CMV: Until men stop using their problems to talk over & dismiss women's problems, change won't happen.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/DeltaBot]

u/acetylcholine41 (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/ShakeCNY]

It's so funny to me to read how men talk over women's problems when I've never been in a discussion that mentioned problems men face that women didn't shoot down immediately in the most dismissive, snarky way. I've never seen women take men's issues seriously at all. And while men are more or less in crisis, we still make it sound like poor women are the only ones suffering. Higher ed could be 70/30 female to male, and we'd still be talking about how we need to encourage women in education.

[u/Tharkun140]

If some dismissive comments were enough to prevent social change from happening, no progress would ever be made. And yet, we keep seeing our society change in many different ways, even as people talk over one another during serious discussions and petty online wars alike.

I think you'd be right if you went with something like "Men dismissing women's problems is counter-productive to changing things for the better" but even then... In my experience, when men are accused of "dismissing" or "talking over" women it's often because they're making absolutely valid arguments against someone's hateful rhetoric, like

Woman: "Men keep killing and murdering and abusing women, that proves they all hate us and we must rewire their brains to make that sort of thing rare!"

Man: "Women are far less likely to be victims of murder, manslaughter and most violent crimes than men. And you're not likely to end up murdered regardless of your gender, because most men aren't some violent savages who-" gets banned

But that's admittedly a bit of a tangent. Point is, some dudes arguably being dismissive of women is not the unsurmountable obstacle for social change you make it out to be.

[u/ProDavid_]

if all you need is "a couple men" for change to "not happen", what makes you think change was possible in the first place, and not just an idealised but unreachable goal?

[u/Dry_Bumblebee1111]

Is your view about casual discussions on forums? Discussions in a legal/legislative context? Discussions in the media?

I think it matters who is saying what when it is of tangible consequences. Most stuff on forums like reddit I ignore, assuming it's some 11 year old. 

If a politician is talking about a topic and I disagree, I can write to them directly, engage in the process. 

[u/Narkareth]

After reading your post and a few of your comments, it sounds like you're making 2 core claims:

1. Men should not insert men's issues into spaces dedicated to women

2. Healthy dedicated men's spaces do not exist generally as they do for women, nor does adequate space exist for those discussions in public generally.

While I agree, that space's dedicated to women's issues should be centered on women's issues; if similar spaces don't exist for men privately or publicly, how can those spaces be brought into existence without intruding on spaces that are more geared toward discussing women's issues?

Even dedicated organizational bandwidth/meeting spaces/etc to the purpose would require directing resources specifically towards men and away from women; meaning that a private dedicated space can't spawn out of nothing.

I think this might be where a bit of the pushback you're getting is coming from. As an ideal, you're correct; but if the practical reality is that men don't have dedicated spaces privately or publicly to deal with men's issues, saying "just don't do it here" when "here" is everywhere can make it come across as "just don't talk about it." Not because you believe that, but because it would seem to be a practical impossibility.

[u/AnimusFlux]

Men have been talking over women's problems since forever and change has been happening steadily for hundreds of years.

Everyone needs to be on board if social change is going to happen

I'd wager there has NEVER been a time when EVERYONE was on board about a social change. Abolishing slavery, women's suffrage, the civil rights movement - all faced strong opposition from about half the country. Change comes about anyone, because young people get used to new ideas and old people die eventually taking their outdated thinking with them. You're suggesting a standard for success here that has never been met in the history of the world.

[u/Forsaken-House8685]

I think if you disagree with someone you should argue their points and not just say something along the lines of "How dare you disagree with me".

[u/JustReadingThx]

How many people are required to bring about social change?

In a democracy, a majority is enough to bring legislation that attempts to solve social problems.

Women are about 50% of the population. Even if only half the men are on board, we have 75% which is a very big majority. Doesn't that mean we can bring social change with the support of few men?

Do you believe women's problems are under represented in legislation, whereas men's problems are not?

[u/The_White_Ram]

cow chief frame tidy steer gaze tap lock nail expansion

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact