[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.

Jonman wrote:
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.

Charisma Carpenter didn't go to the police and accuse Joss Whedon in the hope that he was arrested and criminally charged. Nor did she post about his behavior as the opening salvo of a civil lawsuit she was filing seeking damages for her treatment at his hands. She just said that, as many others had already noted, the dude was a f*cking creeper and all around horrible person. The justice system isn't remotely involved.

The "innocent until proven guilty" schtick dudes like to hide behind only applies in the very rare instances where a woman's accusations have resulted in criminal charges and are being prosecuted. And even in the case of sexual assault the dude is going to get get away scot-free two out of three times. That's how rigged the justice system is against women.

Most of the time things like this get to the justice system it's in the form of a civil lawsuit and those have far looser burdens of proof.

Of course none of this changes the fundamentals of this stuff which any dude who's treated a single woman like sh*t has probably also treated many women like sh*t and there's never been a single guy with multiple accusations who's actually turned out to be completely innocent. Instead those accusations have always been the tip of the iceberg.

Djinn wrote:

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 is silly. Even in each of these 3 examples the other person "Believes the women". They are just taking appropriate further action depending on their position. In none of those 3 responses did the other person say "Come back when a few more people also have complaints about that person".

Chairman_Mao wrote:

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.

Quote for truth.

Signed...a woman

This stirred recollection of a news story centred around the subject of Believe Women.

Rose McGowan calls Alyssa Milano a ‘fraud’ for supporting accused Joe Biden

Activist Rose McGowan has called out former Charmed co-star Alyssa Milano over her support for presidential candidate Joe Biden, the subject of a recently surfaced sexual assault accusation.

Both McGowan and Milano have been outspoken regarding the #MeToo movement — opening the door for any unspoken sexual assault victims to come forward without being judged or harassed — and were active voices in bringing down serial sexual assaulters like Harvey Weinstein.

Milano, 47, recently addressed her endorsement of Democratic frontrunner Biden, specifically in regard to the 1993 assault allegation against his former staffer, Tara Reade, who came forward with her allegation last month.

In response to Milano’s support, McGowan called her a “fraud.”

“This is about holding the media accountable. You go after Trump and [Supreme Court Justice Brett] Kavanaugh, saying believe victims, you are a lie,” McGowan continued in a tweet, sharing an audio clip of Milano speaking to Andy Cohen. “The corrupt [Democratic National Committee] is in on the smear job of Tara Reade, so are you. Shame.”

During the interview on Monday, shared on Milano’s Twitter page, the actor noted that it took her a long time to speak out against Weinstein, too.

“I believe that even though we should believe women… That does not mean at the expense of giving men their due process and investigation situations,” said Milano. “It’s got to be fair in both directions.”

She noted as further justification for supporting Biden that the Time’s Up Legal Fund chose not to take on Reade’s case.

“I just don’t feel comfortable throwing away a decent man that I’ve known for 15 years in this time of complete chaos without there being a thorough investigation,” Milano continued. “So, I’m just sort of staying quiet about it.”

“We’re destroying lives if we publicly don’t go through the right steps in order to find out if an accusation is credible or not,” she said in response to being called “hypocritical.”

In an interview with podcast host Katie Halper, Reade recounted an alleged assault by Biden in 1993.

The accusation has been deemed false by Biden’s deputy communications director Kate Bedingfield, Fox News reports.

The seriousness between varying allegations aside, as these can be vast, and I'm not disputing any, this remains an issue that divides. Even the close-knit.

To believe a victim may also, conversely, be considered condemnation of an accused. Yet. People lie. People misinterpret. What one person considers harassment, another considers one hundred percent above board. So, we delve deeper. To some that is evenhanded and necessary. To another that is offensive and unfair.

We can further compound the issue should we genderize, or racialize, or politicize, instances of victimization. Segregation. Exclusion. Stereotypes.

It overlaps, I think, philosophically, morally, into social justice, or vigilante vengeance, depending on your stance, and how culture has been leaning towards mob mentality, and exclusionary reaction, through fear of being targeted for a perceived lack of virtue from the vocal with their spotlight. It's got traction in this interconnected era.

Anyway.

Alyssa Milano contributed to the subject of Believe Women further.

Alyssa Milano On Why She Still Supports Joe Biden & How She Would Advise Him About Tara Reade Allegations

Believing women was never about “Believe all women no matter what they say,” it was about changing the culture of NOT believing women by default. It was about ending the patriarchy’s dangerous drive for self-preservation at all costs, victims be damned.

I want powerful men and women to continue to be held accountable for their bad actions. I want victims to be free to be heard. I want there to be an honest process of proving out accusations one way or the other. And I want to keep having the conversation.

I get along with this. Empower victims. Accept their truth. Where, or if necessary, seek evidence and/or corroboration.

-----------

My personal opinion. For what it's worth. As opposed to sharing articles and stirring topical conversation. There are very, very few people who lie, or misconstrue, surrounding these instances. I've only known two. And each had complex reasons to account for their actions.

I've since adjusted to believe with a naivety and a sincerity. The chances of being duped, so to speak, are so, so slim. I'd also rather be proven wrong, as it were, for having done the right thing, than be found out whilst having been critical and scrutinizing.

I had essentially allowed the exception to govern my thought processes, rather than the rule. I also learned that I can become aggravated by genderization, amongst other things, and I need not be. That's, in part, the exception verses the rule, once again, and in part my personal grapples with gender identify, and gender roles, that I've never quite got a handle on. I loathe when someone utilises a gendered insult. Even a gendered observation. I'm more than that restrictive pigeonhole. Get out of the stone age. (I accept there are far, far too many whom willingly, or ignorantly, seem happy to reside there, due to a position of power and/or privilege. So. There's a necessary counterbalance required. Getting dinged by either, when you essentially fit with neither, is something one needs to learn to roll with.) I probably feel most comfortable with non-binary even though I can also identify as a man. Which would boggle the mind of most everyone who has ever known me.

It feels like I'm all over the place here. Apologies. I got carried away with rising above the void for a moment. I was supposed to follow on with how I've lost my footing numerous times on Gamers With Jobs. Sometimes I've doubled down. Sometimes I've learned. Most times I've othered those I felt had othered me. I'm glad to still be granted access considering a few of my missteps. With the passage of time I usually see more error on my part, than of those who came at me. We're forever learning.

Some news site wrote:

Milano, 47,

Unless that's somehow a Hitman reference, what's that got to do with anything, Some news site?

Adding someone's age in commas is a usage I have seen many many many times, but now that I think about it, I don't know if it's used on both genders, or if it only applies to women.

Rose McGowan is a bit younger and I didn't see her age cited. what's up with that age citation, I wonder.

I quickly went googling and the closest answer seems to be to make sure the specific person with that name is correctly identifies, most often for crime news but also on general. So maybe there's only one Rose but more than one Alyssa Milano?

It's an interesting question. Like Rat Boy, I don't understand why the reference is there. Seems pretty obvious that Alyssa Milano is well known, probably by even more people than Rose McGowan. So, I don't think it's about positively identifying the individual.

Edit to add: Could just be lazy journalism, maybe they didn't know how old McGowan was and didn't care to find out. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything. Just interesting to even include age in the conversation.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

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.

Beyond that, deciding for yourself that you'll consider the accused innocent until proven guilty is one thing. Telling other people (online or off) that they should too is another.

Rat Boy wrote:
Some news site wrote:

Milano, 47,

Unless that's somehow a Hitman reference, what's that got to do with anything, Some news site?

I would watch a Hitman movie where Alyssa Milano plays Agent 47.

Hey, the series itself got rebooted from a garbage state back into excellence, why not the movie as well.

I'd be interested to discover where folks stand concerning the term 'mansplaining'. I find it unsavoury, and gendered (so therefore sexist?) to boot. It's part shutdown tactic and part confrontation. I have learned to walk away, with a more informed opinion on whom to remain shrewd upon further engagement with. I had once reverted to mirroring with 'womansplaining' as a litmus test. How'd you like them apples. I was disappointed in myself than anything. Condescension isn't cool. Even less so when gendered.

The Problem With The Term ‘Mansplaining’
by Stephanie Smith

Why We Need to Stop Using the Word "Mansplaining"
by Jessica Rowe

I found those interesting pieces. Of course, everyone is different with varying definitions and broad usages for words and terms.

I think I can see where its usage may be merited. Wrong place. Wrong time. Ignorant. Dismissive. I'm not sure I can see an integrity to its usage, though. People be free to decide for themselves, mind you.

Just another topic that caught my intrigue and got my mind off other subjects. I'll probably return to the void once more. I seem to function in shift patterns lately. All or nothing. *shrug*

It’s my opinion (not having read those articles) that mansplaining is a real thing. Whether it’s genetic or cultural, men have a tendency to soapbox about stuff they’re knowledgeable on, and that can lead to soapboxing about stuff they’re not so knowledgeable on. Both of those behaviors can be tagged as mansplaining. See. I’m doing it right now. I’m not just the president of the mansplaining club for men, I’m also a member.

My mom’s husband does this all the time. We actually dread going on nature walks with him because he’ll point out every single plant, mineral and animal and give you an extensive lecture on the thing. When we do nature walks without him, we mock the hell out of his mansplaining. We can get out of control.

Edit
As far as refraining from using the word, I feel like there could be merit to that, but we shouldn’t ignore the behavior. Shame culture has been proven to be toxic and worthless, but the phenomenon that we call mansplaining still exists.

Edit 2
I feel similarly about the term “Karen”. The Karen behavior is a real phenomenon, but once again, shaming people over behaving that way doesn’t help at all.

Also a know women named Karen who are wonderful folks.

I think objecting to Karen calling is pretty much peak-Karen. I think giving a name to a thing is necessary and shaming is too.

It’s true that the term mansplaining is part shut down tactic and part confrontation. That’s why it’s useful. If a person is mansplaining, then they should be confronted and shut down.

I kind of going along with what's been said mansplaining doesn't seem to anything inherent to men, just over representative in men due to culture. I am glad when my wife calls me out on it.
Semi, maybe wholey, related to mansplaining is interrupting. I am terrible at it lately and my kids seem to have picked it up as well. We're working on it at home as it is driving my wife insane. From my perspective, it's one part impatience in conversation and one part getting distracted and driving the conversation in another direction. Either way, it's been a process.

Mansplaining is definitely a thing. In conversations with my friends I find that I sometimes do it while talking about topics that either we are both equally informed about, or sometimes they are more informed than I am. I have started to get good at realizing what is happening but sometimes I need a good shutdown. It stings, but for me atleast, it’s because I made an assumption about their knowledge, or ignored their knowledge on the subject despite knowing better. What we need to do is accept the correction, apologize, and do better, ideally catching ourselves before we start the next time.

I mean, this is the Men Talking to Men about Feminism thread. It’s.....this is the thread that exists - at least in part - because we all mansplain too much.

hopefully less now than before, and less tomorrow than today

Seth wrote:

I mean, this is the Men Talking to Men about Feminism thread. It’s.....this is the thread that exists - at least in part - because we all mansplain too much.

hopefully less now than before, and less tomorrow than today

Exactly. The ladies on the forums asked for this to be created because the dudes on the forums kept on telling them they were feminisming wrong, reacting to allegations of abuse wrong, and being women, well, wrong.

Dr.Incurable wrote:

Mansplaining is definitely a thing. In conversations with my friends I find that I sometimes do it while talking about topics that either we are both equally informed about, or sometimes they are more informed than I am. I have started to get good at realizing what is happening but sometimes I need a good shutdown. It stings, but for me atleast, it’s because I made an assumption about their knowledge, or ignored their knowledge on the subject despite knowing better. What we need to do is accept the correction, apologize, and do better, ideally catching ourselves before we start the next time.

I assume I'm just being pedantic at this point, but I just see it as hubris and ego to drive any given conversation that is just overly abundant in men.
Agreed on the rest of your post.

Yeah, mansplaining is definitely a thing. Like all terms it can be misused, but it's still valid. I like this flow chart explanation.

IMAGE(https://i.ibb.co/y5nnRdj/mansplaining-flow-chart.jpg)

Not a bad chart just forgot the one going from Not masplaining to Definitely mansplaining if you have talked too much about the subject during the conversation.

Mansplaining is about talking to women as if they're dumb. Geeking out or rambling about a topic you're knowledgeable about is by no means the same thing.

Mansplaining is about talking to women as if you think you're a 12th level intellect.

Mansplaining is when you're pretty sure you're right but she's an MD cardiologist and you're an unemployed bricklayer.

Mansplaining is any (edit) thing that, if you label it as 'mansplaining', results in an improvement in rectifying the power imbalance between genders.

also, truth is stranger than hypotheticals: "But he just continued on his way. She had to say, "That's her book" three or four times before he finally took it in."

Are we mansplaining mansplaining now?

To combine the last couple topics in the thread to talk about privilege:

The Feminism thread was not explicitly marked as a 'safe space' and someone was dogpiled on for not reading the room and realizing the history/context of contributions in that space. That dogpiling took the form of a number of posts correcting them on the specific issue, on their tone, on the appropriateness of speaking up at all. A number of other people here have agreed that rules/topic for that thread should explicitly state how men can contribute to help prevent that.

Consider mansplaining. When women 'walk' into any space, in person or virtual, it is considered a cultural phenomenon that their contributions will be corrected and they will likely be dogpiled as multiple people correct them. EVERY conversation has the unwritten rule 'my contribution may not be welcome in this discussion and I should monitor my tone accordingly'.

A man walked into ONE thread where that was the case without warning and came away feeling burned. Imagine if it was most threads. The whole forum. The internet. The world, company slackchat, family picnics. And then consider why that's something you don't have to think about everywhere you go.

staygold wrote:

Are we mansplaining mansplaining now?

aka the "bro 'splain", a rare wonder of the natural world.