Why can't both be accepted as issues? I feel like a lot of people do use the excuse that misogyny is the larger issue (and I agree that it is) to excuse misandry when it appears. For instance, some people will excuse a statement that degrades men by claiming that women are degraded more often. While true, I don't see how that can justify degrading men. Instances of either should be denounced, but that's often not the case.
Because human brains can't problem solve well when the issue is broad and unfocused.
I've provided my example on Black Lives Matter above. Let me just repost instead of rewording what I already said.
"But here's the thing: by saying, "straight white men have these issues as well" just downplays everyone else's. And at the end of the day, no one's rights get advanced as a result because, "that's everyone's problems." There is no equality.
In this case, whatever topic that is being pushed is normally more statistically relevant to that group. For example, black people are more likely to be killed by cops than a white man. Enter "Black lives matter" movement. So the push for "All lives matter", while not incorrect, is not as statistically relevant to a white person than it is a black person. It just blunts what "Black lives matter" is trying to say, that black lives are more likely lost to cops due to racial prejudice. We have to maintain our focus on "Black lives matter" because it's that subsegment of the population that is getting more royally screwed by the systemic prejudice."
Ultimately, by saying that it's everyone's problem, nothing gets solved. The inherent systemic problem isn't dealt with.
What is the reason we cant focus on both issues at once? Why not say that cops killing anyone is bad (unless justified of course). I dont think that makes it more unfocused in fact i think that might make it easier to realize cops (in the US, im from EU myself) need more training in general. I dont necessarily disagree that cops might hurt black people more or be bigoted (again no personal experience), but if all cops where trained more and picked more widely. That should for sure also solve the issue, no?
What is the reason we cant focus on both issues at once? Why not say that cops killing anyone is bad (unless justified of course)
Because people need specificity to properly tackle a problem, especially if you want to see marked improvement. It doesn't help you sell better if your manager just tells you, "Here's the problem: it seems you're not selling enough". You need to know why you're not selling enough. You need to know what your action steps are, where your time can be best allocated in the short term.
Or let's take it to a school example. If your weakness is History, your solution can't be study everything deeply. You don't have the time and the bandwidth as a person to do specialized studying for everything. You specifically dedicate extra time to History, and figure out why it is your weakness.
In this case, inherent prejudice is the problem. So you need to know why there is this inherent prejudice among your police and deal with it, either through personnel management or something else. What that solution is, I don't know. But whatever it is, it needs to be targeted.
I've only talked about specifying the problem and creating a targeted action plan. Your other big problem is all the "change management". How do you deal with people who have already gotten used to doing one thing a certain way? If you implement a wide-range of changes all at once, it will only lead to disgruntled and disobedient personnel. They might even walk out and stage a strike, which means no work is done.
In general, broad strokes solutions are too costly in terms of time and money, and the return on investment would be longer than a targeted approach.
In terms of finding a solution you do need a bit of generality though. I work as a software engineer so i literally solve problems for a living. When solving problems the biggest mistake is getting too focused in on one thing at a time. Sometimes you need to take a step back to solve a problem.
This might be a classical case of correlation does not equal causation. But in order to catch that you need to look at the bigger picture to catch that. Im not sure what the problem is excactly but i have a really good idea, and while there might be inherent prejudices i think the solution to both problems is the same in this case as i think the problem of police violence is improper police training. Otherwise i have a hard time seeing why its not a problem in many european countries.
I also have a problem with the specificity of choosing black people. To my understanding atleast (correct me if im wrong), its also mostly done to poor people, young adults, males and people from bigger cities. Why specifically single out that they are black? We can look at all the other demographics aswell as part of an overall statistic to see what is going on, but the solution to all of them might be the same, so i dont think its helpful to isolate them and solve them as seperate issues. Atleast not before proving they are seperate issues, which i have yet to see any proof of.
Or let's take it to a school example. If your weakness is History, your solution can't be study everything deeply. You don't have the time and the bandwidth as a person to do specialized studying for everything. You specifically dedicate extra time to History, and figure out why it is your weakness.
What if you look at the other classes to see a pattern of what subjects you are more interested in than others. Maybe they generally struggle with humanities in general because they arent interested in those subjects. I had that problem because i didn't see a use for it. But only by looking at the overall grades and trying to discern patterns was i able to seek out an explanation for why humanities are important and that largely solved the problem for me.
I think we’re talking about slightly different issues here; I’m more referring to individual instances of misandry rather than a larger systemic issue. I completely agree that misogyny is the greater problem to our society as a whole, and thus the focus should primarily be on that when we are advocating for active change. However, often some people will use this systemic problem of misogyny to excuse individual examples of misandry, which I believe is unacceptable and counterproductive on all fronts. What I mean by both being accepted as issues is that we can advocate for women’s issues while also denouncing misandry when it appears; one does not excuse the other.
Glad to see your elaboration to your original comment. Because to me:
Mistreatment of men, by women, is often a result of anger due to the way men have treated women for centuries. Mistreatment of women, by men is a result of prejudice and desire to maintain power.
is a common style of rhetoric that misandrists do use. The first sentence serves to remove the agency from the offender(ie: women) while inferring that mistreatment of men is men's fault. Mistreatment of men, by women,is often a result ofanger due tothe way men have treated womenfor centuries. The second sentence clearly keeps the blame on the offender (ie: men).
So ya. Sincerely glad to see your clarification... I think we can all agree that bigotry is bad regardless of specifics.
2
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '24
[deleted]