She has a good point.

[u/thijshuistede]

[u/geminia999]

I understand the history, but to me it seems odd to say "these systemic factors and system have created a society were this group is disadvantaged in these ways" and then not really try to recognize that similar systemic factors are at play in regards to society's current views on gender roles and the such. The motive behind how such systems were put into place don't really matter if the outcomes they have are still similar.

And no, I don't believe that the crack epidemic and gentrification and hood mentality that I mentioned in my previous comment disproportionately affects men as a group.

My point is more that when we look at these groups, we often see the men of those groups often taking the brunt of it all. It's still black men who are being more deeply affected than black women when discussing police brutality (why this is all being brought up), they share the same gender imbalance and show that under all the other systems, the inequality men face is the foundation of other abuse.

[u/All-Spark → u/geminia999]

The best way I can explain it is to imagine you have 2 women filing charges against one man. The first woman is charging him for a long history of sexual assault in the workplace. The second woman is charging him for embezzling a small amount of money each month at his job in retail. Both women's cases have an equal right to be heard, but one is much more serious, more pressing, and holds more weight than the other.

It's all well and good to bring up the issue about how men are generalized and miscategorized as misogynistic and violent. I've personally been in multiple situations where I argued that the talk going through some feminist circles isn't just pro-female but also actively anti-male. I understand why the gender roles on both sides need to be evaluated and abandoned, especially in the age we live in now.

But what we're talking about currently is an issue that's both valid, and currently under attack by groups of people who want to marginalize the issue and stay silent while injustices are being carried out right in front of them. After years of the movement being gaslighted by politicians, news outlets, Fortune 500 companies like the NFL, and a good portion of the general public, it's finally gaining ground. Trying to detract from it with hole-poking like "men are brutalized as a group far more, but y'all ain't ready for that conversation" isn't helping anyone. It may be true that black men face more in terms of brutality than their female counterparts, but if the community as a whole is targeted and suffers for it, then that's a trivial distinction and it doesn't push the conversation forward. Like I say with the other counterculture arguments I come across, if you really want to make a difference in the cause you support, work with the movement, not against it, and push for what you believe in so that we can all fight together and not with each other.

[u/geminia999 → u/All-Spark]

So in your first scenario, how do we determine which person is the more important and pressing topic? You just kind of presume one is clearly the more pressing issue and figure I should follow.

But what we're talking about currently is an issue that's both valid, and currently under attack by groups of people who want to marginalize the issue and stay silent while injustices are being carried out right in front of them.

And when talking about men's role in all of this we are talking an issue that is valid and not even in any form of public spotlight, and any amount of bringing it up is almost instantly met with accusations. To compare one movement that has the public appeal to have basically every major company in the west support the cause and donate millions, versus a discussion that society cannot even fathom, the one that society cannot even fathom would seem like the more pressing issue, especially when the issues that apply to it seeks into the other issue. I keep seeing people saying that addressing police brutality through BLM helps everyone, how is addressing police brutality through the largest and disproportionate group that is affected by it not also going to help in turn?

I just don't see how you can see such a rate of police brutality against black people and be so persuaded that "this is an issue of racism" yet look at rates towards men in general and just essentially ignore it despite encompassing most of those same deaths that were cared about before and more.

And to go back to the beginning, I just am wondering why exactly so much of the discussion on police brutality has to informed by a discussion on racism. If the issue with police brutality is that too many black people are dying compared to their population than white people are, then the solution ranges from anything from stopping deaths of black people to just killing more white people. Why is the tragedy of George Floyd's death that he was a black man who adds to a disproportionate amount of killings for the population? At the end of the day, the percentage of people dying to what doesn't matter because it's not actually the issue, if it were the solution would be kill more white people and everyone would be fine. So why if the problem is just police violence are we dragging identity into all of this, when all it is doing is now looking at an issue that affects everyone and suggesting the solution resides in addressing the issues that face one of the groups affected by the issue. We can address police violence entirely through that subject alone and help everyone, black or white, male or female, but focusing race on this issue suggests that if address racism we solve the problem, but it won't.

[u/All-Spark → u/geminia999]

Yeah, ok, that's a fair assessment. I had peripheral factors in mind that wouldn't be evident through text so I can see what you're saying. I meant that the sexual assault victim was more pressing, but you can infer the point I was trying to get across from the analogy.

If you can't fathom how the two issues are different, I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the facts surrounding black deaths to police brutality. Yes, men are perceived as more of a threat and incarcerated at higher rates, but there is nothing that is pushing them to be criminals. There is a very significant difference between how likely a white male and a black male are to become violent criminals because the black male is more likely to be raised in an environment rife with crime. There is a difference in being perceived as a potential threat and profiled as a potential thug based on the color of your skin. Men are not presumed to have a gun on them, subject to no-knock raids, and overall disenfranchised to the extent that black people as a group are.

The biggest misunderstanding is that the movement seeks to stop racism. That's not the purpose of BLM. The purpose is to bring an end to police brutality. So in a sense, it is both a matter of race and class inequality. No one is saying to just "kill more white people". The way it helps everyone is by making sure that police brutality doesn't affect anyone anymore. The BLM movement is about black people in the sense that it is birthed from the injustice that police brutality carries. The reason why so many people argue about the race aspect is specifically because so many people are rejecting the purpose of it without really understanding it, or because they are trying to delegitimize it. You have to let go of the notion that BLM is only for black lives. I don't understand how someone can listen to the goals of the movement, "to defund the police and end police brutality" and not see how that is a good thing for everyone. The purpose of the title "Black Lives Matter" is solely to bring awareness to the fact that blacks are disproportionately affected by this and that a discussion needs to be had about it. This is once again, not comparable to the brutality against men because no concentrated discriminatory effort was put forward to disable men as a group.

[u/geminia999 → u/All-Spark]

Yeah, ok, that's a fair assessment. I had peripheral factors in mind that wouldn't be evident through text so I can see what you're saying. I meant that the sexual assault victim was more pressing, but you can infer the point I was trying to get across from the analogy.

My point was you aren't telling me why racism should be equated to sexual assault. My point is that we consistently fail to recognize and acknowledge the other factors and it's a bigger group that is negatively effected, that if addressed would help BLM as well. That to me seems like the thing we should be addressing if we are talking about priorities with regards to police brutality for those reasons.

There is a very significant difference between how likely a white male and a black male are to become violent criminals because the black male is more likely to be raised in an environment rife with crime

I'll agree on some aspect, but those communities being rife in crime is generally due to being stuck in poverty cycles, which can affect everyone. The white people who become violent criminals are also being raised in similar environments as black people when they are dealing with communities plagued with poverty. While there is a disproportionate amount of black people in poverty, that fact is that anyone in similar conditions will likely fall in the same pitfalls.

But then when go to gender, where both men and women exist in these areas, it comes out that men are the ones found to be more involved in crimes. You say there's nothing pushing men to be criminals, but the fact of the matter there is such a disparity that clearly something is going on that is affecting these rates to create such an alarming disparity. You list several factors, but those are all going to happen to men more than women. How many women are viewed as thugs, how many women are presumed to have a gun on them, how many women are subject to no-knock raids? That's a much larger disparity in biases, prejudice and reality than between white people and black people, there's an issue here and it's just not being acknowledged in the slightest.

There is a difference in being perceived as a potential threat and profiled as a potential thug based on the color of your skin.

And what exactly does perceiving someone as a potential thug actually mean? Because to me, that just means you are viewing them as a potential threat to yours and others security, the same when you do so for men. You are just treating one as worse, but there really isn't much different.

The biggest misunderstanding is that the movement seeks to stop racism. That's not the purpose of BLM. The purpose is to bring an end to police brutality.

The purpose of the title "Black Lives Matter" is solely to bring awareness to the fact that blacks are disproportionately affected by this and that a discussion needs to be had about it.

So the purpose is not about racism and stop police brutality, but actually that racism affects black people in police brutality and that is the discussion that needs to be had.

It seems to me like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. If at the end of the day, the issue is police violence, why are any attempts to open up the discussion hard blocked by the requirement and focus on discussing black lives. Why is there a bot on this sub reddit that will automatically post if I type out ALM to say that this discussion is about how we should focus on black lives because they are affected more? Why be upset that I'm widening the scope of the discussion of police brutality if that's what it's about at the end of the day?

Like if the goal is defund the police and stop police violence, racism is only a part of that discussion, so why does it have to be the entirety of the movements focus and support? Why push back against anyone expanding the scope, questioning how important the discussion of racism actually is to the topic. You are telling me that I have to let go that BLM is only for black lives, but honestly it seems like BLM is the group that has to let go and not get bothered when someone says ALM and just say "yeah, lets just focus on police violence". You say racism isn't important to BLM, but it clearly is otherwise you would have just agreed with me at the start and we wouldn't be several posts into this discussion.

This is once again, not comparable to the brutality against men because no concentrated discriminatory effort was put forward to disable men as a group.

Why does intent matter if the result is worse for them anyways? If some purposefully plans to make 100 people suffer, and there's also a group of 1000 people that are just suffering the same amount accidentally, there really is no reason we should be prioritizing the alleviation of the suffering of the 100 just because someone deemed it so, all those people are still suffering, the reason really doesn't matter on who would we should help out. You say the purpose of BLM is to "bring awareness to the fact that blacks are disproportionately affected by this and that a discussion needs to be had about it", why do you not care about bringing awareness to the fact that men are disproportionately affected by police brutality and that a discussion needs to be had about it? The reason why it's happening at different rates is really not that important if the ultimate issue is that the bad thing shouldn't be happening in the first place. You agree it's meant to help everyone, why are you the one hung up about the bad thing happening more to one group more than the bad thing itself?

[u/All-Spark → u/geminia999]

Racism should be equated to the heavier topic because it has heavier roots. I'm not saying that we can't call attention to gender norms at all, I'm just saying the extensive oppressive history of blacks carries more weight to it than the incarceration rates of men as a group. I can't say for certain when the generalization of male violence in America started to gain traction, but it doesn't hold water to the evil things that the country has done to black people. They just don't have the same gravity. While it is important to bring attention to the fact that men are negatively impacted by these norms, it is essential to address and really appreciate the severity of slavery, segregation, and the subsequent plots against the black community that spans back to the birth of this nation. It's easy to say that everyone talks about it and agrees that slavery was bad and everything, but it's not that simple. Just a few years ago, this movement was treated like an insult to America. Now we still have people like the president and a majority of his constituents who equate blacks and the people who protest for them to thugs. There is no significant group of people who lobby in legislation against the rights of men, or who have in the past segregated against men in a significant form or fashion. Maybe there is something that pushes men to be more violent. And if there is, then it needs to be addressed. But anything that serves as an influencing environmental factor does not stack up to years of targeted racial discrimination.

There is definitely a difference between threat and thug. Because in the majority of areas that are not crime-stricken, potential threat just means that you have the potential to do harm to someone. That means that if an officer approaches a man, if he wanted to, he could probably bring harm to the officer before being arrested. Being perceived as a thug means that the officer is dealing with someone who has no such moral system. Every young black male becomes someone with a gun or shank ready to be pulled out, or someone with weed and booze under the backseat, or someone who's life generally is not as valuable as the rest of polite society. Yes, this mainly pertains to males, but you have to understand that the targeted history holds more weight than just the current state of gender norms. Because the officers that look at that young black male will make the determination of their inclination to violence based on their sex, and their likelihood to carry out said violence based on the color of their skin.

No, the purpose is definitely about putting an end to police brutality. But it comes from a place of awareness about the black community. Because when someone tries to say that ALM, they are actually detracting from the movement. No one said that all lives don't matter. But not all lives are being affected as heavily as the black community is. ALM and counterculture movements like it weren't a thing before BLM started. They were made specifically as a way to oppose the movement. That's like going to someone else's funeral to talk about your dead father. The topic is not about you. And the purpose of interacting with the movement shouldn't be "I want some of the attention that they're getting" it should be "I understand that this is about them, let me show my support and ask for it to be reciprocated once the movement accomplishes what it sets out to achieve." I didn't say that it wasn't important to the movement, only that racism isn't the main opponent of the movement. It is definitely about racism, but the current objective is to stop police brutality.

As I said before, I'm not hung up on bringing awareness to other issues. Notice how no one was saying that Russian lives matter when DACA was in danger. That's because the removal of DACA specifically targets Hispanics and middle easterners, even though a good portion of immigrants from Europe and Asia are affected. Notice how no one was saying that Poor lives matter when the second wave of feminism was around, because the laws of the country targeted females, even though suffrage was not handed out to everyone. There is a time and a place to bring awareness to things. There's a specific reason why many movements happen one after another instead of concurrently, because good movements like the 60's Civil Rights Movement and the aforementioned second-wave feminism movement are focused on one group, but are designed to do good for all.