~ archived since 2018 ~

OurWatch - Respect is vital if we are to end violence against women: Respect means denying the existence of domestic and sexual abuse of boys and men. So boys, show respect for women and girls. No one cares about you. Respectfully.

DougDante

October 30, 2016

35 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	OurWatch - Respect is vital if we are to end violence against women: Respect means denying the existence of domestic and sexual abuse of boys and men. So boys, show respect for women and girls. No one cares about you. Respectfully.
Author	DougDante
Upvotes	35
Comments	5
Date	October 30, 2016 2:05 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5a3yre/ourwatch_respect_is_vital_if_we_are_to_end/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/ourwatch-respect-is-vital-if-we-are-to-end.938657 https://theredarchive.com/post/938657

Comments

[–]rougecrayon -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In theory, yes. In practice, given human social dynamics, no.

Don't apply logic to human behavior, because humans are beasts of instinct. Their behavior will not obey logic. Their behavior will obey the rules of their own instincts.

All kinds of 'fallacies' in logic fail when applied to human behavior. The slippery slope, for instance--of course, in theory, one can stop at any point in the descent. But group dynamics and human psychology means that it's incredibly unlikely that humans will ever stop at any point in their rhetorical or political descent. The social dynamics between people mean that every individual's activities will be intensified by the presence of a large group around them, either physically or in a more 'meta' sense (the feeling that they are a majority of opinion, even if not a physical one at a given time). Edit This is just like that, sure, we could make a balanced program, but the kind of people who put these programs into place won't do things in an even-handed way. We've seen that. We've seen that especially in Australia. Why do you demand that we go against evidence and instead apply your 'theory'?

And the people who might do it in an evanhanded way won't even consider it, because they're too fairminded to decide 'sexual assault' is the result of boys being evil savages.

[–]rougecrayon 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can I just confirm a few things to make sure I understand?

Are you saying that logically arguing for respect for one gender should be okay, but the way people view things/react to things makes it so it's actually damaging to the opposite sex? If I'm understanding a lot of these men's issues threads make a lot more sense.

To maybe simplify again - that you mean to say people's reactions to this type of teaching will be anti-boy by default of painting women as seemingly the only victims? (boy auto corrected to gay when I attached it to anti. Way to show your views LG)

And even programs which are meant to teach both ways end up getting biased in that direction?

I disagree with your last point...couldn't someone be trying to (in ignorance maybe) do the right thing and at the same time understand boys are not the only issue in violence and they are not savages.

Thanks for answering. I'm glad you took the time to answer my questions.

[–]moderndaycassiusclay 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rougecrayon 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link