Anonymous #1 19h

Yeah came here to say this, “not all men” is a true statement and idk why that is the one that deserves attacking. Plenty of valid targets here

6

Anonymous #1 18h

Even if you don’t do it yourself, if you’re silent when you’re bros do shit, then you’re just as much of a problem. Not all men rape but a lot play bystander, victim blame, shame, and commit sexual conquest. It’s about the culture not the just act.

6

Anonymous #1 18h

And you can be as pissy as you like, that’s just the reality. World is changing for the better. Get with the times or don’t and reap what you sow

1

Anonymous #1 18h

Most rape doesn’t happen in frats either. Doesn’t mean they don’t foster rape culture

5

Anonymous .gaia. 18h

Dude what? How tf am I being pissy? I just said that not all men is a true statement (let me know if you disagree with that) and that there are plenty of other valid issues in this space to talk about. Why attack me over that with such vitriol?

1

Anonymous #2 18h

Cause I’m the last person who’s gonna defend frat culture in any capacity, I abhor the entire Greek life institution and its complicity with abuse. I’m just saying that there are men out there who not only don’t abuse folks themselves, but also speak out when they see abuse. What do you hope to gain by insisting that all men are immoral abusers/bystanders? Don’t you think that such a sweeping claim might be counterproductive by alienating people?

1

Anonymous #2 18h

I mean like right here, I agree with you on like 98% of this and you’re jumping down my throat cause I want to make the point that there are -some- good men. What’s the aim here?

2

Anonymous .gaia. 18h

Once again you said a lot. So still not all men!

7

Anonymous #1 17h

you are also part of the problem though, by trying to avoid the fundamental point of the post to needlessly push a “not all men” rebuttal. No one claimed it was every single man, you’re just fixating on that to avoid addressing how common rape is amongst frats and how nearly every fraternity member is complicit by not reporting their brothers who are guilty of said crimes.

5

Anonymous #3 17h

sometimes we need to just actually discuss the issues in society, instead of redirecting the conversation into defensiveness.

4

Anonymous #2 17h

didn’t .gaia. respond to #1, instead of you?

4

Anonymous #2 17h

it’s because the “not all men”, despite being true, is mostly used as a means to redirect the conversation and avoid discussing the actual topic at hand. everyone knows it isn’t every single man guilty of this shit, but when you feel the need to bring that up every single time the statistical prevalence of rape amongst men (and defenses of rape) are brought up, it feels less like a genuine reminder, and more like a disingenuous method to muddy the conversation.

5

Anonymous #3 17h

like see how this whole convo became focused on the “not all men” part rather than the fucking prevalence of rape within fraternities, and how common it is for frat members to defend their brothers who are rapists?

8

Anonymous #3 17h

Because when you insist against reason that we should constantly use the language of “all men” and berate people who ask why you can’t just say “most men”, you are alienating people and there is a cost there. I mean I said myself that there are countless valid things to talk about here, almost everything Gia said was valid (and I’d be happy to talk about it), but I think there’s nothing to gain and everything to lose by insisting on using the “all men” line

-2

Anonymous #2 17h

Because what do we hope to accomplish? We could say “most men”, which is the closest to reality and could create a framework of showing people that the issue is huge, but that there are some good men and that you should strive to be one of them, and should push your male friends to be one of those good men too. But the alternative? People know “all men” isn’t accurate. And where do the good men see themselves in that equation? What motivates them to change? Should we expect good men to be ok wi

0

Anonymous #2 17h

With being called rapists and abusers when they really aren’t?

0

Anonymous #2 17h

I get that people with bad motivations try to downplay the issue, it happens and it sucks. I just don’t get what’s lost by leaving space for acknowledging the good men who are out there and who are trying to make positive change. They want to be allies

0

Anonymous #2 17h

how many times must me and OP both acknowledge that it’s not all men, for you to get your head out of your ass and actually discuss the prevalence of rape? just making up bullshit to get upset about in order to avoid the actual topic of discussion.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

it’s genuinely fucking psychotic, and it’s why I said you’re also part of the problem. this is complicity. you’re more focused on your own perceived victimhood rather than the fucking rapists running amuck in our society.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

actually apologies, I said that to 1 and was mistakenly thinking you were 1 at first, but in all honesty my remark stands. we’ve repeatedly acknowledged that it’s not all men, what’s being criticized is how that phrase is used to disingenuously redirect the conversation; even if it’s already been acknowledged that not all men are directly rapists themselves.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

Once? Once would be nice. I mean that’s why I commented, OP directly discounted the idea of “not all men” being valid. And I know it’s hard to know people’s intentions over an anonymous short form app but I promise you can and should talk about the abuse itself and how to address it, as well as what language we should use to be strategic about how we refer to and involve men. Because they’re half of the equation.

1

Anonymous #2 17h

I’m a huge advocate myself, I’m constantly educating other men in my life. I’m happy to answer any questions about where I stand on my acknowledgement of this as a massive under appreciated issue. It is because I have these conversations with other men that I see how harmful the insistence on keeping the term “all men” is. Would it be so harmful to simply say most men instead of something like what Gia said here?

0

Anonymous #2 17h

see how you’re STILL fixating on that perceived victimhood rather than the actual important topic of the prevalence of rape and how to combat it? despite both me and OP affirming that it is not all men in discussion. if you’d like, I can even screenshot and highlight exactly where.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

actually, here you go.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

Can we try to be specific here so we don’t misunderstand each other? I’m not saying I’m a victim, nor that men are in any significant number. I’m not saying the term “all men” creates even a fraction of the harm that abuse itself does. I hope that’s obvious but it’s worth saying. I’m glad Gia rephrased it in the comments to say that not all men rape, but my point is that it shouldn’t take a request to rephrase it to a more honest statement. There’s harm in using the “all men” line so religiously

0

Anonymous #2 17h

Cause I agree that most people when pressed will clarify that they didn’t actually mean all men. My point is, why not just say that first? Instead of saying all men and then clarifying that you actually mean some men? What is strategically gained by saying all men first?

0

Anonymous #2 17h

Thanks for the photos, I know Gia gave the clarification that they didn’t actually mean all men when they said all men. I still have my question about why hang onto the phrase at all though

0

Anonymous #2 17h

can we focus on the topic of discussion instead of this bullshit you’re invoking to avoid addressing rape? you now know that everyone here is on the same page about “not all men are rapists”, so are you ready to engage with the actual post’s content with a genuine manner? or are you going to keep disingenuously focusing on this idiotic and malicious semantic argument of yours? and normally I would apologize for my aggression, but this is utterly ridiculous; fuck that.

1

Anonymous #2 17h

and I’m curious about why you’re still fixated on this nonsensical semantic argument? as I stated, it appears that your perceived victimhood is apparently more important of a topic than the prevalence of rape and how to combat it. otherwise this would’ve been over the second you realized that your assumptions were wrong, and that OP actually does recognize that it isn’t every single man.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

I mean I understand the frustration because a lot of people talking about this are doing so in bad faith, but I genuinely don’t understand what I’ve done to make you so mad. Besides maybe being someone who wants to talk about the language which you might find unimportant.

0

Anonymous #2 17h

oh my fucking god.

1

Anonymous #2 17h

Because again, I agree with you, the vast majority of the conversation should be about the abuse and the victims, not the language used to refer to men. That being said tho it also isn’t true that we should never talk about the language used, it is worth some conversation. Because language is important for getting people involved with social change and men are half of society. If we want change it’s worth thinking about the language we use.

0

Anonymous #2 16h

So in the most genuine way possible, can we do both as I said above? I’m happy to discuss any part of the abuse issue, I know it’s massive and significant. I honestly don’t know how to make that any more clear. But I also do think it is worth talking about the language used, specifically the harm of that phrase. So I’d love to discuss both

0

Anonymous #2 16h

and yet you still continue? it seems like you are the bad faith person in question, despite attempting to dispel suspicion by claiming to criticize individuals who approach this topic in bad faith. we are waiting on you to actually address the topic of the post, rather than your bullshit argument rooted in semantics in which you’re not even correct; it’s been repeatedly established that your initial assumptions (rooted in defensiveness as well) were fundamentally false.

1

Anonymous #3 16h

and I will tell you right now, if you do not address the actual topic of the post in your next comment, this little “conversation” is over. enough is enough.

2

Anonymous #2 16h

Didn’t comment to you

5

Anonymous #3 16h

Yer

5

Anonymous #2 16h

See how you constantly frame yourself as a victim, as so many men do, when the ones being raped are the victims.

5

Anonymous #1 16h

Your attitude tells me all I need to know.

5

Anonymous #3 16h

Yes!

5

Anonymous #3 16h

And it’s an example of how men are taught to just blindly defend other men, even hypothetical ones, with every bone in their body in the face of any criticism. They’re just doing the age old dance

3

Anonymous #3 16h

This conversation is over as soon as you are done having it, I’m not here to bully or force anyone into having a conversation. I truly mean no offense or ill will but if you are picking that up anyway you are more than welcome to leave the conversation.

1

Anonymous #2 16h

Because I’m trying my best to address it but I’m not sure what else I can say, I’ve already said how I agree with everything the post said besides the last part. What is there to talk about when we completely agree? How much I also believe fraternities are abhorrent institutions that shouldn’t exist? How much I agree that this is a uniquely American problem? Not trying to be difficult I just genuinely don’t see where that conversation goes, lmk if you have an answer to that

1

Anonymous #2 16h

Which is why I wanted to talk about both, the issue itself which is obviously more important (despite as I said above, my not knowing where the conversation would go or what it would do given that we agree) and the language used, which is where we disagree and therefore have something to talk about

1

Anonymous #2 16h

So I do have questions about the latter part that I’d love to talk about. But again if you are uninterested you don’t have to. I think it’s important but you are entitled to disagree with me there

1

Anonymous #3 16h

I love when I bring up rape and men just respond in defense over semantics. They know exactly what we mean when we say these things and they know the implications. It’s just too uncomfortable for them to realize that rape culture is so pervasive because it threatens their entire way of socializing with other men

3

Anonymous .gaia. 16h

Ah yeah you right my b, I did misread who that was directed to. But like I said to 3, I agree with everything your post said besides the last 5 words. I’m more than happy to talk about how much I agree with your post and why, although I’m not sure what that conversation would accomplish. I would genuinely love to have a conversation about the utility of the phrase “not all men” if you care to have a conversation about it

1

Anonymous .gaia. 16h

I mean I responded below with my confusion about how I can strike up conversation on things we entirely agree on. I’d love to talk about the impact of certain language choices if you feel like discussing it, also happy to talk about the meat of your post if you know what we have to discuss there

1

Anonymous #2 15h

There isn’t much to talk about. Not all men is a cop out used to redirect conversation from the topic at hand and make it unproductive. Engaging any more than this is a waste of time. It’s a bad faith argument over semantics

1

Anonymous .gaia. 15h

That’s a shame. As someone who cares deeply about this issue it’s honestly pretty disappointing to see you and 3 carry yourselves this way. You were both enthusiastic about having a conversation as long as you could slander me and berate me for being some sort of rapist sympathizer but when it became too obvious that I’m not that, you didn’t care to have a discussion. I’m more interested in finding solutions than I am winning upvotes by being mean, it’s a shame that you don’t seem to be.

1

Anonymous #2 15h

I had some of my meat eating friends talk to me about the language I use as a vegetarian and it honestly helped me make more inroads with those folks than I would’ve made if I had stayed using language that alienated the people I hoped to change. Language that didn’t win me anything. As someone who is seeking positive change on the issue of abuse, it seems entirely obvious that language is worth being strategic about there too. As it is with any other crime category.

1

Anonymous #2 15h

It’s not a bad faith argument as myself and likely you have seen firsthand all the issues the term creates and still you can’t explain what benefits it brings to our movement. Bringing harm to our movement without any benefit to point to really shows a focus on yy engagement, not pragmatism aimed at creating change.

1