Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Men's Issues. Misandry. What's the difference?

(This is a bit of a supplement to my last post. Namely some feelings I've got about it and how it morphed the way it did between what I wrote and what ended up at GMP.)

You might have seen this post a little over a week or so ago at Good Men Project. However there are a few things you may notice that are different.

The main editing I did to that post, yes my version was the original and what's at GMP is an edited version, was to chop off what comes after, "Or must support for one be pushed to the side for the sake of the other?" (but keeping the * notice at the end). Well even after my edits a few other things were done to the post as well. I figured that was a bit too antagonistic for some of the folks at GMP. Well it looks like I wasn't sensitive enough.

Now I will say that I did some editing of my own of this post so please don't think that I submitted what you saw here to GMP and they edited it all down to what you saw at GMP.

I'm sure the first thing you noticed was the original title of "This Is Not How You Get Rid Of Misandry..." was changed to "Op-Ed: This Is Not How You Support Men’s Issues". Maybe people just don't like the word that much.

Look at the end of the extra paragraphs at the end (notated with the *) at the bottom of the GMP version. Yeah that originally said, "In case you are thinking that this group and its efforts are being headed up by MRAs and/or is related to the MRM it may be worth noting that, from what I can see from what reading about Santhosh and her group, that is not the case. Not that being MRA or a part of the MRM is wrong or anything...." Can you tell what was taken out?

Yes apparently saying there is nothing wrong with being an MRA or part of the MRM is too sarcastic or something.

Okay here's what's bugging me.

On one hand I want to get through to people therefore I understand the importance of being mindful of my message as to not turn them off.

On the other hand when its pretty clear that "not turning people off" is actually "don't do or say anything that may make them feel uncomfortable" I'm wondering what's the point of trying to talk to them in the first place?

I know that ultimately its more vital to connect with people and relate to them than making sure I get my way. But if the only way to connect and relate to them is to literally change my message not to reduce the chances of confrontation but to make it safe for people who don't like my message is my message really getting through?

Eh I'm starting to ramble. All I know is I'm a bit bothered at not the fact that the piece was edited but how the piece was edited. I get the the feeling it was done under the intent of either appeasing or looking out for the feelings of people who don't want to be offended by the idea of someone speaking up for men.

I'm pissed so I'm out for now.

-->