Are All Men Trash? Discussion

OrangeRKN wrote:Of course men are going to respond. They read a statement that "all men are trash" and jump to it being a personal attack because they identify as a man and therefore think you've just called them trash. It's a predictable and not unreasonable response from someone who doesn't understand the context or rhetoric behind that statement.

Just in this thread you've seen that not all men are going to respond [in that manner]. But look how you used that term in a colloquial sense...

If you're a man, objecting to the general rhetoric device based on historical precedent of "Men are Trash" on the grounds of "don't tar me with that brush", it raises a question mark over where your priorities are.

We're back to the critique of some reactions to this advert

t:gillette---is-this-the-best-a-man-can-get?f=7&hilit=Gilette

Message: Men [as a collective] need to/can do do better to improve society
Man A: How dare you imply I personally need to improve?

Jenuall wrote:If someone cares about an issue why would they not want to either contribute in a way that may help to solve it or, if they are unable or unwilling to do that then to find a way to raise the profile of it in an effective way?

If someone cares that much about an issue - why would they objective to collective messaging...or arguable stop trying to help them?

Man A: "Well I was going to help address Social Issue A, but now that someones implied that the social group I'm part needs to improve (me? improve!) I'm out!

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I feel the natural to that response, which is a valid response!, Is Karl's post.

Karl’s post is great.

But it doesn’t change the fact that when you say “men are trash” all that happens is pages of arguments about “not all men!” rather than the actual topic.

If men were less trash, then they'd understand the point, and there would be no argument.

Probably. And if minuses in my bank account were credits then I’d be rich. Wanting something doesn’t make it true.

If you want to make a change, then you have to be prepared to work on making those changes. If that means saying “toxic masculinity is bad” rather than “men are trash” it’s a small price to pay, because you are not going to win many converts if half the population think you are insulting them.

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I feel the natural to that response, which is a valid response!, Is Karl's post.

Karl’s post is great.

But it doesn’t change the fact that when you say “men are trash” all that happens is pages of arguments about “not all men!” rather than the actual topic.

If men were less trash, then they'd understand the point, and there would be no argument.

The logic of this post is questionable on several levels.

If men were less trash then there wouldn't be an argument in the first place - because we wouldn't live in this patriarchal society as that is a result of men being trash.

If you think men are trash then it is a sensible conclusion that calling them trash will lead to a trashy response. You can't then give up and say "if only they weren't trash they would understand my point!" - You know they are trash! Your point is that they are trash! Find a way to progress the issue or you are just hoping the other side finally wakes up one day and agrees with you.

Women and men as social groups exist in a social hierarchy, comparable in some ways to that of the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Phrases like #MenAreTrash and #EatTheRich are useful as a rallying idea, and a message of radicalisation, for the oppressed group in those hierarchies. Social movements typically need radical rhetoric to be effective.

Some #NotAllMen men might need the thrust of the argument to be clarified, but we can do that in the ensuing conversation. Other #NotAllMen men are reactionary counterrevolutionaries who won't be happy with any genuinely radical change. The risk with apologising for or changing a movement's radical rhetoric is that if you give reactionaries an inch they'll take a mile.

Jenuall wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I feel the natural to that response, which is a valid response!, Is Karl's post.

Karl’s post is great.

But it doesn’t change the fact that when you say “men are trash” all that happens is pages of arguments about “not all men!” rather than the actual topic.

If men were less trash, then they'd understand the point, and there would be no argument.

The logic of this post is questionable on several levels.

If men were less trash then there wouldn't be an argument in the first place - because we wouldn't live in this patriarchal society as that is a result of men being trash.

If you think men are trash then it is a sensible conclusion that calling them trash will lead to a trashy response. You can't then give up and say "if only they weren't trash they would understand my point!" - You know they are trash! Your point is that they are trash! Find a way to progress the issue or you are just hoping the other side finally wakes up one day and agrees with you.

I think the point being made is if a man was less trash, he wouldn't care strongly about the generalisation "Men are Trash"

I like it. Maybe our slogan should be: Not all men are trash, but all #NotAllMen men are trash.

Karl_ wrote:I like it. Maybe our slogan should be: Not all men are trash, but all #NotAllMen men are trash.

But how do we monetise it?

If one were to say any of:
> "Women are trash"
> "(Country X) people are trash"
> "ResetEra members are trash"
...you would - quite correctly, in my view - be challenged on it. I don't think that women, Country X people or ResetEra members would then be wrong to think or say "I don't agree with that viewpoint".

Karl_ wrote:...The risk with apologising for or changing a movement's radical rhetoric is that if you give reactionaries an inch they'll take a mile.

Possibly, Karl. But if one starts out from a provocative positioning, it can be sometimes be hard for their intended point to be seen. I can, of course, appreciate that the provocative positioning can be intended as a clever device for drawing attention to a subject.

Hexx wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I feel the natural to that response, which is a valid response!, Is Karl's post.

Karl’s post is great.

But it doesn’t change the fact that when you say “men are trash” all that happens is pages of arguments about “not all men!” rather than the actual topic.

If men were less trash, then they'd understand the point, and there would be no argument.

The logic of this post is questionable on several levels.

If men were less trash then there wouldn't be an argument in the first place - because we wouldn't live in this patriarchal society as that is a result of men being trash.

If you think men are trash then it is a sensible conclusion that calling them trash will lead to a trashy response. You can't then give up and say "if only they weren't trash they would understand my point!" - You know they are trash! Your point is that they are trash! Find a way to progress the issue or you are just hoping the other side finally wakes up one day and agrees with you.

I think the point being made is if a man was less trash, he wouldn't care strongly about the generalisation "Men are Trash"

I don't think you've understood my point.

If you assume men are trash (which is the position of someone saying "men are trash" yes?) then you accept that they will care about those generalisations and will, as I say, respond in a trashy way to you making that statement.

Whilst you can personally lament that fact, it shouldn't be a suprise to you, because you know that men are trash right?

So either you continue in this cycle of hoping that the thing you think is trash stops being trash long enough to not care about you calling them trash (...at which point they wouldn't be trash any more...) or you think - am I happy stoking the fires of the thing I want to change or do I need to accept that this method isn't working?

Jenuall wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I feel the natural to that response, which is a valid response!, Is Karl's post.

Karl’s post is great.

But it doesn’t change the fact that when you say “men are trash” all that happens is pages of arguments about “not all men!” rather than the actual topic.

If men were less trash, then they'd understand the point, and there would be no argument.

The logic of this post is questionable on several levels.

If men were less trash then there wouldn't be an argument in the first place - because we wouldn't live in this patriarchal society as that is a result of men being trash.

If you think men are trash then it is a sensible conclusion that calling them trash will lead to a trashy response. You can't then give up and say "if only they weren't trash they would understand my point!" - You know they are trash! Your point is that they are trash! Find a way to progress the issue or you are just hoping the other side finally wakes up one day and agrees with you.

I think the point being made is if a man was less trash, he wouldn't care strongly about the generalisation "Men are Trash"

I don't think you've understood my point.

If you assume men are trash (which is the position of someone saying "men are trash" yes?) then you accept that they will care about those generalisations and will, as I say, respond in a trashy way to you making that statement.

Whilst you can personally lament that fact, it shouldn't be a suprise to you, because you know that men are trash right?

So either you continue in this cycle of hoping that the thing you think is trash stops being trash long enough to not care about you calling them trash (...at which point they wouldn't be trash any more...) or you think - am I happy stoking the fires of the thing I want to change or do I need to accept that this method isn't working?

So men (collectively) are trash but don't call them out on that or there's absolutely no way they will stop being trash....

Again - I take that viewpoint similarly to how I'd view...picking at random...a comment under say the "Opt out" approach to Organ Doners saying "I'm a organ doner, but not they're forcing it I'm opting out".

It's disingenuous outrage based on reactionary insecurity (see also Gillette - which wasn't "Men are Trash" but "Men can do better")

If people genuinely care about wanting to do better - telling them their collective needs to do better won't put them off.

I believe most people who's back gets put out by the hint of personal criticism in the collective criticism probably weren't looking to improve anyway. So why pander to them or refuse to call a spade a spade? That's not what that type of rallying cry is for. A message doesn't have to be all things for all people.

Karl_ wrote:Women and men as social groups exist in a social hierarchy, comparable in some ways to that of the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Phrases like #MenAreTrash and #EatTheRich are useful as a rallying idea, and a message of radicalisation, for the oppressed group in those hierarchies. Social movements typically need radical rhetoric to be effective.

Some #NotAllMen men might need the thrust of the argument to be clarified, but we can do that in the ensuing conversation. Other #NotAllMen men are reactionary counterrevolutionaries who won't be happy with any genuinely radical change. The risk with apologising for or changing a movement's radical rhetoric is that if you give reactionaries an inch they'll take a mile.

Social movements need to either conquer the thing they are rallying against or find a way for that thing to agree it needs to change.

If your rhetoric is not helping you achieve those goals then how long do you continue with it? I agree that the problem is massive - the "defensive" majority (i.e. the patriarchy in this case) can simply deflect and if the opressed group changes their rhetoric they can claim that as a victory, and those opressed will lose momentum. I don't have the answer to that and perhaps what we will see is that #MenAreTrash will eventually prevail?

Despite all this discussion I don't personally have a problem with the #MenAreTrash message - I know that it isn't an attack on me personally.

I have no problem being a man and yet accepting that men need to change, being white and accepting that white privilege needs to change, being English and accepting that I am a part of a history which is extremely questionable. But I am, by and large, not the sort of person who needs to be reached by this messaging. The fact is that those who do need to change do not seem to respond well - and that may always be the case unfortunately.

Hexx wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I feel the natural to that response, which is a valid response!, Is Karl's post.

Karl’s post is great.

But it doesn’t change the fact that when you say “men are trash” all that happens is pages of arguments about “not all men!” rather than the actual topic.

If men were less trash, then they'd understand the point, and there would be no argument.

The logic of this post is questionable on several levels.

If men were less trash then there wouldn't be an argument in the first place - because we wouldn't live in this patriarchal society as that is a result of men being trash.

If you think men are trash then it is a sensible conclusion that calling them trash will lead to a trashy response. You can't then give up and say "if only they weren't trash they would understand my point!" - You know they are trash! Your point is that they are trash! Find a way to progress the issue or you are just hoping the other side finally wakes up one day and agrees with you.

I think the point being made is if a man was less trash, he wouldn't care strongly about the generalisation "Men are Trash"

I don't think you've understood my point.

If you assume men are trash (which is the position of someone saying "men are trash" yes?) then you accept that they will care about those generalisations and will, as I say, respond in a trashy way to you making that statement.

Whilst you can personally lament that fact, it shouldn't be a suprise to you, because you know that men are trash right?

So either you continue in this cycle of hoping that the thing you think is trash stops being trash long enough to not care about you calling them trash (...at which point they wouldn't be trash any more...) or you think - am I happy stoking the fires of the thing I want to change or do I need to accept that this method isn't working?

So men (collectively) are trash but don't call them out on that or there's absolutely no way they will stop being trash....

...

I believe most people who's back gets put out by the hint of personal criticism in the collective criticism probably weren't looking to improve anyway. So why pander to them or refuse to call a spade a spade?

It's not that there is "no way they will stop being trash" and that isn't anything like what I have said.

Call them trash as much as you like, but if calling them trash is achieving nothing (because trash doesn't like being called trash) then what is the next step? If you really want the trash to stop being trash do you not keep looking for ways that might have more success, either as a replacement of in addition to the "trash" narrative?

Karl_ wrote:Women and men as social groups exist in a social hierarchy, comparable in some ways to that of the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Phrases like #MenAreTrash and #EatTheRich are useful as a rallying idea, and a message of radicalisation, for the oppressed group in those hierarchies. Social movements typically need radical rhetoric to be effective.

Some #NotAllMen men might need the thrust of the argument to be clarified, but we can do that in the ensuing conversation. Other #NotAllMen men are reactionary counterrevolutionaries who won't be happy with any genuinely radical change. The risk with apologising for or changing a movement's radical rhetoric is that if you give reactionaries an inch they'll take a mile.

When has radical and alienating rhetoric ever resulted in a positive change though?

Consider:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification”, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

For it’s time that was a radical speech, but Dr King was clever enough to not say “those white people are bastards!”, his whole speech was about the races coming together and living together in harmony and with true justice.

Dr King would have been well within his rights (well well well well within!!) to have said that white people are trash. They damn well were and most still are. But it doesn’t advance the cause to say something that instantly allows the oppressor to get out of answering the actual question. Saying “white people are trash” converts nobody. Saying “I have a dream of peace, equality and unity between races” is a lot harder to argue with.

One of the main troubles with progressives at the moment is the branding. I understand what is meant by “Men are trash” and I don’t disagree, but you lose the argument when it’s used, as instead of getting a rational discussion you will simply get a barrage of “not all men!” comments and your actual point is lost.

The far right are absolutely kicking the ass of progressives in this regard. People like Farage wised up a long time ago. Rather than scrawling swastikas on walls and writing “Pakis go home!” on family homes, they realised that they get better results by hiding their message. Saying “Isn’t all this Muslim terrorism bad” is far far more effective than saying “Pakis eh, they smell of curry lol!”. By being smarter they can suck in people that wouldn’t even contemplate being racist and it’s then easy to gaslight them into worse and worse positions.

If you want to win, then you need to be less radical and more diplomatic. Not because the arseholes deserve diplomacy (they don’t) but because you need the undecideds in the middle. You don’t have to become a centrist (god forbid ) but you need to get those centrists broadly agreeing with you before they get swept up by the arseholes.

Just to add, I think we're a long way off "justifying" #notallmen - that's intended by many who use it to discredit and silence the underlying valid discussion that needs to be happening, and simply uses "not all men" as a seemingly naive argument that the uninformed will naturally sympathise with. The very intention there is to re-frame the argument in bad faith away from discussing toxic masculinity and culture as a whole towards an invented narrative of personal attacks against men.

Karl_ wrote:Phrases like #MenAreTrash and #EatTheRich are useful as a rallying idea, and a message of radicalisation, for the oppressed group in those hierarchies. Social movements typically need radical rhetoric to be effective.

Is there evidence for this? Because this is where I don't see the value. What I see is, rather than:

Karl_ wrote:Some #NotAllMen men might need the thrust of the argument to be clarified, but we can do that in the ensuing conversation.

Instead you've turned those potential allies away from your cause with imprecise rhetoric that allows your ideological opponents to frame your arguments as absurd.

I am thinking about the notion "Your sexual grouping is trash and you don't realise that because you are trash". I don't agree with it but, realistically, it's hard to counter because the subsequent response will always be "you don't realise because you are trash".

Personally, I feel that the issue could be avoided by simply using the phrasing "some (sector of people) are trash" but I understand that the more provocative approach is used to garner attention to the subject.

Radical rhetoric is not mutually exclusive with liberal rhetoric. Successful social movements typically have both. As simple examples---obviously there is nuance here but the thrust is correct---look at the liberal suffragists vs. the radical suffragettes, the nonviolent Martin Luther King Jr. vs. Malcolm X, or liberal pride parades vs. the radical queer riots.

Not to give too much importance to Twitter, but the "not happening five years late on GRcade" version of this discussion already happened in c.2014 and was a moment of real radicalisation for women on that platform. Funnily enough, the reactionary #NotAllMen countertendency resulted in further radicalisation of women under the #YesAllWomen tag, which was a direct precursor to e.g. #MeToo, which resulted in real life change via radical direct action (a form of "outing" oppressors, which was already used in a different form as a direct action tactic in radical queer communities).

Radicalising the oppressed is well worth annoying the oppressors in the calculus of revolution. Change does not come from above. An angry oppressed class who knows their enemy and is motivated to fight for their rights is a precondition for any genuine, radical change.

Moggy wrote:

Karl_ wrote:Women and men as social groups exist in a social hierarchy, comparable in some ways to that of the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Phrases like #MenAreTrash and #EatTheRich are useful as a rallying idea, and a message of radicalisation, for the oppressed group in those hierarchies. Social movements typically need radical rhetoric to be effective.

Some #NotAllMen men might need the thrust of the argument to be clarified, but we can do that in the ensuing conversation. Other #NotAllMen men are reactionary counterrevolutionaries who won't be happy with any genuinely radical change. The risk with apologising for or changing a movement's radical rhetoric is that if you give reactionaries an inch they'll take a mile.

When has radical and alienating rhetoric ever resulted in a positive change though?

Consider:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification”, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

For it’s time that was a radical speech, but Dr King was clever enough to not say “those white people are bastards!”, his whole speech was about the races coming together and living together in harmony and with true justice.

Dr King would have been well within his rights (well well well well within!!) to have said that white people are trash. They damn well were and most still are. But it doesn’t advance the cause to say something that instantly allows the oppressor to get out of answering the actual question. Saying “white people are trash” converts nobody. Saying “I have a dream of peace, equality and unity between races” is a lot harder to argue with.

One of the main troubles with progressives at the moment is the branding. I understand what is meant by “Men are trash” and I don’t disagree, but you lose the argument when it’s used, as instead of getting a rational discussion you will simply get a barrage of “not all men!” comments and your actual point is lost.

The far right are absolutely kicking the ass of progressives in this regard. People like Farage wised up a long time ago. Rather than scrawling swastikas on walls and writing “Pakis go home!” on family homes, they realised that they get better results by hiding their message. Saying “Isn’t all this Muslim terrorism bad” is far far more effective than saying “Pakis eh, they smell of curry lol!”. By being smarter they can suck in people that wouldn’t even contemplate being racist and it’s then easy to gaslight them into worse and worse positions.

If you want to win, then you need to be less radical and more diplomatic. Not because the arseholes deserve diplomacy (they don’t) but because you need the undecideds in the middle. You don’t have to become a centrist (god forbid ) but you need to get those centrists broadly agreeing with you before they get swept up by the arseholes.

King also bemoaned white moderates as well, though. People who were purporting to be allies of the rights movement.

Split this out into a separate thread.

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Karl_ wrote:Women and men as social groups exist in a social hierarchy, comparable in some ways to that of the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Phrases like #MenAreTrash and #EatTheRich are useful as a rallying idea, and a message of radicalisation, for the oppressed group in those hierarchies. Social movements typically need radical rhetoric to be effective.

Some #NotAllMen men might need the thrust of the argument to be clarified, but we can do that in the ensuing conversation. Other #NotAllMen men are reactionary counterrevolutionaries who won't be happy with any genuinely radical change. The risk with apologising for or changing a movement's radical rhetoric is that if you give reactionaries an inch they'll take a mile.

When has radical and alienating rhetoric ever resulted in a positive change though?

Consider:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of “interposition” and “nullification”, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

For it’s time that was a radical speech, but Dr King was clever enough to not say “those white people are bastards!”, his whole speech was about the races coming together and living together in harmony and with true justice.

Dr King would have been well within his rights (well well well well within!!) to have said that white people are trash. They damn well were and most still are. But it doesn’t advance the cause to say something that instantly allows the oppressor to get out of answering the actual question. Saying “white people are trash” converts nobody. Saying “I have a dream of peace, equality and unity between races” is a lot harder to argue with.

One of the main troubles with progressives at the moment is the branding. I understand what is meant by “Men are trash” and I don’t disagree, but you lose the argument when it’s used, as instead of getting a rational discussion you will simply get a barrage of “not all men!” comments and your actual point is lost.

The far right are absolutely kicking the ass of progressives in this regard. People like Farage wised up a long time ago. Rather than scrawling swastikas on walls and writing “Pakis go home!” on family homes, they realised that they get better results by hiding their message. Saying “Isn’t all this Muslim terrorism bad” is far far more effective than saying “Pakis eh, they smell of curry lol!”. By being smarter they can suck in people that wouldn’t even contemplate being racist and it’s then easy to gaslight them into worse and worse positions.

If you want to win, then you need to be less radical and more diplomatic. Not because the arseholes deserve diplomacy (they don’t) but because you need the undecideds in the middle. You don’t have to become a centrist (god forbid ) but you need to get those centrists broadly agreeing with you before they get swept up by the arseholes.

King also bemoaned white moderates as well, though. People who were purporting to be allies of the rights movement.

Sure, but which method was remembered and which method continues to inspire people worldwide?

Karl_ wrote:...Radicalising the oppressed is well worth annoying the oppressors in the calculus of revolution. Change does not come from above. An angry oppressed class who knows their enemy and is motivated to fight for their rights is a precondition for any genuine, radical change.

I do agree with this. To me, though, it's feels a little unnecessary to use this approach in a GRcade thread where the big majority seems to be on-board with the idea of driving equality across society... but perhaps I'm a tad naive in thinking that way or, maybe, not appreciating the struggle of a sector(s) of society.