Tim Pylypiuk wants this to be another safe haven for reasoned discussion.
In my active moments during the gender debate, I’ve witnessed another moulding of the discourse as it gets re-shaped into an inclusive, symbiotic form. The significance of this metamorphosis is immeasurable, its impact cuts across the landscape and parts tensions like the red seas.
Egalitarian spokeswomen and men for the feminist movement emerge, en masse, from their corners of the tent and are finding the courage to wield their values for both paradigms. They refuse to be drowned at by the vocal majority of their circle while responding to all concerns. They deserve kudos, especially for walking the line between women’s and men’s issues.
They brave the fires obstructing the image of their starters, push through and risk skin melting singe to reach out with a Samaritan heart to touch their injured cores. As they themselves erect their walls fuelled by similar pain.
Having been singed myself, the aftermath has got me considering something; pain can only go so far before we end up rendering the purity, the realness of our forms, unrecognizable. Even I have been telling myself, “Where is this really getting us save for tarred complexions matching our catatonic hearts.”
Then the idea came to me. Just as “Survivor’s Tales” and its haven here welcomed all whom have been wronged by women, I’ve intended to create a similar haven for those egalitarian feminists to congregate and increase their voices. They will feel validated for their empathy they’d shown for men, for true equality.
To those feminists out there, I part my firewall and have its flames encircle us so you don’t get burnt. In turn, please do the same. That way, we’ll read our natural forms, unencumbered by soot, ash, and reddened skin. Where the opportunity to self-reflect truly lies.
But this forum also has questions to ask, issues troubling the male survivor. If I were to hear more from you on them, then it’d do me good in the end as the experiences here sweep aside past negatives. So I wouldn’t feel afraid of spending time in your movement, having to look over my shoulder for those who desire to invalidate me inhabiting the same vicinity.
In return, I’ll offer you reprieve from your frustrations. This jiltedness and jadedness you succumb to on your worst days when stating your values and beliefs in opposition. You won’t need to feel it here.
If you accept my invitation, here’s my first challenge upon having read the above screed.
Please read “Bullied by Girls and Women: One Man’s Account”, “My Guilt”, and “Smoke, Mirrors, and Earthquakes: On Being A Male Survivor”, all available here and written by me. Understand where the pain comes from, its core, then offer a detailed opinion on every facet in the comments section.
Thank you. I shall soon return with more questions and issues.
Until then, enjoy the haven.
—Photo Ben Sutherland/Flickr
About Tim Pylypiuk
Quick comment: it might be nice if the bios mentioned people’s GMP handles when they are different from the author’s name.
Rapses – you see a Safe Haven and start by being Moronic in an attempt to deprive everyone of oxygen!
feminism (ˈfɛmɪˌnɪzəm) noun – a doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women .
e·gal·i·tar·i·an -adjective – asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life.
Combing the words you get Egalitarian Feminist – which is anything but an Oxymoron – a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”
You are as usual taking the unhelpful extreme views and conduct of the few and applying it to the many.
It would be an an oxymoron if you used the term “misandrist egalitarian feminist” to describe an “egalitarian feminist”.
Do you know how to spell Stereotype – it may be easier for you to get right in future? P^)
It might be an oxymoron if feminism were defined as a marxist critique of gender roles, on the basis that a relationship between oppressor and oppressed isn’t equitable.
But I agree, its not useful to throw the egalitarian baby out with the supremacist bathwater.
Well lets have a look at the use of phobia shall we? Homophobia – http://www.reference.com/browse/Homophobia
If it was so fixed we could all just be getting on the being gay – and usage would be unalterable! P^)
-ism does not imply an absolute rule, and as with all lexicographical definitions you have both Absolute definition and also common usage. Just because something has supposed fixed latin roots does not mean it’s meaning is absolute. If that was the case Appendix would always mean an adjunct to a legal document and that vestigial organ in the Iliac fossa would be fixedly known as the vermix.
Language plasticity is recognised by lexicographers, which is why they spend so much time updating dictionaries – removing or deprecating the obsolete – updating common usage – and even introducing and qualifying new terms which have been invented by us pesky language users.
If language was as fixed as you present – you wouldn’t go “blogging” “Tweeting” and your “surfing” habits would mean you had to be wet and using a plank! P^)
Now be nice and leave the camp-fire alone!
I want this to be between me and Egalitarian Feminists like Jasmine and Joanna. Whatever your belife system is, they are at least trying to understand the other side.
And no, I don’t give a darn about what you term as Egalitarian or whether it’s sufficient a moniker or not. This is not what the haven is about.
If you’re going to debate the merits of the term “Egalitarian” or judge who fits the term, there are other threads for that. Keep out of this one if that is your intention.
I’m here to discuss things with these Egalitarian feminists.
For all Egalitarian Feminists, here’s your introductory discussion:
Read the articles I linked to. Then discuss them.
Thank you.
First, Tim, I am incredibly honored to have been invited to this discussion! I feel very heard and validated, and I want you to know that I really admire what you’re doing here.
I iterate Joanne’s sentiment. Thank you so much for inviting discussion. Your experiences moved me to tears, and I appreciate you providing a platform in which feminists and male victims can work together. I think this is so important. The way you tell your experiences really fits in with my theories on feminism and how we, as a culture, need to work toward equality for males and females by tearing down these perceptions of males as impervious to victimhood, and the perceived impossibility of female as aggressor.
I guess the biggest question I have, and I’m working a little with someone else on this, is this:
What do you do when you can see that the ideological gap between yourself and another person is probably too large to bridge and come to a point where you agree?
How do you handle that? The old paradigm, “Agree to disagree” seems to fall short. We feel very emotionally invested in our causes. I wish the men could see that feminism is necessary, that women are still being systematically repressed *in some ways* and that work needs to be done by all of us to bridge this.
I also wish the men could see that all feminists are not out to hurt them, or even to “win”. Some of us want to be heard and we want to hear you. Even if we don’t agree, it doesn’t mean we aren’t listening. I assume this is something that you guys feel as well, that you wish that some feminists would just f’ing LISTEN for once. Even if we won’t agree.
Joanna, there’s a lot of reasons in regards to the questions you pose.
These will be addressed in further questions I have for you.
In the meantime, we’ll wait and see if more egalitarians such as you and Joanna will come and take the first challenge I pose in the opening article.
Edit: I mean you and Jasmine. Sorry.
Joanna, I think the egalitarian feminists joining together with power and impact, rising to the top of the popularity amongst feminist sites is very much needed. I’d probably have a triple section place, Equalism, Feminism and Masculism so we could have crossgender discussions in the equalism area, and the more gendered stuff in each subgroup. Articles could be discussed in all 3 sections to stop derailing on one genders issues so we can stick to specific gender problems, like the male side of rape or poverty, female side, and the third article would be how poverty affects us all.
That’d be the dream site, I truly think it would be a great place if it was popular enough as everyone could be catered for. More subgroups could be added if/as needed. Maybe we need a good human project:P
As for what you do when the groups differ so much? Discuss the issues that get common ground and find others to debate the other issues with, fighting doesn’t help. There are certain feminists and masculists I do not get along with and really can’t stand to be around and they have a common issue, “I suffer the most, their issues are meaningless until mine are fixed!”. I view this world from an egalitarian point, as humans before gender, we’re all in desperate need of change to fix some of the horrors of this planet and I am finally glad to know some egalitarians!
I think egalitarian feminists are mra’s, black rights, etc as well as feminists and same goes for the egalitarian Mra’s. Will there be a time where the feminist and mra label is even needed? I am neither but I advocate for the rights of both, I think Princess Free Zone is awesome along side The Achilles Effect, I love reading about good men and women of all races n creeds but I myself don’t really like labels since they pigeonhole you into what the other person believes about that label. I am me!
The thing that I’ve noticed recently is that it seems that the internet has a large amount of ‘feminist’ voices that are not at all representative of the feminists I know or feminism ideology as I know it. I hadn’t noticed this before because I rarely read comment sections on articles. And I think that because the internet is such a rapid way to transmit opinions, information, and ideas, that perhaps these feminists have even more defined the movement than they had prior to the internet age (although, within feminism, it seems that that extreme has always defined the movement at the cultural level).
I appreciate your sentiment. Archy, about labels. I agree, that sometimes these labels pigeonhole us because of what others believe about them. That’s why I’m careful when adopting labels. But for me, even though with it comes a great deal of prejudice, I choose to call myself a feminist because the core of the movement, the theoretical underpinnings, work for me. Also, I’m beginning to wonder if feminism in the US is somehow dramatically different from the feminism that is practiced by women I know, because what I’ve heard of men’s experiences with feminism on this site, are not at all congruent with anything I’ve seen or experienced. So perhaps there are also cultural differences at play, here.
Hopefully more like you popup and overthrow the current filth that dares to use the name and use it harmfully. Lookup something called the Agent Orange files of radfemhub. It’s those feminists I want to see ostracized and cast out, their actions cause so much harm by representing feminism in a bad way. Seems anyone can identify as feminist, or mra, and say the most outrageous shit and dirty the name overall in many people who may not know the good egalitarians even exist.
Thank-you for helping to prove there is good in the movement, along with Joanna and others.
Archy,
I can’t help but wonder why people are more caught up being a good member of a certain group instead of a good member of the human species. I see that there is a lot of social pressure out there to conform, especially in the workplace. For my own experience, I work in the court system as a reporter who visits the civil clerks’ office, which seems to be made of only female workers, which means I can’t be my ideal gender-queer self and wear a suit and tie combo even though I have this abiding love for men’s suits. (Why is a funny question as I can’t seem to figure that out, but whatev, I am a weird human and accept that, haha).
Everything you write is so true. And I’d lurk the hell out of a site that gives equal weight to feminist and masculist issues as well as crossgender issues. Hell I might even comment there too.
The Good Human Project is a name that was running through my head today, oddly enough.
!”. I view this world from an egalitarian point, as humans before gender, we’re all in desperate need of change to fix some of the horrors of this planet…” This. Exactly this. And it’s good to meet men who are also egalitarian. Hello!
Also your rhetorical comment about a time when no labels would be needed is quite thought-provoking. That would be so amazing, to live in a society where no one was in danger of being objectified, raped, having their pain denied and erased, or just plain discriminated against because of their sex or gender. That is the best vision of heaven I’ve heard…far better than fluffy clouds and streets of gold, imnsho.
Off topic: Princess Free Zone and Achilles Effect are amazing blogs! Love them!
Your declaration “I am me!” also is win. It’s so easy to stereotype others, and even ourselves. Another ‘me’ moment incoming: for example, I sometimes catch myself standing all demure and shy around guys, and immediately make myself stop because that is one learned behaviour I desperately want to kick out of my nonverbal language dictionary.
Anyway: here is hope that dialogue can flow forth freely and bridges be built across chasms to connect us all. : )
I have both “liked” on facebook, I think it’s amazing PFZ girl (the daughter) is learning how to build and fix things, typically male roles. I love tinkering in the shed myself but I don’t mind doing other stuff like sewing, etc. I would love to know more people who don’t follow gender roles because they have to, women that can tinker in the shed, men who can sew or whatever the typically “female” stuff is. As long as they do it because they enjoy it, high 5 to them. Hell I even talk fashion with some of my friends, and cars with others.
What do you do when you can see that the ideological gap between yourself and another person is probably too large to bridge and come to a point where you agree?
You say that “agree to disagree” falls short but a lot of the times that’s the best you can get out of it. I was talking to someone about Hugo Schwyzer’s recent piece on facials with someone. After almost 1 1/2 of back and forth (she called it a total crock while I said it had some validity) we literally ended the conversation with agreeing to disagree. (A strong contrast to a later conversation where we were talking about female against male sexism. She calls it “prejudice” while I think calling it anything other than sexism is a cop out meant to grant women immunity on getting called on sexism. In the end we simply left it at the fact that we both acknowledge that the concept exists. Bridge gapped.)
I get your desire for something better than “agree to disagree” but unfortunately there are some gaps that can’t be bridged. Seems the best we can do is to work hard to ensure that those gaps don’t happen very often. If it makes you feel any better I think true unbridgable gaps are few and far between.
I wish the men could see that feminism is necessary, that women are still being systematically repressed *in some ways* and that work needs to be done by all of us to bridge this.
For a lot of us its not that feminism is not necessary and we can see that women are systematically repressed and oppressed. The problem is that there are a good number of people among feminists who have no problem running zero sum game tactics in order to help women (look at the recent threads on rape culture and the way folks like to erase the existence of male sexual assault victims).
And for me its not that feminism is necessary. Its that women’s empowerment is necessary. Sure feminism has made great strides towards that but that does not excuse the negativity that exists among them.
I also wish the men could see that all feminists are not out to hurt them, or even to “win”. Some of us want to be heard and we want to hear you. Even if we don’t agree, it doesn’t mean we aren’t listening. I assume this is something that you guys feel as well, that you wish that some feminists would just f’ing LISTEN for once. Even if we won’t agree.
Speaking from experience the reason its so hard to see that is because simply put the egalitarian voices are not as loud and prominent (or as widely accepted among the movement) as others. For example a lot of people (not just men) who have ill opinions of all feminists are going by personal experience with the likes of Shakesville, Twisty Faster, Feministe, etc… folks that get plenty of exposure. On the other hand folks like you are much harder to come by such as the fact I’ve never heard of you having any other precense outside of the borders of GMP while Marcotte is all over the place including here spitting her non-sense.
I’m reading these pieces from two different places – my feminist self, and my aspiring psychologist self. So as a feminist who is also training to become a psychologist, the story of your experiences pierces my heart. The thing about any institution (the profession of psychology included) is that they are part of the broader culture, and so as a student I face the same areas of resistance as I do as a feminist in the everyday world. In this sphere I am resisting the same notions of masculinity that allow male (and female) victims to be disbelieved. I am resisting the inherent hegemony that has contributed to psychological knowledge and allows for diagnoses to be used as a tool of oppression, or for therapists to uphold normative discourses that can be harmful to those on the periphery of normativity. (And trust me, I don’t think I’m overly popular with my ‘critical thinking’ that is always asked for in classroom discussions, but not so enthusiastically received).
As a feminist – one who adamantly believes in and upholds egalitarianism – I agree that girls/women who treat boys/men poorly are just as culpable as any male bully. Feminism doesn’t negate a woman’s bad behaviour. Inequality that women have experienced doesn’t excuse their bad behaviour toward males (or anyone). To suggest that your privilege as a White male negates your experience is unfathomable (and indicates a clear misunderstanding about the nature and function of privilege as transient; privilege is not unique to males – females, too, can hold privilege). And I want you to know that I hear your pain, I hear the effect this has had on you, and I acknowledge that you have been victimized by women, but also by a culture that has largely ignored a female’s capacity to be an aggressor, and an oppressor, and ignores that a male can be victimized by anyone other than another male.
I also am in complete agreeance with your assessment of popular media. In fact, I don’t have cable, because television gets me so irate that I go on lengthy diatribes about the awful depictions of the roles of males and females in television – the pervasive objectification of women to the near exclusion of any other trope (and the increased objectification of male bodies); the male aggressors; the female aggressors; pornification and violence in music videos; the men as bumbling idiot trope (particularly when it comes to parenting). All of these, and a myriad of other displays of gendered imagery gets me really upset. So I don’t watch television. And because I don’t watch television, it is difficult to speak to that aspect of media sometimes (I’ve watched television in the past, so I’ve got some point of reference, but I have very little knowledge of current popular media, so if I’m fumbling around in the dark here, forgive me). I think that strong female characters are good, female characters who have agency (outside of just their appearance and sexuality) and who are intelligent, and who are strong are greatly needed. But, just as I hate to see violence in media committed by males against other males or females, I hate to see the reverse – violence of females against other females or males. From what I remember, comedic shows often used violence against men by women to elicit laughs, as if it is somehow laughable that a woman could harm a man, and that her violence is inconsequential, funny even (which contributes, I believe, to victims like yourself who are not taken seriously because of who your aggressor was). This is not okay with me. This is not equality. Females who victimize males must be held culpable, just as males who victimize females must be. No questions about it.
When I say that I am a feminist, and that that means that I want equality for everybody, I really, truly mean equality for everyone. And part of this work, for me, has been in addressing the gender binary, because the gender binary can be insidious in a number of ways. It is the gender binary that maintains this discourse of women as victims, men as perpetrator and leaves male victims alone, ostracized, ignored, disbelieved, and even further traumatized by a culture that says he can’t have been a victim. It is this gender binary that doesn’t often hold female aggressors culpable, particularly when their victims are males. I think that masculinity and femininity can both be beautiful, but they can also both be harmful constructs, particularly when they are held to be dichotomous. We all possess masculine and feminine traits, and are socialized in a manner that tries to separate them, to make male and female polarities. And these divisions lead to inequalities like these.
And finally, I just want to touch on rape culture. I’ve not read this book or seen this film, so I can’t comment on it or its content. But what I can comment on is rape culture as I know and understand it, from an academic point of view. When I, as a feminist, talk about rape culture, there is no suggestion that all men are rapists. There is no suggestion that only females are victims. When I discuss rape culture I am discussing media representations and cultural expression – which frequently are of males as aggressors and females of victims, or of sex scenes in movies where the men are forceful, violent and the females are shown to enjoy and desire such treatment. Or music videos where women are commodities, males are objectifiers. There are a multitude of reasons why this ‘rape culture’ in media is detrimental – it suggests that males want sex and will take it, and that women who say no don’t really mean no. It provides these images to young males and females, adolescents just beginning to date and learning what it means to relate in grownup ways. But in addition to these implicit message, these depictions of male and female sexuality function in other ways – they do position males as aggressors and females as subjects of male desire. The implication here is twofold: males always went sex, and any (heterosexual) sex a male has, no matter the circumstance must be good sex precluding them as victims of sexual assault by women; secondly, females are passive subjects of sexuality so they cannot possibly be perpetrators of sexual assault, they can only be victims of male insatiability. Clearly rape culture benefits nobody. And these media representations permeate into the culture and into the behaviour and beliefs of the people around us (it’s actually more of a reciprocal relationship, with media reflecting cultural ideologies, and magnifying it). All of this impacts how we talk about victims, perpetrators, and sexual assault – rape culture. And this is something I actively resist in everyday life, as a graduate student in clinical psychology, and as a feminist activist.
Sorry, that was practically a dissertation.
I think using any term that has so many different interpretations like ‘rape culture’ is kind of pointless. Technical discussions need exact definitions otherwise you spend most of the time debating semantics.
Honestly, I’d never heard the term ‘rape culture’ used in any other way, until recently. I think that the term has been perverted through lay discussion, so I don’t think that it initially had so many interpretations; this is just the nature of language.
Like, for example, the term depression. It has been bastardized at the cultural level. People use it all the time to suggest that they are sad, or feeling down, but that isn’t at all what it means. So it is a technical term that is misunderstood at the cultural level. It doesn’t make it less useful in professional terms, though.
“Honestly, I’d never heard the term ‘rape culture’ used in any other way, until recently. I think that the term has been perverted through lay discussion, so I don’t think that it initially had so many interpretations; this is just the nature of language.”
yeah i read http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2008/01/10/deconstructing-rape-culture/ 4 years ago.
Its not that i want fixed definitions in general its just when talking about technical terms its best to have established definition. I guess this comes from a science background. And if we are going to discuss feminism and its effects or assumptions that egalitarian is synonymous with feminism we will just end up having an argument over semantics.
Also i think it contributes to feminists not noticing the sexist feminists around them. Instead of changing the words they use that would make them distinguishable they simply change the definitions of the words they use. They see the same texts you see but get a very different message than you get. Clear established definitions would also remove a lot of the misinterpretations of feminism that you are eager to stop.
As you say depression has many interpretations that is why there is a DSM.
Tim
Im not sure that the distinction between gynocentric feminist and egalitarian feminist is wwll known. Most gynocentric feminists imagine themselves to be egalitarian and are unaware of how gynocentric and misandric their beliefs are.
So perhaps a little clarification is in order?
Oh, sorry Male. You were merely suggesting.
But I can assure you, Joanna and Jasmine fit the definition of Egalitarian feminists.
If anyone requests a more concerete definition, here’s what I think:
Feminists who care and empathise for both sexes and are for equality and support for both as well. That includes the concerns of men in addition to women.
There. How’s that, male? I think it’s clear enough. I hope.
Guys, focus please.
Male, if you want to debate who fits the Egalitarian moniker, do it elsewhere. This haven is for discussion of specific questions between me and the Egalitarian feminists here.
Let’s stick with the first challenge.
Controlling much Tim?
Jeez.
Ok then Tim, exclude everyone baring yourself and any feminist that you label egalitarian depending on what the say in relation to your experience.
This is supposed to be a discussion haven regarding questions I have for Egalitarian feminists.
I’m not here to debate who is worthy of the egilatarian label.
No I’m not controlling either. Just trying to keep this discussion focused.
Joanna
Thanks for letting me know you’ve read two of the three articles thus far.
When you’ve responded with your take on them, I think we’ll move things forward from here.
As a person who spends far too much of her working hours on this site, I will try to keep this brief and not go into the details of my opinions on the specific articles you linked to. (Not until I’m off the clock, anyway.)
I just want to note the role of the Good Men Project (which I think I first discovered through a very female-oriented site, The Frisky – which I barely ever visit anymore!) in helping me identify where I fall on the spectrum of feminism. Through reading articles like the ones you’ve linked to (I think I’ve read at least two of them in the past already) and participating in the discussion, I have become more egalitarian – or rather, discovered that I was egalitarian to begin with but didn’t know I had to make the distinction to others. I feel the articles and discussions have prompted the self-examination and asking of hard questions that have helped me “narrow in” on my thoughts and positions. It’s not that I ever hated men or believed in the superiority of women or anything like that; I didn’t start off too far from where I am now. But I was pretty ignorant about female-on-male rape and fathers’ court rights, and I feel that having the opportunity to learn about these topics from others who know more than I do has been a major benefit.
So thank you, GMP and commenters, for your part in my shift towards egalitarian feminism.
Very glad to hear it. The more this happens, the more people will realize the divide and quit hating the whole. Thank-you
i often think that there are a majority of “egalitarian” types out there, but many folks aren’t actively political. They might not read blogs, agitate, or think much about femnism other than equal rights and reproductive issues. It’s when a regular type person comes into contact with some kind of tipping point issue/material etc that they have to readjust mindsets. That’s not always a comfortable thing to do.
I myself still hold pretty fierce opinions about things but what I’m finding is my issues are far more with things like systems and funding and lobbies (and the internal structures that get us to believe as we do) than particular issues on either side of the MRA/feminist divide.
All right, let’s give this forum another try.
To all Egalatarian Feminists here, another question:
Why did those feminists dismiss and minimilise my experiences as detailed in the article? What causes such a mindset to erase someone, paint over someone, because of their being a “White Male”? How do you combat such a mindset?
Seriously, I don’t get it to this day. So please answer succinctly.
I have no idea why the feminists you spoke with dismissed you, because I don’t know them, haven’t talked to them, haven’t asked them. The answers could range from-you were as confrontational as you believed they were and the exchange was off putting to they don’t believe in what you (or others were saying).
I’ll have a follow up in a moment.
I’ve read all your articles and again, I don’t know if the people who have dismissed you are dismissing you personally or your stories as trends. I think no one likes looking in the mirror at potential problems.
If the people you talked to never were bullied or bullied, they may not relate. I’ve had things in my life that no one can relate to.
In any regard, it seems clear to me that all human beings are able to cause great destruction (have the capability of causing) and have the capability to do good. It may express itself differently in the genders based on what social/culture structure is in place.
I also did as you requested, Eagle, and read the articles.
Damn. It was heartbreaking to read about being bullied by girls and having no one believe you and/or ridicule you for “letting” yourself be bullied by them. This shit about women being “sugar and spice and every thing nice” really has to go, because girls can be just as mean and nasty as boys. Not that I believe that boys are inherently mean and nasty, mind you, but they typically get portrayed that way in media. Kids in general can be so damn cruel.
I don’t want to derail anything, but quick “me” moment since I’m so good at them, haha: I was bullied by everyone in elementary and junior high because I was a chubby short kid with no aptitude for sports other than badminton. I had glasses and braces and was mercilessly teased for being a “cow” by boys and shunned and called “ugly” by girls. Hurt is hurt.
I especially liked your comments about how overly “independent girl power” female protagonists can damage females and males. Just the way many male protagonists in classic or older literature are criticized for perpetuating the idea that it is okay for men to be cruel to women or use them for sex, the female protagonists in novels who are not held accountable for being cruel to male characters make it seem okay for women to hurt men. Plus there is just this wrongful definition of men being attacked or hit in their privates as being “funny” (America’s Funniest Home Videos, I’m looking at you…), and the idea that it is acceptable when a female character hits a male character for doing or saying something the female character doesn’t like even though people would be up in arms if the sexes were reversed.
In fact there is this cultural idea that “real men do not hit women.” While I think the mantra was originally meant to fight IPV back when it was still considered a private issue for couples and families to hash out on their own, it’s very problematic when it comes to a man’s ability to defend himself against a woman who is hurting him. Couple that with the socially accepted script that men are always “stronger” than women and women are always “weaker” than men, and then men who are hurt and abused by women are subject to ridicule and denial of their pain and told to man up. At least from what I’ve seen. Which is utterly ridiculous, as a small slender man is probably not going to be able to defend himself well if a bigger woman decided to attack him. Or a group of women decided to attack him. Etc. Perhaps my female privilege of being (mostly) sure that I’ll be believed if someone hurts me is skewing my perception, though. :\ Thoughts? I welcome having my views aligned toward truth if they happen to be detouring off the main path.
Rambling post was rambling, but thank you for your courage in sharing your pain, and commitment to working beyond it to create a space of healing and togetherness.
I’ll definitely be lurking and maybe even posting more.