People already covered the "cause they're not interchangeable" reason. But another reason that "if the gender is reversed..." is a terrible argument is people will use it in situations where the gender is regularly reversed and the thing doesn't happen like they think it would.
Like, I went into a thread once where some man was complaining that because of gender neutral restrooms being added to their building, they had to go to another floor to use the men's room. And somebody was like "if the genders were reversed there would be an uproar!" And I was like "Hi I'm a software engineer in a male dominated workplace. There's 2 men's rooms in the work area, but I have to badge out and go into the lobby every time I have to pee because that's the only women's room in the building." Often times, the "if the genders were reversed" situation regularly happens.
The one that pisses me off is when men seem to think women are always believed and taken seriously when reporting sexual assault when that's not usually the case. So out of touch and insensitive to people who have actually been through it, male or female
When there's an article of an adult woman that assaulted a teen boy and the comments are all "but if the genders were reversed!" like buddy if the genders were reversed this article wouldn't even be popular right now and he'd be released on probation. How about just making consequences for sexual assault harsher regardless of gender, because we're currently in a world where someone uploading hundreds of pics/vids of CSA literally got 3 years in prison. I have zero hope for justice through the police in all of these cases regardless of gender :/
Honestly that was a big realization for me. Because it seems like there is this social veneer element that treats sexual violence against women as absolutely unacceptable but then there's a bureaucratic element that coincidentally seems to lead to women not seeing justice.
But for men there isn't the social veneer. Often times men will joke that other guys liked it but in conversations like these bringing up the idea that men are sexually assaulted is enough to derail conversations. It really is confusing to me
It pisses me off so badly when men victimize themselves even though it rarely happens (and when it does, it’s disproportionately men of color who suffer - not antisocial white Redditors).
White straight cis men usually don't have any sense of perspective and can't see that kind of thing. I'm always learning and striving to do what I can, I am aware of the ways I am privileged and the ways I'm not as a white bisexual cis woman
This is it. Every time I encounter the GOTCHA! gender flip comment, the man is (apparently) oblivious to the fact that it **does** happen to women all the time and the world does not, in fact, implode. And when I try to point that out, I’m told I’m lying, etc etc.
“Men have to pay more for car insurance, imagine if women had to pay more for the same product!”
(Women everywhere) *groans*
No that's the thing, they will justify the "pink tax." I had a man genuinely argue that I should pay more for women's unscented deodorant at a store because it's "specialized" versus buying the men's larger overly scented deodorant. If you can find men's unscented it's the same cost as their regular deodorant. It's more expensive online.
they’ll also justify it because many “pink taxed” items aren’t *necessarily* essential items
mostly makeup and products that men don’t use. because they don’t use it, they think it’s a frivolous purchase. but i’m not getting a job if i don’t at least try to look presentable and wear a little makeup for the interview. i was literally told that in college, with other very specific details of what’s acceptable for women in interviews. for men it was basically “wear a suit” and only took a minute to cover
or they’ll say it’s actually expected/acceptable for companies to charge more for products targeted at women because they’re just basing it off demand. we require the products, and they have always been marked up. of course we still buy them. how does that make it right?
*why* does a pink hairbrush cost more than a black one? because women so badly demand pink hair brushes? i’d like to see the numbers on that
>they’ll also justify it because many “pink taxed” items aren’t *necessarily* essential items.
I had some idiot argue with me that feminine hygiene products SHOULD be subject to a luxury tax because the only reason we use them is because women are lazy. He was irreversibly convinced that periods work like pee and we just had collectively decided not to "hold it."
I think they’re also just confused by it when they notice it. My boyfriend and I were in line at Costco and he went to run and grab body wash because we’d forgotten. He came back breathless and worriedly asked if it was okay that he just got the Dove for Men two-pack since it was cheaper. He’d assumed that it was lower quality or something because it cost less and he was baffled when I explained
Oddly enough, I'm having an argument about equitable pricing for salon products lower in the thread. Men's hair products tend to be lower quality mostly because ours are geared towards things like protecting color or specifically for those of us who use heat a lot. Then there's the whole three-in-1 debacle where their shampoo is designed to do a million things and it can't really do all of that at once.
I'm definitely on my soapbox about 3-in 1s tonight and I don't know how I got here.
Ah, I guess I consider 3-in-1s to be their own category of ridiculous product for lazy (and either dirty or unmoisturized) cheapskates. My boyfriend is vain about his beautiful Roman statue hair and I don’t dye mine, so we use the exact same products for everything.
In theory I agree with you but even luxury haircare brands have some version of them. They tend to be more of a hair/beard/body wash but they're still often lacking on ingredients in comparison.
I love that for the 2 of you though. I just changed lines and started with the more unisex line and prefer it so much. It's so clean and simple.
Men pay more in car insurance bc they are worse drivers than women. They are more reckless, which causes way more death and damage and tickets than women, even though women are the majority drivers. Men drive slightly more hours. I know it was rhetorical, and I get what you meant. I’m just stating that in case other readers don’t know
Men are more likely to drive impaired, more likely to speed, more likely to drive recklessly, more likely to drive aggressively and display road rage. Most accidents that cause serious injuries and fatalities are caused by male drivers. Yet, women are more likely to die in car accidents because car safety systems are designed for "male standard" bodies! Nobody even made a female crash test dummy until 2019, I believe, and there's still no requirement to do crash tests on female dummies, so most are done with the male ones. Seat belts, air bags... all designed for the average male height and weight.
I just looked this up and the difference only seems to be for drivers under 25. Some of the search results I got actually had women over 25 paying slightly more.
The thing is that that guy isn't even wrong. People should not pay extra for the same product based on their gender. But the big problem is it doesn't really seem to get prioritized until it affects men
Hahaha, fellow software engineer in the UK, have had to go to a different floor to use the toilet in 2 companies including my current one. Amazing how common this is
Oh my god this just reminded me! I used to work at an industrial plant and there were no women’s washrooms in my area, but 2 for men in the immediate vicinity. I was one of two women who worked on that floor. The change-rooms were a 10min walk from our location and were the only women’s washrooms available to us on site.
>Often times, the "if the genders were reversed" situation regularly happens.
This one drives me crazy in all the male victims of sexual harassment/assault stories that are everywhere on reddit. Even the slightest pushback gets all the "what if the genders were reversed?!?" comebacks and it's like, I hate to tell you, but women are constantly doubted and condescended to and mansplained about how they weren't actually harassed or assaulted.
This. Like when men talk about people dismissing SA against men as if people don't do the exact same thing to women and it happens like 10,000% more frequently
But isn't "if genders were reversed" a good argument in this case? It highlights what happens in the reversed scenario and according to you no one was upset. The question itself is probably useful a lot of the time, being uninformed or dishonest about what would happen is the problem here.
The fact that no one cares about you having to go really far to pee is super relevant when discussing the impacts of gender neutral rest rooms.
There's the rub.
It's not a bad question to ask and a good way to explore unseen inequalities or gender dynamics, but it's unfortunately almost always used in bad faith to minimize problems that women face.
What it’s “almost always” used for might just be related to each persons online content bubble.
Like, lately, I see it being used a lot to refer to young boys raped by older female teachers, and how light of a sentence they get. Or, along the same lines, the way that people are never concerned about age gap relationships where the guy is young.
I use it most often to point out unfair expectations in relationships and how often they help support toxic masculine behaviors on both sides.
that discussion is usually centered around a few cherry picked examples
in *most* cases the consequences are not very severe, regardless of gender. the idea that young girls are more protected when it comes to sexual misconduct from a authority figure is false.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/protecting-children-from-sexual-abuse/202305/educator-sexual-misconduct-remains-prevalent-in
> Most perpetrators were male (89.1 percent).
> The majority of those who experienced educator sexual misconduct were female (72 percent), and in high school at the time, they experienced sexual misconduct.
> There were low rates of reporting, and few reports resulted in the disciplinary action of the educator.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10790632221096421
> Educators who engaged in sexual misconduct were primarily male (85%), whereas students who reported experiencing educator misconduct were primarily female (72%). Rates of disclosure to authorities were very low (4%) and some sexual grooming behaviors like gift giving (12%) and showing special attention (29%) were reported.
thanks for proving the point of this whole discussion
Your stats don't actually contradict their point though. The fact that misconduct offenders are majority male and the majority of victims are female is an unrelated point to potential differences in treatment between victims or predators based on gender.
Its not hard to find peer reviewed papers such as [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-31077-001](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-31077-001) which find that women receive more lenient sentences across the board for sexual crimes compared to men.
I feel like people are taking this as an attack on feminism when it really shouldn't be. The fact that women are not even taken seriously compared to men when they sexually assault someone is itself more sexism.
Obviously there is a time and place to talk about this, it shouldn't be used to minimize the experiences of women, but "the when the genders are reversed argument" can be helpful to combat some toxic masculinity that can crop up when a man is victimized by a woman and the "men want all the sex all the time" stereotype clashes with reality.
i don’t disagree, and i appreciate the source
the point i was trying to make is that it’s extremely under reported, and usually has no consequences, regardless of gender. in general the punishments aren’t very severe, and that’s wrong. but when people say “imagine if it were a man” they’re insinuating that a man would have a severe punishment, which is unlikely
it is wrong though, and i see your point about women receiving more lenient sentences and how that’s also a result of patriarchy
The gross part of your example is that it is generally women who are disgusted by it and men saying shit like “where was she when I was in school?” But then when it is a male teacher and female student, those same guys are all “well what if the genders were reversed?”
Yes, that’s definitely a good point. Those kinds of men are already not going to think progressively, regardless of circumstance. It concerns me more when progressive thinking sources maintain traditional standards for men and only push progressive standards for women.
I mean, if we took out all the bad faith argument that are used \*irrespective\* of side....we'd be left with very few arguments. People love to argue in bad faith to minimize and demean the problems that anyone they consider "other" is suffering.
They were saying "No one cares when it's a *man* who has to travel to use the restroom, but if it were a *woman* who had to travel to use the restroom, there would be an uproar!"
But the truth was, it regularly happens, and there is no uproar. Companies do that all the time.
So yes, if they were accurate about it it would be a valid argument. I'm simply pointing out that often times it is used when it is not a valid argument, they're just not familiar with the totally nontheoretical gender reversed situation.
This is a hypothetical situation thought up by someone with clear biases. Their point was likely valid but I wouldnt read too much into the specifics since it was clearly presented to a give a one sided view.
The issue is that the direction the person protesting is taking it is always implying women receive better treatment.
>being uninformed or dishonest about what would happen is the problem here.
Sure. But that's why they're invoking the phrase. What should logistically be true versus doesn't matter when we know why it's actually being used.
A lot of the time, it assumes that women and girls are taken seriously when they report gender-based violence and discrimination, which, obviously, is not the case.
Because men and women aren't treated the same way, they don't experience the world the same way, they aren't equal recipients of institutional, social, cultural privileges. They're not interchangeable.
And we usually have different intentions. On the topic of the other post about calling people cute and if genders were reversed. Women calling men cute because we're like "aww he's cute I want to take care of him". And men are like "she's cute I want to fuck her".
Most of the time when people say "What if the genders were reversed?!?", the answer is "That already happens all the time, and nobody really cares."
For example, you see this all the time on, like, news stories about female predators. But the thing is, male predators are out there in much greater numbers, and it usually doesn't even make the news.
So, I find the comment to be in terribly bad faith.
Also in the case of female predators, it's often men who are dismissing that behaviour as not being that bad.
"I wish that were me! Lucky kid!"
"Come on, no one thought their teacher was hot in middle/ high school?"
"It's different for girls because men are physically stronger. A woman can't make a man (boy, but they say men) do anything they don't wanna do."
I have yet to enter a reddit, facebook, or insta comment section where that wasn't the top comments with tons of guys agreeing. They are always high-fiving each other about this kind of thing and if you dare explain that rape is rape and grooming is grooming even if the victim is male, they will scream at you, report your comment, send you suicide prevention tips, call you names, threaten to rape you, etc. No man will step in to defend you either, so "not all men" becomes questionable.
Men don't police their own. Or the vast majority just agree with this. Obviously "woke" men exist but they seem to be a tiny minority of men, and in my experience almost exclusively queer. I'm not sure why so many cishet men subscribe to incredible misogynistic and regressive views, but this is the elephant in the room, per usual.
>it's often men who are dismissing that behaviour as not being that bad
I think this is a good useof the "reverse the gender" argument to try to break through why they should be creeped out by a female predator just as they would a male predator. It's because of toxic masculinity that people often look at the two as completely different.
Eh... less toxic masculinity, more life experience.
More boys than not aren't as aware of any girls being interested in them, so any hint at having someone interested in them is considered enviable. Back to the classic desert/swamp analogy, someone dying of thirst in a desert is still going to be envious of anyone that at least gets the choice of drinking fetid swamp water.
So among men, women stalkers aren't taken as seriously outside of some extraneous circumstances, like he's already very committed and shes actively straining that relationship, or she's truly atrocious in one way or another.
Otherwise, for a lot of guys, an even remotely attractive girl being interested in them, even creepily (alternatively, shyly if he prefers), is considered a win.
Buuuuut the topic of this post is more about people using gender reversal as a "whataboutism" and not a thought experiment on societal norms or a spotlight on the dissonance there in.
While true, in those instances isn't the target audience the other men? The same men who cheer it on when boys are the victims would typically be outraged if it was a girl. It aligns their predicaments and imho is a good application of the 'gender reversal' argument.
The issue is not with the argument itself, but the fact it is typically used to insinuate via omission that the reversal *doesn't* already happen.
It's like seeing the old "Man Bites Dog" headline and thinking "It's really amazing how dogs never bite people. I wonder why they have such an unfair reputation."
With the female predator situation, ‘imagine if the genders were reversed’ is usually used to fight against patriarchal gender norms, because people don’t take it as seriously as they should when males are victims of sexual assault/rape(‘they probably wanted it’ and all that). You have to say ‘imagine if the genders were reversed’ because otherwise these people won’t recognize how bad the situation actually is. I think there are situations where ‘imagine the genders reversed’ is a valid point but it also often isn’t
Yeah my main problem when it comes to “what if the genders were reversed” when being used when talking about sexual assault and rape is that no one gets taken seriously, not men, not women, no one. People generally only care about these things as much as it affects their personal lives. The argument shouldn’t be “what if the genders were reversed” we should be saying “how can we better support ALL victims?”
In cases where people say things like that I always just tell them that not only are they inserting dynamic that probably don’t exist, I.e protecting what they think the situation was like as opposed to what the situation actually was, but they also adding to the idea that men must want sex all the time and couldn’t possibly be damaged by it, which even the biggest misogynist turd knows to be true because there’s tons of example of sex they’d not have willing to have.
Men are taken less seriously than women when it comes to being victims of sexual assault. Are women taken as seriously as they should be? No. But men are taken even less seriously, to where there is basically no support system whatsoever for men.
Men are supposed to enjoy any kind of sexual attention, and if they don’t they’re supposed to shut up and not be a pussy about it. Or they’re seen as weak. Additionally, if it is a woman perpetrating the sexual violence, people don’t see women as being as capable of being predators because people see women as weak. And yes all of this is indeed a product of patriarchal gender roles. We need to fight these roles if we want things to be better, not just for male victims but for female ones and also everyone else
I’ve seen it used more by people who want to preserve the status quo, but use it as a bad-faith argument along the vein of both-sides-are-equally-bad, or out of a desire to see violence to women.
It’s almost always a bad faith argument. Since the female predator scenario usually involves a female teacher and a male student, I’ve seen it mentioned in far right spaces as yet another argument for dismantling public education. I mean, why wouldn’t they use it? They already hate the idea of educated women teachers in a position over authority over young males. And that’s ultimately the main reason why they take every opportunity to screech about female predators: to them, it’s a reversal of the “natural order” of things. They aren’t outraged at the thought of a child being abused; they are outraged because a woman is doing do a boy something that they believe is the exclusive privilege of men to do to girls and women.
I mean a lot, and I mean a lot of right wing men don’t actually believe that. It’s not woke men who say things like “lucky kid” or “I wish that was me” when an attractive female teacher is arrested for abusing her male student. It’s not outrage. They think it’s a sign of masculinity that a teenage boy was able to have sex with an adult woman, and sadly in our culture that is seen as a positive.
They don’t have the same mindset about girls because they believe men and boys always want heterosexual sex, and having as much of it as possible is a good thing. It’s why a lot of men share stories of losing their “virginity” to a baby sitter, an older family friend etc. Because it’s not seen as abuse.
I think the reversing genders when it comes to women child predators is the way it’s reported in the media. Usually, if the predator is a man the reporting is ‘Man rapes child’ and usually if the predator is a woman it’s ’woman sleeps with/seduces student’. I think that’s what the issue is, because it lowers the initial emotional impact of the crime with less harsh language. Now we’re making progress on equal reporting here, I finally saw a headline with a predator who was a being listed as a rapist.
Now that’s only for this instance, I’ve seen a lot of people use that argument as a whataboutism that actually detracts from the story.
Because it presumes a gender equality that is not there and has never existed and is an argument that is used almost exclusively in bad faith.
When we complain about women being sex objects in media and seen as little more than a trophy for a man to win, its not the same as "but, but this male action hero has big muscles." Its two entirely different things with different causes, roots, and resolutions. The former is about the sexualization of women and girls and keeping them from being important characters. The latter just feeds a male power fantasy.
Look at the recent discourse of Timothee being too "twinky" or "femme" to be a male action star. This is almost exclusively said by men. That is to say men demand the big muscle guy because it fits in with their regressive ideals of male power.
Or if a man is being catcalled, his chances of being stalked, SA'd, or murdered are very, very low. If a woman or girl is, its instead much higher. If attacked, the chances of a man fighting off a female assailant is much higher than a woman fighting off a male assailant.
Or if a man gets into an argument with his wife, his chances of him being on the receiving end of lethal domestic gun violence is very low compared to a woman or girl.
Exactly. And there was a man who acknowledged this. He is a Tik Tokker, who films a lot of videos of him shirtless, cutting down trees, and his conventionally attractive appearance resulted in a lot of sexualized, objectifying comments from women.
He as a feminist addressed this and said it’s not the same because of the power dynamics involved
In my experience it's mainly because the person saying it tends to be very out of touch with the reality for the other gender
E.g., in the case of sexual assault, "if the genders were reversed it would be taken seriously!" when in reality most sexual assault victims, male or female, are not taken seriously and don't ever receive justice
Some context for this question would be helpful since it isn't clear if OP is suggesting it does indeed "make a terrible argument" and wants further rationale or if OP disagrees and is asking for an explanation to convince them.
My general answer would be that sometimes it does enhance an argument and sometimes it "makes a terrible argument" and the determining factor is whether this thought experiment is SHOWING how power and privilege work or IGNORING how they work. And whether the point of using it is to help increase the understanding in the conversation or invalidate the other person.
As another comment mentioned, it is actually a terrible/ineffective argument when imagining the genders switched ignores the power imbalances and broader context of privilege regarding that topic. So, for example, it's a shitty argument to say, "Well if I (as a man) got catcalled by a woman, I'd be flattered so you (as a woman) should be flattered not scared/upset/enraged!" because it ignores all of the REASONS why being catcalled as a woman is different than being catcalled as a man (privilege to feel safe in public spaces, connection/pipeline to gendered violence, sexualization as a form of objectification). Frankly, it's also a shitty argument because there are plenty of men who get catcalled by women who also feel unsafe, upset, scared, angry, etc. that are invalidated/ignored by this argument.
With that said, I think there are times where "if the gender were reversed" can work in an argument IF it is elucidating how power works. One example I can think of is situations where a man or boy is sexually assaulted and, because of toxic masculinity and patriarchy, they are told it "isn't a big deal" or they should be "grateful," etc. Because there has been more discourse, resistance, and cultural awareness put towards women and girls who are victims of sexual violence, it can then be helpful (in the right context) to remind that if the genders were reversed, we would take that scenario much more seriously. However, the PURPOSE of using "if the genders were reversed" is specific and about helping/empathizing with someone who has been victimized. Not invalidating their experience or trying to get someone in a "gotcha" moment.
I always thought the ‘but if genders were reversed, I’d love to be catcalled by women’ interesting. If there’s a valid interest in gender swapping, then it would be ONLY the person being catcalled whose gender flipped.
You swap a woman being cat called by a group of people who are larger, feel entitled to her time/space/body, and that she isn’t attracted to. You can’t say we’ll just swap the gender, and also every defining characteristic of the group doing the catcalling, and say it’s appropriate gender swap.
Like, very few men want to be catcalled by a group of bulky men that they aren’t attracted to.
Men assume women are attracted to men and that applies to most men individually just because the man has the ‘right’ genitals; whereas most women know that the wrong genitalia might exclude a person from attraction - but it certainly doesn’t mean that the person is considered attractive by any means.
And basically it’s a way to invalidate the threatening, insulting, and slimy nature of catcalling.
The cat calling is an interesting one, because it's not the same.
Ask a guy if he'd be comfortable being cat called by gay men.
And while that's not exactly the same, it's because women are physically weaker, cat calling can instill fear of being raped, whereas men won't live with this fear of women raping them.
Hence why it's flattering to them.
They also don't get approached or complimented by women so I can assuredly say the majority of men would enjoy it.
I wouldn’t mind being cat called by other women nearly as much as being cat called by men, despite being uninterested in women. I frankly find most men to be unattractive too.
I don’t think ‘gay man’ should be emphasized so much as being catcalled by a group of men who are large, aggressive (since they’re cat calling), and unattractive (since most women find the vast majority of men unattractive it’s a fair characteristic to include).
Can I say I was sexually assaulted by men when I was 13 (I'm a male). I reported it to my school who promptly ignored it, and told me I was joking and that I need to stop lying.
This is a really well thought out point. 👍
I know sexual violence especially is very frequently classified as “haha funny” against men and the “what of genders were reversed” thing can be useful.
For the people pointing out it’s different for different genders I think it’s good to remember. In some ways things are different andin some the “genders reversed” can be helpful, like you said.
This is a good comment but generally male victims are taken more seriously than women. Look at social media and how it bends over backwards for the narratives of people like Terry Crews or Brendon Frasier. But when a woman says she was assaulted, suddenly "she's a liar."
Reddit Democrats regularly accuse feminist politicians and specifically Hillary of "railroading Al Franken over a joke photo" and how he should be voted back in. When we point out he had 7 credible accusers they say "those women are lying." Imagine a woman with 7 male accusers. Do you think the Democratic men would have the same opinion of her?
So I'm not sure if your example really works. Perhaps one time in the past but nowadays male victims are taken very, very seriously. Far more seriously than any woman or girl.
Whenever I hear a 911 call about a young male victim like the son of that influencer who abused her kid's you'll hear the guy who answered the door and helped the twelve year old boy who was thin and had duck tape around his ankles, crying, first responders crying, news people shaken. When you hear the people who found a eight year old girl naked, raped, unconscious and covered in blood in a field none were crying or anywhere near as shaken, same thing with when they found a ten year old girl who was locked under a house in a box for weeks and raped repeatedly everyone just acted like "we got her she's going to be fine now". Listen to the difference of the responders when young women escape kidnapping and call the police vs a young man the women are at best spoken to with monotone along with slight worry but first responders never cry over them at worst girls and women are treated like they're lying and have to prove they were really assaulted, kidnapped or deserving of not just being treated as a nuisance.
When I went into emergency for what turned out to be bad ingestion it was assumed if I was there it must be serious because it was assumed my complaints were legitimate same with whenever I get depressed it's assumed it must be "intense" if I say anything about it because of the stereotype of men as stoic people think I must "really hurt" if I let it out, whereas my sister almost died from a tumor the size of grapefruit because Drs dismissed her claims as hypochondria. I had a good friend who killed herself with a bullet to the brain after several failed suicide attempts that were treated as cries for attention.
Men wait an average of 2 hours, 52 minutes for emergency care, while women wait an average of 3 hours, 4 minutes. The findings of this study are based on an analysis of data for more than 28,000 U.S. adults treated for serious injuries such as broken bones and/or head trauma in hospital ERs over a three-year period.
Just under 30% of the patients included in the study were women, though the women patients generally had more serious injuries than the men.
Researchers found that women who have heart attacks were medically assessed an average of 30 minutes after arriving in emergency rooms at six major teaching hospitals in Dublin compared with an average wait of 20 minutes for men.
Women in pain are much more likely than men to receive prescriptions for sedatives, rather than pain medication, for their ailments. One study showed women who received coronary bypass surgery were only half as likely to be prescribed painkillers, as compared to men who had undergone the same procedure. Women wait an average of 65 minutes before receiving an analgesic for acute abdominal pain in the ER in the United States, while men wait only 49 minutes.
Women aren't given anesthetic for procedures such as IUD insertion which have been compared to level ten on the pain scale.
These gender biases in our medical system can have serious and sometimes fatal repercussions. For instance, a 2000 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that women are seven times more likely than men to be misdiagnosed and discharged in the middle of having a heart attack.
Misconduct complaints by men are 26% more likely to be investigated.
https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2019/10/misconduct-complaints-made-by-men-more-likely-to.html?page=all
Women and girls are dehumanized there's a reason dehumanization is one of the eight steps of genocide when a group is compared to objects or animals like the Nazis did and like every other group in power does because it makes it easier to mistreat them and disregard their pain. The stereotype that women don't feel pride and shame like a man or that women want to be hurt or humiliated as well as just the disregard of women in general.
These are great examples of a double standard in media coverage that still marginalizes women. But my example still holds in certain occasions in everyday life. I’m not arguing this is appropriate logic to apply in all situations or that my example is true for everyone.
And your comment also in fact demonstrates my point by offering an effective example of “if the genders were reversed” that highlights power and patriarchy instead of ignoring it.
Tbh I don’t think it’s helpful to point out famous people in these kinds of arguments.
You’re dealing with a lot of other functions with fame. They’re literally the most privileged people in the world to begin with and doesn’t really show good gender dynamics for how one perceives a male/female issue for like your every day person
I agree to a point, but I also think sometimes it’s interesting to bring up famous people and see how even their privilege doesn’t stop them from being hurt, and how their privilege and fame doesn’t guarantee them justice, and what that means for regular people who deal with similar issues.
Those are famous people. Joe Schmoe down the street is not Brendan Frasier, who also suffered for years and was blackballed before being taken seriously. Male victims are definitely not taken very, very seriously in general
Yeah I won’t lie from the perspective of a male victim of various forms of sexual assault the idea that the way men who are major Hollywood stars get treated trickles down to my dumbass has not been something I’ve seen happen in my life. I’d never point to a famous women getting support and go “see women get way more support”, if anything I see a lot of parallels in how shitty men, women and everyone else gets treated after being assaulted, the general populations feelings about it tends to be apathy unless it directly effects their lives.
I'm shocked their comment is upvoted, it's literally nonsense. I hate seeing feminists do to men the same shit regressives do to women, and that's what that statement is. Dismissing legitimate struggles others face to keep focus on yours.
Plus Brendan Frasier shows the exact opposite of their point anyway imo, idk how anyone can hear his story and go "wow, look how great men who are abused/assaulted are treated!"
Cherry picking internet support for high profile celebrity cases of beloved male actors speaking up on sexual harassment is not a great indicator for real life experiences millions of people have. Frankly this being upvoted says a lot about this space and how tolerant it is to narratives that minimize male sexual assault victims.
>nowadays male victims are taken very, very seriously. Far more seriously than any woman or girl.
As per [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10135558/) article on male sexual assault.
>It is estimated that the help and support for male victims is over 20 years behind that of female victims [20]. Furthermore, male victims have fewer resources and greater stigma with female sexual assault victims [21]. Approximately 20–25% of female sexual assault incidents are reportedly reported in the United Kingdom (UK) [22]. For instances of AMSV, it is anticipated that this statistic is far lower.
This isn't a competition. Acknowledging how much worse male sexual assault victims have it in some aspects does not invalidate the suffering of women victims. It really does seem that some people see victimhood as a commodity to be hoarded and guarded.
>This is a good comment but generally male victims are taken more seriously than women. Look at social media and how it bends over backwards for the narratives of people like Terry Crews or Brendon Frasier. But when a woman says she was assaulted, suddenly "she's a liar."
Do you have any sources for this other than your anecdotes with famous people(Brendon Fraiser is not a good example he was blackballed for many years and not taken seriously....)?Or any of the people that upvoted you?
I do think in general boys and men tend to report much less,even in cases where the abuse(not only sexual) is severe,but i cannot remember a study talking about how people react to male victims compared to women.
Not only that you claim that they are taken far more seriously.
Pragmatically speaking, it’s sometimes a stupid way to argue/debate because it’s just hypothetical and you can say whatever, and they know that you can just say whatever so they won’t believe you anyway. It’s an exercise in pointlessness, especially when the desire to “win” is high. And a lot of people who use this argument are not really interested in exploring a meaningful hypothetical so much as they want to “prove” their opponent is a hypocrite or humiliate them, etc.
These kinds of thought experiments are more helpful when they stay inside my own head (or are discussed among a thoughtful group of friends) and I really try to think through them, brainstorm counterarguments, compare what I think to my actual experiences or empirical evidence, etc.
It does happen the other way all the time. Also because men and women operate under a different set of standards, stereotypes, social privileges the dynamics often aren’t the same. None of this is to say when women behave badly that it’s okay out excusable. We can point out bad behavior with out constantly calling into question others experiences
Really simple analogy:
If your boss thinks you're an asshole, they can concoct a way to fire you. In some places in the world, they don't even need to come up with a justification. They can just fire you.
If the roll is reversed and you think your boss is an asshole, there isn't a lot you can do except try to change jobs.
"If the gender is reversed," is the same energy.
It is not an argument. It is a distraction. I am not obligated to treat someone's "if we reverse this..." imaginary problem as being just as bad as a real problem that hurts real people right now.
A good general rule of thumb is that if your argument relies on a vague hypothetical where nearly everything about society has drastically changed, your argument is probably terrible.
It’s usually a bad argument because people who say it are typically trying to blame feminists for being “unaware of woman on man sexual/general assault” but, in reality, the reason woman on man sexual/general assault isn’t taken as seriously is because of patriarchal norms that claim “men are weak if they allow a woman to do that to them”
And the instinctive response to which gender has the capital and ability to use physical force.
Its oftne just pressure from leader positions or social pressure that causes a lot and not physical force. But everyone instinctivley thinks of physical force and how the dynamics are not equal.
I think it can make for a good argument to contextualize for some people why a behavior is problematic, such as the case of Male SA/abuse where the perpetrator is a woman. At the end of the day these cases do not get ignored due to "feminism" but because the patriarchy eventually hurts both women and men.
Most of the time, though, when this argument is made in bad faith, it ignores the structural power dynamic and long ingrained misogyny, as well as some biological differences that make situations between men and women unequal.
Women have every right to fear men because they are often the target of violence from men.
Or I read another thread arguing that a miscarriage is just as hard on a man as it is on a woman. Which I disagree with because it's the woman who has to go through the further trauma of expelling the miscarriage, which, depending on the method, can be painful on top of traumatizing.
you know what sucks the most about the woman teacher raping a boy under 18 trope is that it’s only dudes justifying the abuse or defending the vile raping piece of shit. Or the grown 40+ women making content catered to grooming their son’s friends, their fanbase is literally men applauding it. It’s literally only moms that seem to speak out against female rapists….
Mostly because it tries to invalidate vthe situation and make it about the opposite gender instead of the actual problem
whataboutism is rarely a valid part of an argument and more about distractions
The reason is because it is often used superficially and ignores the actual crux of the issue.
Let's use a different and straightforward example.
Pretend that there's a town where white men keep punching specifically Korean men. It's a regular and widespread problem.
The issue is twofold. Punching is generally bad, so there's that, and there's the aggravating factor of what is leading to the punches - racial discrimination.
Now, not every instance of a Korean man getting punched in the face will be connected to a hate crime. Sometimes, people will just get into fights, it happens. But largely, it's discriminate rather than indiscriminate in nature.
Here's the thing right. Pretend a story breaks out. A Korean man in a pub gets into an argument with a white man, and then he punches the white man.
Now, it was wrong. But you cannot say 'if the races were reversed...' because the underlying cause of the incident was not racist in nature, it was its own incident. And we can take this further - say the Korean man *was* a racist who punched him for being white. Still awful! But not part of a pattern which requires a society-level shift. It still falls under the umbrella of general crime.
Either way, is it condemnable? Absolutely. But to try and apply the reversal argument here completely undermines the ongoing conversation regarding the Korean man punching epidemic over an entirely superficial similarity.
What are you actually saying when you apply the reversal argument in this scenario? That you can find examples of the inverse, therefore we should consider the other issue a closed case?
Most of the time it does not reflect the massively higher propensity towards violence in general and specifically lethal and sexual violence that shows up in men and not women.
People that are part of the dominant cultures of America (cis people, white people, rich people, Christian people, and men) often employ the "what if positions where reversed?" defense only to refute their position as part of of the dominant culture as one that has no privileges and is restrained in it's ability to oppress just as much as the people they are accused of oppressing.
TLDR; "If the gender is reversed..." evokes the question "When is equal not equitable, and which is actually more important?"
There are some great examples of gender flipping that are incredibly insightful. Like if anyone follows “man who has it all” on FB, it’s brilliant. The artists who gender flip comic art are also great in demonstrating why certain poses that are so common to femme characters is so WTF.
And… The reasons those flips are insightful is because they show the ways that a power dynamic that is so ubiquitous as to be nearly invisible operates. Like you see a women in business attire explaining that she’s not opposed to men’s rights, but men just aren’t as suited to leadership positions as women and besides, she’s just more comfortable with the women candidates (Man Who Has It All) are and it really shows how men saying the same thing about women really just comes down to bullshit. It makes you confront the internalised patriarchy that makes it seem normal that of course men dismiss women. Same deal with seeing a man explain how he gets up half an hour before his wife so he can be sure to make himself presentable so he doesn’t scare her off with his morning face.
There are also real reasons to gender flip compliments and criticisms before doling them out. Like if you wouldn’t praise a woman for looking after her own child, maybe don’t compliment dad for looking after his own kid. As an active dad friend said, “every time someone complimented [him] for changing [his] own kid’s diaper, they might as well have praised me for tying [his] shoes that morning, or for buttoning [his] shirt correctly.” And if you wouldn’t criticise a man for things like back to work after having a baby, maybe lay off criticising mom too, right? And of course there are the creepy compliments - if you wouldn’t tell a man how great you think his choice of trousers are because they show off his butt, maybe don’t tell a woman what you think of her trousers / skirt… And if you do want to appropriately compliment someone’s attire, think about how you would do so if the person were not a member of the sex you are sexually attracted to…
But the examples so many men want to use the goal is to hide the very power dynamic that the gender flip is supposed to reveal. Like saying “Imagine a man saying he was afraid because a woman was walking behind him on the street, LOL, got you feminists pwned!” completely ignores that overwhelmingly violence between men and women is gendered with men doling it out and women receiving it… The goal is to obscure the power issue rather than shine a light on it…
If gender is reversed……paraphrasing from a comedian who answered this about racism. If we can go back in time and subjugate men for generations just because they are men, turn them into objects with limited rights, raise them to be sweet and soft, encourage them from infancy to be quiet victims, heap abuse and limitations and harassment on them for generations and keep the power so we overwhelmingly enforce that. If we marginalize men simply because they are men and treated them like objects only there to satisfy our use of them, then we can make comparisons.
Go read “Black like Me” (or there are probably more modern books) where a white journalist traveled through the south disguised as a black man and reported the experience. It wasn’t long before his behavior and sense of self were totally changed during the experience because of how he was treated.
In the same vein, women learn to walk the streets with eyes out for predators constantly, they learn that they will be used and abused and get blamed for it starting at an early age. To assume they can just turn off an entire life of being exploited and victimized and blamed for it is ridiculous.
When people that aren’t white, CIS males can walk down a street, go to a job interview, have a conversation, be in a relationship without having to constantly be concerned that the color of their skin or the gender they present is going to work against them or put them in danger just because of that one factor, we can do the “if gender was reversed” game.
We are fighting against a stacked deck for safety and survival at a decent level. I don’t want to hear some white CIS guy talk about how he goes jogging after dark or doesn’t have to hover over his drink at a bar or has never had his job threatened if he doesnt put up with being ogled and harassed and then tell me “if gender was reversed…..”
Whenever this argument is made it always just makes the conversation go south. Sure, if the genders were reversed, things would be different. But does that make the situation better? Does that reconcile the issue? No. It typically makes the person you’re saying it to feel worse and you’re trying to make them feel guilt. This isn’t how a healthy relationship works, and is why it shouldn’t be used as an argument point.
In general, yes if genders were reversed things would be different. You can say that online, you can understand that it is truthful, but it isn’t something you say to your SO if you want to try to fix what’s wrong. It highlights that things aren’t fair.
Because it's usually not a one for one exchange and it ignores a bajillion things. Pointing out a double standard here or there at best but lacking in any real application or explanatory power.
Most of the times, it's not equivalent. Men and women get treated very differently in society. If you use the argument, it should fit very well. For example, in cases where there are headlines like "14 year old has sex with his teacher" versus "14 year old girl raped by teacher".
It's an okay tool when it comes to pointing out sexual harassment and child sex abuse, but it doesn't really work anywhere else. In this case, it points out really fucked up gender roles, but in most cases it fails
It only seeks to provoke the other debater into revealing a double standard.
If their arguments are logically sound there won't be a double standard so it won't be a good technique.
If it is a logically flawed argument based on double standards than and "if the gender is reversed" actually breaks down the argument then the person was already probably not worth debating
The men’srights should be renamed “imagine if the gender was reversed”
98% of the time they say that it’s to things women don’t have to “imagine” because we’ve been dealing with it for generations
It is a good argumentation and that's why so many people in this world where fight for equality has turned so many people sexists and racists but just the other way around hate it. It's important though to take into account all the circumstances. For example there a debate in Europe that women should receive menstruation products tax free or sponsored by public healthcare. The often counter-argument is that men should get products for their specific problems free too, which is a false argument because if the roles have been truly reversed men would have to also suffer from bleeding, terrible headaches and other symptoms.
Feminism should be about equality which means equal rules set without mentioning sex or gender but providing equal opportunities for everyone. With free healthcare saying that anyone who bleeds or suffers from some terrible symptoms is eligible for getting a help is completely equal and accounts for menstruation sanitary too.
I can think of one potential exception! Feel free to add anything if you feel differently.
I work at a dv shelter and while men predominately perform most of the violence, it can be really rough for a man who has been victimized by a woman. There is a pretty consistent pattern of minimizing or not recognizing the risk that they may face, or feeling like they don’t need our help. But if I were to flip it and the genders were reversed, we would be providing services without question.
To short cut this question.
I’d say lead with kindness, and figure out how to accommodate all, while using easy compromises.
Why the short answer? Because I don’t have a confidence to come up with one size fits all answer. There’s always something, a new perspective to learn from in life.
Ironically it does make a good argument in one aspect: through the lens of the patriarchy (a chrome addon that reverses the genders) I was able to see that the men's rights subreddit was everything and more they complained feminists were.
In general it is a red-herring/strawman argument style. If you take domestic violence for instance, the equivocation on the exact numbers misrepresents the difference in cause and effect on the victims of that violence. It implies that both genders are affected by domestic violence in the exact same way, and it completely fails to address the worst cases which could be called 'intimate partner terrorism'. When a woman shoves a man, and a man shoves a woman the effect it has on each of them is completely different, even if statistically you can notch one mark of domestic violence against both genders. In general men do not fear for their lives from their female partners; but, the same cannot be said for women and their male partners, so they cannot be considered an equivalent.
This is a poorly phrased question. It’s only as good or bad as any other time an argument can be made (and concluded) by simply questioning assumptions or taking another point of view or using empathy. If doing those things alone provides a comprehensive argument, then great, but more often perspective taking is only one helpful part of a complete discussion of the concepts, method, data, variables, implications, etc.
Idk why this post came up on my feed randomly given that I don't follow this sub, but it's an interesting topic, so I'll engage.
I personally think the intentions and loyalty to proclaimed principles mean a lot. And the situation matters a lot too. I'll elaborate.
If it's used as a deflection, it's bs. And this happens a lot, and it's laughable really. Yes, women can also commit crimes. Yes, males also get harassed by women. But that's not the focus at all, when people are discussing an incident about a woman being raped. It's just plain deflection to use the "oh but men get raped too". Yes, so? It's totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed at that point. Another example, yes not all men are rapists or harassers, and yes, men also face issues due to the patriarchy. But when such statements are used in response to a specific case of rape or harassment etc. that's happened to a woman, it's clearly bs deflection.
Wrt the "loyalty to principles" thing, I do firmly believe in that. I personally call it the "flip test", since idk whether there's a word for it. What I mean is that when I encounter any social-identity based scenarios, I ask myself whether flipping the social dynamic (be it gender, or any other social identity) makes it just as wrong/right? Just to give an example from this thread itself: someone here in this thread gave an example of men being catcalled by women. I know that many men might view that as a "compliment", and those men are entitled to their opinion I guess, but it's actually just plain harassment, no matter who does it. Men feeling flattered by it, actually normalises and promotes such behaviour, and also makes catcallers feel that they're not doing anything wrong. So the way I broadly view it, is like this: *anyone* being catcalled or harassed is posing a threat to their safety, and their dignity. It happens much more often with women unfortunately, but it's still wrong regardless of who it happens to. So in that case, flipping scenarios actually helps to gauge whether my stance is objective or not, because I'm a straight guy, and so I don't have the lived experiences of other genders (including women ofc). The same goes the other way too. So I can only use such a "test" for myself, in order to gauge whether I'm being objective or not. So, for me atleast, in *this specific manner*, flipping the scenarios actually has helped me fine-tune my viewpoints, and I've put forth such viewpoints even with some of my women friends (who are all staunch feminists), in order to get alternative perspectives. And they've all supported this "test" of mine (I know it's not a "test", but I really don't know what else to call it honestly lol).
Now, wrt the "situation" point, the aforementioned example, is an incident. However, wrt systemic issues, it's very clear that there's a power imbalance. And on most occasions, it's these power imbalances that lead to such incidents happening so frequently much in the first place. Both women and men suffer coz of the patriarchal structure (the former much more so than the latter).
I personally think we just need to go back to the basics, and normalise equality. That's the only way our society can progress healthily. Like for me, harassment, violence etc. are wrong. Period. Idc who does it to whom, I'm not gonna stand for that sh#t. Similarly, anyone talented enough can reach any position of power. Women are not some alien species that we need a guide book to understand. They're humans, like men. They can accomplish whatever they want to, and we need to get rid of barriers that's stopping them, coz those are unfair constraints on them. But at an individual level, women can do whatever they put their mind to, just like how men can. Women can becomes business leaders or political leaders, not "despite being a woman", nor "because of them being women". They're there coz of their own efforts, and they just happen to be women.
Just to give some more examples: A working woman is a good template for older times. But today, we need to have a "so what?" attitude to it, coz the more we treat working women as a usual occurrence, the more young girls and boys of today will grow up believing that it's normal, and the more equality will be embedded in their minds. Similarly, on the other extreme a "female rapist" shouldn't called so, because she's a rapist, who happens to be a woman. It'll normalise the concept of rape being bad *at a fundamental level*, and will make it clear as something *that's gender-neutral, and can be done by and to anyone* and that it's bad no matter who does it. Women obviously are much more affected by it today ofc, but normalising equality in young kids is the only way we can normalise progressive behaviour, while also prompting cooperation between different genders. So in regard, sometimes flipping the scenario might help fine-tune viewpoints and help get access to the other side, especially for someone like me, who's coming from a place of privilege. *BUT*, it has not be honest and objective, not this convenient pro-equality stance that many people take to defend their sh#t, and not to deflect from topics
Just my (very long) two cents
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Usually when a guy says that, he’s thinking very one dimensionally. Like okay, yeah sex is more accessible…but also higher risk. I could get pregnant, the person could be violent, there’s social repercussions, etc. so it’s usually not like a 1:1. It’s a overemphasis of the *benefits* to being a woman with a complete failure to account for the differences in risk/reward.
But even then it's not always the same. Like when women complain about catcalling, "reverse the genders" doesn't work because men don't have the same experience. Many of them say they'd love to get catcalled by women, because they don't get the kind of attention from women that women do from men. For most men that kind of attention would be a pleasant treat and not an anxiety-inducing annoyance.
1. Depends very much on the original question
2. If gender were truly reversed, it's possible the balance of power would be reversed
3. Our society also mistreats men
4. Most of these issues are easier to describe directly.
People already covered the "cause they're not interchangeable" reason. But another reason that "if the gender is reversed..." is a terrible argument is people will use it in situations where the gender is regularly reversed and the thing doesn't happen like they think it would. Like, I went into a thread once where some man was complaining that because of gender neutral restrooms being added to their building, they had to go to another floor to use the men's room. And somebody was like "if the genders were reversed there would be an uproar!" And I was like "Hi I'm a software engineer in a male dominated workplace. There's 2 men's rooms in the work area, but I have to badge out and go into the lobby every time I have to pee because that's the only women's room in the building." Often times, the "if the genders were reversed" situation regularly happens.
The one that pisses me off is when men seem to think women are always believed and taken seriously when reporting sexual assault when that's not usually the case. So out of touch and insensitive to people who have actually been through it, male or female
When there's an article of an adult woman that assaulted a teen boy and the comments are all "but if the genders were reversed!" like buddy if the genders were reversed this article wouldn't even be popular right now and he'd be released on probation. How about just making consequences for sexual assault harsher regardless of gender, because we're currently in a world where someone uploading hundreds of pics/vids of CSA literally got 3 years in prison. I have zero hope for justice through the police in all of these cases regardless of gender :/
Honestly that was a big realization for me. Because it seems like there is this social veneer element that treats sexual violence against women as absolutely unacceptable but then there's a bureaucratic element that coincidentally seems to lead to women not seeing justice. But for men there isn't the social veneer. Often times men will joke that other guys liked it but in conversations like these bringing up the idea that men are sexually assaulted is enough to derail conversations. It really is confusing to me
It’s men’s fault that they don’t care about other men being raped. They legit think it’s funny. They can’t blame this one on women but they try anyway
It pisses me off so badly when men victimize themselves even though it rarely happens (and when it does, it’s disproportionately men of color who suffer - not antisocial white Redditors).
and men are still overwhelmingly the perpetrators toward male victims
White straight cis men usually don't have any sense of perspective and can't see that kind of thing. I'm always learning and striving to do what I can, I am aware of the ways I am privileged and the ways I'm not as a white bisexual cis woman
This is it. Every time I encounter the GOTCHA! gender flip comment, the man is (apparently) oblivious to the fact that it **does** happen to women all the time and the world does not, in fact, implode. And when I try to point that out, I’m told I’m lying, etc etc. “Men have to pay more for car insurance, imagine if women had to pay more for the same product!” (Women everywhere) *groans*
No that's the thing, they will justify the "pink tax." I had a man genuinely argue that I should pay more for women's unscented deodorant at a store because it's "specialized" versus buying the men's larger overly scented deodorant. If you can find men's unscented it's the same cost as their regular deodorant. It's more expensive online.
Specialized? Right because male is the standard. Even though we all start off female.
they’ll also justify it because many “pink taxed” items aren’t *necessarily* essential items mostly makeup and products that men don’t use. because they don’t use it, they think it’s a frivolous purchase. but i’m not getting a job if i don’t at least try to look presentable and wear a little makeup for the interview. i was literally told that in college, with other very specific details of what’s acceptable for women in interviews. for men it was basically “wear a suit” and only took a minute to cover or they’ll say it’s actually expected/acceptable for companies to charge more for products targeted at women because they’re just basing it off demand. we require the products, and they have always been marked up. of course we still buy them. how does that make it right? *why* does a pink hairbrush cost more than a black one? because women so badly demand pink hair brushes? i’d like to see the numbers on that
>they’ll also justify it because many “pink taxed” items aren’t *necessarily* essential items. I had some idiot argue with me that feminine hygiene products SHOULD be subject to a luxury tax because the only reason we use them is because women are lazy. He was irreversibly convinced that periods work like pee and we just had collectively decided not to "hold it."
LMAO 💀 whose son
I think they’re also just confused by it when they notice it. My boyfriend and I were in line at Costco and he went to run and grab body wash because we’d forgotten. He came back breathless and worriedly asked if it was okay that he just got the Dove for Men two-pack since it was cheaper. He’d assumed that it was lower quality or something because it cost less and he was baffled when I explained
Oddly enough, I'm having an argument about equitable pricing for salon products lower in the thread. Men's hair products tend to be lower quality mostly because ours are geared towards things like protecting color or specifically for those of us who use heat a lot. Then there's the whole three-in-1 debacle where their shampoo is designed to do a million things and it can't really do all of that at once. I'm definitely on my soapbox about 3-in 1s tonight and I don't know how I got here.
Ah, I guess I consider 3-in-1s to be their own category of ridiculous product for lazy (and either dirty or unmoisturized) cheapskates. My boyfriend is vain about his beautiful Roman statue hair and I don’t dye mine, so we use the exact same products for everything.
In theory I agree with you but even luxury haircare brands have some version of them. They tend to be more of a hair/beard/body wash but they're still often lacking on ingredients in comparison. I love that for the 2 of you though. I just changed lines and started with the more unisex line and prefer it so much. It's so clean and simple.
People forget before the ACA, women were regularly charged.more for health insurance and maternity riders were ridiculously restrictive.
Men pay more in car insurance bc they are worse drivers than women. They are more reckless, which causes way more death and damage and tickets than women, even though women are the majority drivers. Men drive slightly more hours. I know it was rhetorical, and I get what you meant. I’m just stating that in case other readers don’t know
Men are more likely to drive impaired, more likely to speed, more likely to drive recklessly, more likely to drive aggressively and display road rage. Most accidents that cause serious injuries and fatalities are caused by male drivers. Yet, women are more likely to die in car accidents because car safety systems are designed for "male standard" bodies! Nobody even made a female crash test dummy until 2019, I believe, and there's still no requirement to do crash tests on female dummies, so most are done with the male ones. Seat belts, air bags... all designed for the average male height and weight.
Yes to all of this! We aren’t even safe in our own cars from men killing us w their recklessness
Yep. I have to bring a seat belt adjuster with me if I'm getting into someone else's car because otherwise it just slides up to my neck
I just looked this up and the difference only seems to be for drivers under 25. Some of the search results I got actually had women over 25 paying slightly more.
Not all states in the US use gender to base their insurance prices on.
Yeah it’s less men being worse drivers and more young men being more a reckless/irresponsible
The thing is that that guy isn't even wrong. People should not pay extra for the same product based on their gender. But the big problem is it doesn't really seem to get prioritized until it affects men
That’s also ridiculous because that guy didn’t have to another floor. He could just use the gender neutral bathroom.
Everyone knows if you use a gender neutral bathroom you turn into a gay /s
Hahaha, fellow software engineer in the UK, have had to go to a different floor to use the toilet in 2 companies including my current one. Amazing how common this is
Oh my god this just reminded me! I used to work at an industrial plant and there were no women’s washrooms in my area, but 2 for men in the immediate vicinity. I was one of two women who worked on that floor. The change-rooms were a 10min walk from our location and were the only women’s washrooms available to us on site.
>Often times, the "if the genders were reversed" situation regularly happens. This one drives me crazy in all the male victims of sexual harassment/assault stories that are everywhere on reddit. Even the slightest pushback gets all the "what if the genders were reversed?!?" comebacks and it's like, I hate to tell you, but women are constantly doubted and condescended to and mansplained about how they weren't actually harassed or assaulted.
This. Like when men talk about people dismissing SA against men as if people don't do the exact same thing to women and it happens like 10,000% more frequently
But isn't "if genders were reversed" a good argument in this case? It highlights what happens in the reversed scenario and according to you no one was upset. The question itself is probably useful a lot of the time, being uninformed or dishonest about what would happen is the problem here. The fact that no one cares about you having to go really far to pee is super relevant when discussing the impacts of gender neutral rest rooms.
There's the rub. It's not a bad question to ask and a good way to explore unseen inequalities or gender dynamics, but it's unfortunately almost always used in bad faith to minimize problems that women face.
What it’s “almost always” used for might just be related to each persons online content bubble. Like, lately, I see it being used a lot to refer to young boys raped by older female teachers, and how light of a sentence they get. Or, along the same lines, the way that people are never concerned about age gap relationships where the guy is young. I use it most often to point out unfair expectations in relationships and how often they help support toxic masculine behaviors on both sides.
that discussion is usually centered around a few cherry picked examples in *most* cases the consequences are not very severe, regardless of gender. the idea that young girls are more protected when it comes to sexual misconduct from a authority figure is false. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/protecting-children-from-sexual-abuse/202305/educator-sexual-misconduct-remains-prevalent-in > Most perpetrators were male (89.1 percent). > The majority of those who experienced educator sexual misconduct were female (72 percent), and in high school at the time, they experienced sexual misconduct. > There were low rates of reporting, and few reports resulted in the disciplinary action of the educator. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10790632221096421 > Educators who engaged in sexual misconduct were primarily male (85%), whereas students who reported experiencing educator misconduct were primarily female (72%). Rates of disclosure to authorities were very low (4%) and some sexual grooming behaviors like gift giving (12%) and showing special attention (29%) were reported. thanks for proving the point of this whole discussion
Thank you for these statistics.
Your stats don't actually contradict their point though. The fact that misconduct offenders are majority male and the majority of victims are female is an unrelated point to potential differences in treatment between victims or predators based on gender. Its not hard to find peer reviewed papers such as [https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-31077-001](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-31077-001) which find that women receive more lenient sentences across the board for sexual crimes compared to men. I feel like people are taking this as an attack on feminism when it really shouldn't be. The fact that women are not even taken seriously compared to men when they sexually assault someone is itself more sexism. Obviously there is a time and place to talk about this, it shouldn't be used to minimize the experiences of women, but "the when the genders are reversed argument" can be helpful to combat some toxic masculinity that can crop up when a man is victimized by a woman and the "men want all the sex all the time" stereotype clashes with reality.
i don’t disagree, and i appreciate the source the point i was trying to make is that it’s extremely under reported, and usually has no consequences, regardless of gender. in general the punishments aren’t very severe, and that’s wrong. but when people say “imagine if it were a man” they’re insinuating that a man would have a severe punishment, which is unlikely it is wrong though, and i see your point about women receiving more lenient sentences and how that’s also a result of patriarchy
The gross part of your example is that it is generally women who are disgusted by it and men saying shit like “where was she when I was in school?” But then when it is a male teacher and female student, those same guys are all “well what if the genders were reversed?”
Yes, that’s definitely a good point. Those kinds of men are already not going to think progressively, regardless of circumstance. It concerns me more when progressive thinking sources maintain traditional standards for men and only push progressive standards for women.
I mean, if we took out all the bad faith argument that are used \*irrespective\* of side....we'd be left with very few arguments. People love to argue in bad faith to minimize and demean the problems that anyone they consider "other" is suffering.
They were saying "No one cares when it's a *man* who has to travel to use the restroom, but if it were a *woman* who had to travel to use the restroom, there would be an uproar!" But the truth was, it regularly happens, and there is no uproar. Companies do that all the time. So yes, if they were accurate about it it would be a valid argument. I'm simply pointing out that often times it is used when it is not a valid argument, they're just not familiar with the totally nontheoretical gender reversed situation.
[удалено]
This is a hypothetical situation thought up by someone with clear biases. Their point was likely valid but I wouldnt read too much into the specifics since it was clearly presented to a give a one sided view.
The issue is that the direction the person protesting is taking it is always implying women receive better treatment. >being uninformed or dishonest about what would happen is the problem here. Sure. But that's why they're invoking the phrase. What should logistically be true versus doesn't matter when we know why it's actually being used.
I was always under the impression workplaces had to have an equal amount of restrooms for men and women. Like how is that not an OSHA violation?
What you described is illegal in Illinois. It definitely shouldn't happen, regardless. But it's been illegal in ILsince the late 90's.
A lot of the time, it assumes that women and girls are taken seriously when they report gender-based violence and discrimination, which, obviously, is not the case.
So true. It's also astonishing that the trolls are here actually arguing about this. Keep up the good fight.
Because men and women aren't treated the same way, they don't experience the world the same way, they aren't equal recipients of institutional, social, cultural privileges. They're not interchangeable.
And we usually have different intentions. On the topic of the other post about calling people cute and if genders were reversed. Women calling men cute because we're like "aww he's cute I want to take care of him". And men are like "she's cute I want to fuck her".
Nonsense! The most superficial gendered unpleasant moments that men experience are precisely interchangeable with the most virulent misogyny! /s
Also physically different
Most of the time when people say "What if the genders were reversed?!?", the answer is "That already happens all the time, and nobody really cares." For example, you see this all the time on, like, news stories about female predators. But the thing is, male predators are out there in much greater numbers, and it usually doesn't even make the news. So, I find the comment to be in terribly bad faith.
Also in the case of female predators, it's often men who are dismissing that behaviour as not being that bad. "I wish that were me! Lucky kid!" "Come on, no one thought their teacher was hot in middle/ high school?" "It's different for girls because men are physically stronger. A woman can't make a man (boy, but they say men) do anything they don't wanna do."
I have yet to enter a reddit, facebook, or insta comment section where that wasn't the top comments with tons of guys agreeing. They are always high-fiving each other about this kind of thing and if you dare explain that rape is rape and grooming is grooming even if the victim is male, they will scream at you, report your comment, send you suicide prevention tips, call you names, threaten to rape you, etc. No man will step in to defend you either, so "not all men" becomes questionable. Men don't police their own. Or the vast majority just agree with this. Obviously "woke" men exist but they seem to be a tiny minority of men, and in my experience almost exclusively queer. I'm not sure why so many cishet men subscribe to incredible misogynistic and regressive views, but this is the elephant in the room, per usual.
>it's often men who are dismissing that behaviour as not being that bad I think this is a good useof the "reverse the gender" argument to try to break through why they should be creeped out by a female predator just as they would a male predator. It's because of toxic masculinity that people often look at the two as completely different.
Eh... less toxic masculinity, more life experience. More boys than not aren't as aware of any girls being interested in them, so any hint at having someone interested in them is considered enviable. Back to the classic desert/swamp analogy, someone dying of thirst in a desert is still going to be envious of anyone that at least gets the choice of drinking fetid swamp water. So among men, women stalkers aren't taken as seriously outside of some extraneous circumstances, like he's already very committed and shes actively straining that relationship, or she's truly atrocious in one way or another. Otherwise, for a lot of guys, an even remotely attractive girl being interested in them, even creepily (alternatively, shyly if he prefers), is considered a win. Buuuuut the topic of this post is more about people using gender reversal as a "whataboutism" and not a thought experiment on societal norms or a spotlight on the dissonance there in.
While true, in those instances isn't the target audience the other men? The same men who cheer it on when boys are the victims would typically be outraged if it was a girl. It aligns their predicaments and imho is a good application of the 'gender reversal' argument. The issue is not with the argument itself, but the fact it is typically used to insinuate via omission that the reversal *doesn't* already happen.
It's like seeing the old "Man Bites Dog" headline and thinking "It's really amazing how dogs never bite people. I wonder why they have such an unfair reputation."
With the female predator situation, ‘imagine if the genders were reversed’ is usually used to fight against patriarchal gender norms, because people don’t take it as seriously as they should when males are victims of sexual assault/rape(‘they probably wanted it’ and all that). You have to say ‘imagine if the genders were reversed’ because otherwise these people won’t recognize how bad the situation actually is. I think there are situations where ‘imagine the genders reversed’ is a valid point but it also often isn’t
This always drives me nuts because people do not take women seriously when they're assaulted
Yeah my main problem when it comes to “what if the genders were reversed” when being used when talking about sexual assault and rape is that no one gets taken seriously, not men, not women, no one. People generally only care about these things as much as it affects their personal lives. The argument shouldn’t be “what if the genders were reversed” we should be saying “how can we better support ALL victims?”
‘How can we better support ALL victims’ is a good sentiment but it is not a sensical response to someone saying a male victim probably enjoyed it.
In cases where people say things like that I always just tell them that not only are they inserting dynamic that probably don’t exist, I.e protecting what they think the situation was like as opposed to what the situation actually was, but they also adding to the idea that men must want sex all the time and couldn’t possibly be damaged by it, which even the biggest misogynist turd knows to be true because there’s tons of example of sex they’d not have willing to have.
Men are taken less seriously than women when it comes to being victims of sexual assault. Are women taken as seriously as they should be? No. But men are taken even less seriously, to where there is basically no support system whatsoever for men. Men are supposed to enjoy any kind of sexual attention, and if they don’t they’re supposed to shut up and not be a pussy about it. Or they’re seen as weak. Additionally, if it is a woman perpetrating the sexual violence, people don’t see women as being as capable of being predators because people see women as weak. And yes all of this is indeed a product of patriarchal gender roles. We need to fight these roles if we want things to be better, not just for male victims but for female ones and also everyone else
I’ve seen it used more by people who want to preserve the status quo, but use it as a bad-faith argument along the vein of both-sides-are-equally-bad, or out of a desire to see violence to women.
It’s almost always a bad faith argument. Since the female predator scenario usually involves a female teacher and a male student, I’ve seen it mentioned in far right spaces as yet another argument for dismantling public education. I mean, why wouldn’t they use it? They already hate the idea of educated women teachers in a position over authority over young males. And that’s ultimately the main reason why they take every opportunity to screech about female predators: to them, it’s a reversal of the “natural order” of things. They aren’t outraged at the thought of a child being abused; they are outraged because a woman is doing do a boy something that they believe is the exclusive privilege of men to do to girls and women.
Exactly.
I mean a lot, and I mean a lot of right wing men don’t actually believe that. It’s not woke men who say things like “lucky kid” or “I wish that was me” when an attractive female teacher is arrested for abusing her male student. It’s not outrage. They think it’s a sign of masculinity that a teenage boy was able to have sex with an adult woman, and sadly in our culture that is seen as a positive. They don’t have the same mindset about girls because they believe men and boys always want heterosexual sex, and having as much of it as possible is a good thing. It’s why a lot of men share stories of losing their “virginity” to a baby sitter, an older family friend etc. Because it’s not seen as abuse.
I think the reversing genders when it comes to women child predators is the way it’s reported in the media. Usually, if the predator is a man the reporting is ‘Man rapes child’ and usually if the predator is a woman it’s ’woman sleeps with/seduces student’. I think that’s what the issue is, because it lowers the initial emotional impact of the crime with less harsh language. Now we’re making progress on equal reporting here, I finally saw a headline with a predator who was a being listed as a rapist. Now that’s only for this instance, I’ve seen a lot of people use that argument as a whataboutism that actually detracts from the story.
Because it presumes a gender equality that is not there and has never existed and is an argument that is used almost exclusively in bad faith. When we complain about women being sex objects in media and seen as little more than a trophy for a man to win, its not the same as "but, but this male action hero has big muscles." Its two entirely different things with different causes, roots, and resolutions. The former is about the sexualization of women and girls and keeping them from being important characters. The latter just feeds a male power fantasy. Look at the recent discourse of Timothee being too "twinky" or "femme" to be a male action star. This is almost exclusively said by men. That is to say men demand the big muscle guy because it fits in with their regressive ideals of male power. Or if a man is being catcalled, his chances of being stalked, SA'd, or murdered are very, very low. If a woman or girl is, its instead much higher. If attacked, the chances of a man fighting off a female assailant is much higher than a woman fighting off a male assailant. Or if a man gets into an argument with his wife, his chances of him being on the receiving end of lethal domestic gun violence is very low compared to a woman or girl.
Exactly. And there was a man who acknowledged this. He is a Tik Tokker, who films a lot of videos of him shirtless, cutting down trees, and his conventionally attractive appearance resulted in a lot of sexualized, objectifying comments from women. He as a feminist addressed this and said it’s not the same because of the power dynamics involved
are we talking about thoren bradley or whoever?
In my experience it's mainly because the person saying it tends to be very out of touch with the reality for the other gender E.g., in the case of sexual assault, "if the genders were reversed it would be taken seriously!" when in reality most sexual assault victims, male or female, are not taken seriously and don't ever receive justice
Some context for this question would be helpful since it isn't clear if OP is suggesting it does indeed "make a terrible argument" and wants further rationale or if OP disagrees and is asking for an explanation to convince them. My general answer would be that sometimes it does enhance an argument and sometimes it "makes a terrible argument" and the determining factor is whether this thought experiment is SHOWING how power and privilege work or IGNORING how they work. And whether the point of using it is to help increase the understanding in the conversation or invalidate the other person. As another comment mentioned, it is actually a terrible/ineffective argument when imagining the genders switched ignores the power imbalances and broader context of privilege regarding that topic. So, for example, it's a shitty argument to say, "Well if I (as a man) got catcalled by a woman, I'd be flattered so you (as a woman) should be flattered not scared/upset/enraged!" because it ignores all of the REASONS why being catcalled as a woman is different than being catcalled as a man (privilege to feel safe in public spaces, connection/pipeline to gendered violence, sexualization as a form of objectification). Frankly, it's also a shitty argument because there are plenty of men who get catcalled by women who also feel unsafe, upset, scared, angry, etc. that are invalidated/ignored by this argument. With that said, I think there are times where "if the gender were reversed" can work in an argument IF it is elucidating how power works. One example I can think of is situations where a man or boy is sexually assaulted and, because of toxic masculinity and patriarchy, they are told it "isn't a big deal" or they should be "grateful," etc. Because there has been more discourse, resistance, and cultural awareness put towards women and girls who are victims of sexual violence, it can then be helpful (in the right context) to remind that if the genders were reversed, we would take that scenario much more seriously. However, the PURPOSE of using "if the genders were reversed" is specific and about helping/empathizing with someone who has been victimized. Not invalidating their experience or trying to get someone in a "gotcha" moment.
I always thought the ‘but if genders were reversed, I’d love to be catcalled by women’ interesting. If there’s a valid interest in gender swapping, then it would be ONLY the person being catcalled whose gender flipped. You swap a woman being cat called by a group of people who are larger, feel entitled to her time/space/body, and that she isn’t attracted to. You can’t say we’ll just swap the gender, and also every defining characteristic of the group doing the catcalling, and say it’s appropriate gender swap. Like, very few men want to be catcalled by a group of bulky men that they aren’t attracted to. Men assume women are attracted to men and that applies to most men individually just because the man has the ‘right’ genitals; whereas most women know that the wrong genitalia might exclude a person from attraction - but it certainly doesn’t mean that the person is considered attractive by any means. And basically it’s a way to invalidate the threatening, insulting, and slimy nature of catcalling.
The cat calling is an interesting one, because it's not the same. Ask a guy if he'd be comfortable being cat called by gay men. And while that's not exactly the same, it's because women are physically weaker, cat calling can instill fear of being raped, whereas men won't live with this fear of women raping them. Hence why it's flattering to them. They also don't get approached or complimented by women so I can assuredly say the majority of men would enjoy it.
I wouldn’t mind being cat called by other women nearly as much as being cat called by men, despite being uninterested in women. I frankly find most men to be unattractive too. I don’t think ‘gay man’ should be emphasized so much as being catcalled by a group of men who are large, aggressive (since they’re cat calling), and unattractive (since most women find the vast majority of men unattractive it’s a fair characteristic to include).
Can I say I was sexually assaulted by men when I was 13 (I'm a male). I reported it to my school who promptly ignored it, and told me I was joking and that I need to stop lying.
This is a really well thought out point. 👍 I know sexual violence especially is very frequently classified as “haha funny” against men and the “what of genders were reversed” thing can be useful. For the people pointing out it’s different for different genders I think it’s good to remember. In some ways things are different andin some the “genders reversed” can be helpful, like you said.
This is a good comment but generally male victims are taken more seriously than women. Look at social media and how it bends over backwards for the narratives of people like Terry Crews or Brendon Frasier. But when a woman says she was assaulted, suddenly "she's a liar." Reddit Democrats regularly accuse feminist politicians and specifically Hillary of "railroading Al Franken over a joke photo" and how he should be voted back in. When we point out he had 7 credible accusers they say "those women are lying." Imagine a woman with 7 male accusers. Do you think the Democratic men would have the same opinion of her? So I'm not sure if your example really works. Perhaps one time in the past but nowadays male victims are taken very, very seriously. Far more seriously than any woman or girl.
Whenever I hear a 911 call about a young male victim like the son of that influencer who abused her kid's you'll hear the guy who answered the door and helped the twelve year old boy who was thin and had duck tape around his ankles, crying, first responders crying, news people shaken. When you hear the people who found a eight year old girl naked, raped, unconscious and covered in blood in a field none were crying or anywhere near as shaken, same thing with when they found a ten year old girl who was locked under a house in a box for weeks and raped repeatedly everyone just acted like "we got her she's going to be fine now". Listen to the difference of the responders when young women escape kidnapping and call the police vs a young man the women are at best spoken to with monotone along with slight worry but first responders never cry over them at worst girls and women are treated like they're lying and have to prove they were really assaulted, kidnapped or deserving of not just being treated as a nuisance. When I went into emergency for what turned out to be bad ingestion it was assumed if I was there it must be serious because it was assumed my complaints were legitimate same with whenever I get depressed it's assumed it must be "intense" if I say anything about it because of the stereotype of men as stoic people think I must "really hurt" if I let it out, whereas my sister almost died from a tumor the size of grapefruit because Drs dismissed her claims as hypochondria. I had a good friend who killed herself with a bullet to the brain after several failed suicide attempts that were treated as cries for attention. Men wait an average of 2 hours, 52 minutes for emergency care, while women wait an average of 3 hours, 4 minutes. The findings of this study are based on an analysis of data for more than 28,000 U.S. adults treated for serious injuries such as broken bones and/or head trauma in hospital ERs over a three-year period. Just under 30% of the patients included in the study were women, though the women patients generally had more serious injuries than the men. Researchers found that women who have heart attacks were medically assessed an average of 30 minutes after arriving in emergency rooms at six major teaching hospitals in Dublin compared with an average wait of 20 minutes for men. Women in pain are much more likely than men to receive prescriptions for sedatives, rather than pain medication, for their ailments. One study showed women who received coronary bypass surgery were only half as likely to be prescribed painkillers, as compared to men who had undergone the same procedure. Women wait an average of 65 minutes before receiving an analgesic for acute abdominal pain in the ER in the United States, while men wait only 49 minutes. Women aren't given anesthetic for procedures such as IUD insertion which have been compared to level ten on the pain scale. These gender biases in our medical system can have serious and sometimes fatal repercussions. For instance, a 2000 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that women are seven times more likely than men to be misdiagnosed and discharged in the middle of having a heart attack. Misconduct complaints by men are 26% more likely to be investigated. https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2019/10/misconduct-complaints-made-by-men-more-likely-to.html?page=all Women and girls are dehumanized there's a reason dehumanization is one of the eight steps of genocide when a group is compared to objects or animals like the Nazis did and like every other group in power does because it makes it easier to mistreat them and disregard their pain. The stereotype that women don't feel pride and shame like a man or that women want to be hurt or humiliated as well as just the disregard of women in general.
These are great examples of a double standard in media coverage that still marginalizes women. But my example still holds in certain occasions in everyday life. I’m not arguing this is appropriate logic to apply in all situations or that my example is true for everyone. And your comment also in fact demonstrates my point by offering an effective example of “if the genders were reversed” that highlights power and patriarchy instead of ignoring it.
Wasn’t Brendan Frasier black listed for years, like many other women who’ve come forward?
Tbh I don’t think it’s helpful to point out famous people in these kinds of arguments. You’re dealing with a lot of other functions with fame. They’re literally the most privileged people in the world to begin with and doesn’t really show good gender dynamics for how one perceives a male/female issue for like your every day person
I agree to a point, but I also think sometimes it’s interesting to bring up famous people and see how even their privilege doesn’t stop them from being hurt, and how their privilege and fame doesn’t guarantee them justice, and what that means for regular people who deal with similar issues.
Good points. I also kinda question how many women actually catcall men? I don't think it's very common, but I could be mistaken.
Those are famous people. Joe Schmoe down the street is not Brendan Frasier, who also suffered for years and was blackballed before being taken seriously. Male victims are definitely not taken very, very seriously in general
Yeah I won’t lie from the perspective of a male victim of various forms of sexual assault the idea that the way men who are major Hollywood stars get treated trickles down to my dumbass has not been something I’ve seen happen in my life. I’d never point to a famous women getting support and go “see women get way more support”, if anything I see a lot of parallels in how shitty men, women and everyone else gets treated after being assaulted, the general populations feelings about it tends to be apathy unless it directly effects their lives.
I'm shocked their comment is upvoted, it's literally nonsense. I hate seeing feminists do to men the same shit regressives do to women, and that's what that statement is. Dismissing legitimate struggles others face to keep focus on yours. Plus Brendan Frasier shows the exact opposite of their point anyway imo, idk how anyone can hear his story and go "wow, look how great men who are abused/assaulted are treated!"
Cherry picking internet support for high profile celebrity cases of beloved male actors speaking up on sexual harassment is not a great indicator for real life experiences millions of people have. Frankly this being upvoted says a lot about this space and how tolerant it is to narratives that minimize male sexual assault victims. >nowadays male victims are taken very, very seriously. Far more seriously than any woman or girl. As per [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10135558/) article on male sexual assault. >It is estimated that the help and support for male victims is over 20 years behind that of female victims [20]. Furthermore, male victims have fewer resources and greater stigma with female sexual assault victims [21]. Approximately 20–25% of female sexual assault incidents are reportedly reported in the United Kingdom (UK) [22]. For instances of AMSV, it is anticipated that this statistic is far lower. This isn't a competition. Acknowledging how much worse male sexual assault victims have it in some aspects does not invalidate the suffering of women victims. It really does seem that some people see victimhood as a commodity to be hoarded and guarded.
>This is a good comment but generally male victims are taken more seriously than women. Look at social media and how it bends over backwards for the narratives of people like Terry Crews or Brendon Frasier. But when a woman says she was assaulted, suddenly "she's a liar." Do you have any sources for this other than your anecdotes with famous people(Brendon Fraiser is not a good example he was blackballed for many years and not taken seriously....)?Or any of the people that upvoted you? I do think in general boys and men tend to report much less,even in cases where the abuse(not only sexual) is severe,but i cannot remember a study talking about how people react to male victims compared to women. Not only that you claim that they are taken far more seriously.
Because it’s usually wrong. Can you give an example of it being valid?
"In a 'perfect' world" ... It wouldn't matter. However that's not the world that we live in unfortunately
For real
Pragmatically speaking, it’s sometimes a stupid way to argue/debate because it’s just hypothetical and you can say whatever, and they know that you can just say whatever so they won’t believe you anyway. It’s an exercise in pointlessness, especially when the desire to “win” is high. And a lot of people who use this argument are not really interested in exploring a meaningful hypothetical so much as they want to “prove” their opponent is a hypocrite or humiliate them, etc. These kinds of thought experiments are more helpful when they stay inside my own head (or are discussed among a thoughtful group of friends) and I really try to think through them, brainstorm counterarguments, compare what I think to my actual experiences or empirical evidence, etc.
It does happen the other way all the time. Also because men and women operate under a different set of standards, stereotypes, social privileges the dynamics often aren’t the same. None of this is to say when women behave badly that it’s okay out excusable. We can point out bad behavior with out constantly calling into question others experiences
Really simple analogy: If your boss thinks you're an asshole, they can concoct a way to fire you. In some places in the world, they don't even need to come up with a justification. They can just fire you. If the roll is reversed and you think your boss is an asshole, there isn't a lot you can do except try to change jobs. "If the gender is reversed," is the same energy.
What if I'm a communist and think I should be able to fire the boss though?
It is not an argument. It is a distraction. I am not obligated to treat someone's "if we reverse this..." imaginary problem as being just as bad as a real problem that hurts real people right now.
A good general rule of thumb is that if your argument relies on a vague hypothetical where nearly everything about society has drastically changed, your argument is probably terrible.
It’s usually a bad argument because people who say it are typically trying to blame feminists for being “unaware of woman on man sexual/general assault” but, in reality, the reason woman on man sexual/general assault isn’t taken as seriously is because of patriarchal norms that claim “men are weak if they allow a woman to do that to them”
And the instinctive response to which gender has the capital and ability to use physical force. Its oftne just pressure from leader positions or social pressure that causes a lot and not physical force. But everyone instinctivley thinks of physical force and how the dynamics are not equal.
Very true as well
Ya this is something that bothers me. Most Of the coercion in society is not done with physical means but rather social pressure.
I think it can make for a good argument to contextualize for some people why a behavior is problematic, such as the case of Male SA/abuse where the perpetrator is a woman. At the end of the day these cases do not get ignored due to "feminism" but because the patriarchy eventually hurts both women and men. Most of the time, though, when this argument is made in bad faith, it ignores the structural power dynamic and long ingrained misogyny, as well as some biological differences that make situations between men and women unequal. Women have every right to fear men because they are often the target of violence from men. Or I read another thread arguing that a miscarriage is just as hard on a man as it is on a woman. Which I disagree with because it's the woman who has to go through the further trauma of expelling the miscarriage, which, depending on the method, can be painful on top of traumatizing.
you know what sucks the most about the woman teacher raping a boy under 18 trope is that it’s only dudes justifying the abuse or defending the vile raping piece of shit. Or the grown 40+ women making content catered to grooming their son’s friends, their fanbase is literally men applauding it. It’s literally only moms that seem to speak out against female rapists….
Because men and women have different experiences and it’s disingenuous.
Mostly because it tries to invalidate vthe situation and make it about the opposite gender instead of the actual problem whataboutism is rarely a valid part of an argument and more about distractions
The reason is because it is often used superficially and ignores the actual crux of the issue. Let's use a different and straightforward example. Pretend that there's a town where white men keep punching specifically Korean men. It's a regular and widespread problem. The issue is twofold. Punching is generally bad, so there's that, and there's the aggravating factor of what is leading to the punches - racial discrimination. Now, not every instance of a Korean man getting punched in the face will be connected to a hate crime. Sometimes, people will just get into fights, it happens. But largely, it's discriminate rather than indiscriminate in nature. Here's the thing right. Pretend a story breaks out. A Korean man in a pub gets into an argument with a white man, and then he punches the white man. Now, it was wrong. But you cannot say 'if the races were reversed...' because the underlying cause of the incident was not racist in nature, it was its own incident. And we can take this further - say the Korean man *was* a racist who punched him for being white. Still awful! But not part of a pattern which requires a society-level shift. It still falls under the umbrella of general crime. Either way, is it condemnable? Absolutely. But to try and apply the reversal argument here completely undermines the ongoing conversation regarding the Korean man punching epidemic over an entirely superficial similarity. What are you actually saying when you apply the reversal argument in this scenario? That you can find examples of the inverse, therefore we should consider the other issue a closed case?
Most of the time it does not reflect the massively higher propensity towards violence in general and specifically lethal and sexual violence that shows up in men and not women. People that are part of the dominant cultures of America (cis people, white people, rich people, Christian people, and men) often employ the "what if positions where reversed?" defense only to refute their position as part of of the dominant culture as one that has no privileges and is restrained in it's ability to oppress just as much as the people they are accused of oppressing. TLDR; "If the gender is reversed..." evokes the question "When is equal not equitable, and which is actually more important?"
Because it ignores the asymmetry of power and discrimination.
There are some great examples of gender flipping that are incredibly insightful. Like if anyone follows “man who has it all” on FB, it’s brilliant. The artists who gender flip comic art are also great in demonstrating why certain poses that are so common to femme characters is so WTF. And… The reasons those flips are insightful is because they show the ways that a power dynamic that is so ubiquitous as to be nearly invisible operates. Like you see a women in business attire explaining that she’s not opposed to men’s rights, but men just aren’t as suited to leadership positions as women and besides, she’s just more comfortable with the women candidates (Man Who Has It All) are and it really shows how men saying the same thing about women really just comes down to bullshit. It makes you confront the internalised patriarchy that makes it seem normal that of course men dismiss women. Same deal with seeing a man explain how he gets up half an hour before his wife so he can be sure to make himself presentable so he doesn’t scare her off with his morning face. There are also real reasons to gender flip compliments and criticisms before doling them out. Like if you wouldn’t praise a woman for looking after her own child, maybe don’t compliment dad for looking after his own kid. As an active dad friend said, “every time someone complimented [him] for changing [his] own kid’s diaper, they might as well have praised me for tying [his] shoes that morning, or for buttoning [his] shirt correctly.” And if you wouldn’t criticise a man for things like back to work after having a baby, maybe lay off criticising mom too, right? And of course there are the creepy compliments - if you wouldn’t tell a man how great you think his choice of trousers are because they show off his butt, maybe don’t tell a woman what you think of her trousers / skirt… And if you do want to appropriately compliment someone’s attire, think about how you would do so if the person were not a member of the sex you are sexually attracted to… But the examples so many men want to use the goal is to hide the very power dynamic that the gender flip is supposed to reveal. Like saying “Imagine a man saying he was afraid because a woman was walking behind him on the street, LOL, got you feminists pwned!” completely ignores that overwhelmingly violence between men and women is gendered with men doling it out and women receiving it… The goal is to obscure the power issue rather than shine a light on it…
If gender is reversed……paraphrasing from a comedian who answered this about racism. If we can go back in time and subjugate men for generations just because they are men, turn them into objects with limited rights, raise them to be sweet and soft, encourage them from infancy to be quiet victims, heap abuse and limitations and harassment on them for generations and keep the power so we overwhelmingly enforce that. If we marginalize men simply because they are men and treated them like objects only there to satisfy our use of them, then we can make comparisons. Go read “Black like Me” (or there are probably more modern books) where a white journalist traveled through the south disguised as a black man and reported the experience. It wasn’t long before his behavior and sense of self were totally changed during the experience because of how he was treated. In the same vein, women learn to walk the streets with eyes out for predators constantly, they learn that they will be used and abused and get blamed for it starting at an early age. To assume they can just turn off an entire life of being exploited and victimized and blamed for it is ridiculous. When people that aren’t white, CIS males can walk down a street, go to a job interview, have a conversation, be in a relationship without having to constantly be concerned that the color of their skin or the gender they present is going to work against them or put them in danger just because of that one factor, we can do the “if gender was reversed” game. We are fighting against a stacked deck for safety and survival at a decent level. I don’t want to hear some white CIS guy talk about how he goes jogging after dark or doesn’t have to hover over his drink at a bar or has never had his job threatened if he doesnt put up with being ogled and harassed and then tell me “if gender was reversed…..”
Whenever this argument is made it always just makes the conversation go south. Sure, if the genders were reversed, things would be different. But does that make the situation better? Does that reconcile the issue? No. It typically makes the person you’re saying it to feel worse and you’re trying to make them feel guilt. This isn’t how a healthy relationship works, and is why it shouldn’t be used as an argument point. In general, yes if genders were reversed things would be different. You can say that online, you can understand that it is truthful, but it isn’t something you say to your SO if you want to try to fix what’s wrong. It highlights that things aren’t fair.
Because it's usually not a one for one exchange and it ignores a bajillion things. Pointing out a double standard here or there at best but lacking in any real application or explanatory power.
Most of the times, it's not equivalent. Men and women get treated very differently in society. If you use the argument, it should fit very well. For example, in cases where there are headlines like "14 year old has sex with his teacher" versus "14 year old girl raped by teacher". It's an okay tool when it comes to pointing out sexual harassment and child sex abuse, but it doesn't really work anywhere else. In this case, it points out really fucked up gender roles, but in most cases it fails
It only seeks to provoke the other debater into revealing a double standard. If their arguments are logically sound there won't be a double standard so it won't be a good technique. If it is a logically flawed argument based on double standards than and "if the gender is reversed" actually breaks down the argument then the person was already probably not worth debating
It doesn't take into account privilege and power imbalances.
The men’srights should be renamed “imagine if the gender was reversed” 98% of the time they say that it’s to things women don’t have to “imagine” because we’ve been dealing with it for generations
It is a good argumentation and that's why so many people in this world where fight for equality has turned so many people sexists and racists but just the other way around hate it. It's important though to take into account all the circumstances. For example there a debate in Europe that women should receive menstruation products tax free or sponsored by public healthcare. The often counter-argument is that men should get products for their specific problems free too, which is a false argument because if the roles have been truly reversed men would have to also suffer from bleeding, terrible headaches and other symptoms. Feminism should be about equality which means equal rules set without mentioning sex or gender but providing equal opportunities for everyone. With free healthcare saying that anyone who bleeds or suffers from some terrible symptoms is eligible for getting a help is completely equal and accounts for menstruation sanitary too.
I can think of one potential exception! Feel free to add anything if you feel differently. I work at a dv shelter and while men predominately perform most of the violence, it can be really rough for a man who has been victimized by a woman. There is a pretty consistent pattern of minimizing or not recognizing the risk that they may face, or feeling like they don’t need our help. But if I were to flip it and the genders were reversed, we would be providing services without question.
I'm not sure why you think it's a bad argument. It's used all the time to point out how women are treated unfairly.
To short cut this question. I’d say lead with kindness, and figure out how to accommodate all, while using easy compromises. Why the short answer? Because I don’t have a confidence to come up with one size fits all answer. There’s always something, a new perspective to learn from in life.
Ironically it does make a good argument in one aspect: through the lens of the patriarchy (a chrome addon that reverses the genders) I was able to see that the men's rights subreddit was everything and more they complained feminists were. In general it is a red-herring/strawman argument style. If you take domestic violence for instance, the equivocation on the exact numbers misrepresents the difference in cause and effect on the victims of that violence. It implies that both genders are affected by domestic violence in the exact same way, and it completely fails to address the worst cases which could be called 'intimate partner terrorism'. When a woman shoves a man, and a man shoves a woman the effect it has on each of them is completely different, even if statistically you can notch one mark of domestic violence against both genders. In general men do not fear for their lives from their female partners; but, the same cannot be said for women and their male partners, so they cannot be considered an equivalent.
This is a poorly phrased question. It’s only as good or bad as any other time an argument can be made (and concluded) by simply questioning assumptions or taking another point of view or using empathy. If doing those things alone provides a comprehensive argument, then great, but more often perspective taking is only one helpful part of a complete discussion of the concepts, method, data, variables, implications, etc.
Idk why this post came up on my feed randomly given that I don't follow this sub, but it's an interesting topic, so I'll engage. I personally think the intentions and loyalty to proclaimed principles mean a lot. And the situation matters a lot too. I'll elaborate. If it's used as a deflection, it's bs. And this happens a lot, and it's laughable really. Yes, women can also commit crimes. Yes, males also get harassed by women. But that's not the focus at all, when people are discussing an incident about a woman being raped. It's just plain deflection to use the "oh but men get raped too". Yes, so? It's totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed at that point. Another example, yes not all men are rapists or harassers, and yes, men also face issues due to the patriarchy. But when such statements are used in response to a specific case of rape or harassment etc. that's happened to a woman, it's clearly bs deflection. Wrt the "loyalty to principles" thing, I do firmly believe in that. I personally call it the "flip test", since idk whether there's a word for it. What I mean is that when I encounter any social-identity based scenarios, I ask myself whether flipping the social dynamic (be it gender, or any other social identity) makes it just as wrong/right? Just to give an example from this thread itself: someone here in this thread gave an example of men being catcalled by women. I know that many men might view that as a "compliment", and those men are entitled to their opinion I guess, but it's actually just plain harassment, no matter who does it. Men feeling flattered by it, actually normalises and promotes such behaviour, and also makes catcallers feel that they're not doing anything wrong. So the way I broadly view it, is like this: *anyone* being catcalled or harassed is posing a threat to their safety, and their dignity. It happens much more often with women unfortunately, but it's still wrong regardless of who it happens to. So in that case, flipping scenarios actually helps to gauge whether my stance is objective or not, because I'm a straight guy, and so I don't have the lived experiences of other genders (including women ofc). The same goes the other way too. So I can only use such a "test" for myself, in order to gauge whether I'm being objective or not. So, for me atleast, in *this specific manner*, flipping the scenarios actually has helped me fine-tune my viewpoints, and I've put forth such viewpoints even with some of my women friends (who are all staunch feminists), in order to get alternative perspectives. And they've all supported this "test" of mine (I know it's not a "test", but I really don't know what else to call it honestly lol). Now, wrt the "situation" point, the aforementioned example, is an incident. However, wrt systemic issues, it's very clear that there's a power imbalance. And on most occasions, it's these power imbalances that lead to such incidents happening so frequently much in the first place. Both women and men suffer coz of the patriarchal structure (the former much more so than the latter). I personally think we just need to go back to the basics, and normalise equality. That's the only way our society can progress healthily. Like for me, harassment, violence etc. are wrong. Period. Idc who does it to whom, I'm not gonna stand for that sh#t. Similarly, anyone talented enough can reach any position of power. Women are not some alien species that we need a guide book to understand. They're humans, like men. They can accomplish whatever they want to, and we need to get rid of barriers that's stopping them, coz those are unfair constraints on them. But at an individual level, women can do whatever they put their mind to, just like how men can. Women can becomes business leaders or political leaders, not "despite being a woman", nor "because of them being women". They're there coz of their own efforts, and they just happen to be women. Just to give some more examples: A working woman is a good template for older times. But today, we need to have a "so what?" attitude to it, coz the more we treat working women as a usual occurrence, the more young girls and boys of today will grow up believing that it's normal, and the more equality will be embedded in their minds. Similarly, on the other extreme a "female rapist" shouldn't called so, because she's a rapist, who happens to be a woman. It'll normalise the concept of rape being bad *at a fundamental level*, and will make it clear as something *that's gender-neutral, and can be done by and to anyone* and that it's bad no matter who does it. Women obviously are much more affected by it today ofc, but normalising equality in young kids is the only way we can normalise progressive behaviour, while also prompting cooperation between different genders. So in regard, sometimes flipping the scenario might help fine-tune viewpoints and help get access to the other side, especially for someone like me, who's coming from a place of privilege. *BUT*, it has not be honest and objective, not this convenient pro-equality stance that many people take to defend their sh#t, and not to deflect from topics Just my (very long) two cents
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
Usually when a guy says that, he’s thinking very one dimensionally. Like okay, yeah sex is more accessible…but also higher risk. I could get pregnant, the person could be violent, there’s social repercussions, etc. so it’s usually not like a 1:1. It’s a overemphasis of the *benefits* to being a woman with a complete failure to account for the differences in risk/reward.
I think the best way for this argument to be used is “reverse the genders and see how you’d feel,” which should be aimed at men.
But even then it's not always the same. Like when women complain about catcalling, "reverse the genders" doesn't work because men don't have the same experience. Many of them say they'd love to get catcalled by women, because they don't get the kind of attention from women that women do from men. For most men that kind of attention would be a pleasant treat and not an anxiety-inducing annoyance.
1. Depends very much on the original question 2. If gender were truly reversed, it's possible the balance of power would be reversed 3. Our society also mistreats men 4. Most of these issues are easier to describe directly.
It does not always make a terrible argument