'what about the men' -any tips for how to respond?

[Interestedwoman]

I hope I'm posting this in the right place. Either way, please be gentle with me :)

I have a male friend, and often if I say stuff about women's experience or feminism, he'll say 'women can be controlling to men, too' or 'that happens to men as well' etc lines.

In part of a discussion of whether there were any political outcomes it was worth losing friends for, and whether we cared about any goal enough that if we knew it would lose us all our friends we would still rub the lamp and have a genie make it come true (this was at my instigation as friends are very important to me, I have a complex about it.) I said :-

'I suppose if it was 'end all violence against women on this earth' I'd probably still go for it.'

He said (yep you guessed it) 'End all violence against people on this earth, surely?'

Any tips on how to respond to stuff like this? (I still want to keep him as a friend.)

It strikes me as being a bit like when in response to 'Black Lives Matter,' someone says 'All lives matter.'

Were you wanting him to provide a response to your thought experiment or not? If all male on female violence was eradicated, but male on male violence continued, surely women would still suffer indirectly?

I'd forgotten about that Jessica Eaton article. It really is a fantastic read. Happy Birthday and thank you Dr Eaton

We do not need to centre men in every conversation we have. Women and girls are valid entities, independent from men

to everyone coming on here and saying 'well, err, he has a point you know. why focus exclusively on women and girls?'. That.

Treating people equally doesn't mean treating them the same. Of course all lives matter.

But not all people are born with the same opportunities. Life can lead to disadvantage. Being born into poverty brings an extra level of being disadvantaged. Being black brings an extra level of being disadvantaged. Being disabled brings and extra level of being disadvantaged. Being female brings a level of extra potential to be disadvantaged.

Funny how it's the most advantaged sex who always says this.

I agree with him. ''End all violence against people on this earth'' and 'All lives matter' How can you disagree with those two statements?*

Oh ffs. Are you being deliberately goady? Did you not hear the sonic boom when the ‘whataboutery’ point broke the sound barrier as it whooshed over you head? Is this still a fucking thing?

No one does disagree, well, barring a few raving genocidal megalomaniacs. No one, again, with the exception of the aforesaid, has EVER fucking said: ‘All lives don’t matter’. Fucking no one. This is exactly why we can’t ever move forward because the minute we focus on the specific needs of a specific group all the other groups who don’t have that specificneed are bleating “what about us?” Gimme strength.

Oh ffs. Are you being deliberately goady? Did you not hear the sonic boom when the ‘whataboutery’ point broke the sound barrier as it whooshed over you head? Is this still a fucking thing?

No, I'm not goading . I agree with the two statements. Sorry if it offends you.

Do you know the kind of people who like to bring up "All lives matter" whenever "Black lives matter" is mentioned?
Mostly racists who don't want to deal with the reason Black Lives Matter was formed in the first place. Iirc it was to do with violence perpetrated by white American policeman on black individuals - and the fact that it way more prevalent than violence from police officers on white individuals.
Of course all violence is wrong, but it's very easy to murmur "all lives matter" like you're some sort of superior being and not think about racism, it's causes and what we white people need to do to stamp it out.
In the same way violence that's male on female is way way more prevalent than the reverse. What are men in general going to do about it?

The conservation isn’t about violence against everyone though is it.
It goes without saying that no one should suffer violence.

However, there’s something wrong if one group of people is disproportionately targeted simply for their sex. That needs a different response.

'In the same way violence that's male on female is way way more prevalent than the reverse. What are men in general going to do about it?'

Well my solution is not to be violent. Always has been, always will be. And to any other men reading, I'd advise they do the same.

No, I'm not goading . I agree with the two statements. Sorry if it offends you.

...She replied, even more goadily.

Well, I think you need to able to explain to him, in relation to what you are discussing at the time, why you see the thing as related to women as different than related to men. I wouldn't think in terms of "whataboutery" because that really isn't a fallacy as such, it can be a wholly justified criticism pointing to creating a division that isn't justified.

Say you are talking about partners being controlling in an abusive way, and he says that women also have this dynamic with their male partners. Essentially he is saying this is not a sex based problem, it's a human problem. You would want to show that in some way the situation was different for women - the cause of the problem, or maybe because women are more likely to de dependents or at financial risk, or because there are barriers to them leaving problem situations that don't face men. Or maybe that they are similar situations but it is better to have separate mechanisms to help men and women. If you are basing your view on facts like financial issues you'd need to be able to have some confidence about the numbers, too.

I imagine you'll find that sometimes your friend will have a point, maybe certain things are more just relationship or human problems and should be treated that way. In other cases, if you can show him why this is a different for the sexes, you'll have given him a good answer and maybe a clearer idea of the issue yourself.

OP this man sounds really tedious. Agree about the whattaboutery and yes, that article is excellent.

Just keep making your points and be clear that male women and girls have many problems to deal with that men don't, and that male violence is a problem whether the victim is male or female. Don't get dragged down by him. It's draining.

I had some friends like this. Some have stopped being like this and some have stopped being friends.

Statistics are the way forward. I have the misfortune to work with a huge misogynist who constantly bleats about how unfair life is for menz and talks about female paedophiles.

Pointing out the proportion of male sexual violence vs female sexual violence shuts him up for a while, pointing out that women having it all means women have all of the responsibility while men walk away does likewise.

Also tell him to set up his own organisation to combat mens issues if they are so important to him.

I got a lot from the article you linked to Nightmanagerfan - thank you.

Then the genie replied, "You wish for me to end all violence against people. Is this perceived 'violence', mental violence, physical violence or all three?"

I probably wouldn't still be friends with a man who worked that hard that often at dismissing male violence against women.
So, I would probably respond to his whataboutery with "I would be happy to discuss female violence with you just as soon as we get that 24 hour truce during which there is no rape".

In the interest of playing devil's advocate, this is intersectionality at it's best / worst... Of course his statement is true. Ending violence against all PEOPLE is the better option... But because of intersectionality we are being split into groups pitted against each other.

What are men doing to highlight men's issues ? Well they set up men's rights groups for starters, many of who are not the mgtow / incel extremists portrayed by SOME groups but are about fighting for men's rights the same way that feminism purports to do for women. However, any attempt by men to organise is seen as negative, whereas women doing the same are lauded lauded and seen as positive. That feeds into the pervasive narrative of a war between the sexes which goes on right now, and makes it harder to organise jointly on some things which definitely need a union to combat ( trans in sports, biological female safe spaces , grooming of children by the trans lobby etc... )

I can't comment on the experiences of a woman, but neither can a woman claim to have a more valid view on the experiences of a man.

Real world example, my girlfriend and I were walking through a park and a rather shifty looking guy ( apologies to the guy... ) He was probably just a normal person walking in the park but his mannerisms were such that I felt uneasy to the point where I was ready to swap sides with her if he came any closer to make sure I was between her and him, but also because if anything happened I was better placed to deal with it. Didn't need to in the end because he changed direction but whilst I wasn't surprised that she felt uneasy, I think she was surprised that I was as well...

Most physical violence by men is on other men, most sexual violence by men is on women. Why can't we want to stop both ?

Feminism has been around for a long time and so have women's advocacy groups. Men's advocacy is in its infancy for numerous reasons but things are finally happening. Maybe in another 20 years there will be as many support groups for men as for women because men have finally started to take action and draw attention to things like testicular cancer, mental health etc... and mirror the amazing work already done by women on similar women's issues.

There is room for both in the world !

Probably going to get flamed like crazy for this but it's the truth. If the truth is shouted down then this world truly is fucked.

RLD.

Probably going to get flamed like crazy for this but it's the truth. If the truth is shouted down then this world truly is fucked.

So unless we totally agree with you we are "flaming" it and "the world is fucked"?

Yeah ok, whatever.

Disagreeing isn't flaming... The manner of disagreement is what makes it flaming. I don't mind discussion about what I wrote, it is only my opinion so I don't mind discussion and challenges to it. I am open to having my mind changed and have already done some on some subjects based on discussions with female friends and this board... My comment about being flamed was more about me being a guy posting on the feminist discussion board. I find myself agreeing with many of the things discussed on here, but have rarely ( if ever ) commented because it doesn't feel a welcoming place for a guy to do so sometimes ( It is a board for feminism of course and I know I am not the target audience ).

So maybe my choice of words was clumsy. If so I apologise, but for the clumsiness of that phrase, not the post itself.

It is so tedious that every single time you try to centre women, people have an issue with it. Last week I was doing some work with abused women and I told them that whenever I focus on women and girls I get asked one of two questions:

1. Are you a lesbian?
2. Do you not like men?

People have a massive issue with women who prioritise women and girls. It disrupts what they see as the natural order. Sure enough, after the class I told my colleague all about the women I had worked with and how I had supported them and straight away she said 'You would make a good lesbian'. 😒

Look we have sons, husbands, fathers, brothers, nephews and hell even male friends whom we love and worry about. The person I worry about most is my son. The thing is, I don't worry about him getting beaten up by women. Why is that and why do so many otherwise decent men get so defensive when we talk about it?

Seconding the suggestions to tell him to tackle male violence since he's concerned about the men and there's a need for the voices of men there.

Seconding the people who said quote stats: 98%+ of sexual violence committed by men, 88% of violent crime perped by men.

And last, tell him it's a useful exercise to focus on women. Men always are first in line. There's boatloads of stats on that too. So if he insists on worrying about all people, in practice that will mean men get all the help and resources. Again. Even though men are ones committing the crimes. Even though women are victims out of all proportion to the number of violent crimes they commit.

Women are naturally invisible of course, but if he pays attention and uses peripheral vision, he may spot them now again. It's an ability that can be trained! And then he can practice putting women first for once, maybe just as a thought experiment if it's too scary a prospect for the real world. Reassure him that it can be done. The world will not end. And he might learn something.

(Do people like that annoy me? Yes. Yes, they do. The inconceivability of just focusing on somebody else's problems for two seconds is mindnumbing. Ask him to imagine if we were all that selfish.)

Let me try an analogy for you, Rocklovin.

Suppose you're in charge of the NHS budget and you have two diseases, A and B, which both cost the same amount of money to treat, but A is 100 times more prevalent than B. Do you allocate your money equally to A and B because "deaths from B matter too" or do you weight the allocation of money according to statistical likelihood?

Now let's suppose epidemiology tells us A is largely driven by lifestyle choice (smoking or obesity, say) whereas B is a matter of genetic bad luck. Do we put all of the public outreach part of our budget into S, or do we put it equally into awareness of A and B because "deaths from B matter too."

This is what it feels like discussing violence against women. It feels like society doesn't want you to talk about statistical likelihoods and statistical patterns of behaviour because every time you do that someone pops up to say "what about men."

Women, already lower paid and historically with less power than men, fund raise and set up women's refuges for DV sufferers out of limited resources and on a shoestring and people come along and say "can't you include male victims?"

If you have time, read the Jessica Eaton article above. In a nutshell, she and her husband jointly run a charity for men, while she also runs work on victim support for women. Over all the years she's done this, never has anyone responded to a press release, tweet, blog post, article on the men's charity by saying "what about the women?". It's absolutely routine for her to get "what about the men?" posts re her work with women.

Now do you see the problem? Don't you think you'd begin to feel a bit pissed off about it after years and years?

So maybe my choice of words was clumsy. If so I apologise, but for the clumsiness of that phrase, not the post itself

I think you need to maybe reflect on why you think you have to NAMALT in the first place.

Why do men have to jump in, NAMALT all over the place and then make themselves the centre of a conversation?

What you did was tell us NAMALT and then put yourself as a victim if anyone even disagrees with you thereby focusing the attention back on you, the MAN.

Doing this, and not allowing women to just discuss their issues with male violence, means that you are actually part of the problem.

Any man butting in to point out NAMALT is part of the problem.

You will never see this because that is the problem.

Any man purporting to be the Good Guy and that we should Listen to Them, is usually not a Good Guy. And it makes me suspicious of their end game.

The problem is while both those statements are, of course, true, they are ignoring the content. No-one does think violence should be done, as a matter of course. No-one who thinks life matters thinks that any particular section of lives matters more than anyone else. But the statement ‘black lives matter’ is a reminder that black lives are often treated as though they DON’T matter. Violence against women is often treated as though it either doesn’t matter or isn’t violence.

So the whataboutery can be addressed by not attempting to lead with such pithy statements as ‘black lives matter’. It’s fine as a slogan or manifesto, but needs a mileaux in order to be understood. The same level of institutional, police based violence against black people just doesn’t exist in the same way in the UK. So your friend saying “all lives matter” is ignoring the fact that there is a section of people whose lives are treated as though they don’t matter, while the vast majority of everyone else are treated as though their lives matter.

Use stats. This is a great article with stats about how many women killed, how many men and who are the killers. If you were having a conversation about how few snow leopards there were left, what twat would chime in, yeah, but what about the number of people killed by snow leopards/leopards or big cats in general....lol
kareningalasmith.com/2014/04/14/can-you-give-me-a-link-to-counting-dead-men/