OP posts on their wall a quote by @OmogeDami:
“All men benefit from the actions of violent men. It keeps women in check. It allows men to perform the barest minimum and still feel good about themselves. The existence of violent men grants “good” men awards for basic decency.”
It was prefaced with: “Consider the fact that this will also translate to white people with regard to their position in society, benefitting, intentionally or not, from the violence of more malignant racists 🙁 “
@OP: I am shocked … and I wouldn’t agree. To make a general statement, all heart centred men are hindered and impaired by the violence of other men.
A person with a history of violence perpetrated by a man may not trust a non-violent man.A non-violent, heart-centred man may be held in suspicion and mistrust due to the previous actions of violent men and the resultant hyper vigilant amygdala operating in those folks.
Heart-centred, non-violent men have an innate instinct to help, to benefit. The beneficial actions carried out by non-violent, heart-centred men does not need the assistance/background of violence to be awarded any extra merit.The merit of good decent people (any people) speaks for itself, independent of violence perpetrated by others.
Appreciation of beneficial actions can be seen as independent from whether a person has been on the receiving end of violence or not. A beneficial action may not be seen with appreciation by one person, whereas another person may deem that same beneficial action with a lot more appreciation. Here, it could be not so much the harm incurred, but perhaps the subsequent healing following.
Keeping women in check might be the objective of violent, controlling men, but not for heart-centred, non-violent men. We would rather support a woman to blossom into their full potential and be themselves – creative, joyful, light-hearted, connected, and of service to whatever their karma might be.
My work sometimes brings me in contact with women harmed by men in their past, whether the harm is emotional, physical, or sexual. I can feel the distrust and I am feel sad that they have had such suffering put upon them.
A lot of men don’t want to perform the minimum. A lot of men come to a point of questioning what is meaningful in their lives. And many men come to the conclusion that being of service and helping others is a primary motivation in their lives, even if that means undergoing some inconvenience and challenge.
I hear where you’re coming from, and I also see the point this post is making.
It all depends on how you define “benefit.” I think, to get the meaning of the post, it’s important to understand what he means by “benefit.”
In my estimation, he is meaning a position of greater economic advantage, safety, and freedom in the world.
I don’t think this is healthy, so although I believe equality would over all be more beneficial to all of us in society, we’d be able to accomplish some evelopmental hurdels as a collective together I feel.
But as for the basic definition of “benefit,” I really see his point.
How do you feel about the statement as applied to white people?
@OP: I think that you’re saying that violence perpetrated upon women by men (that’s what I interpret the original post to be referring to) gives other men the benefit of having greater economic advantage, safety, and freedom in the world.
The post seems to say to me that violence keeps women in check and that we men don’t want women running around uncontrolled and having free wills of their own.
I would agree with you that there are certainly men in the world who benefit from violence perpetrated upon women. There are men who want women controlled, who benefit economically from suppressing women, who gain greater safety when their status quo is not challenged, and who also have more freedom to do what they want when women are not speaking truth to them.
These men are whom I would associate the labels of criminals, human traffickers, rapists, psychopaths, etc to.
How many men in the world are like that?
Does the average man benefit from violence perpetrated on women by other men? I would question that and relegate most of the benefit to the above class of “men”.
A couple nouns that I associate with the masculine are protector and steward. A “man” who perpetrates violence upon a woman does not fit my definition of a man.
I’m saying that it’s not all men. Replace all with some, with controlling, with wounded, with traumatized. Your point can still be maintained. But I strongly disagree with the use of all to blanket all men.
And regarding colour of our skin or our cultural background, I would echo the same sentiment that it doesn’t apply to all white folks.