The Rea Reason Men insisit "Not all men" not that it has anything to do with women making out all men to be wolves..

thrway_1000 · 2016-07-09T01:18:12+00:00

^{Please think of archiving links to sites that are known to have biased and/or negative representations of men, masculinity, and men's rights -- i.e. The Guardian, Slate, The Telegraph, The Independent, Cracked, BuzzFeed, Vox, Vice, Bustle, Medium, Mic, Huffington Post, Salon, Think Progress, Raw Story, and so on. Or to articles and/or sources that may be controversial, which may be altered and/or removed because of our current culture of censorship. https://archive.is/}

fengpi · 2016-07-09T00:11:01+00:00

I have a theory about why this might be, and I'm afraid it's going to be one of those controversial ideas that only compounds people's absurd belief that I hate men.

Haha, at least she's aware of how people might obtain some obviously-absurd ideas about her.

But c'est la vie, right?

Yeah, that's just one of those funny random curve-balls that life throws at you owing to random chance.

Which leads to my theory - if you are used to being uniformly prioritised in storytelling and representation, it's very difficult for you to accept that you might not be the subject of a particular story or depiction.

Uh... how about people don't like being accused of shit that they haven't done? I mean, Miss Ford you don't like being accused of man-hating because you clearly don't do that, so perhaps you might understand a bit. People tend to get angry and defensive when you smear and attack them. But since you don't unfairly attack men (that would absurdly suggest that you hate men), there must be something else eliciting these very very odd responses to your oh-so-reasonable criticisms of, uh, heteropatriarchal cissexist fascism. Men sure are strange, aren't they? When you attack them, they act like it's about them! Go figure.

So if you expect that every story being told is automatically about YOU...

Like when you say "male violence" to address the audience of men out there and urge them to take action to end male violence and men need to do more to stop their violence against women you're not actually addressing men as individuals. You're addressing and accusing someone else. Some other group of individuals. So the men you are targeting should not get the mistaken idea that you are targeting them.

It rather looks to me as if you wish to continuously tar men with a broad brush and fling collective guilt at entire demographics and not be accused of doing exactly that. Because that's what bigots do, and you're not a bigot, Ms. Ford, because you're so magnificent and you could never do such a thing. If you were doing what people say that you are doing, Clementine... it would mean that you're a bigot. Hence, these elaborate rationalizations about how you do not do what people say you do. Everyone is a bigot, but not the wonderful gal in the mirror.

Or you have the mind of a cowardly abuser who, after punching somebody, denies that they punched them and that the punch didn't hurt anyway and they deserved to be punched in any case. Deservedly punched by the non-painful punch that you didn't punch.

So when a reasonable statement like "the source of violence is men" is said, men shouldn't think it's about men. They should think it's about blaming some other group. Puppy dogs, perhaps. And from this non-man-blaming sentence, men should... take action to stop all the violence that men do. Because it's not really about men. This is some truly straightforward thinking.

How about this, Clementine... maybe the reason why you are so annoyed by this "not all men" rejoinder is because it suggests that your favorite pass-time of broad-brush tarring is bigoted. Deep down, you feel in your gut that "not all men" is something you hate saying, but another part of your brain knows very damn well that it is undeniably true. And this creates some cognitive discomfort for you. Cognitive discomfort that suggests that you need to modify a few of your passionately-held beliefs in order to make them less bigoted. But that would also require you to imagine that you are a bigot, and your self-love won't allow you to do that.

By the way, if this is just a "theory" and a "controversial" one... why is the article entitled "the REAL reason" as if it is not a conjecture that people might disagree with? English, feminists! Do you fucking speak it?? Except for LIES, I mean.

Paul-milana · 2016-07-09T00:25:19+00:00

It's getting a bit tiring of women telling men how we need to tell our narrative and I'm getting tired of 'Grape Victims' referring to themselves as survivors. Do these women need to learn what 'surviving' an attack means? Josie Russel survived a violent attack. The stanford rape victim survived passing out with a guy she three herself at at a frat party and got fingered when she passed out. It would have been a miracle had she managed to not survive such an insignificant intrusion.

This whole rape survivor schpeal had become tiresome and exaggerated. We really need to get feminist rape fantasists out of circulation.

aussietoads · 2016-07-09T00:18:40+00:00

Please use archive to link to any of Clementine's articles in future.

Title	The Rea Reason Men insisit "Not all men" not that it has anything to do with women making out all men to be wolves..
Author	KexyKnave
Upvotes	3
Comments	12
Date	July 8, 2016 11:43 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4rxohz/the_rea_reason_men_insisit_not_all_men_not_that/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-rea-reason-men-insisit-not-all-men-not-that-it.945882 https://theredarchive.com/post/945882

Comments