Having tried that, i assure you it is a great way to get hit in the face with a beer bottle. Once again we see that physical harm to women is unacceptable while physical harm to men is not only acceptable but expected. Why precisely am i obligated to risk serious injury or death trying to stop some drunken fratboy so a women does not risk less physical truama then i will almost certainly sustain.

I as a woman have physically defended myself, faced and talked down the male holder of a loaded automatic weapon three inches from my chest, and as a kid, gave a boy a black eye for shoving my girl friend to the ground and put a permanent stop to bullying wherever I saw it, from girl or boy, in my high school teaching career.

But hey, if you've never won an argument, or you've never talked a guy out of being an asshole -- or if you've never even had to -- I can see that for you it's easier to just stay in the group that benefits from unequal power relations. Add your silence to the rest.

Men listen to each other. They do talk each other into behaving better. That's not a stereotype. That's what men believe about each other and respect about each other. What values do you even have if you don't speak up for those values?

Welp, don't think I'm taking this personally. I'm not. However, for you to think you'll "almost certainly sustain" "physical trauma" when you won't even "sustain" attention to this man ... I could think of more to say, but...

edit: Wait. Are you some troll?

Because obviously anyone trying to address these issues from and intersectional perspective outside of a narrow gynocentric framework is obviously a troll.

Lets try this. First, addressing your point, nearly every pre-feminist progressive group recognized that in an oppressive system some person or group had a vested interest in perpetuating the oppression. The first thing communists/socialists decided was that the emancipation of the working class could only be achieved by the working class itself. That those with a vested interest in exploiting workers could not be expected to stop exploring workers simply because they where asked. The same was true of abolitionists, hence W.L. Garrison's statement "With reasonable men i will reason, with humane men i shall pleade, with tyrants i shall give no quarter, nor spend arguments where they will surely be wasted." I make no contention that rape culture exists and exploits women, but if this is the case then someone benefits from rape culture, and that group will be utterly indifferent to any attempts to persuade them to stop raping.

This is why #notallmen occurred, and what feminists have (again) managed to totally miss. #Notallmen is not a statement of solidarity or an excuse, men are telling you you are preaching to the choir, that those men who would listen to calls to cease rape would not have considered raping in the first place, and those men who would rape could not care less what you or anyone else thinks of that. The type of male who thinks rape is a viable norm is "alpha centric", earnestly believing that they are "superior" to other males and thus would not pay the slightest attention to the opinions of their "inferiors" (other males as well as women). Is this not what the homicidal loon in California said himself?

More broadly, I am rapidly becoming horrified with the complete failure of the modern left to concretely address issues of all forms because of its fixation that everything must be related to women. In 1965 the per employee output of the united states was $11,481 (719 billion in gdp, 62.6 million full time equivalent workers), Men's (median) where paid $6,598, women's median $3,816, meaning men where paid $0.57 for every dollar they produced and women where paid $0.33 per dollar output, on average. In 2008 we had a per employee output of $112,802, with median male pay at $47,779, for $0.42 per dollar output, and womyn's median pay at $36,688, or (Wait for it) $0.33! This has been hailed as a triumph of feminism.

Before you obviously attempt charging me with derailing, consider for a moment. You assert men are expressing feelings of "Entitlement", and this i concede fully. Why should men, having lost 21 trillion dollars in unpaid wages, not feel entitled to something in return? Particularly since this loss resulted in no meaningful gains for womyn? Why would a group of people who has seen their ability to secure first tier Maslow's needs destroyed to no concrete purpose not be expected to direct ire, even wrath at those celebrating its destruction? Why would this not invariably lead to a culture of hatred towards womyn? If a culture of misogyny exists, it stems from two equally important beginnings, neither of which as addressed in this video...

1) a group (likely not large) of males who concretely benefit from degrading women and could not care less what others think of that.

and

2) A group (probably quite large) of men outraged over the destruction of their ability to feed, cloth, and house themselves and its celebration as a victory by womyns groups.

I do not have the most infinitesimal shred of objection to women (or even womyn) receiving $0.60 for every dollar they produce, and the second source can be easily addressed by guaranteeing to all men and women a wage equal to $0.60 per dollar output. But if the first group exists, then no amount of admonishment, public or private, will deter them, any more then "The Liberator" deterred slave owners or "Iskra" deterred the Czar of Russia.

It's husbands, partners, fathers and brothers, friends and neighbors, co-workers and employers.

I think the title the OP gave is somewhat unfortunate. The point is not simply that men are supposed to stop violence to save women, but that violence is a societal rather than individual problem that affects all of us, men as well as women. Domestic violence harms boys growing up in violent homes, men who end up trying to form relationships with women who have been subject to violence, and the fact that men themselves are subject to violence, largely but certainly not exclusively by other men.

If you had watched the video, you would know this was among the key points the speaker made. It is not just about women.

The preaching to the choir argument is clearly and patently false. You are not the choir. That you refuse to watch the video shows as much. That you think it's okay to watch a frat guy beat a woman and do nothing, and that you complain that the problem with liberals is that "everything is about women."

There are no shortage of so-called liberal men that make the same argument as you did about rape, and then they turn around and argue that what the law calls rape really isn't rape: calling sex with severely drunk women rape, some claim, "pathologizes male sexuality" and is "misandrist." Some have even insisted it is only "natural" for a man to prey on a passed out woman. They argue that sex with underage girls really isn't an act of violence because the child didn't resist, therefore sex with children is supposed to be less concerning than when force is used on adult women. They insist rape prevention PSAs shouldn't mention the word men because good men don't need to be told not to rape. Boys don't need to be raised to respect boundaries. These are somehow automatic messages instilled, though clearly they are not or rape would not be so pervasive. They instead insist women need to learn to not go out alone at night, completely ignoring the fact the vast majority of rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. I have come to believe that if a man is offended by discussions of rape, there is a good reason for it. Most men are not. Most men do not consider discussions of a common crime as an attack on them because they are not rapists. They also care about the world they live in, their wives, mothers, daughters and friends. The ones who insist they don't need to hear about it, and try to silence women are not the choir. They are part of the problem.

Obviously you are derailing. It's classical derailing to refuse to talk about how what the OP has posted and insist you won't even watch the video or address the points it raises. What matters is what you want to talk about and why you so resent the fact that politicians give a shit about women. The reason the Democratic Party addresses women is because we put them in office. There isn't a single Democrat serving office today who would be there without the vote of women. Your sense of entitlement is such that you are angry that the party should address our concerns. Instead they should focus on those who don't vote for them to the exclusion of people who do. No politician is that stupid.

We've got a member here who goes on about your same point about wages, complete with charts and graphs. I understand the horror of having to compete against women and people of color more qualified for jobs rather than simply being able to have it handed to men by virtue of being white and male. Naturally that is the fault of feminism. That argument is so reactionary, I have no patience for it. Again, more evidence that the entire preaching to the choir meme is completely false.

They key problem in your argument is imaging all of this violence and exploitation occurs somewhere else, entirely outside of you and your life. That is mistaken assumption, as the speaker makes clear. It is not simply a few pathological bad men who engage in violence against women and other men. It is a pervasive problem. ALL of us play a role in perpetuating it in some for or another, which is why it is incumbent on all of us to work to end it.

The one point I agree with you on is that women play a role in perpetuating oppression. There are women who will defend abuse, misogyny, and violence that men engage in because they have internalized hatred for their gender. While women who stay in violent relationships also have crucial issues to address in order to free themselves. Even the dreaded feminists such as myself are influenced by patriarchy and play a role in our own disempowerment. That, however, does not mean that men bear no responsibility for their own actions, whether that is perpetrating violence, failing to speak out against it, or giving crap to women who do speak about it.

There is a lot more that could be discussed but that would require your caring enough to watch the video and caring enough about half the population on the planet to realize we are in this together. You think the fact too many men are violent is the problem of women. It's somehow our responsibility to overturn that, like a working-class revolution. The concept is absurd. Class and gender are entirely different in how they operate in society. The irony in your analogy of working class protest is that it posits men as the capitalists exploiting women, living off them for their own enrichment while producing nothing themselves. Most of us have a far kinder view of men because we live with and among men. We know we share this society and improving it by stopping violence, benefits all of us, including men.

The video is excellent, and I will need to watch it a time or two more to absorb everything he covered.

The one point I agree with you on is that women play a role in perpetuating oppression. There are women who will defend abuse, misogyny, and violence that men engage in because they have internalized hatred for their gender. While women who stay in violent relationships also have crucial issues to address in order to free themselves. Even the dreaded feminists such as myself are influenced by patriarchy and play a role in our own disempowerment. That, however, does not mean that men bear no responsibility for their own actions, whether that is perpetrating violence, failing to speak out against it, or giving crap to women who do speak about it.

impressive. this was not comforted for this man to physically stand up in front of these women. i do not think it was easy. i can get why it would not be easy. i think his body is reacting. but... wow. the all positive in the body language also. so cool for him. anyone else?

i have heard this man. on different subjects. he is just good.