If an individual who I have never met before approaches me wearing a pin that says "kill all men", it is not my responsibility to understand the years of philosophy reading that have caused them to express a totally reasonable and nuanced perspective in very easily misunderstood words. It is 100% reasonable for me to expect that those words mean what they say, and not some other, more subtle meaning that I am unaware of.

Even if this is actually true! Even if it is actually true that "kill all men" expands into this reasonable position. Because I have no access to what goes on inside someone else's head. All I have access to is what I see.

And when I, a man, see a person with management authority over me, wearing a pin that says 'kill all men', I get scared. This is not appropriate for a workplace, no moreso than any white supremacist garbage is.

If someone doesn't have a decoder book handy to make these translations, how are they supposed to react? How are you supposed to have an actual discussion and change minds if things phrased in such a hostile manner from the start?

If your goal is to have an actual discussion and change minds, you should know about the subject matter. So you don't need a decoder book, you just need to google "misogyny in america".

That's the constructive thing to do, if you're interested.

edit --

Hey I wrote a little screenplay to demonstrate how a conversation like this might go, in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below:

A: kill all men

B: huh, A, what's that about?

A: Peter Thiel blames the 19th Amendment for the collapse of our society; the patriarchy is everywhere

B: <googles patriarchy, suddenly starts buying Shirley Chisholm gear>

All of which is to say that if you ask, "huh, A, what's that about?" instead of, "you genocidal maniac feminism is the worst and you're the worst" you can have a discussion.

I don't understand. If I read something that says "kill all men" and I am not aware of the context attached to it, how am I supposed to make the leap to Google "misogyny in america"?

Edit: To respond to your edit, I'm saying through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated and likely not get to the point where they ask "huh, what's that about?". I don't know if that's intentional or not but given how pervasive these problems are framed, I would think attracting as large of an audience as possible would be beneficial.

> in order to placate some of the totally earnest replies below

This is not conducive to any productive discussion. I've responded with questions because I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics. If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding?

> through the initial phrasing of the statement, a good portion of people will be alienated

There are plenty of people out there teaching us about feminism. Trolling Twitter to find straw men to burn is not constructive. It's not every woman's responsibility to teach us about feminism. They get to be angry and frustrated; they don't have to be perfect ambassadors at all times.

> I'm curious about the intent and goals behind these tactics.

These aren't tactics. These are just people fed up with the patriarchy.

> If you don't think I'm being earnest then why bother responding?

Mostly because I find it hard to believe anyone's actually worried about male genocide, and false outrage is like the #1 tactic in discussions like this. You can see it in other responses like "well well well, who's SEXIST now?!"

There are a lot of assumptions in your post and I hope my response clarifies my position.

>There are plenty of people out there teaching us about feminism. Trolling Twitter to find straw men to burn is not constructive. It's not every woman's responsibility to teach us about feminism. They get to be angry and frustrated; they don't have to be perfect ambassadors at all times.

I was not referencing Twitter, I was quoting what was in your post. I did not say anyone was responsible for teaching anyone about feminism or how they should function as ambassadors. I do not feel like I need to be educated on this matter and do not care about how ambassadors conduct themselves. However, if you put yourself out there as an ambassador, it's natural that people scrutinize things you say a bit closer than others. When people are able to say that you represent something or are a spokesperson for a cause, they are going to attach your words to it. This ties into the next quote.

> These aren't tactics. These are just people fed up with the patriarchy.

Tactics, messaging, whatever you want to call it, I'm just trying to understand the intent. If people are fed up and this is just venting, then sure, do you I guess? I personally just think it hurts the cause more than it helps it and am wondering if that's a concern or if there's something else going on.

>Mostly because I find it hard to believe anyone's actually worried about male genocide, and false outrage is like the #1 tactic in discussions like this. You can see it in other responses like "well well well, who's SEXIST now?!"

I have not expressed any concern about male genocide. I have been upfront about asking about the intended efficacy behind the type of language used in this. That's all. Assuming ill intent when it's presented upfront is a really good way to lose people who might have been otherwise agreeable to a cause.

I didn’t realize that saying “kill all men” was attempting to foster a useful discussion. In fact, I’d say there’s nothing constructive about saying that even if you know the context.

> I didn’t realize that saying “kill all men” was attempting to foster a useful discussion.

It's not. It's meant signal membership in a group and piss other people off (and show you don't care you did it).

> In fact, I’d say there’s nothing constructive about saying that even if you know the context.

The "context" is just an attempt to delegitimize the people who find the statement objectionable.

Right. I don't think that "kill all men" should be taken very seriously and I'll go for it not being as bad as (say) "kill all Jews" for historical reasons. The weird thing is that there's a huge gap between it not being "that bad" and it being no obstacle at all to a leadership position in the community, especially given the Rust community's infamous obsession with language (can't say "thanks guys", can't say "bad style"). The optics on this are really bad.

The goal of most people in a workplace is very much _not_ to have an actual discussion and change minds.

I fully support equality for all and believe that as long as people are not hurting others what they do with their life and body is their call but your argument is not advancing that cause.

You seem to infer immunity on the part of those you deem oppressed from having their statement being taken at face value but don't extend this same courtesy to those you deem oppressors.

You believe that someone should read "kill all men" and respond in a curious manner, because you think you are in the right, regardless of whether they are a parent of small male children. We exist in a nation of free speech but if you say something, it is not the responsibility of the listener to do the research to figure out if there is some deeper meaning to what you are saying. Even if there is a deeper meaning, calling for the eradication of a gender or race is not going to initiate the productive conversation between the speaker and those being targeted that you think it is. I have young boys and once someone says to me "kill all men" anything else they say is pretty much meaningless. There are better way to initiate a free exchange of ideas.

Many would not extend this courtesy of looking for deeper meaning to those whose view points you are trying to change. Would you be happy to initiate a calm thoughtful conversation with someone who tweets out that "Women are ruining this great nation" or would you call for their firing and censorship?

Individuals have different ideas on life and that's ok but the workplace is not the right place to discuss controversial topics unless the freedom of expression is extended to all view points, and there has to be an understanding that feelings may be hurt on both sides.

Finally, words have specific meaning, especially the written word. Words also carry consequences. If someone says "Kill all men", I will believe that what they mean is "kill all men".

> If someone says "Kill all men", I will believe that what they mean is "kill all men".

What do you think someone means when they say "I'm gonna kill the person who wrote this"? Do you call the cops?

> You seem to infer immunity on the part of those you deem oppressed from having their statement being taken at face value but don't extend this same courtesy to those you deem oppressors.

There's a long history of men oppressing women. There is no history of women oppressing men. So when someone says "kill all men" they can't be referencing a history of oppression. On the other hand when someone says "biologically, women are worse engineers than men", they're referencing a school of thought that has denied women basic human rights and still has modern adherents.

My point is we're not on the verge of a male genocide (it feels ridiculous to even type this). We are always on the verge of taking away freedoms from women and people of color. So I think we need a more nuanced rule than "face value", or whatever.

> Would you be happy to initiate a calm thoughtful conversation with someone who tweets out that "Women are ruining this great nation" or would you call for their firing and censorship?

Censorship? Nah. Firing? If they have an important position then certainly. The same way I would advocate that if they said "Slavery was a good idea" or "Nazism has a lot going for it". We know slavery is wrong. We know Nazism and fascism are wrong. We know misogyny and sexism are wrong. Protesting the patriarchy or being angry about it isn't the same thing.

I'd also be willing to have a conversation with them though, so "both" is the answer to your question I think.

> Individuals have different ideas on life and that's ok but the workplace is not the right place to discuss controversial topics unless the freedom of expression is extended to all view points, and there has to be an understanding that feelings may be hurt on both sides.

Global warming is "controversial" despite being obviously the truth, but we can't move forward on addressing it because we continue to pay lip service to people who just don't believe in it. The same is true of feminism, economics, the criminal justice system, gay rights, immigration, and so many other things. I do care what people think and I want to treat them with respect and consideration, but that doesn't trump our right to things like equal pay, clean air and water, due process, etc.

Or to put it another way, at some point I don't care what bigots think and I don't think they should dictate policy. I don't have to agree to listen to the KKK at work if I want to be able to say that women deserve equal pay. That's nonsense.

>We are always on the verge of taking away freedoms from women and people of color.

Do you honestly believe this? Do you think that tomorrow, most people will wake up and decide women shouldn't be allowed to vote? Is that an active thing that you fear?

I think there are a lot of ways to make it harder for specific groups of people to vote. There are active voter intimidation and misinformation campaigns in every federal election. I don't think we'll repeal the 19th Amendment. I do think it's possible we change how people vote so that it's a lot easier for men to vote than women. Many women work retail and service jobs. It's possible to move voting from public precincts to private workplaces (Indiana's Vote Centers are like this in some ways), with some safeguards about traffic, exposure, etc. You could argue, like the proponents of Vote Centers did, that this is far more convenient and that in order to protect voters and votes, we'll only put Vote Centers in secure offices. Afterwards, fewer people will need precincts so we'll save money by shutting many of them down.

Would a policy like that ever pass? Again, Indiana's doesn't have the "office" stuff but it's pretty close. Would it prevent all women from voting? No. But you don't need to do that really, you just need to pull their turnout down. Same thing with gerrymandering, voter intimidation, etc. You just need to give yourself an solid advantage. And putting Vote Centers in secure offices where the majority of people are male, and then cutting precincts where the makeup is balanced, increases voting access for men and decreases it for everyone else (well OK, middle class and higher men, but you get my point).

Or if limiting voting access is too abstract, look at equal pay. Look at women's health clinics being forced to shut down because they provide abortion services (a crucial component of women's health). Look at women not being allowed in active combat until very, very recently (military promotions are hard to get w/o active combat -- wonder why only 7% of the US' generals are women...).

So no, I don't think we'll repeal the 19th Amendment tomorrow. I think people who are racists, anti-feminists, homophobes, etc. have other tools they use that are actually pretty effective.

> I think there are a lot of ways to make it harder for specific groups of people to vote.

Like requiring them to register on some list making them volunteer for war before they can vote?

I don't think that has an effect on male voter turnout because far worse things happen to you if you don't sign up for selective service.

But you're right, gender roles harm everyone. You can look at the effects of our idea of "masculinity" on male health, they're pretty devastating. One of the main goals of feminism is to eradicate gender roles so people are free to live how they like without laboring under some ancient, outdated ideas on how they should act based on their sex -- which they had no part in choosing.

>When a feminist says "kill all men", they're saying "the patriarchy has oppressed women for centuries and I'm angry about it".

That might be your intent, but that is not how it is interpreted. It sounds bigoted, thus, that language should be avoided if the speaker cares about stopping bigotry.

1. Are you making an "intent is irrelevant" argument about speech outside the workplace?

2. What if the speaker cares about expressing frustration about bigotry? Do they have to get your sign off on how to express it?

3. It's a little wicked to oppress people for centuries, and then tell them they have to choose between expressing anger about it or participating in a constructive dialogue about ending it -- especially when a lot of us don't even recognize the problem.

>Are you making an "intent is irrelevant" argument about speech outside the workplace?

I am accounting for the fact that people of different backgrounds interpret statements differently.

>What if the speaker cares about expressing frustration about bigotry?

It is simple to express frustration about bigotry without using bigoted language.

>Do they have to get your sign off on how to express it?

They can do whatever they like, but if they act like a bigot, don't be surprised when they get labeled as one.

>they have to choose between expressing anger about it or participating in a constructive dialogue about ending it

Stop putting words in my mouth so that you can defend bigotry.

They are free to express their anger any way they wish. However, if they way they choose is to be a bigot, then they will be called a bigot.

You should probably be aware of the term "tone-policing," because I think you're very close to being directly accused of it.

In short, it's the social justice idea that:

1) people with the correct identities (LGBT, POC, women, etc) should be able to express themselves as rudely, angrily, or abusively as they like; and that

2) people with other, disfavored, identities (such as white men) cannot object to that rude, angry, or abusive manner of expression. If they do, it's an objectionable form of "oppression." Instead they must take the incivility, be supportive of it, and desperately and submissively search for some kind of positive meaning in the nasty statements. You see this all of the twisting around "kill all men."

However, IMHO, all of that is really just a tactic pushed by a bunch of assholes who want to be jerks to others and get away with it.

Yeah I felt like searine was tone policing a little, but your characterization is... not helpful?

> 1) people with the correct identities (LGBT, POC, women, etc) should be able to express themselves as rudely, angrily, or abusively as they like;

It's not about correct or disfavored identities. It's about people who have been oppressed by society. If I chopped off 20% of your paycheck, you'd probably be angry about it. If I then were like, "whoa, there's no need to be angry", that's super dismissive. You can't do something bad to someone, and then come down on them for reacting angrily.

It's also not "as they like". It's really only specifically about social issues.

> Instead they must take the incivility, be supportive of it, and desperately and submissively search for some kind of positive meaning in the nasty statements.

Basically none of this is right. "submissively"? Really just understand that our culture makes things harder for people who aren't cis straight white men, and don't give them grief when they get frustrated about it.

Bigotry isn't really about words or drawing lines around sex, gender, or race. It's about the institutions that oppress people of color, LGBT people, and women. That's why saying "kill all men" as an expression of frustration isn't the same as, "women are biologically worse engineers than men". The US has no history of male genocide and it's silly to even consider. The US does have a history of curbing the rights of women though, and if people like James Damore have their way we'll start walking back down the path where we curtail the rights, freedoms, and opportunities of women and justify it using "biology".

There is no correlating behavior here. If feminists win out, women will pay the same for health care as men do, we'll have as many women working in STEM as we have men, women will be paid the same money for the same work. You can't equate that with sexism. You can't say that if we want to advocate for equal rights for women in the workplace that we have to tolerate people advocating against equal rights for women in the workplace. It's deeply and clearly wrong. It's like if I want to say "vaccines don't cause autism" we have to give equal air time to people who think they do. No, we don't. They're wrong.

That's why these things aren't the same. I would guess you'll probably just say (again), "people who say 'kill all men' are expressing hate against men, that's misandry and it's bigoted", but please at least consider what I've written now to... idk 8 people in this thread. The worst thing that happens is you come to the conclusion I'm just spending a lot of time ineffectively trolling and burning my karma. But I'm hoping you'll start to consider that the issue is much more complicated.

>Bigotry isn't really about words

Words matter.

Bigotry isn't just words, but words matter. A lot. Instead of dumping a ton of words defending bigotry, maybe just use a few well chosen ones to denounce it.

I've spent a lot of time explaining this to you. If you don't want to listen that's fine, if a little disappointing. But really, please do some reading on feminism and anti-racism. Look here [1]. Look at the differences in hate crimes against white and Black people. Or look here [2] and see the differences in unemployment. Or look here [3] and see the difference in prison population. Or look here [4] at the differences between male and female victims of domestic violence. These things happen because of institutional racism and sexism, and if we're going to deal with them we're going to have to be informed.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/16/us/hate-crime...

[2]: https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm

[3]: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race....

[4]: https://ncadv.org/statistics

What does any of that have to do with not using bigotted language?

It's not bigoted. Men have oppressed women -- basically since there have been women. Hell if someone did that to me I'd want to kill them too. Merely recognizing the sex of your oppressor isn't bigoted.

You're asking for a deep knowledge and understanding of bigotry but making a mistake by applying a shallow definition to race in the first place, and isolating that as a direct cause of behavior rather than taking the time to understand the intersectionality of race, class, gender identity and cultural history, among other things.

I'm really tired of having to explain to people that claim to have studied this exact thing why it's not as simple as white people vs everyone else. When you boil it down like that you don't get solutions.

> I'm really tired of having to explain to people that claim to have studied this exact thing why it's not as simple as white people vs everyone else.

Isn't it though? Look at the race numbers for prison, school quality, poverty, profession, representation in media, etc. Even when you control for everything else (especially socioeconomic status; people love to argue that being poor and white is just as hard but hey, racism is still something that poor Black people have to deal with that poor white people don't) race is a huge, dominating factor.