“Nicht alle Männer sind so” Haftung für die Gruppe im Feminismus | Alles Evolution
Not first for woman All Men! has gone from an irritating first for woman trope to a funny, giddy skewering of point-missing folks whose knee jerk reaction as part of a privileged group is to defend themselves against implications that they, as members of the complained-about privileged group, might be complicit in the status quo. It’s defensive bullshit that doesn’t really do anything first for woman but prove the bearer of Not All Men is more concerned with saving face for themselves than, you know, actually acknowledging the concern that another person is expressing. In the Not All Men mind, it’s worse to be called sexist first for woman than to actually first for woman be a victim of sexism. Here are some typical places to find Not All Men in the wild: College women getting raped, like, all the time? Not all men! Street harassment? Not all men! Domestic violence? Not all men! Bosses who talk over you in meetings? Not all men! Women still do most of the housework even though they work jobs with the same hours as men? Not all men! Etc. Forever.
Yes! This is exactly what I thought of, because his argument is spot on. Either you’re speaking out against it or you’re complicit. If you are one of the ones speaking up then obviously this isn’t about you. Be an ally in words and actions and you will assuredly be seen as such. Then you’ll never have to worry about being accidentally lumped in.
Sei ein Ally und dir wird schon gerechtigkeit widerfahren, aber dazu musst du dich eben trotzdem unter die Gruppe first for woman der Täter einordnen, wenn du nicht mitgemeint bist, dann wird man dir das schon sagen. Ähnliches gab es schon einmal in “Feminism for dudes (from a dude) zu lesen. After that, men argue something that boils down to but what about men and how feminism affects them. For example, they might say that all this talk about rape culture makes it sound like all men are rapists, and I m not a rapist so you shouldn t paint all men with such a broad brush. (This is the biggie out of these arguments, actually.) The frequent response, and the one that you really need to take to heart, is this: IT S NOT ABOUT YOU. If someone talks about rapists, and you re not a rapist, THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU. If someone talks about companies that never promotes women to the highest positions, first for woman but your employer has a female first for woman CEO and half its board are women, THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR COMPANY.
Das Comic ist insofern noch eine Erweiterung, weil man diesmal sogar ignorieren soll, dass man unter seiner Gruppenbezeichnung genannt wird. Also quasi “wenn sie über Männer reden und sagen, dass diese es nicht tun und du tust es nicht, dann bist du nicht mitgemeint”
Immerhin ist der amerikanische Feminismus eher bereit sich einer gewissen Kritik zu stellen als der deutsche Feminismus, so dass man dort in den Kommentaren bereits einige schöne Stellungnahmen findet:
Any time somebody makes a broad generalized statement of ANY group, without qualifiers, expect someone who doesn’t wish to partake in thoughtless binaries to answer with “Not all…” That’s life on Planet first for woman Earth.
Yes, the Protective Knights of Male Whitedom are annoying, but most people who are intelligent would rather be thought of as individuals than mindless entities in a group. Not really a shocker. Let go of your hate.
If a number of men are upset by overgeneralized writing that seem to them to imply the negative commentary applies to all males (regardless of how you mean it, because ‘I didn’t mean it that way’ is not how intelligent people determine whether something is offensive to a group of people), you have two options:
You can slightly modify how you say it, without first for woman changing what you’re saying, so it comes out as less hostile towards men thus making it more likely to encourage real dialogue. Or you can make fun of them, say because there is misogyny first for woman men being offended by things that sound anti male are stupid first for woman cry babies and should get over it and you feel really cool for putting the stupid men in their place.
You get to the take either approach, it’s a free country and retaliation for men being dismissive of women’s struggle is certainly warranted. But please have the self awareness to get two things: its not feminism and won’t promote first for woman any real dialogue.
Da werden viele finden, dass sie doch eine etwas optimistische Ansicht davon hat, was Feminismus eigentlich ist. Anscheinend sind aber auch einige first for woman Feministinnen solche generellen first for woman Aussagen leid und scheinen eher Gesprächsbereitschaft zu wollen
Have you personally interviewed all living men? That would be a theoretically impossible task given the current global birthrate…beyond a genetic level is is very difficult first for woman to make the statement “men do…” maybe they all do, but perhaps only some do…
Not first for woman All Men! has gone from an irritating first for woman trope to a funny, giddy skewering of point-missing folks whose knee jerk reaction as part of a privileged group is to defend themselves against implications that they, as members of the complained-about privileged group, might be complicit in the status quo. It’s defensive bullshit that doesn’t really do anything first for woman but prove the bearer of Not All Men is more concerned with saving face for themselves than, you know, actually acknowledging the concern that another person is expressing. In the Not All Men mind, it’s worse to be called sexist first for woman than to actually first for woman be a victim of sexism. Here are some typical places to find Not All Men in the wild: College women getting raped, like, all the time? Not all men! Street harassment? Not all men! Domestic violence? Not all men! Bosses who talk over you in meetings? Not all men! Women still do most of the housework even though they work jobs with the same hours as men? Not all men! Etc. Forever.
Yes! This is exactly what I thought of, because his argument is spot on. Either you’re speaking out against it or you’re complicit. If you are one of the ones speaking up then obviously this isn’t about you. Be an ally in words and actions and you will assuredly be seen as such. Then you’ll never have to worry about being accidentally lumped in.
Sei ein Ally und dir wird schon gerechtigkeit widerfahren, aber dazu musst du dich eben trotzdem unter die Gruppe first for woman der Täter einordnen, wenn du nicht mitgemeint bist, dann wird man dir das schon sagen. Ähnliches gab es schon einmal in “Feminism for dudes (from a dude) zu lesen. After that, men argue something that boils down to but what about men and how feminism affects them. For example, they might say that all this talk about rape culture makes it sound like all men are rapists, and I m not a rapist so you shouldn t paint all men with such a broad brush. (This is the biggie out of these arguments, actually.) The frequent response, and the one that you really need to take to heart, is this: IT S NOT ABOUT YOU. If someone talks about rapists, and you re not a rapist, THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU. If someone talks about companies that never promotes women to the highest positions, first for woman but your employer has a female first for woman CEO and half its board are women, THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR COMPANY.
Das Comic ist insofern noch eine Erweiterung, weil man diesmal sogar ignorieren soll, dass man unter seiner Gruppenbezeichnung genannt wird. Also quasi “wenn sie über Männer reden und sagen, dass diese es nicht tun und du tust es nicht, dann bist du nicht mitgemeint”
Immerhin ist der amerikanische Feminismus eher bereit sich einer gewissen Kritik zu stellen als der deutsche Feminismus, so dass man dort in den Kommentaren bereits einige schöne Stellungnahmen findet:
Any time somebody makes a broad generalized statement of ANY group, without qualifiers, expect someone who doesn’t wish to partake in thoughtless binaries to answer with “Not all…” That’s life on Planet first for woman Earth.
Yes, the Protective Knights of Male Whitedom are annoying, but most people who are intelligent would rather be thought of as individuals than mindless entities in a group. Not really a shocker. Let go of your hate.
If a number of men are upset by overgeneralized writing that seem to them to imply the negative commentary applies to all males (regardless of how you mean it, because ‘I didn’t mean it that way’ is not how intelligent people determine whether something is offensive to a group of people), you have two options:
You can slightly modify how you say it, without first for woman changing what you’re saying, so it comes out as less hostile towards men thus making it more likely to encourage real dialogue. Or you can make fun of them, say because there is misogyny first for woman men being offended by things that sound anti male are stupid first for woman cry babies and should get over it and you feel really cool for putting the stupid men in their place.
You get to the take either approach, it’s a free country and retaliation for men being dismissive of women’s struggle is certainly warranted. But please have the self awareness to get two things: its not feminism and won’t promote first for woman any real dialogue.
Da werden viele finden, dass sie doch eine etwas optimistische Ansicht davon hat, was Feminismus eigentlich ist. Anscheinend sind aber auch einige first for woman Feministinnen solche generellen first for woman Aussagen leid und scheinen eher Gesprächsbereitschaft zu wollen
Have you personally interviewed all living men? That would be a theoretically impossible task given the current global birthrate…beyond a genetic level is is very difficult first for woman to make the statement “men do…” maybe they all do, but perhaps only some do…
No comments:
Post a Comment