Originally Posted by
tremolo
First, thanks for expressing yourself in a respectful manner.
I have not questioned the fact that power is heavily shifted to one side, which is the male side. But that doesn't mean that just being a man puts us in a position of power. At this level –the level of an everyday joe– my opinion has as much weight as the opinion of the bartender down the street, the lady cashier at the grocery store, or the bus driver.
What's my point? That beyond this being a gender issue, it's a power issue. So, when someone says that men should be particularly vocal about this, I say we all should be. And I also say that the impact of my voice has no more impact just because I am a male. If there is a group of people whose voices have more impact, it is that of people who are in positions of power, or with enough of a scope to reach others (celebrities, for example).
When I say victims do have power, I didn't mean to say that they have the power to avoid abuse, since we're all vulnerable and exposed just by being alive. I do strongly believe that we have the power to act after, and I do understand that it's easier said than done, mostly because of the sense of fear and shame. I think as a society we should have stronger mechanisms to help and support victims so these cases of abuse can be dealt with before the abuser can continue harming more people.
I think that the discrepancy here, and what seems to enrage some users here is that I think that "men" as a whole don't have the power to fix this huge fuckup. It's those people who are in a position of power who can actually make it happen: politicians, CEOs, filmmakers, etc.
Which brings us to politics. I do understand the frustration. I mean looks who is the president of the most powerful country in the world! And look who is prime minister just north of trumpland. As progressive as he might seem, I'm very critical of the way he has been dealing with shifting the balance of power. Trudeau said half of his cabinet would be women. When he was asked why, he said "cause it's 2017." What the hell is that supposed to mean? That it's 2017, therefore women should be given privilege just because they are women and haven't been on the spotlight enough? What about saying "because there are as many women as men capable of doing the job"? So, as progressive as it might seem, there is still this rotten smell of "just because" or "because we have to" instead of actually empowering women, not just because oftheir gender, but because it's time that their skills, work and effort are noticed, rewarded and encouraged.
About the examples you gave before, I do understand and see your point, but I just can't share the same view, mostly because a victim can justify so many things by considering themselves a victim. I have seen both sides from very close: women (and men) who have walked into the role of the victim because they didn't see another way at the time given the circumstances; and women (and men) who didn't give in and walked into a difficult path of uncertainty instead of giving their potential aggressor any power over them. Having said that, I want to stress this: I am not blaming the victims. What I am saying is that there are alternatives and other ways, but I do understand the victim's course of action (as in sucking the attorney's dick), because these abusive situations are complex, mostly because of the huge mindfuck that the aggressor plays on their victims.
I think in the end we have more points in common than we initially thought. The difference is that I consider that it is positions of power what helps abusers get away with it, not their gender. And I don't think I'm right and you or others are wrong just because you don't agree with me, it's just different perspectives.
Thanks again for taking the time to elaborate your points. This kind of debate is necessary, and as dark as the subject is, it's very rewarding to have a respectful conversation with someone who doesn't necessarily agree.
Reply With Quote