Yikes!

Yes, I did. And I stand by that. You can't condemn someone without corroborating evidence. Yes, you can and should support the women when they come forward, but that does not mean condemning the accused. Tara Reade and Amber Heard are the best examples of why it's important to take allegations seriously, but not to unquestionably treat them as fact.

FWIW Djinn I mostly agree with your assertion. We as a society should be able to balance serious accusations with the idea that individuals are assumed innocent till proven guilty. (Though in Whedon’s case there’s way too much smoke for there not to be fire).

All that being said, I also try to empathize with the crap that women take online and in person. I’ve gotten called out too and have decided that it’s better to not contribute to the problem rather than double down. Because sadly a lot of guys will start with a bad faith argument and then skip right to the rape threats.

I agree and that's why I think it's great women have a safe space to discuss these issues on this forum. You know, assuming it's properly indicated of course. There's a personal aspect to Believe Women that I don't have any experience with and I try to respect that. Although, since that's the case, I have no intention of biting my tongue in this thread.

jdzappa wrote:

FWIW Djinn I mostly agree with your assertion. We as a society should be able to balance serious accusations with the idea that individuals are assumed innocent till proven guilty. (Though in Whedon’s case there’s way too much smoke for there not to be fire).

All that being said, I also try to empathize with the crap that women take online and in person. I’ve gotten called out too and have decided that it’s better to not contribute to the problem rather than double down. Because sadly a lot of guys will start with a bad faith argument and then skip right to the rape threats.

And especially in the Joss case, haven't we known he's been an asshole boss for 10 years at least? This is just more people and more detailed accounts showing the depths.

jdzappa wrote:

FWIW Djinn I mostly agree with your assertion. We as a society should be able to balance serious accusations with the idea that individuals are assumed innocent till proven guilty.

We as a society should balance that toward the least privileged being innocent of lying about their assertions. Believe women. Believe people of color. View the privileged as 'sus' when their story differs instead of the other way around.

IMO we've got some folks who refuse to get this simple point because they want to be angry instead of wrong.

lunchbox12682 wrote:

And especially in the Joss case, haven't we known he's been an asshole boss for 10 years at least? This is just more people and more detailed accounts showing the depths.

Sure, but there's being an asshole, and then there's being an asshole. We all remember that audio clip of Christian Bale screaming at the camera guy over the lights? Yeah, Bale was being an asshole, but that doesn't make him an asshole. Up until now I had always put Joss in the unbolded category.

Djinn wrote:

I agree and that's why I think it's great women have a safe space to discuss these issues on this forum. You know, assuming it's properly indicated of course.

It was also stated on the same page where you began posting.

And then again on the previous page.

LouZiffer wrote:

We as a society should balance that toward the least privileged being innocent of lying about their assertions. Believe women. Believe people of color. View the privileged as 'sus' when their story differs instead of the other way around.

Exactly this.

The edit was done after I made my post and I didn't bother reading the previous page. Do you read previous pages when you click on a new thread?

I use the Recent Activity & New posts buttons to read new threads, which shows everything I haven't read yet, including posts that are edited after the fact, so yes.

Djinn wrote:
Aristophan wrote:

If a woman is willing to share information about abuse, we need to believe them. End of story. That means treating it as fact.

No. And I will not agree to that insane interpretation of Believe Women. Believe women means to take allegations seriously, but it does not mean treat accusations as facts. You still have to investigate.

No, believe women means exactly that: believe women.

It's not up to you or me or anyone else to "investigate" what a woman says before believing them.

By saying you "still have to investigate" you're acting like it's an exceptionally common thing that women will risk professional and personal suicide to accuse (an often powerful) man of abuse and that they'll frequently do so just to f*ck with the man who, of course, should always be viewed as completely and totally innocent until his abuse is proven in a court of law, which is an event rarer than unicorn sightings. That is the truly insane interpretation of things.

It's far easier--and much more accurate--to accept that virtually every time you see smoke there's fire. In fact I'm not even sure there's even been a single example of man who's been accused by multiple women of abuse or impropriety where every--or even some--accusations turned out to be false.

Bud, I get it. No one likes being called out on the internet or having their words used against them.

Something for you to know - most of us have been here, posting and arguing for the better part of a decade, so certain rules and expectations are applied. During the cultural awakening over the last decade or so, there has been a tremendous burden put upon the women of the community to kind of teach us and help us unlearn our bad habits. That was really sh*tty of us to expect victims to help abusers learn how to not be so violent. This has caused the majority of our really excellent female community members to either GWJ-quit or back off from posting in DnD out of frustration or self-preservation, very much to the community's detriment.

That sucks.

That one thread is kind of sacred and is really for women posters to walk through their own processes, without our intervention. We can read and learn from a distance. I can appreciate you feeling bruised as you got dogpiled. I have been there before, and it sucks. That said, I invite you to go back and read the thread and learn a bit about why you got the responses you did. You will see a ton of guys mansplaining, a ton of guys practicing low-grade misogyny, and a bunch of us growing the f*ck up and learning to listen. Every once in a while the boys need to be reminded that male voices are to be kept at a minimum in that thread.

It's a process, I get it. My advice is to not double down, just learn from it. Instead of wasting the weekend being mad at people on the internet, read that thread and try and understand why people got so upset, especially in that specific thread.

I don't. For long-running, community threads where the topic is always changing, I read backwards from the latest post until I see something that catches my eye and I reply to that. In this case, the article on Whedon. If it's a new and short thread I'll read from the beginning though.

OG_slinger wrote:

No, believe women means exactly that: believe women.

It's not up to you or me or anyone else to "investigate" what a woman says before believing them.

Justice system says hi.

You and I personally? We should believe them right off the bat. The justice system, on the other hand, can't just take an accusation on face value, and needs to find definitive proof of the accusation before taking any further action.

Saying "believe women" bumps into this verbal trap time and time again.

There's a good article from The Atlantic that breaks Believe Women down into three different group responses that I really liked.

Imagine that a friend tells you they have been sexually assaulted. What do you do? Your first reaction would, I hope, be sympathy. You would not pepper them with questions: what were they wearing, what were they drinking, what were they thinking? You’d believe them.
Now imagine being a human-resources manager. In front of you is an employee making a claim of sexual harassment against a colleague. Your duty is to ensure the employee’s well-being—but also to decide whether to conduct a formal investigation. You might point them toward counseling resources, but also ask if there is evidence to back up their version of events.
Now you’re a journalist. A woman has just come to you alleging that she was sexually assaulted by a public figure. Your response here is the opposite of a friend’s reaction. You ask about corroboration: letters, answering-machine messages, witnesses, emails, photographs, dates, times. You look for the weaknesses in the story, the omissions, the contradictions. You remember the journalist’s maxim If your mother says she loves you, make her prove it. You do not simply “believe women.”

Offering support as a friend? Sure, believe them. But beyond that you can't go with guilty until proven innocent.

This seems like a Goodjer culture thing. The other feminism thread seems like it’s intended for anyone interested in discussing feminism. In reality, it’s meant for women to discuss feminism with other women. It might save a whole lot of headache and heartache if the rules of the thread were made more clear. Otherwise this same situation will continue to happen over and over again.

Clear is kind. Unclear is unkind.

I disagree with the article's premise. It's like saying BLM was wrong for not calling themselves the "Black Lives Matter, too" movement. Unless you are an HR manager or a journalist specifically investigating this accusation, you should be a friend.