For You, It Seems It Is Okay That Women Are Murdered
I’ve always been a sucker for the underdog.
I want to see the little kid beat the bully, I want the unpopular kid to make some friends, and I want marginalised groups, all marginalised groups, to be heard. Especially those groups that society doesn’t want to listen to.
So in my article, Andrew Tate And The Male Empathy Gap, I spoke up for a demographic most people don’t see as underdogs; men. Or more specifically, young men.
I know what you’re thinking.
Yes, men are responsible for 99% of sexual assaults and have started ~100% of wars (I’m not including the war started by Helen of Troy’s face). Yes, men are more likely to be predatory and domineering and generally creepy. Yes, men, as a category still don’t do their share of domestic and parental labour. There’s plenty of reason to criticise “men” as a demographic.
But in our identity-obsessed world, we seem to have forgotten that most men aren’t guilty of any of this. And that many men face struggles that we not only don’t talk about, some people get positively irate if you even try to talk about them.
I could have chosen several conversations from the comments to illustrate this point. Quite a few readers were horrified at the suggestion that men deserve empathy too. But Dianne hit the full spectrum of indiscriminate outrage more cleanly than most (this conversation went on for a long time so I’m only sharing part of it here).
Dianne:
Nice. Again, we worry about poor oppressed men, especially white men who always have to hear about toxic masculinity.
I cannot imagine how they would react if they faced physical violence from women day after day. I mean serious injuries. If we had exclusively feminist women in leading positions. If men's reproductive rights were controlled by women. If lonely rejected women went on killing sprees against men.
See crime statistics. Most women victims are raped or killed by intimate partners: boyfriends, husbands, exes. Especially when they want to leave a horrible relationship. That is when fragile men go berserk.
I am not saying women are safe out of the home, thanks to creeps and stalkers and rapists lurking out there.
Women lose basic reproductive rights, because goodness forbid that women can decide not to "start a family" with someone who is NOT their match. Want to stalk her forever? Make her a baby. That way, she never can get rid of you! Fertilized eggs have more rights than women.
It starts at school. No makeup, no short shorts or mini skirts for girls, since it distracts boys. How about learning how to keep it in the pants? Understanding the word NO?
Lately, I saw an article from a journalist, just like yours. About poor oppressed men and boys. In connection with stories of Gabby Petito, Anne Colomines, Natalia Karaczyn, Ashling Murphy, Ana Kriegel, Christy Mack.
The guy was complaining about the term toxic masculinity.
Just for the record, said women were horribly abused and most of them murdered.
Steve QJ:
“Nice. Again, we worry about poor oppressed men, especially white men who always have to hear about toxic masculinity.”
God, this is so depressing. How did we get to the point where the mere suggestion of empathy towards men, or actually teenage boys in the case of this article, is met with such contempt?
You want men as a whole to be better? That's absolutely understandable. I feel the same way. But your strategy for achieving that is what? Showing them utter disdain? Even though most of them have done (or are responsible for) precisely none of the things you've listed here?
If all you want to to is vent and blame, go right ahead. If you want men to be more compassionate, empathetic, and willing to listen, you might try demonstrating a little of those qualities too.
Dianne:
You just said I should show empathy and love to those who threaten my safety and take away my rights? At best, want to control me?
You understood nothing of what I said!
I want to feel safe in the home and on the street. I do not want to be beaten up. I want to make my own decisions. It is still out of reach!
Men are not entitled to my empathy, attention, or making decisions for me.
The happiest subgroup is single childless women, there is a reason for that.
For you, it seems it is okay that women are murdered - only the fact that I am unhappy with it is "depressing."
This is what is wrong with society. It is not a problem that Imette St. Guillen was brutally raped and murdered; the problem is, Nancy Grace called the "person of interest" (this is not an actual, existing legal term) a suspect. Not a perp - a suspect. She was off the screen for 2 weeks, because she offended the guy. I saw no apology to Nancy when it turned out that the guy was indeed the perp, plus, a serial rapist, well on his way to becoming a serial killer.
It is not a problem that Larry Nassar was a serial sex offender - the problem is, Judge Rosemarie Aquilina did not show empathy from the pulpit.
I hope the irony is clear.
Look at rallies of right-wing extremists who scream about protection from conception. Of course, they do not mean keeping it in the pants. They happily vote for predators and extremists, because men HAVE TO be the boss, by default. If you look at statistics, about 2 of 3 men vote this way. Then is sexism rare?
Steve QJ:
“You just said I should show empathy and love to those who threaten my safety and take away my rights? At best, want to control me?”
I don't do any of these things. Nor do any of the men I know, nor do 100% of teenage boys. Nor do, what, 90+% of men? Your inability to see men as anything other than the very worst among us is truly sad. And is exactly the same mistake the teenage boys in the manosphere make with women.
I want you to feel safe in the home and on the street too. I don't want you to be beaten up. I've taken action, numerous times, to prevent men from harassing and abusing women in public. I've given my time, for free, to teach women's self defence classes. You know nothing about me. But you think you do, because I happen to have a penis.
Nobody is entitled to your empathy. But if you want empathy from others, if you want men to listen, and put their bodies on the line to protect you from other men, it might be an idea to not treat 100% of them as your enemy.
Your claim that it's okay with me that women are murdered is so unbearably stupid that I won't address it other than to say it's stupid.
Dianne:
Wait a minute - a great thing that you do not hurt women, but sadly, it is not true for 99%+ of men. The numbers just do not add up, 1 out of 6 women (some sources say 1 out of 5) becomes the victim of an attempted or completed rape at some point in her life. Every day, in the US, 70 women commit suicide as a direct result of sex assault.
You cannot know if your acquaintances hurt women or not. Most of the abuse happens behind closed doors. You should see all the crimes where friends, family, neighbors are baffled, saying, "I'd have never thought, he's a very quiet, polite, nice man . . . "
A great thing that you took action to protect women, either online or offline. It is gracious of you that you offered free self-defense classes to women.
What I claimed is we need reproductive rights for women. Women should not give up their life paths, careers, hobbies for boyfriends and husbands. We need women leaders in top positions - young women only have singers and actresses in the public sphere, how about politicians? We need women like Judge Aquilina in the U.S. media.
Women should not be push back in "traditional" roles. Iron my shirt mentality is the reason why feminists are, righteously, angry.
With good women leaders and changing mentality, men should not put their bodies on the line to protect women. We have seen it in Germany.
#When I saw the words "It's depressing" in your previous comment, I thought you would continue "It's depressing to see how women are abused" instead of criticizing my ideas. That is how I assumed it does not matter to you.
Steve QJ:
“a great thing that you do not hurt women, but sadly, it is not true for 99%+ of men.”
I actually calculated this a while ago for a different article. So I'll just paste it here:
"In 2021, there were 144,300 reported sexual assaults in the United States. Let’s assume that 100% of these attacks were committed by men (the true figure is ~92%, I think, so close enough).
According to RAINN, 2/3 of sexual assaults go unreported, so we’ll triple our 144,300 figure and round up to 450,000. Even if we assume that each of those assaults was carried out by a different one of the 164 million males in the United States (i.e. no repeat offenders), we find that around 0.27% of males commit all sexual assaults.
Even if we triple that to eliminate toddlers and octogenarians, we arrive at around 1%."
So it turns out your 99% figure is correct, just the opposite way around.
As you can see, I've been pretty generous in my calculations here to arrive at the highest figure possible. But let's say I'm still out by a factor of 5. Or even 10. Again, that's still 90% of men who don't hurt women. Why do you (and a depressing number of other women) insist on talking about "men" and then only talking about this minority?
I agree that women need reproductive rights (although plenty of women don’t). I even wrote an article about it. I agree that we need more women in leadership positions. I don't think most men disagree with that. I'm not arguing with any position you might take when it comes to the importance of supporting and empowering women. You're the one arguing with me with regards to the need to support and empathise with men.
Of course it's depressing that women are abused. It's depressing when women or men are marginalised in any way. And it's especially depressing when I come across somebody, male or female, who is only capable of caring about one of these.
Dianne:
I guess we can rule out kids up to 10, 12 years old, and men above 70.
I still say the rates of abused and raped women are way too high! It could not happen in a normal society.
60% of white men voted for a textbook definition of a psychopath, a predator, a convicted sex offender. Check out Robert Hare's list on psychopathy, you will find every red flag in their candidate. If they find these qualities positive, it speaks for itself!
https://jezebel.com/is-there-a-rapist-in-waiting-in-every-guy-5279283
When men have problems with exclusively women leaders . . . being raped, killed, maimed by intimate partners . . . having health problems from unwanted pregnancy - I am here to listen.
Steve QJ:
“I still say the rates of abused and raped women are way too high!”
And I still agree!! 😅The problem is, you're trying to make this problem into a simple, "men are bad" problem when it's not (p.s. I did rule out kids and men above 70. otherwise we'd have been at around 0.27% of men).
And sure, 60% of white men voted for Trump. This, I'm sure we agree, is troubling. But the most forgiving figure I could find for white women's support for Trump was 47%. Most other polls place it at 52-53%. And that increased in 2020. So if women find these qualities positive too, what does that speak to?
This is the issue I'm pointing to in your arguments. You’re so desperate to blame men as a whole for problems, that a) you miss the fact you're almost always talking about a small minority of men and b) you're often ignoring the fact that a meaningful chunk of women are part of the same problem because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Women have lots of problems in society. Many of them are caused exclusively by a small percentage of men. But unless you're saying you don't care about women who are raped and killed by other women, or who have other women make their lives hell in the workplace, or any of the other issues women face that many women full-throatedly support (women are more likely than men to think abortion should be illegal in all cases) maybe, and this is my whole point, you need a more nuanced and honest approach to thinking and talking about these issues than, "men are always and exclusively the problem."
Many of us are on your side. And more of us would be if you weren't so hellbent on demonising us for things we aren't responsible for.
As I often point out, people are not their groups.
Most racists (as we think of racism today) in history have been white. But that’s a long way from saying that all white people are racist.
Most of the corrupt, entitled liars in history have been politicians. But that’s a long way from saying that all…wait, bad example.
My point is that while most rapists and murderers and miscellaneous despots have been men, that’s a long way from saying that all men are any of these things.
The only reason it’s necessary to point out this painfully obvious fact is that identity politics has shifted from uplifting marginalised groups to attacking and demonising everybody in the “outgroup.”
I’ve seen people who are normally staunchly against identity politics play the identity card when it suits them. Especially in circumstances where their group is the underdog.
I’m just not convinced that the best way for the underdog to win is to demonise anybody who looks even slightly like the bully.
The logic Diane uses is indistinguishable from the thinking of cops who indiscriminately pull over Black people for the "crime" of "driving while Black." Or that of the suburbanite who calls the police on a Black man for the "crime" of innocently standing on a street corner in a white neighborhood.
"Get thee to a nunnery," Diane. Good riddance.
Diane shot holes in both feet with that part about the unfairness of girls denied makeup and miniskirts in school. I am not carrying any signs in any marches for the right to amplify sexual allure in classrooms. The purpose of school is education, not projecting attractiveness.
Quite the contrary, I think students should have school uniforms. That would level the disparity between poor kids wearing hand-me-downs and wealthier ones wearing expensive fashionable outfits. And it might tamp down some of the clique tendencies that buttress self-destructive fads like "trans."
In Vietnam all school students wear uniforms, exactly the same everywhere but for the school name on a tag. It makes sense.