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?
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.
Women in aggregate are crying to be heard, but “TooManyMen” aren’t listening that they’re (women) speaking for them both too…
I’m one of those “TooManyAllMen.” 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.
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 “
TooManyAllMen.” 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.