Just today my coworker told me he used to step up to other people with his friends anytime he thought they needed. One day his girlfriend at the time told him when he did that, it made her afraid of him. He says that has stuck with him to this day and he avoids that sort of thing now whenever he can.
@@Nerobyrne She was afraid of the violence. Also it put her at risk just by being there. Violence like that is a lot scarier when you're the one who is much smaller and not nearly as physically powerful
The sweet sweet appeal of forcing the world to yield through cruelty. Something about using the master's tools to dismantle the master's estate comes to mind with this conversation.
This idea that men are in control of some internal monster that he can train to attack when our women and children are threatened by an outsider is archaic and a very unsustainable way to live, and it's immensely terrifying to her to be around him. My father is this exact human, even though I think he hated himself for it, he did not keep the monster in check well, and it caused so many attachment issues in my family that it's safer and wiser to get away from him than to be near him (he has explosive anger that is very deranged, absolutely no ability to regulate it and "controls" himself with mental self harm). I'm certain he has a severe mood disorder that was never diagnosed, and my mother has an extreme anxiety disorder that she never addressed, and I seem to have both. The difference is that I pay attention to when I'm swinging into turbulent moods and mental psychosis before it becomes a full blown problem, but it does not make me feel closer to anyone and I am very reclusive when I'm in this state, just like my parents chose to be. Repressing anger because you cannot regulate it is not something to be proud of, it's something you need support for to learn how to regulate out of the system.
@Nerobyrne adrenaline isn't a "monster" that remains caged, it's a natural hormone released when the need to fight or flee is invoced by danger. This is not something that we consciously need to keep in our minds eye to release when necessary, it just happens when danger is present, no need to think about it as it's a response from the body, not the brain. I have fortunately never been in a life and death situation with anyone I love, but if I was, I'm certain I could rise to the occasion to protect them.
I grew up in my grandfather's house; he was a Baptist minister, and I was treated kindly for his sake. Coming of age was a rude awakening. I mostly found that young men I thought I knew well enough to be alone with behaved very differently when they thought no one was watching and it would be their word against mine. Not giving in to sexual blackmail, the thing that astonished me was they thought we would go back to being friends and trusting each other. As if. I NEVER had anyone rush to my defense. I finally trained in martial arts earning a black belt in Tae Kwan Doe. A friend from high school told me he found that intimidating. I said it was defensive, and all that it really meant was that nothing was going to be happening without my permission....which is as it should be. I think things will only change if we stop raising our daughters to be victims of any young man willing to try to take advantage of them. If most young women knew a martial art and could defend themselves...young men would treat them with more respect. I also think that we need to teach consent. Nothing less than an enthusiastic "YES!" should be acceptable. Will young men accept this? I highly doubt it. Given the sky high rates on rape...they've enjoyed having things their way. Why should they change? Women are changing. I think we are in the midst of a global reassessment of male/female relations. and men are not going to have choice about not changing.
Truism: *the right actions for the wrong reasons **_reinforces_** the wrong reasons.* This rule helps cut through most BS and is an excellent foundational core belief.
One of the things we discussed once talking about sin and ethics was a situation where you have a dying patient who isn't aware of it and is precarious enough that the shock of telling them might cause their death. The doctor tells you this and you have to decide whether to tell the patient or not. If the patient dies, you inherit a large sum of money. Good reasons but different outcomes 1) You tell the patient so they have time to prepare or finish something that they wish to do before death. 2) You don't tell the patient so that they are comfortable and unworried instead of stressed that they are not improving. Bad intentions but different outcomes 1) You tell the patient in hopes that the shock will kill them and you inherit right away. 2) You don't tell the patient in case they planned on changing their will or making some other change detrimental to you.
I agree that de-escalating is certainly the better option (if possible). But I can't take much issue with standing up against bullying and against those who cause harm, and doing whatever necessary to protect oneself and others. There are miles of difference between self-defence and being an aggressor (although intentionally escalating probably blurs the line). In such a situation, I'd be less concerned about what contributes to which stereotype, and more concerned about what is most likely to lead to the best outcome of protecting myself and others. That said, I'd likely be fairly useless in a fight, I don't look very intimidating, and I'm autistic, so trying to look intimidating is probably especially unlikely to lead to the best outcome.
@@JCArules13 No, he's pointing out a perceived issue in the argument. Why are men using violence to protect such damsel in distress in this made up scenerio are immediately considered violent men which that damsel needs protection from? Those are extraordinary situations, like women lifting cars to take out their babies from beneath. It doesn't mean that suddenly violence is the first response for them for any situation that upsets them, it only means that in that situation they deemed it necessary. For example, if you have a friend, let's say drugged out of their mind (roofied), and some stranger is leading them somewhere, and they don't stop or care when you ask them politely "hey, please leave them alone", you gotta take your friend physically from their hands. And that will result in a fight and violence, obviously. It doesn't mean you're violent, it means you cared enough to risk injury or death just to make sure they're safe, and that safety was more important to you than an unbruised skin of the perpetrator.
I've been bullied by, and have seen others bullied by men in front of their own girlfriends and the women either join in and laugh or shrug their shoulders at his victim. As long as the target isn't her, a woman doesn't give a shit how her man treats others.
He bullies her at home, Hoss. She gets a break when they're in public & he's bullying someone else. It's not right, but neither is men abusing his wife/gf or members of the public in the first place, and how is she going to stop him in public if she can't stop him at home? Blame the problem, not the victim.
Are you truly so deluded that you think this is ALL women or that they never hold men to account? There are women who have let their men for being trolls on reddit, ffs. Over half the population is not a monolith. We're f'd up humans just like you. Too many guys think women are one way after some bad interactions, but once mens role in society get scrutiny it's #notallmen Now look at yourself, is that you? Are men all alike?
Just today my coworker told me he used to step up to other people with his friends anytime he thought they needed. One day his girlfriend at the time told him when he did that, it made her afraid of him. He says that has stuck with him to this day and he avoids that sort of thing now whenever he can.
So his GF felt threatened by him being helpful?
Wtf
@@Nerobyrne She was afraid of the violence. Also it put her at risk just by being there. Violence like that is a lot scarier when you're the one who is much smaller and not nearly as physically powerful
@@HaleyJo1992 I guess being shamed is better than causing fear
The sweet sweet appeal of forcing the world to yield through cruelty.
Something about using the master's tools to dismantle the master's estate comes to mind with this conversation.
This idea that men are in control of some internal monster that he can train to attack when our women and children are threatened by an outsider is archaic and a very unsustainable way to live, and it's immensely terrifying to her to be around him. My father is this exact human, even though I think he hated himself for it, he did not keep the monster in check well, and it caused so many attachment issues in my family that it's safer and wiser to get away from him than to be near him (he has explosive anger that is very deranged, absolutely no ability to regulate it and "controls" himself with mental self harm). I'm certain he has a severe mood disorder that was never diagnosed, and my mother has an extreme anxiety disorder that she never addressed, and I seem to have both. The difference is that I pay attention to when I'm swinging into turbulent moods and mental psychosis before it becomes a full blown problem, but it does not make me feel closer to anyone and I am very reclusive when I'm in this state, just like my parents chose to be. Repressing anger because you cannot regulate it is not something to be proud of, it's something you need support for to learn how to regulate out of the system.
That monster is called "adrenaline".
You'll understand if you ever have a loved one in danger.
@Nerobyrne adrenaline isn't a "monster" that remains caged, it's a natural hormone released when the need to fight or flee is invoced by danger. This is not something that we consciously need to keep in our minds eye to release when necessary, it just happens when danger is present, no need to think about it as it's a response from the body, not the brain. I have fortunately never been in a life and death situation with anyone I love, but if I was, I'm certain I could rise to the occasion to protect them.
I grew up in my grandfather's house; he was a Baptist minister, and I was treated kindly for his sake.
Coming of age was a rude awakening. I mostly found that young men I thought I knew well enough to be alone with behaved very differently when they thought no one was watching and it would be their word against mine.
Not giving in to sexual blackmail, the thing that astonished me was they thought we would go back to being friends and trusting each other. As if.
I NEVER had anyone rush to my defense.
I finally trained in martial arts earning a black belt in Tae Kwan Doe.
A friend from high school told me he found that intimidating.
I said it was defensive, and all that it really meant was that nothing was going to be happening without my permission....which is as it should be.
I think things will only change if we stop raising our daughters to be victims of any young man willing to try to take advantage of them.
If most young women knew a martial art and could defend themselves...young men would treat them with more respect.
I also think that we need to teach consent. Nothing less than an enthusiastic "YES!" should be acceptable.
Will young men accept this? I highly doubt it. Given the sky high rates on rape...they've enjoyed having things their way. Why should they change?
Women are changing. I think we are in the midst of a global reassessment of male/female relations. and men are not going to have choice about not changing.
I'd like to add thank you for your posts. I find them thoughtful and fair-minded.
Do you think it's a good sign that I find it attractive if a woman is stronger than me?
Truism: *the right actions for the wrong reasons **_reinforces_** the wrong reasons.*
This rule helps cut through most BS and is an excellent foundational core belief.
One of the things we discussed once talking about sin and ethics was a situation where you have a dying patient who isn't aware of it and is precarious enough that the shock of telling them might cause their death. The doctor tells you this and you have to decide whether to tell the patient or not. If the patient dies, you inherit a large sum of money.
Good reasons but different outcomes
1) You tell the patient so they have time to prepare or finish something that they wish to do before death.
2) You don't tell the patient so that they are comfortable and unworried instead of stressed that they are not improving.
Bad intentions but different outcomes
1) You tell the patient in hopes that the shock will kill them and you inherit right away.
2) You don't tell the patient in case they planned on changing their will or making some other change detrimental to you.
"Tomie" by Junji Ito is more relevant by the day.
Seriously!
Nice Always Sunny reference that is VERY relevant here!!!
I agree that de-escalating is certainly the better option (if possible). But I can't take much issue with standing up against bullying and against those who cause harm, and doing whatever necessary to protect oneself and others. There are miles of difference between self-defence and being an aggressor (although intentionally escalating probably blurs the line).
In such a situation, I'd be less concerned about what contributes to which stereotype, and more concerned about what is most likely to lead to the best outcome of protecting myself and others.
That said, I'd likely be fairly useless in a fight, I don't look very intimidating, and I'm autistic, so trying to look intimidating is probably especially unlikely to lead to the best outcome.
You’re missing the point.
@@JCArules13 No, he's pointing out a perceived issue in the argument. Why are men using violence to protect such damsel in distress in this made up scenerio are immediately considered violent men which that damsel needs protection from? Those are extraordinary situations, like women lifting cars to take out their babies from beneath. It doesn't mean that suddenly violence is the first response for them for any situation that upsets them, it only means that in that situation they deemed it necessary.
For example, if you have a friend, let's say drugged out of their mind (roofied), and some stranger is leading them somewhere, and they don't stop or care when you ask them politely "hey, please leave them alone", you gotta take your friend physically from their hands. And that will result in a fight and violence, obviously. It doesn't mean you're violent, it means you cared enough to risk injury or death just to make sure they're safe, and that safety was more important to you than an unbruised skin of the perpetrator.
@@tymondabrowski12Well put.
No being healthy is.
I'd love to hear your opinions on decolonial approaches to gender
I've been bullied by, and have seen others bullied by men in front of their own girlfriends and the women either join in and laugh or shrug their shoulders at his victim. As long as the target isn't her, a woman doesn't give a shit how her man treats others.
He bullies her at home, Hoss. She gets a break when they're in public & he's bullying someone else. It's not right, but neither is men abusing his wife/gf or members of the public in the first place, and how is she going to stop him in public if she can't stop him at home? Blame the problem, not the victim.
Are you truly so deluded that you think this is ALL women or that they never hold men to account? There are women who have let their men for being trolls on reddit, ffs. Over half the population is not a monolith. We're f'd up humans just like you.
Too many guys think women are one way after some bad interactions, but once mens role in society get scrutiny it's #notallmen
Now look at yourself, is that you? Are men all alike?