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.

It just sounds like a dickhead holding equality up in the air and saying, "you can have it if you ask nicely". Fuck that, hand it over and shut up.

My DH, when I said something about safety the first time I met him, said, "I get it, I have a sister" and looked sad. Not angry, not in denial, not policing how I said it, just accepted it.

And I find it interesting on a thread about men making feminism all about how we ask them for it, about half the posts are by a man. Just saying.

@MrsTerryPratchett sorry. To be fair, I write very badly and most posts are me having to explain myself again.

When I was reading this it made me wonder if you could ask him if he could advise you as to how you could make your point in a way that would be persuasive to other men (not him, as he already believes it!)?

My guess is that there is no way to make the point (or silently, whilst he is not in the room)

Men will reject lots of things just because they are said by a woman.

So he acknowledges there is a problem but thinks men won't listen to women. Sounds like he has just volunteered to become an advocate for women devoting his every waking hour to spreading the message to men!

Right, and there's a problem with anyone who has to be persuaded to accept a reality that couldn't be more obvious.

Fgs don't waste your time just block and move on.

Yes, I've heard objections to the term toxic masculinity. The usual claim is that it means masculinity itself is toxic. I gave up explaining to them that it's only certain stereotypical aspects of it. They want to have a problem with it, so it doesn't matter what you say.

This might be useful

The onus is always on the woman!

Personally I think you should dump him for his use of the word compassion, ridiculous. How difficult does he think his struggle is here.

There is no way of expressing something that a man will find acceptable if he doesn't want to hear it.

Men will just never understand how women are.
Increasingly I am becoming less willing to be nice about explaining it and I don't care.

I like this analogy.

Its so stupid...
"Red cars" - one assumes from this not all cars are red
"poisonous mushrooms" - this implies some mushrooms are not poisonous
"scary films" - some films are not scary or this would be an oxymoron
"bad mothers" - not all mothers are bad otherwise we would just say "mothers"
"Toxic masculinity" - Aaaaaaaaaaaarghhhhhhhhh

Usually adjectives are used to describe a subset. The fact they aren't generally understood to apply to all of the thing being described is the whole point of using them.

It is why using toxic femininity can help with some men who might be open to it.

Well put. Of course, there are times when the descriptor used is intended to be a bigoted slur. Eg; "hysterical women." I suspect that those men who object strongly to the term toxic masculinity are projecting, because they are exactly the sort who would say something like "hysterical women."

@XChrome

Either what you are saying is truthful or it isn't. The alleged tone you use when making your arguments should not affect anyone's ability to accept them as valid.

Regardless of "should", how an argument is made massively affects how well it lands.

If anyone wants any type of social change, that's not a point to be lightly dismissed.

What a tone policing asshat.
It's so obvious someone doesn't give a fuck about the issues when their only real concern is getting you to describe them in a way that doesn't make them feel uncomfortable.
Some of the responses on this thread....ffs. She must be "lecturing" because he doesn't like what she's saying. What fucking bollocks.

@Sweden99 toxic femininity, oh, piss off, you want women to accept responsibility for this shitshow so nice men don't feel attacked and can bring themselves to briefly face reality. Just no.
Also many men are naive and do not see this stuff - well they never will if they get up their own arses and refuse to listen like OP's tosser. "I don't see it so it doesn't happen." K then. They don't want to.

We can't see the conversation to judge, but the way you have described it does make him seem the more reasonable one to me. He hasn't (presumably) called you an idiot, and the debate on radicalism vs incrementalism being the best way to change society is a valid one. Plenty of examples on either side.

@GenderRealistBloke Thanks for the explaining re the suffragettes, which illustrates the exact opposite of your point. I'd just like to say, that although many women here will disagree, your mansplaining and your tone to the OP suck and in my opinion, you are unwelcome here.

@Heirian my point was that direct action worked for the Suffragettes, and that there are other cases where direct action has not worked. What did you think my point was?

@Heirian Thank you for your post and I agree with much of your criticism.
I am embarrassed to say I was naive about much of what women put up with. An eye opener for me was finding out that I am considered unusually not creepy by the women I work with. That was a horrible shock to me as to what the average was like.
I remember chatting with a teenage girl in a pub and my colleague and then friend was leering at her disgustingly. What shocked me was she did not seem bothered and still was keen to chat, I had no idea how used to that sort of thing she would be.
I say that story to illustrate how oblivious I was, even as a man who was not being willfully ignorant.

I am sorry for my next bit, but another eye opener was moving from the UK. In the UK, my partners would have described me as a lazy bum who had no idea how to cook and who would do the man flu thing. In Scandinavia, I was considered house trained, a good cook and rather stoic when in pain or unwell. It is an illustration of feminism having progressed, there is not the pressure on women in Scandinavia that there is in the UK. For some men, seeing this as a result of feminism does change their thinking.

Sorry for the long post. I am dumb in these posts and waffle as I cannot make my point well and concisely.

I have a similar issue, but with my DH of 20+ years, who is most definitely NOT an arsehole, and who is a lovely man in hundreds of ways.

Except, whenever I try to talk to him about an issue like VAWG, or any issue that women face, he responds as if he is offended, defensive, and takes it personally.
I can say "NAMALT" in every other sentence till I am blue in the face, and whilst one part of his brain completely accepts what I am saying, and agrees, he still feels attacked and blamed on an emotional level.
It is as if he cannot emotionally grasp that I am talking about men as a class, in statistical terms, and women as a class, not just me personally. He feels like I am talking about him personally.

If he talked to me about e.g. gold-digger women, or women who make false accusations of rape, I like to think I would not be personally offended, or not feel I had to leap to the defence of these women just because I am a woman.

I have given up having these conversations with him.

@Sweden99
as average, hard working, selfless men they are not that attractive

This is where I think you are mistaken.
Women are not as susceptible to physical looks as men are. There are other things that attract our interest, which over-ride what a face or body look like.
Yes we can appreciate a good-looking film star, but when it comes to finding a long-term partner, other things are higher on the list.

Of course the list is different for each woman but often includes:

Interested in us, asking questions, remembering the answers, not talking about himself all evening
A genuine smile and a sense of humour
Confidence to show that humour and be sociable in public
Kindness, concern for our feelings, being kind to other people and animals
Generosity, being happy to pay for stuff (we will usually then counter-offer to go halves or pay next time, but an attitude of generosity is noted and appreciated)
The generosity is backed up by having money-sense, no debt or gambling or living beyond his means, even if he doesn't have a high-paying job

You need to give those young men confidence that they CAN find a nice girl, if they just look around a bit more, instead of concentrating only on the pretty ones or those with great bodies. They need to expand what is on their list.

not the point, but I don't think anyone thinks suffragettes did get women the vote

In the sense that it would have happened anyway, no. But I think there's a decent argument that they hastened it, through getting the attention of the public and parliament, and provoking a manifestly unjust reaction from the authorities. If I remember rightly (it's been a while!) they got a lot of public support early on, including from Fawcett and other suffragists. Later it got more violent and harder to defend, then the war came and sort of reset the whole landscape of social justice arguments.

Anyway, I should probably have framed my point that even if we grant that the Suffragettes' direct action worked, there are many examples where it hasn't and it's a legitimate subject to have a difference of opinion on.

I was having a similar conversation with a female friend the other day. Who thinks we now live in a fair and equal society. That there is no such thing as male privilege and that the term is harmful to young men 🤔.