Internet Lunatics - RadFems, PUA's, MRA's, MGTOW's, etc.

The problems with the #yesallpeople hashtag stem from the rich tradition of minimizing the importance of women's experiences (see the top third of #77 for an example) or of dismissing their experiences as not being interesting with some form of "yeah, but men too!" #YesAllPeople seeks to invalidate (I imagine not for everyone, but probably for many) the notion that there is anything uniquely unpleasant or unjust about being a woman in this world.

I don't even understand the aversion. I'm not sure why people in this thread are choking so fucking hard on #YesAllWomen. One can sympathize with what it is like to be a woman without having to give up *anything* (except an unwillingness to sympathize with women). There is nothing to be lost by listening to a fucking person express themselves. One can listen to a woman, believe what she says, and still believe in MRM and still be an MRA.

 

Yes, that's right. That's very productive. Paint me with your very large brush and call me a bigot.

I will remind you that I have been very clear about my preconceived notions about men's rights, I would suggest that you have a similar problem and should perhaps aim a bit of that vitriol right back at yourself.

As usual, you are not reading what I am writing. You are talking past what I have written.

Where did I state ANYTHING about #yesallpeople? Your conclusions are quite faulty. You make assumptions.

But let's clear this up. #yesallwomen, as a concept, is about women sharing their experiences. I think it's pretty clear that they are talking about women (you see? it's right there in the hashtag.). I am pretty sure if the person who started the hashtag wanted to make this about sharing an experience that everyone shares, she would have done so.

My point is that there is nothing wrong, per se, with people expressing a shared experience. It doesn't take away from your experience. It isn't about you.

I am sorry that you can't see that.
--- merged: May 29, 2014 at 2:13 AM ---

Also? This.

 

Yknow that thing I JUST SAID about not actually reading posts and embarassing yourself because of it? You just accused me of "minimizing the importance of women's experiences" because I listed some numbers.

Stating the incontrovertible empirical fact that we have less crime now than ever before isn't "minimizing the importance of women's experiences", it's debunking a flat out myth. If that's sexism according to you then you've gone past the mere bigotry of saying nobody is allowed to disagree with you and into the sheer lunacy of saying that we must ignore reality itself if it contradicts your political claims.

Nobody here is "choking so fucking hard" on #YesAllWomen, I'm the only person that's said anything other than praise and even then all I said was how it was being used and how WOMEN (do I need to make this size 16 and red?) chose to create #YesAllPeople people because #YesAllWomen was being filled up by people who literally said shit like "#YesAllWomen because it's not rape if he got a boner".

So again the question is how does merely recognizing the existence of half of all victims somehow "minimize the importance of women's experiences"? How does NOT actively erasing other victims somehow harm women?

Or cutting more to the heart of things: How can you stand there and with a straight face claim you're the victim of exactly what you're doing to everyone else? How can you, with a straight face, claim that women are victims of having their experiences and opinions "invalidated" because some women aren't being allowed to completely silence and erase, or even actively attack, everyone else?

This didn't need to be a competition. #YesAllWomen and #YesAllPeople could have coexisted peacefully, even worked together. Instead #YesAllWomen chose to violently attack men for something which as long as I've been watching it tonight women make up most of.

This is what a lot of women and others had a problem with in #yesallwomen:
Twitter / BeckFastAtTiffs: THIS IS JUST AS BAD AS SAYING ...
Twitter / BeckFastAtTiffs: This was not the reason that ...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BoxvHwuIIAAKXWR.jpg

This is #yesallpeople, which those women made in response:

and this is #yesallwomen's response to #yesallpeople:

This could have been a chance to bring everyone together and really make some progress. Instead #YesAllWomen decided that they could not tolerate not having a total and absolute monopoly on all discourse, and total freedom to be as abusive and bigoted as they wanted without any disagreement or dissent.

 

Way to show that you're not minimizing or changing the subject by minimizing and changing the subject.

 

Can you please understand that the responses to the#YesAllPeople are from the shear exasperation that comes from every time there is a conversation about women's rights or health someone has to chime in with "but men have problems, too".
Sometimes it's just not about us, you know.

I agree with @Street Pattern that there is a constant effort to keep us afraid and unaware that crime is not nearly as bad as we are sold that it is but at the same time the problems with rape reporting on college campuses is a major issue.
The problem of men being raped would drop considerably if we put fewer of them in prison.

 

Exactly, @redravin.

#yesallwomen, despite women taking part in doesn't change the fact that many are going to see it as another instance of, "yes, but men have problem, too."

It wasn't the time or the meme to have a Kumbaya moment. As I have been saying above, that moment is still a long way off. Men's Rights still have a mainstream perception problem. They lack a definition that can be understood (and given some of the things that Shadowex posted in the last few posts, I remain suspicious of the movement's goals -- I am reading mixed messages, or maybe I am just an obtuse bigot).

Why is there tension between the use of People and Women? I will say it again, the intent was not to talk about People, it was to talk about Women. If the originator of the hashtag wanted to talk about People, she would have done so.
--- merged: May 29, 2014 at 4:21 AM ---

I guess I was skimming again because I missed this the first time around.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where anyone is drawing the connection between the idea that numbers are dropping and #yesallpeople. Sorry, nobody but you.

Nobody has claimed that you are being sexist in stating these numbers. In fact, the only person who made reference to the numbers (@street pattern) agreed with you and pointed out that he thinks, the drop in numbers is in part because the good efforts of women's groups.

You toss about accusations but only you appear to making these connections.

 

Charlatan, stop. Just... stop. You're not even making sense anymore you're so disconnected from anything that's actually being said. I even put one key point you keep getting wrong in giant bold red letters and you're STILL getting it wrong. You're not even being coherent anymore. I was responding directly to bodkin's reference to the first third of one of my posts where I had been talking about crime rates, and his claim that it was part of a "rich tradition" of sexist minimalization of women's experiences.

Your posts are starting to come apart at the seams, you're accusing me of doing things that aren't even in the same paragraph, missing out on key points that are in giant bolded red letters, you can't even keep who said what straight anymore to the point you're attacking me for making a direct response to something someone else said and claiming it never existed.

Redravin, I have two questions for you: What if the whole problem is that the "conversation" constantly involves actively erasing male victims? Are women and men just supposed to be quiet while some women insist male rape victims or abuse victims don't exist, or exist in such small numbers that it's "derailing" to demand they not be excluded from laws and social programs?

And more than that... When CAN men say something? When are we not having a conversation about women's rights or health? Is there a 5 day rule where they need to wait until no women's issues have been brought up in the last business week or something? Do men need to give two weeks notice and schedule a date with somebody somewhere? When is it ever going to be acceptable for men to say something about anything?

As I posted in the other threat men literally can not even peacefully do something entirely on their own without people committing felonies to shut down their event and silence them. At what point do we recognize that these people aren't exasperated because they're trying to speak and can't, they're angry because trying to make sure nobody else ever does and failing.

Kafka Trap. Model M: "The act of arguing against accusation X proves that you are guilty of accusation X".

 

Now who is trying to silence whom?

It makes perfect sense to me. Can someone else chime in here?

 

Charlatan there's a difference between saying you're becoming outright incoherent and can't even keep who posted what or what's in which paragraph straight, and accusing you of being a misogynist for doing anything other than yes-manning me.

But since you're literally accusing me of things that never happened and can't even keep track of who posted what in this thread I'm sure it does all still make sense to you, in whatever strange induced world is inside your head right now.

 

You really are a troubled little fellow, aren't you?

 

Firstly they're not all suspended read the whole convo I linked to, and second I just grabbed what happened to be coming through the livestream at the time I was writing that post specifically because it was referenced by the women who started and continue to tweet under #YesAllPeople.

I didn't start #YesAllPeople, women who were tired of how #YesAllWomen was being used did.

 

So in other words you already self-selected to follow only people you know won't post things you find objectionable. Great, good for you, but if you're going to look at only your heavily policed sample you don't get to judge the actual trend itself and the livestream of it.

"Welcome to the internet" you say, "some people are trolling" you say. Well some women decided that it was more than just trolling, they decided they had a problem with the bigotry and hate and started #YesAllpeople in direct response. The question is how you can talk about sharing experiences and voices while defending people who are actively trying to silence other women who didn't follow party dogma.

They wished to voice their concerns, part of which were about #YesAllWomen itself and the self-reinforcing ugly cycle it was turning to. I don't see why that's so bad.

Ask Charlatan, Bodkin, and baraku. #YesAllPeople was started by women, and every time I've checked the livestream has been mostly women.

Maybe that's why it's being attacked so hard. Women are only allowed to speak if they say the "right" things and have the "right" opinions, a woman who doesn't follow the party line is dangerous and needs to be shut down.

#Killallmen
#ineedmasculismbecause
Two for you right off the top of my head, of course I fully expect you to handwave them away as invalid because of either your self-selected group not participating, "welcome to the internet", or some variant of NAFALT.

Really though pretty much any hashtag anyone ever attempts to use for any men's issues (or even just to be inclusive OF men) anytime anywhere ever will wind up being hijacked and filled with man-hate and violent bigotry.

 

@Shadowex3 you ask about when is it okay to talk about men's issues(or people's issues).
I'd say it's fine to talk about them any time you want to as long as you aren't trying to co-opt (and whine about)a thread or project that has nothing whatsoever to do with them.
If they want to be taken seriously they have to stop being the trolls and fringe.
There have to be the moderates who are willing to join hands with the moderate feminists.
This constant hatred does nothing for either side.
Before you start your rant about how there are no feminists willing to take that step, I'd say that it would be easier to find them then it would to find a mens group willing to take that step.

Teaching our kids how to communicate with each other at an early age would make a huge difference but there are groups out there that would fight it every step of the way.
They would see it as an attack on their religious and even political rights.

 

The problem I see it is that while every womens problem gets stressed over, and some are in fact imagined, mens problems are considered the mans fault. For example...



Note the laughter when the man is the one being abused. Now I don't think the answer here is that men need more protection from women. In a way I agree with the people laughing in the video, an able bodied man being beaten by a woman IS laughable in that its the mans choice to allow it. We expect men to be stronger not just physically but mentally. But while we as a society do not think men need protection, we on the other hand over coddle women. Physical abuse is one thing, but mental abuse is a completely different animal. Thats just personal strength, and many sexual harassment claims fall under that umbrella of "I was offended".

 

RedRavin, how can you say it would be easier to find feminists willing to join hands with MRAs when they won't even leave them alone to do something unrelated to women entirely on their own? Feminists actively sought them out and committed felonies to keep them from being able to hold a conference on suicide prevention. If it's so much easier to find moderate feminists then where are they? Where were they when this happened? Why has there not been a single condemnation for those actions published? Where were they when canada's only mens shelter needed help because other feminists were trying to get it shut down?

When people talk about sexual assault, domestic abuse, and violence that doesn't have "nothing whatsoever to do with them". They're half of the victims for the first two and over 2/3rds of the victims for the third. These issues have everything to do with them, and when people are actively saying male victims don't exist or are insignificant then they're actively dragged into it whether they wanted to be or not.

And even despite that, I once again reiterate: #YesAllPeople was started by women, and does not take away from #YesAllWomen in any way.