Can men really grasp women’s reality re safety?

[Ritascornershop]

I have a 19 year old son who is very compassionate and left-wing (I mention that as he’s been indoctrinated in TWAW) but who can’t grasp the discomfort many women feel at men in women’s private spaces.

And recently a friend was telling me that a family member of his (who he has quite the blind spot over) broke up with his girlfriend. The gf had, before she met his family member, been sexually assaulted. She was naturally quite traumatized by the rape but trying to heal and met this guy and got in a relationship with him. The way my friend tells it. his family member broke up with her after a few months (during an argument) & family member “got so uoset” he punched a hole in the wall and broke a chair. She called the police and called friends. My friend seemed to feel she over-reacted! I think any woman would be frightened and that a woman who’d been sexually assaulted would be particularly terrified.

It does not seem a tricky concept to me, but both these men seem to not be able to wrap their heads around how frightening it can be to be vulnerable around larger, stronger, angry males. Is this something most men don’t get or are these two not trying very hard?

It's actually far more likely that men will be in a position to challenge their peers.

Their peers, yes, their superiors, no.

That's what you're missing - why shouldn't female line managers challenge men? I'm not saying it's only down to female line managers, I'm saying in any given situation it is down to the person with the most authority in that situation to do the challenging. We all have a mixture of roles in life - in some we have more power than in others. In some instances the person with more authority will be female. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

In some instances the person with more authority will be female.

Men who are contemptuous enough of women to say sexist things in front of female line managers, despite her ability to discipline them, are not going to listen to any woman. My sister had this exact problem with a male direct report in her last job.

Bit difficult to choose not to listen when you are being taken through the disciplinary process isn't it? And if they don't listen to a manager then they're not likely to listen to a subordinate are they?

Hearhoovesthinkzebras
Why are you persisting in this argument? Are you talking about breaking guidelines at work, specifically? Yes, a manager should instigate company disciplinary policy. In that specific situation, it would be the most logical thing to do.
That is not what is being discussed and you continue to ignore other points in favour of this female line manager situation.

Did you read the wiki link on class analysis?

Or are you going to come up with another scenario in which the man is in a coma and the woman is President? Or the man lives under a bridge and the woman runs a media empire?

I'm not ignoring anything. You're ignoring the point that in many situations the good.men aren't in a position to challenge other men.

Class analysis is an academic exercise rather than real life. Too often I see it said on here that men should confront other men - yes, of course, if it's mates down the pub and one says or does something then absolutely the other men ought to call him out but there are also many other situations where the "good" man is in a vulnerable position and it isn't safe for him to challenge the behaviour.

You can't expect a man on the lowest rung of the career ladder to challenge a boss for making sexist remarks for example. Or a line man to challenge a group of drunk men in the street.

You're ignoring the point that in many situations the good men aren't in a position to challenge other men.

What, ever? These good men are in such vulnerable positions that they can never voice their opinion to other men about any situation in their whole entire life?

Bullshit.

Where did I say that? I have given examples of situations where I wouldn't expect people to speak out.

You however seem to be saying that there will never be situations where men aren't in a position to speak out nor will women ever be in positions where they will have the authority to speak out.

That's the problem with class analysis - it doesn't relate to real life situations.

You can't expect a man on the lowest rung of the career ladder to challenge a boss for making sexist remarks for example. Or a line man to challenge a group of drunk men in the street.

But what we should expect is for that man to not yuk along with his boss, or join in, or smile. Because any of those things endorse the original opinion.

Challenge does not have to be confrontational.

You however seem to be saying that there will never be situations where men aren't in a position to speak out nor will women ever be in positions where they will have the authority to speak out.
Nope, you seem to have a problem with being honest. I never said anything like that.

That's the problem with class analysis it doesn't relate to real life situations I can find exceptions so there are no rules

What's interesting is that you haven't argued that poor Fred's life is so hard that he can't be expected to not laugh at half of Sickipedia, but that men should not be expected to do the basics in case the little darlings find it too hard, what with all their oppression.
If you were advocating for Fred to be unburdened by any expectation whatsoever (aside from, as I said, being patronising to working class men) then you would have agreed that some men have power and should be expected to use that power to make a positive difference rather than to extract what they want as individuals.

Instead you come up with this "well if Marjorie is his line manager it's her responsibility" bollocks.

That's why I know you haven't bothered reading about why we talk about men as a class and women as a class. So there's no ridiculous side-tracking from the likes of you with your "what about Angela Merkel versus a man in quarantine dying of Ebola" nonsense.

If you were advocating for Fred to be unburdened by any expectation whatsoever (aside from, as I said, being patronising to working class men) then you would have agreed that some men have power and should be expected to use that power to make a positive difference rather than to extract what they want as individuals.

Not being patronising to the working class at all and I have said that some men do have power, and some don't. Same as women. I know what class analysis is and imo it's only useful as an academic tool. It's not nuanced enough to have any real life relevance.

So there's no ridiculous side-tracking from the likes of you with your "what about Angela Merkel versus a man in quarantine dying of Ebola" nonsense.

Do please link to where I said that? Oh no, that's right you can't because it's just your ridiculous hyperbole

some men do have power, and some don't
So we're ignoring Fred's wife and the quiet guy in the corner of the break room and the barmaid at his local?
All of whom Fred has power over, and could be treating like shit for all we know?

But you insist because he's a binman he has no power and no advantage over anyone, and can't be expected to tackle bad behaviour from other men?

I know what class analysis is and imo it's only useful as an academic tool.
Go on, explain this sentence.

And I'm glad you recognised the hyperbole even if the point of it continues to escape you.

Did I say Fred has no power over anyone? No I didn't. I gave a specific example - his boss saying something and how I can understand someone in Fred's position not speaking out for fear that he might lose his job. That's not saying that he should never speak out in any circumstance. You are simply willfully choosing to misrepresent what I'm saying

I know what class analysis is and imo it's only useful as an academic tool. It's not nuanced enough to have any real life relevance.

Here's an example. Black children in the US have poorer academic outcomes than white or Asian children.

Except that can't be true, because Hearhoovesthinkzebras points out that Barack Obama became President, and had a successful academic career in his youth. What about Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice or Eric Holder or Ben Carson?

But it is true, we argue, there are structures and inequalities in place, like school funding being linked to the value of property in the area, so poorer black schools get less funding.

No, says Hearhoovesthinkzebras. It's not nuanced enough to have any real life relevance.

You are simply willfully choosing to misrepresent what I'm saying
You're choosing not to say that in loads of other situations Fred would have power, and would have responsibility. There's loads of things you're choosing not to say and at this point most lurkers will have worked out what you really think.

My giving one specific example means nothing more than this is an example of where I wouldn't expect someone to speak out. You have mentioned specific examples - should I assume hidden meaning to every possible situation that you haven't mentioned?

You are being utterly ridiculous, including in your attempt to compare the performance of black children in American schools. That is a false equivalence. The equivalent is to say that white school children should be expected to speak out about every occurrence of racism that they witness because class analysis shows that they experience privilege over their black counterparts.

The bare minimum acceptable behaviour, for all men, in all circumstances, is not.to endorse sexist behaviour. Many fall short even of that,.despite having the power to refuse to endorse it. The reason why Fred the bin man continues to endorse sexist behaviour is to maintain his power over (some or all)women. As long as abuse of women is normalised, Fred can exert power over women with the approval of at least some of his peers.

Oh, look, sex class analysis just explained why men at all social strata continue to endorse sexism.

Who ever said that Fred the bin man endorsed sexist behaviour? Who said that he exerted power over women? If you want to make stuff up then choose your own example, stop pretending that I've said things that I didn't say.

In my example I said that he shouldn't be expected to call out his boss if he witnesses him exhibiting sexist behaviour. I didn't condone him joining in or going along with it. It's also dependant I think on level of harm to the object of the sexist behaviour Vs level of risk to the bystander.

I can understand anyone witnessing sexist comments made by their boss not speaking out if they fear that their job is at risk by doing so, man or woman. I consider all of us responsible for speaking out or reporting things though, so long as it is safe for us to do so. I don't think women get a free pass on not reporting or speaking out just because we aren't men. So, in your example, if women in office join in with misogynistic banter then they would be just as culpable as Fred joining in with misogynistic banter.

Oh, look, sex class analysis just explained why men at all social strata continue to endorse sexism.

And you don't think that many women endorse sexism then? Where does class analysis fit in with that?

I thought you were using Fred the bin man as some kind of placeholder for a low-paid (assuming he's a loader, not a driver) man lackinv structural power in the work place. If you want to replace my Fred with John the checkout assistant then be my guest.

I agree with you that it's not always safe for men to call out sexism. This doesn't alter the reality that men as a class hold the power to rape women.

I think that women endorse sexism to try to feel to safe. If a woman visibly displays willingness to submit to male dominance, she might persuade a not-too-bad male to protect her from other, nastier males in return for her submission (usually in the form of wifework and transactional sex). It's a form of "do it to Julia" because the number of women exceeds the supply of not-too-bad males and so always some women end up alone or with abusers: the female sexist takes the gamble that she will not be one of the left-behind women.

How do women exhibit sexism, or misogyny, as a way to feel safe? I've been on the receiving end and plenty of times it hasn't happened in the presence of men, so what were the trying to feel safe from?

Tbh this is pointless. I've seen you on several threads(namechanged since) always contrary, from the small things (being called live) to the big things (women fearing for their safety). Always going on what about the men,NAMALT,whataboutery ,straw men and questioning class analysis. Which then gets explained to you again and again, that we never talk about all men, that we don't hate men etc.

And then on you pop on a different thread with the same wide eyed innocence "but NAMALT" and that thread derails ,again, class analysis being explained to you again.

On and on it goes. However well done for derailing a thread ...again.

And it's always the same - people make wild generalisations which make little sense in the real world but when it's pointed out react by shouting "straw man", dismissiveness, accusations of De railing etc because ultimately the weakness of your argument has been highlighted.

the weakness of your argument has been highlighted
Wow. No.
Anyone reading is going to be able to tell the difference between group/class and Fred. Anyone reading is likely to be aware that the men who challenge other men are few and far between, and that men act differently in a single sex group. Anyone who's ever heard of a stag do will know that.
If you want to feel smug that you've pointed out some logical inconsistencies only you can see then crack on; fortunately this thread plays out in public for all to see.

Finally, you aren't the arbiter of the "real world". Plenty of women's "real world" bears little resemblance to yours. So all you can really argue is that in your experience, women and men are equally culpable for the bad things that happen to women. Others might disagree.

How do women exhibit sexism, or misogyny, as a way to feel safe?

• By creating an environment in which other women are pressured to conform to sexist roles.
• By "othering" non-conforming women in order to remove the challenge that non-conforming women pose to the idea that a woman needs a man in her life and vice-versa.

Conversation in group of women about a mistake I made as a novice driver and its aftermath:
Me: [describes skidding on black ice and donutting into the opposite verge]
Me: Then I got out of my car and there's grass sticking out of where the front left tyre meets the rim because hitting the verge pulled the tyre off the rim, and all the air's coming out of the tyre. So it's ten at night, sub-zero temperatures, and I'm getting the scissor jack and spare tyre out of the boot to change the wheel so I can get home. And then the torch keeps rolling down the gutter...
Handmaid: [cuts in] See, I'd have just phoned my husband and got him to change the wheel.
Me: I'm not married and even if I was, the longer I am stranded at the side of the road for, the more at risk I am of being hit by another vehicle or being victim of a crime, so it makes more sense to change the wheel myself.
Handmaid: I'd have flagged down the next man to drive past if I wasn't married.
Me: I like not being raped by passing motorists who pretend to stop to help. So, as I was saying, trying to keep a torch from rolling away...
Handmaid: [cuts in] See, I think car stuff's a man's job...

The handmaid was clearly othering me and trying to create an environment where this event that I was actually quite proud of how I handled, where yes I'd skidded but then I'd got my car roadworthy again and got home safely and I was now seeing the funny side of the torch rolling away etc, made me odd, weird, unnatural, unwomanly. There were no men present, yet she was othering me in this way.

I reckon she saw my account of doing a roadside repair myself as a threat to her idea that a man needs a woman and vice-versa. If some women demonstrably don't need men, then men might not need women: by existing, I threaten the quid pro quo "you fix my car and I'll iron your shirts" relationship that some women think is needed for their position as "wife" to be secure.

And tying this massive derail back to the thread opener: knowing how to change a wheel or a bulb or a fuse, keeping the Haynes manual and basic tools and parts in the car, having a head torch in the car so I don't have a barrel torch rolling along the gutter, etc is part of my safety work. When telling the same account to a male colleague, he said "that's what the AA's for". I don't have time to wait for roadside rescuers to come out. Women have been raped waiting for the RAC/AA/etc. He doesn't get that.

(And yes, I did get the tracking checked.)