I always took the phrase “She is someone’s [whatever]” not to suggest that the recipient isn’t thinking of them as a person, but that they are thinking of them as a stranger. As in, “How would you like it if you knew someone was treating your [person you care about] like that?”. It’s still a criticism for the recipient, but it doesn’t go as far to accuse them of dehumanizing anyone. Instead, it suggests you should treat them like you would someone you are close to and care about more deeply.
A lot of men see only the women in their family as human, other women are just potential mates. This is why some people try to humanise women victims by pressing the fact that they are someone’s daughter/sister/mother. Why don’t we see the same language used on victimised men?
Why don’t we see the same language used on victimised men?
Are men victimized systemically and threatened physically to the same extent women are? Feminists speaking up for women’s issues doesn’t preclude men from speaking up for men’s issues, but lo and behold, men don’t have the same issues as a population that women do, and it’s not feminists’ job to speak up for them anyway.
It’s because if a man is victimised then we don’t need to convince other men that they’re a person and didn’t deserve something bad happening to them. I’m not advocating for feminists to speak about men’s issues (they already do though). I’m saying that women are more often dehumanised which is why some people think they need to specify that a victimised woman is someone’s daughter/sister/mother/etc. The person I’m replying to is rejecting the assumption that dehumanisation of women takes place.
I’m sorry, I took your ending question as a challenge towards the victimization of women, not as an attempt to get the other commenter to think about how men are treated differently.
It’s fair to read into like that when you usually only hear it used in reference to women. It may not be the intent, but it reframes them as something (daughter, mother, whatever) worthy of empathy rather than someone.
I like to say “everyone’s had a childhood.” It might not have been a good childhood but no one just phases into existence as a full grown adult, not even the dumbass who cut you off and may as well have been born yesterday.
I always took the phrase “She is someone’s [whatever]” not to suggest that the recipient isn’t thinking of them as a person, but that they are thinking of them as a stranger. As in, “How would you like it if you knew someone was treating your [person you care about] like that?”. It’s still a criticism for the recipient, but it doesn’t go as far to accuse them of dehumanizing anyone. Instead, it suggests you should treat them like you would someone you are close to and care about more deeply.
A lot of men see only the women in their family as human, other women are just potential mates. This is why some people try to humanise women victims by pressing the fact that they are someone’s daughter/sister/mother. Why don’t we see the same language used on victimised men?
Removed by mod
Are men victimized systemically and threatened physically to the same extent women are? Feminists speaking up for women’s issues doesn’t preclude men from speaking up for men’s issues, but lo and behold, men don’t have the same issues as a population that women do, and it’s not feminists’ job to speak up for them anyway.
Edit: I misunderstood, see reply.
It’s because if a man is victimised then we don’t need to convince other men that they’re a person and didn’t deserve something bad happening to them. I’m not advocating for feminists to speak about men’s issues (they already do though). I’m saying that women are more often dehumanised which is why some people think they need to specify that a victimised woman is someone’s daughter/sister/mother/etc. The person I’m replying to is rejecting the assumption that dehumanisation of women takes place.
I’m sorry, I took your ending question as a challenge towards the victimization of women, not as an attempt to get the other commenter to think about how men are treated differently.
My bad, I 100% agree with you.
No worries, it’s good to keep your guard up around some of the commenters here lol
This IS the intended meaning of the phrase, some people just read too much into things…
I agree with the original statement and also the correction in ops picture. They both communicate true and valuable information.
It’s fair to read into like that when you usually only hear it used in reference to women. It may not be the intent, but it reframes them as something (daughter, mother, whatever) worthy of empathy rather than someone.
I like to say “everyone’s had a childhood.” It might not have been a good childhood but no one just phases into existence as a full grown adult, not even the dumbass who cut you off and may as well have been born yesterday.