Please help me respond to this idiot

[avat]

I have been seeing someone (a man).

We got into a text conversation about the "not all men" rhetoric. I was explaining the statistics surrounding rape, domestic violence, trafficking etc. etc. And that no, it isn't all men, but it is all women who are at risk.

Talked about the gender pay gap etc.

He said he accepts what I'm saying but think the way I say it, means that men will reject the argument. That I'm seen as too radical.

I said, how do you think the suffragettes got the vote? By asking nicely?

He also said that I've stated the facts in a way that is posed to sway opinion.

He said that I have been patronising and made him feel like a dickhead. And not showed him any compassion, when he was just trying to help (?).

I said I can't believe I had expressed that women live in constant fear of being raped, killed etc. and somehow the conversation has ended up being about a man.

Oh yes, he also asked me "what do you do to help women then?".

And said my way of speaking about it isn't going to be very persuasive to men.

So does he think men need "persuading" to support women's rights?

I think you just say you're not compatible and move on.

Scratch the surface and... yeah, #notallmen but a hell of a lot of them. I'd be some with him. He sounds lacking in imagination, empathy, intelligence... Not attractive.

Sounds like he felt you were talking down to him. We are not privy to the conversation to judge but it sounds like he may have felt he was being lectured to just because he has a penis. Not all women live in “constant fear” either. Maybe the way you express your views isn’t the most effective?

Well you shouldn't need to persuade any man that men, as a sex, are a danger to women, as a sex.

If he really needs it pointed out to him by a lowly woman then he's ripe for feeling patronised tbh, as he's clearly not that smart.

We are not privy to the conversation to judge but it sounds like he may have felt he was being lectured to just because he has a penis

That. He agreed with what you were saying, but it sounds as though the way you said it was too much like a lecture.

He has a point. We're influenced most by people who connect with us in a positive manner. If you made him feel as though he was back at school and being threatened with the naughty chair, then he's right, you're not going to bring anyone round to the cause that way.

Doesn't sound a very romantic relationship does it?
I assume it's ended now since he's an idiot, so why need to respond.

FWIW (which is not much) I agree.
As a man, I would not describe myself as a feminist as I will inevitably disagree with many women feminists which leaves me in a horrible position. And, also, men who describe themselves that way tend to be prats.

I think the only contribution I can make as a man (other than not being a dick) is talking to young lads who might be leaning a bit to the red pill but can be taled back. And the how I chat with them is not orthodox feminist, it includes acknowledging that as average, hard working, selfless men they are not that attractive.

But, even to these people I use an analogy (1 in ten restaurants give your food poisoning and 1 in 20 will kill you) to suggest that the "not all men" argument is rather silly.

I think (just an impression based on how I was) that many men are naive. We will not see wolf whistling or cat calling as it is not done when we are around. I will very rarely head misogynistic conversation, which might lead me to think it is rare. I was still shocked by such things in middle age. He might be as naive/ignorant as I used to be. Or not. I dunno.

Perhaps it would be better not to conduct this conversation over text, which is shallow and prone to mis-reading, but in person, over a pint (or beverage/food of your choice). Stakes can feel higher when it's someone whose opinion you value, for whatever reason, which can make the argument feel more fraught. From what you have written, it doesn't sound like he's said anything particularly objectionable; he's just made the argument that you yourself are not arguing in a particularly effective way, or that you are arguing in a way that is likely to make your target audience unwilling to engage with your argument. This is a viewpoint that is worth listening to: no matter how right you believe yourself to be, if someone in your target audience says that your style of argument is putting their backs up, it's worth listening to find out why, if just to improve your rhetorical style. I'm not using rhetoric in the clichéd sense of "empty rhetoric" here, but in the proper sense of the art of convincing people of something.

As far as one can tell from your posts, it seems to me like he actually respects you as a debating partner, precisely because he's challenging you. So perhaps it's worth further exploration.

I didn't twig that it was by text. It's madness to have conversations like this by text. There's no nuisance of tone, no body language, no facial expression... And the recipient may well read your messages in an entirely different 'tone of voice' than the one you typed it in. Especially if, in this case, he hasn't known you long.

So yes, he might well have seen your posts as hectoring, without those other non-verbal cues.
You should probably just both agree not to discuss difficult stuff by text. I certainly wouldn't judge him by his responses to such a text conversation.

Does he think if women ask very nicely & in the correct tone, men will stop all the raping & MVAWG?

it includes acknowledging that as average, hard working, selfless men they are not that attractive.

🤔

As seen on here with appalling frequency, reasonable replies along the lines of "You're right, it isn't All Men. God help us if it were!" never quite suffice, do they? The conversation still has to be about that man and how he isn't one of those Not-All Men.

The one poisoned M&M in the bowl, and @Sweden99's toxic restaurants, make the point perfectly but, when it's a woman talking to a man, will be ignored in favour of an exposition on how he sees it and, for good measure, all the men he knows.

When it comes down to it, the actual problem is a woman telling a man that she doesn't experience the world in the same way he does. I don't think this is amenable to persuasion unless you're prepared to start your persuasive efforts from extremely fundamental points, like people all think & feel differently (an alien concept to many men who've managed to exist in equable bro-culture to date).

Same thing happens with 'race', fwiw, and homosexuality. Why can't you just be happy with the way things are? Well, because they aren't the same for me as they are for you. Cue shock, disbelief and denial.

Depends how much you like his other qualities, I guess. Many past partners have got pissed off by my insistence on being a separate individual (of a different sex, no less! The nerve of me!) So I'm afraid I can't advise on that 😂

He sounds like an utter arsehole. Hit the eject button.

There are men out there who 'get it'

I think that although he sounds a dick it is more than a bit concerning that women are 'living in constant fear'. Whereas I am fully aware these problems exist I am not in constant fear. Though I do stay away from relationships with men so perhaps that is why.

Yeah, what does that mean? "Nice men can't get a woman because they all want bastards"?

Why do you want to bother?

I have the same issue with lots of the arguments on here. I largely agree with them but the militant way they are put across makes me buff against them. I actually think I'm becoming less feminist as a direct result of this board. There is a way of getting views across that will change minds and there is a way that will push people into polarising a view point that they wont budge from

Oh you said it in the wrong way! Classic response to anyone calling out sexism, racism, homophobia.

I'd agree with not having this conversation by text.

It is infuriating when men don't understand the risks you're taking. Having had a period of casual sex dating, I took a lot of risks. If I expressed even the slightest need for security (meeting places etc), the men without exception got huffy and informed me that they were taking exactly the same risk that I was. It made me laugh bitterly. And it made me think that it's not my job to persuade men, just to inform them of what I need or to campaign for what women need, and if men don't get it, I no longer care.

I'm starting to get to the point where, if a man lacks the intelligence to know, (especially when I've said yes dear, of course NAMALT,) that NAMALT yet feels women need to "persuade him to this side of the argument " of the risks we still face as a sex, then he's either -

Deliberately being goady himself, or

An idiot.

Neither of whom are a man I want to be with.

TBH OP, if he even needs these risks explaining, I'd move on. It's not your job to prove this.

And yes, just like NAMALT I accept not all women live in fear or have been harmed. But too many women do and have, and have often been harmed multiple times.

Any man who somehow needs persuading of this is not one of the good ones

And when you call someone an idiot for having a challenging view point you lose all argument