you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 3 days ago (1 child)

To add, it isn't just prejudice in conversations but social inclusion, workspace hostility, and community resource allocation biases. It is a prejudice when women prefer less men around, especially in public spaces and spaces meant to be shared. But some prejudices are more equal than others.

  1. Supporting women doesn't mean never supporting men.

Boys and men are often harmed by messaging around sexual assault that says over and over, all men are violent people who cause harm. Supporting the men caught in the crossfire between women's advocacy and sexually predatory men,can exist without undermining the effort for women. However, if your efforts to change or erase male behavior can't be accomplished without harming innocent men, then why should those men, or society, support that effort? How can they? You've decided some people can be sacrificed for the interests of women without their consent. That isn't advocacy, it's supremacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago

    Your points are correct but I disagree with your conclusion. It's not deciding that some people will be sacrificed (also a bit extreme of a word choice for feeling put out by discussions of a demographic you belong to), it changing the proportion of people sacrificed in the hopes of reducing the number of people raped. The shift is away from teaching women that it's all on them. Their fault or their responsibility. Objecting when the balance changes says that it's not sacrifice you object to, but it being men. "The status quo is better than the cost of fixing it".

    When you ask why men should support anti rape education if it makes them feel bad, the answer is supposed to be "because they understand rape is worse than the cognitive discomfort of discussing awful things people like them did".

  • source
  • parent