Making men victims victimizes men

YetAnotherCommenter · 2013-10-13T08:06:42+00:00

The problem with this article is simple: in the real world, men are sometimes the victims of horrible things.

Fetishizing victimhood isn't a good thing, granted. However, the idea that men specifically should never think of themselves as victimized or that victimization of men should never be acknowledged is simply a denial of reality.

Not only that, but male victimhood is actually a significant component of traditional masculinity in the first place - male disposability and male stoicism. A good man, by traditional standards, endures suffering (i.e. is victimized) but doesn't talk about it and keeps going on. He's still victimized - indeed the higher degree of his victimization, the manlier he is as long as he doesn't complain about it.

As /u/typhonblue often points out, a quirk in human psychology is that we tend to see moral agency (the capacity to engage in teleological action) and moral patiency (the capacity to be acted upon) as a tradeoff. Victims are by definition moral patients, but being a moral patient does not in fact reduce or impair one's moral agency. Human beings are subjects (i.e. we possess consciousness/free will/rationality/etc) but we are subjects that exist objectively. We are organisms with physical bodies.

Because of the materiality (whether it is absolute or not is a different subject) of our existence, we can be moral patients just as much as moral agents. The two things aren't in fact a tradeoff.

AlexReynard · 2013-10-13T07:59:23+00:00

I may disagree with some points, but it's certainly an argument that forces me to think about it.

nigglereddit · 2013-10-13T15:26:05+00:00

This is just another article written with glorious confidence by a Super Manly Man who is sure of his Definition of Manliness and knows for certain that anyone who doesn't meet it is simply not Manly enough.

He's also sure that if he was faced with one of these terrible dilemmas, he would be Manly and deal with it Like a Man. He will of course, in his fantasy, be adept at violence and both willing and able to deal out Manly quantities of it at a moment's notice.

The trouble is that in reality not all men are adept at violence - something which by the way has very little to do with physical size and strength. Many men are not comfortable with harming other people, even in their own defence, and nor should they have to be.

I'm very disappointed by this article because all it boils down to is "might is right" yet again. A crime is not defined by the victim's response to it, it's defined by the actions of the criminal.

typhonblue · 2013-10-13T16:00:28+00:00

If men's vulnerabilities are not respected, then men are not respected.

This isn't a unique situation; all slave classes have been in the same position. They take their identity from serving the vulnerabilities of the master class and denying their own.

Recognizing their own would be the first step to an independent identity and true psychological strength.

Incidentally "man" used to be the gender neutral term to refer to all adult human beings. It doesn't really confer a sexual identity, just an adult identity.

I find it interesting that men are conforming to obtain an identity that isn't really even their own.

Ma99ie · 2013-10-13T07:24:49+00:00

As plainly idiotic as the constant "male rape victim" narrative is that hits this subreddit, nevertheless, your argument will go over like a lead zeppelin.

PortalesoONR · 2013-10-13T08:57:46+00:00

that article reflects my feelings with regards to the recent male rape hysteria.

johnmarkley · 2013-10-14T02:27:07+00:00

And this also gets to the heart of my objection to applying the victimhood mantle to the male. Making men as physically helpless and violable as contemporary feminists hold women to be is a form of social castration. One of the defining characteristics of masculinity is the possession of agency — the ability to act.

This is exactly the sort of bullshit that any effective men's rights movement has to fight. And you know what the irony is? He's endorsing one of the central pillars of feminist misandry.

When feminists say that wrongs done to men somehow don't count because of men's supposed "institutional" power, when they lecture a man about his "privilege" when he clearly doesn't actually have it, when they insist that only women are ever oppressed or seriously harmed by the gender system because it's the "patriarchy" supposedly causing it, or blame men men for their own suffering and victimization for the same reason its because they agree with the author that "One of the defining characteristics of masculinity is the possession of agency — the ability to act." Feminism just dresses it up in Marxoid jargon.

And make no mistake: many people really do want to rob men of their manhood. Male feminist Michael Kimmel has made a career of it.

And yet, curiously enough, the vast majority of feminists are actually on the same page as the author- they're far more interested in talking about the power of male agency and conspicuously reluctant to talk about male victimhood. On the rare occasions that they mention the latter, they're still quick to make sure that male agency (usually in the form of "the Patriarchy") remains the star of the show by focusing on how the victimization is supposedly caused by men.

If you want to tear misandry out by the roots and not just trim the branches a little, guys like this are not on your side. He's trying to sell you fire extinguishers filled with gasoline.

Crimson_D82 · 2013-10-13T13:27:09+00:00

So basically when things are made equal they still won't be equal.... makes sense to me.

Title	Making men victims victimizes men
Author	themountaingoat
Upvotes	28
Comments	9
Date	October 13, 2013 6:48 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ocbu1/making_men_victims_victimizes_men/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/making-men-victims-victimizes-men.1161427 https://theredarchive.com/post/1161427

Comments