Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Defending from a "patriarchal" shame attack
Hello TPM community,
an idea. Personally, I don't like people (feminists or else) who frame women as victims. Because it frames them as weak and it's disempowering to them. It's actually more paternalist than the patriarchy. Patriarchs like women disempowered so they can use them, radical feminist like women disempowered so it feeds their narratives and justifies their existence (if they are not victim, what are you talking about?). Personally, I see women as strong and adaptive to circumstances. It's their power as a human being and I don't like seeing stolen from them. NOT virtue signaling, my own feeling.
So here's a proposition:
Feminist: women are the victims of the patriarchy: contraception is only for women. What about men?
Me: you seem to think that women are victims. I don't think they are. I think women are strong and can deal with any situation. There are challenges for many of us and I see women around me dealing with them effectively.
It's a lot of investment. And a new idea. The goal is to reverse the frame "women are victims", which implies "women are weak". Go philosopher frame on "we're all victims" and lifting them up. Work in progress.
Also moving from "men against women" to "men and women are allies".
Hello, John!
Funny, I had a conversation like this one with a woman (since it was Christmas Eve, let's call her Nathalie) at a bar some days ago and I also found it challenging. I replied in a manner similar to your proposition, and it just entrenched us even deeper into "of course you can say this, you're a white man and can have everything you want" and "I hate men" territory. It went more or less like this:
Nathalie: men are X Y Z, everything is easier for you because bla bla bla, you always think you're better than women
Kavalier: don't know what kind of men you've been dealing with. But we guys here (there were three men and three woman at the table) think men and women are equal and should have the same rights
Nathalie: (mocking tone) aaaaah, so you're saying you're different from other men? (here she put me in a tight spot. If I say anything remotely related to "yes", it'll look like I'm trying to prove myself to her. If I say "no", then I frame myself as the complete POS package she described)
Kavalier: look, you've had bad experiences with men, and I believe with a lot of them. It sucks, it does happen very often with women, and I'm with you in hating people like these. But to say that "men" are like that is both not true and not something cool to say in front of three men here
Nathalie: You sound like a leftist alpha male* speaking
Some people just want to rant and take their anger out whenever they have the opportunity, and there is nothing you can say to make the situation better.
Thinking about this experience, I think it's better just to "yeah yeah" her as soon as she starts speaking about men vs women and either change the subject, or ignore her an talk to other people instead.
Edit:
*I'm translating the Portuguese term "esquerdomacho" as suggested by Google, but this doesn't seem to be in use by native English speakers. What she's suggesting is that I'm a male supremacist in disguise, pretending to be sympathetic to the feminist cause only to get into her pants.
Hello Kavalier,
thank you for your answer!
People will find all kinds of made-up name just to attack you. Esquerdomacho? Come on... that's bad, low and petty.
You're right, that's also my GF's conclusion about a debate about contraception the other day (from JB: it's because of patriarchy that there is little male contraception today. Newsflash: it is not. Did my research and sent him the references and the group the next day).
So I agree 100%. Sometimes it's sad that it's people we think are friends that will do that. Like in my case, my GF helped me to see that he just wants to feel superior to me because of inferiority complex. He's not interested in the truth.
Up to this point, I respected him and thought we could have these conversations. Now I don't anymore. He's another acquaintance whom I won't tell my secrets, share my real ideas, etc. Lucio was right: these are the people you need to set boundaries with. They are not our friends.
So going back to the topic:
I told her that before I was listening and when I was self-censoring but in my mind I knew it was bullshit. So I took a blow on my self-esteem. Now I know these people are stupid so I can do the same but with a sense of inner superiority. I choose to let it slip, not to keep the peace (passive) but because they're not worth my time and energy (flying higher inside).
So I think it's important also to self-frame it this way. Of course, the less close you are to the person, the easier it is.
Otherwise I think you're right: either change subject or ignore and talk to other people. Otherwise, it creates a negative conversation (happened to me the other night) and the other people have to suffer through it and they have nothing to do with it.
Hi John, Kavalier and everyone
First of all I would like to provide a little bit of context before I answer: I am a mother of two baby girls, a woman myself and am married.
The point with having two babies is mostly what makes me an eager reader but not present for writing (those who have children may understand, we get interrupted a lot). I do love reading and learning with the posts here in the forum and can relate to many things, like this post for example.
Now my perspective on this topic is very similar to yours actually. Kavalier I also understand unfortunately the expression esquerdomacho, since brazilian Portuguese is my mother tongue. Trying to add to the topic with maybe a different option of how to deal with it, I would argue something like “ oh you know I understand and see your point, but for quite sometime now women have been able to do research as well, to be inventors themselves so in my opinion if it would be as simple as you put: patriarchy, I believe that we would by now have more options, since women do have more power and participation doing research, phd s and etc. From what I see is not quite so simple. As a matter of fact the inventor of the feminine pill also started back then researching about a male contraceptive, without success.”
if I am not mistaken, this answer would go more for a philosopher frame, trying to add some context. I don’t know if it would be worth it though, as ideologically passionate people can get triggered by the simple fact of you not agreeing with them. 🙆🏻♀️
Thank you Irina, I did not know that fact about the invention of the pill.
Yeah, (rational) free thinkers understand each other regardless of the sex.
if I am not mistaken, this answer would go more for a philosopher frame, trying to add some context. I don’t know if it would be worth it though, as ideologically passionate people can get triggered by the simple fact of you not agreeing with them. 🙆🏻♀️
I think the 3 of us reached the same conclusion. But that's a good thing it means it's probably the way to go.
PS: all the best with the babies :)
Hello, John, Serena
So, JB strikes again... Haha
John, congratulations on your new girlfriend! I feel happy for you.
Agree with you, John and Serena. Really petty. I feel it's quite difficult nowadays to share different perspectives, even among friends. It very often leads to name calling, finger pointing... And what's the point of all that?
I also think we arrived at the same conclusion. I agree with what you both suggest: throw some meat into the conversation fire, express our points of view (which I feel is also an ingredient of good friendships. And if people reject them aggressively, it's also important intel about them), and as soon as it gets combative/devolves into a shame attack, it's time to drop the discussion and fly higher.
Serena, it feels great to interact with another Brazilian in the forum! Congratulations on the baby girls and the marriage! Hope to read more from you around here, when you have time.
Hello Kavalier,
to me the point of all that is feeling superior, important and powerful. That is ego, status, being right and pushing others down. That’s why I believe that ideologies only serve a political agenda not the truth. It’s about winning not finding the truth.
Personally I have a different approach: I would not get into a political conversation with anyone now. I will share my true thoughts and feelings with the people I trust to share certain values: for instance respect and the quest for truth. So I’ll be more reserved about my opinions from now on. Throwing the meat means that the conversation has already been set up as adversarial. If we did not notice the other person’s negative intention then it’s fine to step back. Ideally I think one would know beforehand if the person is a friend or not. A friend would be respectful and listen to the other person’s point of view. There could be ego but the person would react differently. For instance in my case JB blamed his reaction and anger on alcohol. He did not apologize for attacking me (I listened to you you did not listen to me: which was wrong).
So to me it’s about identifying the persons we can have open conversations and share, exchange and test ideas. And those with whom we cannot. It can happen we misidentify and then have to step back but the best option for me is not to step into these conversations without knowing the other person’s intentions and POV. That is listening and observing.
We let them speak and go: “it’s an interesting point of view, thanks for sharing” with a genuine smile as we can be grateful for it without agreeing and without stepping in an arena full of traps.
