What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[ruby sparks]

Women have been saying for decades, for much, much longer than that! very nicely and respectfully.

And many things have been improving and are continuing to improve, and radical feminism, indeed feminism generally, has been in decline. Go figure.

 

[Toni]

Here it is:

I could be mistaken, but I believe you've written that you, yourself, have changed over the years and raising daughters has helped that along. I know that my father felt much differently about his own daughters' abilities and opportunities and rights than he did about the abilities, rights and opportunities of any of his wives. (Like all good conservatives, he was married multiple times, including the obligatory bleached blonde with enormous boobs who was nearly two decades younger than he was) or most women or women in general. How he treated his daughters did not erase how he behaved towards his various wives and what he thought about women's role in society in general.

I'm not saying you are like my father in his sexist attitudes. I am really sure you are not. I'm saying that all of us sometimes slip into prejudices and beliefs that are not supported by reality, that women are treated poorly in many respects (men are as well but that is not the topic of this conversation within this thread) and that sadly, horrifyingly, your daughters and mine must face a horrifying amount of gender bias, discrimination, harassment, and sexual assault at the hands of men.

Women cannot fix this, or at least cannot fix this in a way that men would like very much.

Men need to. Saying "I'm not like that!" is about as useful at ending the general harassment and threats of violence women face as me saying "I'm not like that!" and expecting that lets me off the hook with regards to racism. I mean: good for you and good for me but that's not enough. And saying that doesn't apply to us is actually quite horrifying because it lets us off the hook for what happens in The Real World--and it tells those who are being harmed that the people they thought were their allies are in fact, self satisfied assholes who won't look beyond the ends of their noses and certainly won't do any self examination or stand up when they see something that isn't right, much less advocate for better laws, better policies, better enforcement. Fairness. Equality.

Well, if I go back to my father's generation, what that involved was him working 365 days a year outdoors in all weathers at an often dangerous job that made him very little money and nearly killed him, just to provide for his family. And to go back a generation further, my granddad had to fight in the trenches and his life was scarred thereafter.

In any case, my main answer to your question was 'Many men, and an increasing number as far as can be told, are able and willing to empathise with women, partly as a result of a decline in traditional gender roles.'

But whatever, I'm not disagreeing with you. I never said there wasn't a fair point in all of this. I just object when it goes ott.

Yeah, my family were farmers and all of my uncles were in WWII and one of my grandfathers was disabled in WWI and died way too young because of it and my father in law, my brothers in law, my own son went to war and faces very real consequences because of it.

No one is suggesting that men do not face horrendous dangers, many of which could and should be avoided by avoiding armed conflict, including The War On Drugs.

But right now, we're talking about women being assaulted by men.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

We're just done swallowing it, making nice, smiling, stuffing the anger inside.

That's a good thing. Fight against those who do this to you. Just don't conflate them with men in general, and develop misandy prejudice. Don't fall into the same pattern of thinking as white nationalists, homophobes, etc. It isn't men in general who attack you or fail to defend you.

Some men will just say: mean, scary ANGRY woman! She's just over-emotional! We like nice, sweet, demure women with quiet voices who tell us how nice WE are, not those mean, scary, ANGRY women!

That's actually one step better than what you and this article routinely do. The better comparison would be the first question in isolation and generalized to women. Something like "women are mean, scary, angry, over-emotional and weak". Then backpeddle when called out and say oh that's just a generalization, and not all. Then go back to listing negative stereotypes about women, all while trying to play the victim.

While having nothing but sympathy for boys who are molested by priests and righteous anger not just at the individual priest but at the entire Catholic church, Catholicism

That makes more sense. Unlike men, the Catholic Church is an organized group with top down doctrine its members, who are free to leave/join, are to adhere to. And the Catholic Church is known to cover up this sort of wrong doing. Maybe a proper analogy would be a college frat with a code that endorses misogyny and rape.

, religion and god.

There are many reasons to attack religion. This isn't one of them. I can't think of anyone who blames Hindus for Catholic rapist priests or Quakers for Muslim terrorist attacks, can you?

Do Quakers and Hindus have a special added responsibility to speak out and step up, beyond what atheists do, because they too believe in gods?

Why aren't men able or willing to empathize with women?

They are. I posted videos of this that you have continued to ignore.

Or at least accept that women have good reason to be angry?

They do.

 

[ruby sparks]

But right now, we're talking about women being assaulted by men.

Yes. Quite why we're spending so much time on it in a thread about what it means to be a man I'm not entirely sure, even if it is part of the issue, but no one, I don't think, objects to talking about that topic (assaults on women by men), of itself. Personally, I just object when points made or cases put are not balanced, accurate or fair.

 

[Toni]

But right now, we're talking about women being assaulted by men.

Yes. Quite why we're spending so much time on it in a thread about what it means to be a man I'm not entirely sure, even if it is part of the issue, but no one, I don't think, objects to talking about that topic (assaults on women by men), of itself. Personally, I just object when points made are not balanced, accurate or fair.

How do you feel about the survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests?

Do they need to always be what you consider balanced, accurate and fair? Or are they entitled to their outrage, anger, horror?

 

[ruby sparks]

But right now, we're talking about women being assaulted by men.

Yes. Quite why we're spending so much time on it in a thread about what it means to be a man I'm not entirely sure, even if it is part of the issue, but no one, I don't think, objects to talking about that topic (assaults on women by men), of itself. Personally, I just object when points made are not balanced, accurate or fair.

How do you feel about the survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests?

Do they need to always be what you consider balanced, accurate and fair? Or are they entitled to their outrage, anger, horror?

As has been said, there are several ways the issue of abuse by priests is a different kettle of fish. For one thing, the RCC is a hierarchical institution which actively covered up abuses.

And no, I would not tar all individual priests (or nuns) with an abuser brush, and do sometimes think the criticisms go too far and say this, including here at this forum.

But yes, if any criticism of anything is inaccurate or over-generalises negative stereotypes, particularly if it's aired on a public or national platform, then that's not good, imo, because it risks being ignored or underappreciated for that reason. Saying good men are bastards or that men have never, not once, done anything organised about certain gender issues may not be helping things all that much (apart from generating traffic at an online newspaper) and could make attitudes more divided.

 

[ruby sparks]

I could be mistaken, but I believe you've written that you, yourself, have changed over the years and raising daughters has helped that along.

Yes it has. And I'm glad of it. And by the same token there are some women who come to see that their previously strong views and their prior focus mainly on women's issues are ameliorated when they bear and bring up sons.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes it has. And I'm glad of it. And by the same token there are some women who come to see that their previously strong views and their prior focus mainly on women's issues are ameliorated when they bear and bring up sons.

Indeed. The "Honey Badgers" are a thing (women standing up for men's rights issues).

Here is an article about them from a Feminist perspective, including the requisite bashing of some MRAs:

https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/news/a15964/honey-badgers-mens-rights-movement/

 

[Toni]

I could be mistaken, but I believe you've written that you, yourself, have changed over the years and raising daughters has helped that along.

Yes it has. And I'm glad of it. And by the same token there are some women who come to see that their previously strident views and their prior focus only on women's issues are ameliorated when they bear and bring up sons.

Obviously I don’t know all women, but I know exactly 0 who are only focused or who are primarily focused on women’s issues. Including my friends who are lesbian.

I certainly am no more ‘understanding’ of men who are sexist, misogynistic, who demean and belittle women, who catcall, slander, assault or rape women than I was before puberty. As an elementary school kid, I intervened when boys bullied girls and boys. Because some boys made a point that boys were better at basketball, I took my game from half assed to being able to set a rolling pick, dunk >80% of my free throws and sinking a respectable number of what we called 3 point shots on the school playground. I believed my father when he said we could do anything.

Which did not prevent me from being sexually assaulted before I reached high school but did play a huge role in helping me prevent my own rape—and later, the gang rape of a friend at university. By very nice guys who lived in our dorm and ate lunch with us and were in our classes.

I’m the same person I always was and I raised sons to respect everybody and who treat women as equals. I raised my daughter to stand up for herself but that could not prevent her from being grabbed and flashed —at her job, no less, nor could I prevent her boss from punishing her for reporting an assault that happened at work. It does not keep her safer as she gets to and from her job or simply lives her life.

She routinely carries mace and a loud horn. Do you? My sons don’t. They don’t need to.

I cannot change what makes men in this society feel that it just isn’t their problem. And from feeling women who are angry about the shit they still are expected to take from men are just too strident, too angry. Too....uncomfortable. I know women are supposed to be nice, sweet, understanding.

The problem isn't that women don't understand. It's that we understand too much.

We’re supposed to delineate the good men from the ones who would hurt us, keep us out of jobs, out of positions of power? How, exactly? Most of the assaults and rapes come from men we love and are supposed to be able to trust. Every guy who assaulted me looked exactly like someone my parents would have thought was a great guy, someone I should date. One was a member of the family in every way except blood.

So how are we to delineate? Sexist pigs do not wear signs saying: beware!

 

[Toni]

How do you feel about the survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests?

Do they need to always be what you consider balanced, accurate and fair? Or are they entitled to their outrage, anger, horror?

As has been said, there are several ways the issue of abuse by priests is a different kettle of fish. For one thing, the RCC is a hierarchical institution which actively covered up abuses.

And no, I would not tar all individual priests (or nuns) with an abuser brush, and do sometimes think the criticisms go too far and say this, including here at this forum.

But yes, if any criticism of anything is inaccurate or over-generalises negative stereotypes, particularly if it's aired on a public or national platform, then that's not good, imo, because it risks being ignored or underappreciated for that reason. Saying good men are bastards or that men have never, not once, done anything organised about certain gender issues may not be helping things all that much (apart from generating traffic at an online newspaper) and could make attitudes more divided.

I don't understand how it is 'a different kettle of fish.'

Yes, the RCC is a hierarchical institution which actively covers up abuses.

Our society is pretty darn hierarchical (and patriarchal) and pretty actively covers up and excuses and minimizes the abuses.

Expecting priests as individuals and the RCC to quit covering up and denying abuse and to change the structures that allow the abuse and coverup is not the same thing as calling all priests rapists or would be rapists. It's calling on the institution and the individuals which comprise the institution and its power structure to take action--serious action--at all levels--to stop the abuses and to ameliorate the damage done to the victims and their families.

Expecting men and the government and society to quit covering up for each other, to quit denying and minimizing the abuses men inflict on women is not the same thing as calling all men rapists or would be rapists. It's expecting men who hold the majority of power in the world to take serious action at all levels to stop the abuses and to ameliorate the damage done to victims and their families.

I don't really see a difference except that men are pretty universally outraged about the abuses committed by priests in the RCC and are not nearly so universally outraged or committed to creating change IN MEN to prevent the abuses men inflict on women.

Even though, frankly, men would benefit as much as women from such changes.

- - - Updated - - -

Women have been saying for decades, for much, much longer than that! very nicely and respectfully.

And many things have been improving and are continuing to improve, and radical feminism, indeed feminism generally, has been in decline. Go figure.

You wish.

 

[Treedbear]

How do you feel about the survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests? ...

As has been said, there are several ways the issue of abuse by priests is a different kettle of fish. For one thing, the RCC is a hierarchical institution which actively covered up abuses. ...

Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress

The Editorial Board, USA TODAY Published 6:01 p.m. ET Nov. 27, 2017

... mandating that settlements be secret and having taxpayers pick up the tab for lawmakers violating the law — represent the opposite of accountability.

I think this is a rather explicit example of how much the problem is rooted in the system. And I haven't heard of any serious objections by congresswomen. It's sadly pathetic in every sense of the word.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress

The Editorial Board, USA TODAY Published 6:01 p.m. ET Nov. 27, 2017

... mandating that settlements be secret and having taxpayers pick up the tab for lawmakers violating the law — represent the opposite of accountability.

I think this is a rather explicit example of how much the problem is rooted in the system. And I haven't heard of any serious objections by congresswomen. It's sadly pathetic in every sense of the word.

I don't doubt that Congress might be a hierarchical and mostly male institution which might not be a completely different kettle of fish to the RCC in some ways.

My point was that you can't compare the group 'men' so easily.

 

[Toni]

Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress

The Editorial Board, USA TODAY Published 6:01 p.m. ET Nov. 27, 2017

... mandating that settlements be secret and having taxpayers pick up the tab for lawmakers violating the law — represent the opposite of accountability.

I think this is a rather explicit example of how much the problem is rooted in the system. And I haven't heard of any serious objections by congresswomen. It's sadly pathetic in every sense of the word.

I don't doubt that Congress might be a hierarchical and mostly male institution which might not be a completely different kettle of fish to the RCC in some ways.

My point was that you can't compare the group 'men' so easily.

Oh. Your point failed.

 

[ruby sparks]

Obviously I don’t know all women, but I know exactly 0 who are only focused or who are primarily focused on women’s issues. Including my friends who are lesbian.

Ok, but the sort of person I described does exist. And studies suggest that having only daughters is correlated to being more feminist (and by extension that having only sons isn't).

I certainly am no more ‘understanding’ of men who are sexist, misogynistic, who demean and belittle women, who catcall, slander, assault or rape women than I was before puberty. As an elementary school kid, I intervened when boys bullied girls and boys. Because some boys made a point that boys were better at basketball, I took my game from half assed to being able to set a rolling pick, dunk >80% of my free throws and sinking a respectable number of what we called 3 point shots on the school playground. I believed my father when he said we could do anything.

Which did not prevent me from being sexually assaulted before I reached high school but did play a huge role in helping me prevent my own rape—and later, the gang rape of a friend at university. By very nice guys who lived in our dorm and ate lunch with us and were in our classes.

I’m the same person I always was and I raised sons to respect everybody and who treat women as equals. I raised my daughter to stand up for herself but that could not prevent her from being grabbed and flashed —at her job, no less, nor could I prevent her boss from punishing her for reporting an assault that happened at work. It does not keep her safer as she gets to and from her job or simply lives her life.

She routinely carries mace and a loud horn. Do you? My sons don’t. They don’t need to.

No I don't (nor do my daughters either but anyways). But I said this in another thread, and I said it was something that I was glad to have been made more aware of, via the hypothetical 9pm curfew thing. It's far from the only thing I'm wondering why you are bringing in to our current conversation here, when what I was objecting to in this thread were cases when issues were unfairly and inaccurately overstated. But hey, throw the kitchen sink around.

And yes you have previously spoken of the abuse and other issues that you and your daughter have suffered and you have my sincere sympathies. I think I also said that both my mum and my little sister were victims of sexual abuse.

 

[Toni]

Obviously I don’t know all women, but I know exactly 0 who are only focused or who are primarily focused on women’s issues. Including my friends who are lesbian.

Ok, but they do exist.

I sincerely doubt that.

And studies suggest that having only daughters is correlated to being more feminist (and by extension that having only sons isn't).

Not disputed.

I certainly am no more ‘understanding’ of men who are sexist, misogynistic, who demean and belittle women, who catcall, slander, assault or rape women than I was before puberty. As an elementary school kid, I intervened when boys bullied girls and boys. Because some boys made a point that boys were better at basketball, I took my game from half assed to being able to set a rolling pick, dunk >80% of my free throws and sinking a respectable number of what we called 3 point shots on the school playground. I believed my father when he said we could do anything.

Which did not prevent me from being sexually assaulted before I reached high school but did play a huge role in helping me prevent my own rape—and later, the gang rape of a friend at university. By very nice guys who lived in our dorm and ate lunch with us and were in our classes.

I’m the same person I always was and I raised sons to respect everybody and who treat women as equals. I raised my daughter to stand up for herself but that could not prevent her from being grabbed and flashed —at her job, no less, nor could I prevent her boss from punishing her for reporting an assault that happened at work. It does not keep her safer as she gets to and from her job or simply lives her life.

She routinely carries mace and a loud horn. Do you? My sons don’t. They don’t need to.

No I don't (nor do my daughters either but anyways). But I said this in another thread, and I said it was something that I was glad to have been made more aware of, via the hypothetical 9pm curfew thing. It's not the only thing I'm wondering why you are bringing in to our conversation here, when what I was objecting to were cases when issues were unfairly and inaccurately overstated. But hey, throw the kitchen sink around.

And yes you have previously spoken of the abuse that you and your daughter have suffered and you have my sincere sympathies. I think I also said that both my mum and my little sister were victims too.

There was nothing unfair about the opinion piece I linked. No, it did not single you out by name and say: not this guy: he's one of the few good ones. It did suggest, as I am doing, that ALL men do have a responsibility to get MEN to treat women better. Because MEN listen better to other MEN than they do to WOMEN who are seen as strident, angry(the nerve!)unfair and overstating what? that women are still routinely victimized by men throughout their lives? Are we supposed to just not notice? Not speak up? Tolerate it because there are good men out there? No. All that gets us is more of the same.

I mean, how are we supposed to look at men and tell which ones will harm us and which ones will not? Which ones will be allies and which will be passive standersby and not do anything if we are being assaulted, harassed, etc.? Which ones will punish us, blame us, curtail our rights for speaking up?

Y'all don't have your inclinations tattooed on your foreheads.

But even if you did, it's still a responsibility of men. And it's a responsibility of Catholics to hold their church and church leadership accountable and to insist that things change to protect all. And it's the responsibility of all of us who live and breathe on this earth to stand up for each other and for the earth and to work towards a better, more fair, more just, more livable world.

There are ways that men can influence other men that women cannot. I'm not blaming anyone for that. You should embrace that power. And use it for good.

 

[ruby sparks]

There was nothing unfair about the opinion piece I linked.

There was clearly both inaccuracy, unreasonable negative stereotyping and over-generalising in that piece.

Apart from that issue, in your posts you're just going over a lot of other stuff that I would tend to agree with you about to at least a good extent and in several cases completely, and have done previously, in this thread or others.

Ok I think we're done for now. I'm off. Thanks for exchanging views.

 

[Toni]

There was nothing unfair about the opinion piece I linked.

There was clearly both inaccuracy, unreasonable negative stereotyping and over-generalising in that piece.

Apart from that issue, in your posts you're just going over a lot of other stuff that I would tend to agree with you about to at least a good extent and in several cases completely, and have done previously, in this thread or others.

Ok I think we're done for now. I'm off. Thanks for exchanging views.

I don’t see how opinions and feelings can be full of inaccuracies.

I think it’s really inconvenient to have to face someone’s anger, especially when they have some good points.

 

[Jarhyn]

There was nothing unfair about the opinion piece I linked.

There was clearly both inaccuracy, unreasonable negative stereotyping and over-generalising in that piece.

Apart from that issue, in your posts you're just going over a lot of other stuff that I would tend to agree with you about to at least a good extent and in several cases completely, and have done previously, in this thread or others.

Ok I think we're done for now. I'm off. Thanks for exchanging views.

I don’t see how opinions and feelings can be full of inaccuracies.

I think it’s really inconvenient to have to face someone’s anger, especially when they have some good points.

The problem is presenting it as feelings, rather than validating the feelings against principles. In the former, it's all just an apppeal to outrage, and in a latter it is an appeal to (reason).

 

[WAB]

I understand your objection to that section. It was the part that I feel was a bit problematic, as well. It feels more global than general, if you understand the difference. The women's movement(s) have been much larger and much more public. Men's movements, men's groups? Not so much. In the US, there has been the Million Man's March which dealt with Civil Rights in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Man_March) and the Promise Keepers, an Evangelical Christian group (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promise_Keepers). And then there's Robert Bly (https://www.pbs.org/kued/nosafeplace/interv/bly.html) who, btw, is wrong about a lot in the interiew I just linked. But no, there is not any widespread movement of men which has any center on how women are treated by men and by society and how they should address violence against women which is mostly committed by men or violence against men, which again is mostly committed by men.


This may not be what you are doing but what I see quite often is people--mostly male people but not 100%--rejecting something out of hand because they object to one statement, one bit. In fact, I can think of someone who I actually love quite a bit who, in a discussion about day to day personal family/relationship stuff, not political stuff on a forum--will seek out and latch onto one thing that he (in this case, it's a he) wants to argue about instead of actually arguing/discussing the main topic. Because that's what's comfortable for him and the issue itself is not comfortable for him. To debate one minor statement--or part of a statement- instead of actually participating in a discussion where a difficult issue might be resolved or at least better understood. It's not productive and in this particular case, I find it not only frustrating irritating but downright cowardly. My observation is that most men I know have an excruciatingly difficult time saying that they are wrong about something or even saying I'm sorry. This is a relatively small sample comprised of men I know personally and not intended to apply to you or outside of men of my acquaintance.

Everyone likes to think of themselves as a good person. I do. I'm sure you do. I'm sure you are a good person and a good man.

My opinion is that our culture and our society is not doing enough to stop the thousands of ways that it treats women as though they are less than, as though they don't matter. I think the same about how our culture and our society treats children, persons of color and all that it considers 'other' and yes, men. But the topic of this article and this conversation between you and me and a few others is about how men treat women.

It might be useful for you to discuss specifically what your objection to that paragraph is.

I thought I already did that? Discuss specifically what I thought was ott about that paragraph I mean. And you're right, of course I'm not picking up on one small aspect of the article and ignoring the rest. To me, pretty much the whole article was hyperbolic venting, starting with two paragraphs telling us about a rant aimed initially at her husband and then segueing to the global option. I must admit, I did feel a bit sorry for the husband. It sounds to me (I'm guessing) that her anger may have been triggered by something to do with the Blasey Ford thing, and maybe the husband said something awry to set her off. That's what she implies.

Now, do I see the writer as some sort of misandrist? No. Do I think that she has an underlying point? Yes, but it's so overstated that I end up thinking the article shot itself in the foot.

It's really a shame that men still think that women must be nice at all times, must never express anger, no matter how righteous, at the misogyny and violence directed at women by men.

That must be so tough for men to hear.

I really tried hard to resist responding to this, but at long last, I can't help it. I'm 54 years old, and I've known exactly zero men who believe that women should just be nice at all times, must never express anger, no matter how righteous, at the misogyny and violence directed at women by men. Never. Not one.

I'm not claiming for a second that such men do not exist! I am sure there are millions of male ratbags in the world, but even among those men I've known who were not exactly feminists, I've known none - none at all - who would actually claim that women should just be nice and suffer misogyny and violence without defending themselves.

Most of the men that I know will defend women with all they've got - even to the point of getting into brawls and fistfights over it.

I am very sorry for the harm you have undergone at the hands of assholes who are men. I wish destruction on all of them. What can I do? I intervene whenever I can, whenever I see a woman being treated poorly. I defend the rights of all humans, everywhere, regardless of nationality, race, or gender.

 

[Toni]

It's really a shame that men still think that women must be nice at all times, must never express anger, no matter how righteous, at the misogyny and violence directed at women by men.

That must be so tough for men to hear.

I really tried hard to resist responding to this, but at long last, I can't help it. I'm 54 years old, and I've known exactly zero men who believe that women should just be nice at all times, must never express anger, no matter how righteous, at the misogyny and violence directed at women by men. Never. Not one.

I'm not claiming for a second that such men do not exist! I am sure there are millions of male ratbags in the world, but even among those men I've known who were not exactly feminists, I've known none - none at all - who would actually claim that women should just be nice and suffer misogyny and violence without defending themselves.

Most of the men that I know will defend women with all they've got - even to the point of getting into brawls and fistfights over it.

I am very sorry for the harm you have undergone at the hands of assholes who are men. I wish destruction on all of them. What can I do? I intervene whenever I can, whenever I see a woman being treated poorly. I defend the rights of all humans, everywhere, regardless of nationality, race, or gender.

I deeply appreciate your post.

Here's the thing, and I'm speaking for myself only: I don't need an apology. Thank you. It's not what is needed, and it's not what will mend a situation from the past. The past is done. I'm actually ok with the whole situations re: myself. I'm decidedly less OK with knowing what my daughter, women everywhere deal with on a daily basis. And hey: my daughter and I are white! We've got the easy mode.

Not to say that men don't have their own shit to deal with every day. They do.

I am very deeply moved and appreciative that so many have expressed sympathy, empathy, outrage at the bad experiences I have had. I really wasn't looking for anyone to feel sorry for me, but I was looking for empathy--not specifically for myself but for guys to actually look at how things are from a girl's, from a woman's point of view. At how what might be a small thing for a guy can have far more serious consequences for the recipient. Heck, I know very well that I was/am extremely lucky that I was able to fight off my attackers. I know that a lot of that was frankly luck, coupled with adrenaline and a strong sense of myself (thank you Dad!)--that admittedly took a while to find. Not that it wasn't horrifying, nauseating, disgusting, upsetting in every way possible. But I survived. And while it made me perhaps overly cautious during my dating years, I don't fear, resent, dislike or in any way have negative feelings towards men. I like men. I love men.

What I need, what I think women need, what I think MEN need, what I think the world needs is for people to stop harassment, assaults, rapes, misogyny, racism, bigotry, the whole shebang. Not just don't do it, but don't tolerate it, and don't tacitly agree with it as that individual's right by keeping silent. I've personally seen what one disapproving look can do to squash bad behavior. Not that a disapproving look is always sufficient but it's a great start and much more powerful than we like to believe. Even more powerful are words of encouragement where needed, disparagement where needed. Examples are best. Sometimes, force is necessary. Regrettably.

I think we all need to do a much better job of raising children to be strong, confident, kind, thoughtful, respectful, empathetic--and to at the same time hold on to their imagination, their unique points of view, their sensitivities, their tender hearts as well as their brilliant minds. Even if we don't have children.