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.
This IS the intended meaning of the phrase, some people just read too much into things…
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.
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.
True. I need to work on not talking like that more.
The sign isn’t for us who knows women are people.
It’s for a percentage of people who don’t realize when they are vote Republican and their many anti-women policies – it affects their mothers, sisters, daughters, etc.
A simple but important point.
Funny how White Christian Nationalists so readily ignore things like Whatever you do for the least of us, you do for me [Jesus as in their god and ticket holder to the backstage party] and Whatever you do to the least of us to do to me.
Funny enough, in the OT there were also calls about uplifting the beggar, the widow, the migrant and the stranger, and an example was made of two cities specifically for not doing this when they were embarrassed with riches, specifically Sodom and Gomorrah.
Not that women don’t get short shrift in the bible, but the current crap about contraception and abortion are a stretch misreading of passages, and are drawn from the same resources that say don’t have kids, the apocalypse is neigh and it’s not nice to do that to people who won’t even get to grow up.
It’s especially perverse that they have decided the sin of sodom was homosexuality and used that as a wedge to exclude and dehumanize people, so that they can feel better about committing the ACTUAL sin of sodom that their own book clarifies is inhospitality to the outcasts and foreigners
