Hello community, this thread is going in places a community shouldn’t go. Remember to hate the argument, not the user. There are also people that said things on the fence that seemed to be making up arguments or trying to start arguments. I temp banned you.
I didn’t catch them all, feel free to report if it bugs you. I’ll take a look.
Maybe the dude was just… you know.
Poor.
Came from an environment that was usually a mess, chaotic, disordered, and he was genuienly impressed by how simple things, in order, can give a significant sense of safety and stability.
Maybe he’d never seen that before, maybe he had no model of a tidy and peaceful living space.
The same scenario could happen with anyone, of any sex or gender.
Man, broad societal levels of narcissism are just off the fucking charts these days… its the literal opposite of solidarity, of empathy.
Growing up my house was always trashed. Parents with depression and full time jobs don’t leave much time and energy for cleaning up, and there’s only so much children without guidance can do.
So once I had my own defined space, it was basically minimalist to expedite cleaning. I didn’t start getting more stuff, even clothes, until my partner moved in.
Me growing up, it wasn’t quite that bad for myself, but some of my neighbors were from… way more fucked up families.
They had basically this exact same ‘Wow.’ moment, just… coming over, and seeing that… order was possible, things could be put basically back in place after use, etc.
They had no previous concept of it.
I remember going over to one of their houses once and literally stepping in dogshit, inside.
They just… forgot to let the dog out, I guess. Regularly enough that this was annoying but basically normal.
Depression is a bitch, and that makes you not want to clean. Then the grossness makes you more depressed.
Never ending loop.
I know.
I’ve been there.
I did eventually get better… but… it really really sucks.
Or maybe he was just being nice? I can’t imagine being invited to friend’s new house and not giving compliments unless im like worried about them moving into an unsafe situation.
Sure, maybe he was being performatively praising when he didn’t actually care that much at all about the home’s decor itself, but wanted to affirm the resident’s decor choice regardless.
Aka ‘being nice’.
Maybe a million different possible things.
Why do you imagine its a new house, like the resident just moved there?
You could just… be going to someone’s home for the first time. Maybe they’ve lived there for years, maybe they just moved in, who knows?
My point here is that there’s a lot of additional context required for your interpretation. Your interpretation also manufactures and then ascribes an intent.
My interpretation only requires that men who were raised poor exist, and does not manufacture or ascribe an intent.
What a bunch of argumentative bullshit. Have fun being contrarian. 🙄
Its analysis, not an argument.
With which the author agrees.
Oh, you brought a shovel? That tracks.
Okay so maybe it wasn’t a new home, but it was their first time seeing it. What difference does it make?
But no, you’re right imagining someone’s traumatic upbringing is a much smaller stretch.
Don’t feed the trolls, neighbor. 🙏🏽
if he was poor then he’s an asshole for having been poor.
people don’t have empathy for people who are poor. just malice.
I live an upper middle class lifestyle in my 40s. i haven’t been poor for 20+ years, and yet for some people, it’s considered something you can never live down, it’s an original sin from which you can’t ever be washed clean. you would be amazed at how openly hostile and violent people are towards those who are not as economically fortune as they are. rich and privileged people do not regard the poor and middle-class as human beings.
You don’t need to be poor to learn to catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Unfortunately, flies are more attracted to vinegar, so the metaphor doesn’t work.
Oh hey!
It’s that user.
The user who types.
They type like this.
I don’t really know why.
But they loves single sentence paragraphs.
It’s not a problem.
I just don’t get why they do it.
Maybe they’re trying to build suspense?
Idk it’s just so…
…mysterious…
God forbid someone on Lemmy trying to make their comments easier to read
You’re welcome
I keep seeing this content that’s “men are so stupid and inferior and awful” and it’s grating on me.
Like, yes, there’s definitely a strong toxic subset of men, but most of use are just… normal?
I’m in my mid 30s, when the women aren’t around we’re mostly talking about kids (those who have them), hockey, finances, house stuff, and weird health issues. Depending on the group, how stupid politics/government shit is lately.
I don’t know. It feels like the toxicity that came for incels is coming at women hard these last few years. Reddit really pushes this stuff lately.
I keep seeing this content that’s “men are so stupid and inferior and awful” and it’s grating on me.
That’s because it’s troll bait. Just like all generations have a bigger than wanted set of shitty people. I don’t feel like I can take this shit down because it’s not breaking any rules. You all can help by not falling for the bait though.
Definitely this. It circulates widely because it generates outrage, even though the number of people who actually believe this is miniscule. This is the same technique right-wing media uses
It might even be the same people. I suspect that, but don’t have any proof.
Russia has repeatedly and explicitly said they are playing both sides of the US/Western political divide against each other in online rate campaigns.
rage* 🙇🏼♂️
It was shown to be the case in the muller reports I think. Its only rational to assume its ramped up a lot more since then especially given how effective its been.
how important is proof and what would you do with it?
I have no idea how anyone could prove it. But if I could, I would remove these types of posts as spam.
i mean i might be able to dig through logs and find similarities between times, vpns, etc. we’re talking forensic bullshit but i’d need instance level cooperation and it’s work work, so i’d need money. it honestly doesn’t sound worth it on either of our ends since my rates aren’t really what you’d be looking to pay. i used to be an accountant in a former life, before my disability got too bad, and did a few forensic gigs a year.
As I said in another comment, I don’t think OP meant it as troll bait. He probably thought it was funny and the trolls go off on it. They’ll make up opportunities if they can’t seize them. I do think “they” post stuff like this specifically to stir up shit, but not this one. I think it was opportunity trail bait.
Agitprop, yep. One of the oldest tricks in the book, and we still need to remind people. 😶
I think the person who posted this was placing the emphasis more on the comic at the bottom which calls out the unnecessary shittiness of the original tweet.
That’s not exactly ragebait, that’s more “someone said something shitty and this is why it’s shitty.”
It has a utility. Calling out shittiness is an important antidote against that type of shittiness. It’s like it builds people’s psychological antibodies, so when they encounter it in the wild they know not to take it seriously. They know they aren’t the only one’s who see through it.
I appreciate you following the rules but tbh ragebait should be on of them. Lemmy is getting flooded with it lately. So many old, stupid social Twitter posts that do nothing but rile people up
This has 300+ upvotes right now though. I ethically agree with you, but I took over this community. If the community upvotes this sort of thing, I don’t feel like I have the right to remove it because I think it’s stupid and causes harm. I really want to, ha ha.
I know the opinion of one anonymous user doesn’t carry a lot of weight but this would be my counterargument:
Upvotes are not a good gauge when people will upvoted anything that reinforces their beliefs. Even if it’s straight up wrong like so many social media screenshots are.
Not all engagement is good engagement and more activity doesn’t necessarily lead to a better community. Lemmy has been flooded with ragebait and say-nothing tweets lately and I fear it’s becoming the norm
In my experience, if I took this down, the trolls will come out and attack so hard that any other kinds of posts get drowned out. Also, this is being upvoted outside of what I think the trolls can manage in briggading for the fediverse. This would be no problem for reddit, but I haven’t seen it here.
Edit: I should note that this poster is one of our best OPs and probably thought it was funny. Doesn’t stop it from being troll bait though.
I don’t necessarily think you should remove this one but I’m all for a rule update in general
What would that rule look like? No troll baiting maybe, but that would leave it up to me. I’m not sure this community is ready for the blowback.
I think you’re erring on the right side here, but boy do I hate using popularity as the reason. This is lemmy, so most folks are browsing by the all tab. Do you want to have a community shaped by ‘all’ or do you want the community to be shaped by people subscribed to the community (and following ‘the rules’ that are set in the community)? It’s sort of the flip side of the coin of the women’s space community that always whines when people come in to a post they see and comment/vote.
Yeah, but Incels also startet as Trolls and now they’ve developed into a real movement. Just like flatearthers and so many other conspiracy theories.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t engage with this type of content, I mean I’ve engaged in communities and posts about birds not being real and that might as well turn into real conspiracy theory just like flat earth.
But they do have real consequences and people might start to truly believe these things. Many people won’t realise it’s a bait, including women.
Femcels are a thing. :\
I hate to use that term though because I love femcel communities here on fediverse. They probably got the best memes in the verse.
I still haven’t figured put what the deal is with that place, and at this point I’m too afraid to ask.
Female celery
Well, yes, but I think that’s a leek.
Which is delicious in the right soup.
i just kinda showed up there and hoped no one would notice i’m married, but my wife is awesome i like to talk about her. and they’re pretty cool on the community so 😘
It’s really prevalent, but it’s unfortunately hard to call out, especially irl.
I upvoted because the two panel underneath is mocking the ragebait post.
Not voting either way is also an option
OK
The thing no one wants to admit or say is that while the modern (MeToo and onward) feminist movement certainly has good intentions, its been broadly co opted into a kind of pop-feminism that’s about as actually feminist as tik tok psychology advice is real psychology.
Its morphed into basically just a semi-formalized worldview of mystic misandry.
‘Manifesting’, the Patriarchy as essentially an evil spiritual or god-like entity or force, which everything else is oriented around and against… while simultaneously claiming that adherents need to ‘de-center men’ … near total abandonment of any attempt to empathize with the ‘other’, active glee in demonizing them… whole bunch of ‘creators’ just vying to be the most bombastic mini cult leader…
Its even got a discernible dialect.
They believe dogmas. When you try to inquire as to the basis or validity of those dogmas… they attack.
You get a bunch of faux psychoanalysis of how you could possibly have ended up so broken as to question their… you know, idea that they can’t or won’t actually defend.
Its like a religious fundamentalist launching into a semi-canned apologia response.
so like, i went to this cult university. one of the smaller mistakes of my life to give you an idea. they had this feminists group there. i generally look white and male, and back then i went by this cool nickname that was about my disability (a different disability has coopted it and that makes me grumpy but you know what, we could share. it’s not literally the only nickname what ever stuck to me besides my stage name. just, mine makes literal sense and theirs doesn’t but whatever, i can’t use it anymore anyways) and this group’s leader decided that anyone who looked male was there to trawl for women to fuck and believe me no and doubly no not her. First that’d be an ethical violation, second i don’t really need to say anything beyond that. Anyways, the motion to kick me out of the group was that because of my cool nickname based on my disability, and because i was white and male (even though i only look those things) i needed to go die in a fire.
now, this cult university does the weirdest psy-ops. like, there are articles in the salt lake tribune about them, don’t take my word for it. i grew up outside the jello belt. my polycule of grandpas taught me real feminism, so something smelled really off about that group, whether it’s just an absolute misandrist pseudo- firstwaver trying to deal with a punkrockabilly third/fourthwaver or it was a cult legitimately trying to turn people away from feminism with the subtlety of a brick.
i guess what i’m trying to say is, like, there’s some real dipshits out there
Yep.
There are many kinds of feminism… and the pop-feminism of tik tok… yeah I agree, that’s not real feminism…
But try explaining the entire complex history of feminism to somebody whose only seen the tik tok version of feminism.
They’ll be very confused and think you are talking about something almost completely different, often to the point of concluding you are lying to them, trying to trick them.
As ever, everyone is talking past each other, trying to win an argument, not have an actual discussion.
being critical of those ideas/movements means you hate women.
so does any suggestion that women’s unhappiness in life is anything but her own. she is just helpless in a cruel world and she has no control over her fate… dare you suggest a woman ha agency over her own life and choices… you hate all women. but for men it’s the opposite. men are entirely in control of their own life and everything that happened to them, is their fault. they need therapy, but also if they get therapy, they aren’t real men.
and yes, a lot of it is full of cult/fundamentalist types of thought and belief.
I will say i have zero appreciation for “nice” things and the house looking cozy or whatever. If it were up to me I would live in a bare apartment with everything painted white and minimal furniture. And there’s nothing wrong with that and i have no reason to change.
Of all the things that are wrong with me and perhaps other men, this is just not one of them, it’s just a style preference, there’s zero morality involved. Whoever doesn’t like it can just not fuck with me, just like i dont fuck with decorations.
Because for years, people could be as shitty to “men” as a general category as they wanted to be, and no one was allowed to call it out. Anyone who did try to call it out got labeled as a right-winger or a misogynist or a redpilled men’s lib chud.
People literally started saying “misandry” is a misogynistic dogwhistle. As if calling out shittiness and hate implies that you’re actually peddling shittiness and hate for the other.
Maybe for someone who believes the only way to combat hate is with hate, then calling out hate might be seen as hateful. But if that’s the case, then it reduces life to a zero-sum game, and if that’s the case then it’s anything goes, survival of the fittest. I for one don’t believe in such a bleak vision of the world.
But for years any attempt to call out misandry was met with vitriol, usually proving the point but no one seemed to see that.
I’ve been saying for years that these double-standards are toxic and destructive. I’ve been destroyed on reddit multiple times for it, back before I got permabanned. I’ve had multiple arguments over it here too, and people just dismiss me as “sexist” for it, even though they’re the ones being sexist.
So honestly, it’s kinda nice to see a post that says, subtextually, “What this person said is very shitty” when showing a misandrist tweet. And it’s nice to see people agree that it’s shitty.
It feels like the world is waking up a little, like it might finally be ready to look itself in the mirror and realize that no hate is excusable.
Its so much worse here then in reddit. At least reddit has some subs that are somewhat male focused and leftist. Here a women only sub n keeps popingnup on my feed all but telling me the world would be a better place if I died.
I blocked the “women’s only” subs because I didn’t need such blatant misandry popping up in my feed that I’ll get banned if I respond to saying it’s wrong. Because “no boys allowed” I guess.
On reddit even if I blocked a sub it would still show up in my feed. Spuck fez.
I guarantee if someone made a men only community or even one focused on social issues affecting men the instance hosting it would be defederated by all others.
amen brother.
don’t worry though, tons of posters here who are leaning hard in on the misandry and hate, and think anyone who points out all this sexist bullshit just hates women. because if you ever call a lady out on her hateful ways, you just hate women.
Yeah, it’s funny, if you say women are perfect you’re called a sexist. But if you say women are flawed, you’re called a sexist. Even if you point to a specific woman and say she’s perfect or flawed, you’re called a sexist.
I guess I just won’t talk about or to women. I woulda thought that would be sexist, but apparently it’s the only way to avoid being called sexist.
haha, yeah this is why a lot of people are just giving up on dating game. you can’t win. everything you do is wrong.
buy her flowers and hold the door on a date ? that’s sexist! don’t buy her flowers and don’t hold the door, that’s sexist! so on and so on. a lot of folks are just… actively looking to be miserable and unhappy, rather than just set reasonable boundaries and expectations of what they want from the opposite sex.
in 2026, I’m supposed to support my potential partners by respecting their independent and strength, but also I’m suppose to be their provider and protector… and I’m supposed to be able to randomly switch roles at the drop of a pin based on how she is feeling at that very moment. and if i do not, I’m a horrible no good shitty man who doesn’t make her feel cared for, or I’m a horrible sexist asshole who doesn’t respect her independence and strength…
oh, by the way, if you explain how ridiculous this whole thing is to someone who expects it, they either call you a misogyny, or they just tell you how you ‘are not a real man’.
just like… why bother? pick one, or the other… or how about neither? just chill out and enjoy life and stop agonizing about everything! god forbid men and women just enjoy each other’s companionship without the endless need to measure every aspect of each other.
Yeah, I feel you. Especially the part about switching roles based on jow she’s feeling at the moment.
And she doesn’t even need to communicate how she’s feeling or what she expects from you, but if you expect her to communicate that then you’re entitled and a misogynist! And if you don’t read her mind and act accordingly then you’re either “not a real man” or you’re a misogynist.
It’s like, yeah… I’d like to have a partner and enjoy some companionship. But if this is the way things are going to be, well, my cat is far less confusing…
i have know plenty of women in long term happy stable relationships.
none of them are like that. they tell their husband/boyfriend what they want/need. and he gives it to them. and they are both happy. and he does the same with her. they also set… ground rules for the relationship and follow them.
it’s almost as if they see each other as reasonable people and act like reasonable people… and they are happy with that.
and the ladies who do the opposite, tell you that these happy ladies are all lairs and miserable and etc, or they just ‘got lucky’ and found husbands are just wonderful and perfect and flawless. shit’s wild, but the key factor is these women think they are not responsible for their themselves, that’s a man’s job to do for her.
Yeah, there’s a lot of stigma against single guys. Men in relationships are “approved by women” (and also, ironically, men who sleep around get this stamp of approval too).
Anyone else gets dismissed a priori as “man, therefore dangerous” and categorized as such, creating a vicious cycle that’s nearly impossible to break out of unless you’re lucky enough to find a partner.
Women in healthy relationships might have healthier views of men, because they have an example of a man who isn’t shit. Single women tend not to have the same perspective though, and after sleeping around and getting used and hurt (because it’s liberating and empowering, but when it blows up in her face it’s the man’s fault, or rather “men’s fault” in general, and the next guy she meets is going to take the blame just as hard if not harder than the man who actually abused her. Yet if a guy says “maybe don’t give your body to abusive men,” he gets called a ‘nice guy’ disparagingly, and an incel, because “women can make their own choices.” Like, yeah, they can, but why act surprised when those choices have predictable consequences?)
So it’s like people in relationships today were all raptured out of the dating pool before the apocalypse struck (around covid). I see so often people saying how grateful they are to not have to worry about modern dating. And the dread that people have after a divorce when they need to re-enter the dating scene in this crap.
But people will also gaslight you and say there’s nothing wrong with modern dating, and that you must be the problem, totally ignoring the millions of people who are having the same experience. It takes a certain level of privilege to be able to ignore it.
Oh, but when women have issues dating, then it’s a different story. Then it’s just because men are terrible and that makes the dating scene terrible. No other possible explanations, end of discussion. Yet when men have issues dating, then suddenly “there’s nothing wrong with modern dating! You’re just a misogynist who feels entitled to women’s bodies!”
Like, that’s a really big leap from “Man, I wish I could find someone to love and spend time with.” All they hear though is “Man, I wish I had a woman to own and treat like property.”
It’s just like “There is no gender war in Ba Sing Se” whenever a man talks about endemic misandry. But then suddenly “Ugh, I hate this stupid gender war” every time someone mentions misogyny. So there’s both a gender war and no gender war, depending on who’s expressing their grievances. Like trump bombing Iran during a ceasefire and then accusing them of endangering the ceasefire when they retaliate…
I’m so sick of the gaslighting. Yeah, it’s just so much easier to not talk to women. They exist in their own world, at this point, and I’m neither welcome in it nor welcome to invite them into mine.
keep seeing this content that’s “men are so stupid and inferior and awful” and it’s grating on me.
Because there are groups specifically circulating ragebait to radicalize young and impressionable men into right winged radicalism. People see this all over the internet, but what do you see in real life? In my experience I have seen plenty of examples of casual misogyny in real life, I’ve never really seen any form of “misandry” in person.
I see a lot more Misandry in real life than say 15 years ago. A lot of it is very straight up and said as if there is nothing wrong with what they’re saying and its just a fact. Some examples off the top of my head are “short men are disgusting” “men are ruining the world” “we should just kill all men” “I hate that im attracted to men” and then plenty of things that are just attacking innocent things men do like their hobbies
yes.
all you have to do is flip the genders, and it’s hate speech. imagine guys going on about how short women are disgusting and unworthy of them… they would be considered horrible people.
If all you do is flip the genders then you’re ignoring the context - power and history.
There’s a difference between punching up and punching down.
No. Power and history don’t matter in personal relationships. We are only responsible for ourselves as individuals.
Power and history only matter at the institutional level. Stop mistaking institutional issues, for individual’s behaviors. They are not at all linked.
I am suspicious that we might not have the same definition of real life…? In what settings are these conversations occurring? I cant imagine you are speaking to coworkers or a group of friends making these types of claims. Are we just overhearing people whole grocery shopping or something? Color me skeptical, but I just can’t really think of a scenario outside the Internet where this would even come up.
Secondly, I’m not sure if your examples are really all genuine acts of misandry.
“short men are disgusting”
Would it be misogynist for a man to claim tall women are disgusting? Inappropriate and small minded yes… Sexist in general though?
“men are ruining the world”
I think this one might just be accurate? As a man who does not hate men, I can pretty confidently claim that the people currently ruining the world are pretty much all men.
“I hate that im attracted to men”
Again, seems more like a personal preference thing? Sometimes I think certain aspects of life would be a lot easier if I were a gay man.
And again, these anecdotes could all be 100 percent true and valid, and it still wouldn’t be indicative that we are dealing with a prominent cultural shift towards misandry. Can any normal not terminally online adult name a single powerful, famous, or culturally significant misandrist? Because that’s super easy when it comes to misogynist.
Racists and sexists hide behind their ‘preferences’ to legitimize their hate.
Just flip the genders. If you heard men saying these things about women, would you think that is legtimate or that it’s gross and hateful? Why is it the case then, that such things are permissible if it’s women talking about men?
Racists and sexists hide behind their ‘preferences’ to legitimize their hate.
Or… People just have preferences and that’s okay?
Just flip the genders. If you heard men saying these things about women, would you think that is legitimate or that it’s gross and hateful?
I mean, I did in my examples. If I said all women without a phat ass are disgusting, I think that would just make me an asshole. Not sure if that would really mean I hate women in general.
If I said women were ruining the world, it would prob be sexist because without any truth to the statement the only thing I could draw from it is that they were ruining things by simply being women. The opposite can’t really be conflated as most global leaders and politically influential people are men.
If some guys said he wished he wasn’t attracted to women, I would assume that they wish they had more options, or that they were emotionally attracted to men.
I mean context is important in each scenario.
No. It’s not a ‘preference’ when you are actively denigrated and demeaning others.
A preference means I just don’t date them. I don’t find women with short hair, personally attractive. I don’t think women with short hair, are disgusting people unworthy of my consideration, nor do I feel the need to insult them, nor do I expect them to grow out their hair to become ‘worthy’ of me.
I just don’t date them. And I fully understand other people may find them attractive for the reasons I do not. They are still people to me, I don’t see any reason to mock, harass, or deride them as human beings for not meeting my sexual preferences.
Also, bullshit. Plenty of global leaders of the past 50 years have been women who were ruining the world. Ever heard of Margaret Thacher or Theresa May?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_or_appointed_female_heads_of_state_or_government
all i’m getting from your comments here is an intense bias that if a woman does it, it’s fine, but if a man does it, it’s bad. you are just reinforcing the existing sexist bias.
No. It’s not a ‘preference’ when you are actively denigrated and demeaning others.
That would be called being an asshole…
preference means I just don’t date them. I don’t find women with short hair, personally attractive. I don’t think women with short hair, are disgusting people unworthy of my consideration, nor do I feel the need to insult them, nor do I expect them to grow out their hair to become ‘worthy’ of me.
Again…never said it was good behaviour. However, unless they claimed they didn’t like short men because they did not find them masculine, then its not really sexist.
Also, bullshit. Plenty of global leaders of the past 50 years have been women who were ruining the world. Ever heard of Margaret Thacher or Theresa May?
“Currently” was a specification. I also never said that every world leader or influential or was male, just most. Also claiming men are ruining the world does not imply that every single man is responsible for destroying the world.
If I asked what animals can fly and someone said birds… Would you automatically say not all birds? Generalities are a commonly accepted form of communication.
all i’m getting from your comments here is an intense bias that if a woman does it, it’s fine, but if a man does it, it’s bad. you are just reinforcing the existing sexist bias.
All I am getting from you is pedantic nonsense and an intense need to be seen as a victim.
I’m not claiming it’s impossible for women to be sexist, it’s just insignificant in both volume and ability of implementation compared to misogyny.
Misogyny is both common place, and can be implemented from the hight of power. Women just do not have the social or political power to implement systemic sexism. The vast majority of business owners, judges, police, and politicians are male and thus they have the ability to act upon their sexism from the top down.
How many household names of misandrist can you name? Now think of how many misogynist pretty much anyone can name… The two are not comparable in any way.
this is mostly from my close friends, family and random women i’ve dated people who I would consider to be “nice people”. I am not trying to say the balancec is shifting towards misandry. I am trying to say irrespective of any increase in misogyny I am seeing and increase in misandry.
I don’t mind when cis women say stuff like that because it means they’re marks, I feel bad for them, because they’re absolutely going to get scammed by a man. When trans women say stuff like this it sometimes means they’re in the process of bullying someone in their own community into taking their own lives, so it ruffles my feathers a lot more.
I have seen misandry in person multiple times but not nearly as often as misogyny. The misandry had far less impact on anyone as well.
People are talking to people in real life less and less these day. The people they do talk to tend to be of the same gender, this was a thing before the Internet but the Internet has made it worse. Combine that with algorithms where the first thing they learn about you is your gender and will feed you content accordingly, peoples view of the opposite gender becomes more and more distorted. So the terminally online people, that also make a lot of the content on the Internet, tend to become misogynist or misandrist.
they don’t have to be terminally online. i overhear shit like this all the time irl. and encounter these attitudes all the time from women while dating in a liberal progressive city.
shitty people project their shit onto everyone. this is all this is. a shitty person mocking and deriding someone for being different than them or not living up to their bizarre and often hypocritical expectations of the opposite sex.
i go on so many dates where the woman basically just lays out what she is looking for in a relationship, and it’s they often take this condescending tone where they think men are inferior beings that have to ‘prove’ themselves… instead of regarding you as a fellow human being.
I first read that as “horse stuff” and was wondering if horses were suddenly in now
you are being logical and thoughtful and acknowledging a complex reality.
the people who push this shit live in a black and white world where all men are scum and should aspire to not be men. these are also the same people who will complain there are no ‘manly men’ left.
they are gender supremacists living in a delusional reality of their own making. they simple hate men for existing, just men who hate women hate them for existing. except for when they are sexual fantasy objects.
Typical mysandrists. Dumb as fuk
Thanks! I’ve put a bit of work into the place lately
Pretty difficult to say, I know.
But then we wouldn’t have rage bait for engagement.
I’ve been over to places and complimented people on them, and they become hostile to you.
because in their warped mind, your compliment is an veiled attack on them. and they think you liking their rug is you telling them it isn’t good enough or something.
this is typical of massively insecure people.
Rage bait is rage bait.
i’ve had women come over to my place and do this. and then tell me it made them uncomfortable because men are not supposed to be able to cook, clean, let alone decorate.
An example of women perpetuating toxic masculinity
no, when they do that they are just ‘expressing a preference for a manly man’.
and if you tell them how problematic (and self-defeating usually) their ideas are, they tell you how you just hate all women and you have no right to criticize their ‘preferences’ and clearly you are insecure and pathetic.
this same technique is also used to justify rabid racism against non-white men all the time. It’s always amazed me how women hide behind the ‘patriarchy’ and their ‘oppression’ only to rapidly perpetuate the rapidly racist and sexist nonsense they happen to believe in. I’ve also been on some date with women of color who do this, it’s not like restricted to white women.
What I will say is the women who do do this… are typically privileged and wealthy types whose main dispute with life is they are NOT privileged and wealthy enough… and that it’s an evil and oppressive society of awful men that is preventing them form making an extra 50-100K on their already 300K salary.
You’re just describing shitty people in general.
Birds of a feather, as they say.
What a manly man? I kill and butcher my own meat. But also cook do laundry and clean. Or is manly gym bro muscles.
Vanity muscles ONLY. Anytbing else will TURN you.
deleted by creator
keep being you and i promise theres women out there to appreciate itfully retracted, your honor lol
the women who appreciate it are not attracted to me sexually. or they are already married. i have had plenty of female friends who admire my home and my cooking. but i’ve never been in a sexual relationship with a lady who saw it as a positive, only as a threat.
the issue with dating that people really struggle to be honest about, is most of us have limited options in potential partners, and it’s either accept what’s available, or date nobody. i know exactly who would work for me to date, but sadly none of those women find me attractive, and the one who do find me attractive, are the ones who i have absolutely nothing in common with, and who think my lifestyle choices and values make me a closeted homosexual.
and yeah i’d rather be alone than be in another relationship with someone who constantly makes jokes about how i’m secretly gay and i’m going to leave her for a man, or what a pussy I am for being human and being upset over events like the death of my parents. but that’s the type of woman who finds me attractive and wants to date me.
i have seen your comments about dating in the past and i gotta say you seem like the problem. some of the things you have said are straight up misogynist. sorry if i dont believe this is the norm
Right, it’s me that hates women, and it’s not you that’s sexist and making sexist generalizations based on a total lack of personal experience with men, which you do not regard as human beings, no doubt.
you know who also tells me I hate all women? every shitty abusive girlfriend I have rejected or stood up to.
and what’s funny, is the women i meet who weren’t that way, don’t tend to call me misogynist when I reject or refute them.
As a man with successful and healthy relationships who has read a lot of your bullshit throughout a lot of these kinds of threads, you are 100% the problem person in your life and relationships.
Stop blaming other people for your shitty behavior. You’re the one behind the wheel.
which you do not regard as human beings
What a pathetic fuckin tactic. Starting to see like you’re exaggerating and much more of the problem than you’re willing to admit.
you know nothing about me lmao but thanks for proving my point.
you know nothing about me, how is your belief about me legitimate, by your own logic then?
all you really know is i said words you don’t like. you self-reported as never dating men, so I find it kind of ironic that you seem to think you know anything about being in relationships with them.
are you sure I hate women, or is it more that you just hate men, because you don’t see them as people, as you have no personal experience in intimate relationships with them?
So what is their excuse?/ I know lots of women who can’t cook and don’t clean. Don’t know where this cooking thing came from are not most famous chefs male?
Like yes, i want a mommy to take care of me but that and me appreciating your house is not related 💀
“Yeah I don’t get it, I just don’t get invited to anything anymore” - this person, on occasion, probably
Just remember that nothing online is real and this 45 year old Chinese/indian/russian/israeli man masquerading as a woman to induce social discord won’t be able to affect you!
Well, the problem isn’t that this is being manufactured, but rather exacerbating already existing problems. The Russian IRA didn’t start racism in the US around 2013-2016. 4chan didn’t found fascism in the west. North Korea didn’t originate the very first crypto scams. You’re absolutely right that the problems are blown way out of proportion and there are so many trolls out there, it’s hard to tell if any one asshole is paid to be an asshole online or not. However, it’s best to not over-correct and deny these problems exist at all, even with hyperbole.
I do, personally, feel it’s best to simply disregard online rhetoric entirely. It’s genuinely a perfect catch all for 90% of people. You spend more time with actual humans and you maintain a grounded perspective while chiseling those of others. I’ve lost nothing since turning everything besides Reuters into fiction. You carve your own space out of the people around you.
Which is to say, my vaguely meandering around your point is more cheeky than antagonistic.
Fuck, man, I can’t say I disagree with your perspective here. Nor can I say it didn’t make me reassess my approach to online spaces.
It’s difficult seeing the online rhetoric of irl bullshit perpetuating and exacerbating very real problems and not feeling like you have to address the bullshit to ensure there’s a reasonable counter. I’m not 100% sure if it was your point, but yeah, we just shouldn’t take it seriously. It’s not apathy, but leaving the bullshit to irrelevance. Engagement is the goal of trolls afterall…
And you know what? I think you’re right in that the remedy is less about what we’re against and more about building the future we want to see. Genuine human connection is a great vaccine for preventing the spread of bullshit.
No, you took my meaning. Fighting an infinite stream of discord from maladjusted people and bots online just soaks you in their sickness. It’s more than a waste of time, it’s actively detrimental to your being. Altering your community, on the other hand, is useful and semi-permanent. And spreading the idea amongst people you find palatable creates little pockets of sunshine that we all get to enjoy. Wew!
Reminds me of Daryl Davis who, as a black man, was able to convince 200 klansmen to leave the kkk by simply befriending them. The cure to all that’s evil in the world really is so simple, yet so easy to loose perspective of. The answer to all the world’s problems really does just boil down to focusing on building the world we want to see.
Pretty much. Humanity wasn’t crafted with massive societies in mind. Subdividing into social groups of 100 or less, as our ancestors lived in, makes far more sense and allows one to enact change more easily as a singular entity. Like using a hammer to hammer or a drill to drill, just natural tool use.
But you should probably discard everything you’ve read, considering I am an internet person and therefore not worth engaging with. The ideology is robust!
What you percieve as reality is real, to you.
Its… this is the basic functional mechanism of propoganda, advertising, marketing, etc.
It does effect people.
No one is immune to propaganda.
That’s like, the entire problem.
You might as well just say ‘the internet doesn’t exist, you’ve never seen a movie or a tv/netflix show, you’ve never seen an advertisement.’
That’s about as absurd as what you are saying.
Also how do you know this isn’t genuine?
How did you determine that?
Is… everything you don’t like, a psyop?
It’s not that it’s not real. It’s that you, the person on the other side of the screen, and all that you offer aren’t worth observing or engaging with. This is a parasocial marketplace of ideas where I attempt to avoid being influenced or marketed to. It doesn’t always work, but demoting everyone here to the funny little neurodivergent technoanarchocommununists on my phone has helped.
To paraphrase, I barely skimmed because it’s inherently better for my mental health lmao
Generally true though. Society robs us of all joy on purpose. Can’t have shit as a man, because that looks kind of gay.
I’m getting all the stuff society does not want me to.
What robs us of joy is caring about other people’s expectations for us. We are free when we stop worrying about what people think.
Man you can stop worrying about people but that sure won’t stop them from treating you like shit
Vote with your feet.
Yep.
many people’s life purpose is to treat other people they don’t like shit, based on their perceived differences. and they will go out of their way to do like, harass random strangers over this shit. or just force every causal acquaintance of run this gantlet they have in their head of hatred and bias because they feel other people must ‘prove’ themselves to them.
What the hell are you talking about? You can’t have a rug or society will call you gay?
Yes, that is why the Dude was so annoyed when he missed his rug.
It really tied his personality together.
He is the world’s dumbest man.
the rugs are turning the frogs gay or something
If you have too much decorative stuff in your room, people start to suspect you.
Luckily, what people think, means jack shit to me, as you can tell by all the dislikes I’m ignoring.
You said you can’t have “shit”, which generally means “can’t have anything”.
You live some weird ass fucking fantasy world. Being called gay for having a rug is not common, at all.
There are real societal toxic masculinity thing that affect men, we don’t need this ludicrous made up bullshit.
username checks out
Tough shit. I’m getting all the “gay” shinny shit, and there is nothing you can legally do about it.
I’m getting so much useless vane shit, just to spite society.
Vanes are useful though.
Like a rug?
well it really ties the room together
shinny shit
It’s funny because with two n’s in that word it just turns the word “shin” into an adjective.
Is that what you’re describing? A male living space full of shitty shins?
vane shit
Okay now you’re talking about a directional spinny thing you can put up on top of your house that tells you which way the wind is blowing. And I guess it’s spewing shit or something. I dunno. You’re the one who said it.
shiny adjective ˈshī-nē
: having a smooth glossy surface
: filled with light
: lustrous
vain adjective
: having or showing undue or excessive pride in one’s appearance or achievements : conceited
vane noun
: a movable device attached to an elevated object (such as a spire) for showing the direction of the wind
Oh sure, flex your higher education on me.
Lemmy is social media not a spelling test lol
Social media, at it’s core, is people communicating with each other. Effective communication requires using the correct words to convey the message you’re trying to send.
Using poor spelling, grammar or punctuation risks people A) misunderstanding what you’re trying to say, or B) thinking that you’re ignorant or uneducated and that therefore your input is of no value.
Nobody cares and that was always an option.
seems like a dumb reason to do something, but… enjoy, I guess.
this is tumblr level insufferable.
hence why it is getting upvoted so heavily, and commented on, and the comments getting tons of upvotes.
it’s almost like… this is what we like. we love the insufferable.
Any excuse to shit on men.
Removed by mod
Well, obviously.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Look up Poe’s law
Removed by mod
your intentions are pure but your time and energy would be better spent elsewhere
Wow way to take a joke out of context because no place does it say trans men. So should I be offended because the poster is telling me to be a trans women.
if you’re a cis man there is absolutely no reason for you to be offended OR to insert yourself into this conversation. This is not for or about you right now.
A real charmer here lol
I cannot imagine anyone jumping to that conclusion, this has to be a joke. Like, when I first saw the house of my now husband, the front door opened to a big empty room and my first words were "oh, this is wonderful, it’s so empty it looks like a ballroom, you could have a big party here!'. Like, sure, he cannot decorate and defers to me on home renovations now because he always likes what I design (I design, he has veto power) but how is that dysfunctional? He was just fine with the open space, it worked and a house is for the people who live there. And a big empty space is such a flex in a way, like look - I have more house than I need. Guys aren’t waiting around hoping someone comes and fills that up, they are enjoying the space, right?
If someone compliments your home, I just can’t see getting mad about it.
I purposefully keep my spaces open because I like the feeling. I like not having every inch of my house not need something in it.
I like to think of it like goldfish. A goldfish will grow to be the size of the tank you put it in, and that’s good for a goldfish, but I don’t want to be a goldfish - I don’t need to jam stuff into every corner of the house just because a corner happens to be kind of empty.
Technically that’s not good for the goldfish 🥴 they grow to the size of smaller tanks then it stresses their bodies to not be able to keep going to their natural size. I’d have to look it up what the recommended tank size is but hope folks look it up before getting one!
cool. I find people who live that way to be really offputting and their spaces off putting. it feels like they live in a hotel. it’s creepy af.
i like people who have stuff and their home looks like people actually live there instead of it being staged for sale.
Someone who jumped to this conclusion was probably looking for a conclusion to their preconceived theory.
That or they are making a joke to dunk on people who do that
no it’s legit. i’m male and i’ve had women do this to me when they come over to my place. more than once.
a lot of people have awful expectations/low opinions of the other sex and get super angry at you if you don’t live up to their low expectations of them
you think the home thing is bad? try being a dude who is emotionally open and honest. every lady says she wants that, but the vast majority of them are totally repulsed by it. i even had a couple of girlfriends who were so convinced men are all therapy needing emotionally student idiots, that when i was try to communicate they would just ignore everything i said and then tell me how i really felt. because my words didn’t register as legitimate to them, they were women, and they knew the truth about how all men can’t really properly express their feelings and clearly what I was doing was fake/false/wrong or something. it was utterly insane.
people are really really really wedded to their beliefs about gender roles and gender behaviors, to the point of total delusion that when someone doesn’t live up to their sexist expectations, they just reject the evidence in front of their face and make up a fake story to maintain the preexisting belief.
tl;dr: all men are emotional student idiots. if there is a man who isn’t, he’s not really a man, he’s secretly gay. because gay men aren’t men either, or something? i dunno.
This was reported as misogyny, and they’re not wrong. Instead of removing this and sending you off to deal with it, I’m going to tell you why it is.
You are using your personal anecdotes of people you chose to ask out, to define half the population. How is this helping you? You are probably going to pick similar people because that’s your type, then have expectations that it will be different.
I struggled with this for a while. A woman saying she wants emotional honesty does not mean she swears to still find you attractive regardless of what you reveal. She just has a feeling of unease and wants that to go away. So, reassure while maintaining sophistication and intrigue.
Removed by mod
God, this shit pisses me off so fucking much because it’s this bullshit-ass pop-philosophy that liberals have settled into that pushes away young men and perpetuates the patriarchal bullshit in the world. “tHeY’rE jUsT pUnChInG uP” NOBODY SHOULD BE PUNCHING ANYBODY. The problem is the fucking system, not who is doing the punching. Libs get so wrapped up in anything but the system that they make the problem worse. Like the popularization of the term “mansplaining”. Oh neat, so now the problem women face about being seen as competent is about men. Because, of course, feminism didn’t come about to improve the treatment of women, but to point out who the bad people are. The would you rather for women about running across a bear or a random man is about how man worse than bear, not that women feel so egregiously unsafe in their daily lives. Libs are so far up their own ass, they’d rather create another fucking problem than actually engage in being part of the solution. Libs will see one problem and be like “but what if it could be two problem?” Libs see women get mistreated for no reason then go “men should suffer, too”, then pat themselves on the back because now everyone hates everyone, no matter the gender[bullshit-ass heart emojis].
Fuck the patriarchy.
They have to play men and women against each other. Or else they would have to explain how systemic patriarchy manages to self-replicate despite worsening the lives of nearly all of the people (of all genders) who suffer under it. And the answer to that is: capitalism. Which is not an acceptable answer for the donor class.
You and I seem to have the same opinion about this.
Feminism has basically been co opted into a kind of psuedo liberal, privileged, socially acceptable because it calls itself feminism, form of misandry.
Like this OP image person would be the same person who would likely call a straight dude gay, as an insult, because he declined a second date with her.
Its wild because… like… these people are ostensibly ‘liberal’, they’ll tell you they are, but they’re actually not.
They believe in the concept of equal rights and opportunity, universally, for all… to the same the same extent that conservatives believe in Democracy or States Rights.
They don’t actually believe in them.
They believe in them as rheotically useful dialects to speak about things from… but they don’t actually believe in the actual principles.
Like we’ve gotten to the point in politics and society where everyone is so thoroughly full of shit, that we have an illiberal center, roughly, that then just pantomimes different flavors of rhetorical style… and then on the extreme ends you have people that actually believe in any principles beyond ‘Im awesome and my team rocks’.
We are so fucking cooked lol, the owners have divided and conquered our minds extremely thoroughly.
Feminism has basically been co opted into a kind of psuedo liberal, privileged, socially acceptable because it calls itself feminism, form of misandry.
Has it? Or is this just what people opposed to actual feminism claim feminism is all about?
There is a feminist subgroup here on lemmy and it does not look anything like this post.
There are many people who call themselves feminists who fit the description I gave.
Lemmy is not the entire world.
If those people aren’t real feminists to you, then you and I agree.
But the word has become multifarious and muddled, leading to mass confusion and needless hostility.
There are many people who call themselves feminists who fit the description I gave.
“Many people” who behave like this and call themselves feminist does not mean “Feminism has basically been co opted”.
My point is that there are groups of political actors that either fabricate or boost the few examples of this type of behaviour to radicalize young and impressionable men into right winged behaviour/spaces.
But the word has become multifarious and muddled, leading to mass confusion and needless hostility.
So can making a post claiming that this is predominant behaviour, or that this is something that should redefine feminism.
Can you name a single famous or culturally significant misandrist that a non terminally online individual would know? Because I could name quite a few famous and culturally significant/powerful men who are actively misogynist on a daily basis.
No actually that is basically what co-opting is or means.
Who said this was ‘predominant’ behavior, of all feminists?
Not me.
Who claimed that the definition I gave was of what I consider real feminism?
I specifically set it apart, gave it a new conceptual descriptive name, as well as definition.
Nobody at any point said that misogyny is not a prevalent problem as well, with very prominent proponents.
I’m not gonna be talking to you anymore, because you’re apparently not capable of engaging in this discussion in good faith, you’re either consciously or unconsciously putting a crap ton of words into my mouth that I did not say.
actually that is basically what co-opting is or means.
To successfully take over or assimilate something you typically require more representation than the opposition. You claiming that feminism has been co-opted implies that there are a large number of people behaving this way.
Can you name a single famous or culturally significant misandrist that a non terminally online individual would know?
I’m guessing you don’t have an answer for this?
I don’t think we’re quite as similar as you might think because I do take issue with the semantic framing made here. If it contains any form of gender discrimination, it’s NOT feminism, full stop. I don’t think the rise of casual discrimination against men is something done consciously, but rather a poor interpretation and extrapolation of female rage. Rather than a deliberate sabotage of feminist philosophy, this is just another example of people having no fucking clue what they’re talking about in any field of philosophy, and a further illustration of the great divide between pop-philosophy and where actual academic philosophy stands today. I deliberately used the example of the term “mansplaining”, since this is a term that absolutely did not come from feminist philosophy and illustrates how pop-philosophy completely misses the point. It’s stupid team-sport bullshit that doesn’t belong in philosophy of social justice.
There are far fewer legitimate believers in the anti-men movement than it appears, especially on the internet. The problem, hence my rant, lies in the rhetorical drift of platformed “feminism” of the democratic party in America. As someone else was quite apt to point out, it’s another corrupted offering of capitalism. To “empower” women to be “girl-bosses”, “queens”, and “ackshually gurls rool da wurld”. It’s the system trying to pit us against one another yet again via some kinda ‘gender competition’. My frustration is in the very real effect this rhetorical bullshit has made on younger generations of men pivoting hard to the right and some into the arms of the “manosphere”. Liberals once again aiding fascists.
And what is honestly my biggest contention with your take; we’re not cooked. That’s silly. All this bullshit? This too shall pass. Legitimate feminism continues to gain ground and put in the hard work. Many men’s liberation movements are beginning to find they actually have fundamentally mutual goals with feminists and are joining the fight. The dipshit ruling class is getting dumber, lazier, and more complacent than ever. More people are joining the fight, and boy has the media been quiet about just how big, angry, and unified the people have gotten. I don’t rage about this shit because it’s losing us the fight, I rage because a better future has never looked so clear and worth fighting for.
God, this shit pisses me off so fucking much because it’s this bullshit-ass pop-philosophy that liberals have settled into that pushes away young men and perpetuates the patriarchal bullshit in the world.
To start with… Have you ever even met anyone in real life that spoke this way? I feel like people on lemmy are so quick to see a post from an unknown random on the internet and speak about it as if it’s an epidemic.
The problem is the fucking system, not who is doing the punching. Libs get so wrapped up in anything but the system that they make the problem worse. Like the popularization of the term “mansplaining”. Oh neat, so now the problem women face about being seen as competent is about men.
I think the critique is aimed at a functional aspect of the system. You seem to acknowledge the patriarchy, which is a critique of a hierarchical system that is largely controlled by and benefits men. I don’t see how agitating against mansplaining is anything but critical towards people talking over or diminishing the voices of women.
Because, of course, feminism didn’t come about to improve the treatment of women, but to point out who the bad people are. The would you rather for women about running across a bear or a random man is about how man worse than bear, not that women feel so egregiously unsafe in their daily lives.
How do you change a system without being critical about aspects of the system that require change?
The man vs bear is definitely an allegory about how women feel unsafe due to the discrepancy of power between the sexes, in both physical and societal power.
Libs see women get mistreated for no reason then go “men should suffer, too”, then pat themselves on the back because now everyone hates everyone, no matter the gender[bullshit-ass heart emojis].
I think the point is to highlight the discrepancy between the experiences of men and women. For example the man vs bear scenario isn’t claiming that men too should be more afraid to run across a random woman than a bear. It’s a way to highlight their perspective, the point is we should live in a society where women do not have to feel like they could become prey to unjust violence from a random man.
I think most of my sarcasm didn’t translate well here. I should know better, this being the internet/text and all. I’ll try to be more clear about my stance because I don’t think we fundamentally disagree, but I suspect there may be a point or two we may want to make more granular.
As a response to your first paragraph(sorry, on mobile), yes, I legitimately have met many people irl who use this rhetoric, though, as you point out, it’s not an epidemic, nor do I think there are many “true believers”, so-to-speak, as much as it’s casual, unthinking discrimination. Admittedly, they skew young and college age and will typically correct course if explicitly addressed. Those that double down are usually the youngest and/or self-described assholes.
As for the patriarchy, yeah, that’s the primary problem. My point is to primarily focus on the system(the patriarchy) as the problem, rather than people (men). After all, many women will perpetuate and even sometimes benefit from the patriarchy. Hence my contention with the term “mansplaining”, as I attempted to point out this takes the focus away from the problem of the optics of women’s competence and focuses on men specifically looking down on women. It’s a crude and unhelpful pop-philosophy term that admittedly was deliberately used precisely because it’s an emotionally defended term of pop-feminist philosophy and is a good illustration of the gulf between pop-philosophy and where actual academic philosophy stands. The problem isn’t that a man is doubting someone else as the term would imply, but that a woman is seen as incapable of competence. The goal of women’s liberation is co-opted by pointing the finger at men. I think the nefarious reason this term is so sticky is because it is indeed rooted in real life examples of the most common optical occurrence of perpetuating doubt about women’s competence. And as the primary point of my rant illustrates, liberal rhetoric has crept into blaming/attacking men at the expense of the goal of gender liberation.
Now, I should be very clear about what my focus on the system rather than the people is/isn’t doing; focus on the patriarchy as the problem rather than on men as the problem will indeed still call out the actions of men more often. However, what this primarily accomplishes as a direct criticism of pop-philosophy is separate the action from the actor to more accurately describe why the action is wrong as opposed to who is doing the wrong. Rather than trying to root out problematic groups of people, now we more accurately root out problematic behavior amongst all of us. Pop-philosophy would rather you just lazily say “ugh, men, amirite?”
The allegory of man vs bear in the woods isn’t lost on me. I think my sarcasm got a bit too thick in the characterization of liberals missing the point with it. I think it’s a great illustration of demonstrating reality that even when recognizing the problem is indeed patriarchy and not men, women would still be wise to pick the bear over the random man in the woods due to how the patriarchy manifests itself in social power dynamics. Most men probably are relatively safe, but the unsafe men pose enough of a risk that it’s impossible to ignore. This is definitely a perspective all men should do their best to come to understand about the very real experiences of women. However, my point in bringing this particular allegory up was to show the unhinged nature of the careless use of inaccurate language by liberals and pop-philosophy in saying it’s all men when confronted by those who didn’t understand the point. In looking at my post, I see now that it was very unclear I moved on from the allegory completely at the end of that sentence.
My point at the end there was to illustrate how dumb the rhetoric of attacking men is when considering the assumed premise of the rhetoric is pro-feminist = anti-men. Now everyone is miserable in discrimination because of their gender and women’s liberation dies in great irony. When in reality feminism does indeed include men’s liberation from patriarchy. While men are the primary beneficiaries of patriarchy, they also face discrimination because of patriarchy as well, obviously to a much lesser degree than women.
So, to sum up my rant: the anti-men rhetoric becoming casually included in pop-philosophy is problematic because:
- It is fundamentally anti-feminist to be anti-men.
- Being anti-men once again distracts from the actual goal of gender liberation.
- Pushes away men who would otherwise be allies and even personally benefit from feminism.
And to reiterate the points you brought up that I do agree warrant emphasis that I originally failed to mention:
- This isn’t an epidemic, nor are there really that many “true believers” in anti-men rhetoric. Loud online assholes are usually the larger offending demographic.
- While I have indeed heard this rhetoric unironically irl fairly often, the perpetrators were usually young, immature, and not usually full of conviction. I suspect most have/will grow out of it.
- Much of this rhetoric comes from Hollywood, the democratic party, and online trolls. I think naming these sources speaks enough about how much of this problem is real versus manufactured.
- And, admittedly, I think this is probably the point to come after me about: the problem is more manifest in how the rhetoric is currently creeping into casual conversation and unspoken premises rather than an actual intentional belief system. The problem is more rhetorical drift than ideological.
As for the patriarchy, yeah, that’s the primary problem. My point is to primarily focus on the system(the patriarchy) as the problem, rather than people (men). After all, many women will perpetuate and even sometimes benefit from the patriarchy.
So this is really the source of my confusion when it comes to your response. How does one go about dismantling a hierarchical system without being critical towards the people who operate and reinforce the system?
To me that would be like saying yes chattle slavery is bad, but we shouldn’t attack southern slave holders, after all plenty of northern cloth makers profit from cotton produced in the south.
separate the action from the actor to more accurately describe why the action is wrong as opposed to who is doing the wrong.
Sticking with my analogy, I don’t think non slavers have to be explained that they are not at fault for the actions of slave holders. No one is claiming that labeling all male communication is mansplaining is okay.
inaccurate language by liberals and pop-philosophy in saying it’s all men when confronted by those who didn’t understand the point.
Again, i don’t think we should be blaming the people making the allegory for the people who fail to realize the point. In most cases those who interpret it as “all men” are not making that claim in good faith.
Going back to my analogy, it would be like saying many white plantation owners also owned slaves, and having someone claim that I said all white people in the south were slavers.
to illustrate how dumb the rhetoric of attacking men is when considering the assumed premise of the rhetoric is pro-feminist = anti-men.
I think this argument only aids the people who are conflating criticism against men practicing misogyny as criticism against all men.
When dismantling a hierarchical system like the patriarchy, there will be people who operate and benefit from that system who feel attacked. While I agree that we shouldn’t single out every male who vicariously benefits from the system(I am a male after all). I disagree that being critical towards individuals who actively work to reinforce that system is “anti-male”. Hierarchical system are human constructs, and thus the individuals who perpetuate that construct are inseparable from them. You can’t target the system without targeting the people who make and reinforce the system.
Your analogy is wildly off base. That is objectively NOT analogous, nor does your accusation that I’m saying men shouldn’t be “criticized” make any sense. Did you even actually read my comment(s)??? Slave holders as an identity is EXACTLY the problem of slavery as a system. You absolutely should go after slave holders as slave holders because them not changing their identity is the problem of the fucking system. You focus on the system of slavery, slave holders will be your first fucking target, holy shit. You know why you don’t go after men if you focus on the system of patriarchy? Because it’s not their identity as a man that perpetuates the patriarchy. That’s the fucking point of focus on the system; you identify the actual problem instead of creating a new one. And since I apparently have to spell out this simple fucking concept; the problems of the system of patriarchy include things like enforcement of gender roles, either explicitly or casually as an unspoken expectation. Obviously this includes the oppression of women by confinement to a house, in a perptual forced state of submission to others, restrictions on their own independence and self-expression, their value based on their appearance, and way too many etc. Men will mostly be there perpetrators and men will usually be most egregious perpetrators. But men will not be the only perpetrators. Women who want to take away every woman’s right to vote is someone who perpetuates and at least attempts to benefit from the patriarchy. Women who say a woman couldn’t be a president because she’ll nuke everyone as soon as it’s “that time of the month” are part of the problem in perpetuating the system of patriarchy. This is why I emphasize that it is indeed the fucking system, not people. The people are fully capable of NOT being a part of the problem. Even the most misogynist man in existence is perfectly capable of succumbing to reason and the most basic form of moral decency by no longer being a misogynist. If he’s no longer a misogynist and also no longer perpetuating the patriarchy, but he’s still a man, then holy fucking shit, it wasn’t because he was a man, now was it? It was precisely because of the fucking system that he was a problem.
However, if you attribute the problems of the system of patriarchy to men instead of the system, suddenly you start getting dumbfuck rhetoric like the post above. Now, instead of working on solutions to the problem of patriarchy with men, now the men are the target. The line is not really that fine or blurry, but pop-philosophy is stupid as fuck and sure doesn’t see a difference between “fuck the patriarchy” and “fuck men”, because pop-philosophy reasons like a toddler and is heavily funded by the rich fucks that want us to fight each other instead of turning on their greedy, destructive asses. You know why they fund it? Because people fucking buy it. And this rhetorical bullshit has been creeping into liberal rhetoric in the recent past as some team sports bullshit to differentiate themselves from the “others”. And this has lead to pushing young men to the right in the alienating language of making the oppression of women a part of men’s identity. Some of it is manufactured, sure, but a growing amount of it is not. It’s the wrong message for these young men to take from this, yeah no shit, but that’s what political tone does if you’re that careless. It shouldn’t work like that and we shouldn’t have to soften the message to appeal to more people, hard agree, but welcome to fucking politics since fucking always.
So, to sum up:
- The system is the problem, not the people of the system.
- Blaming it on the system does NOT absolve anyone of wrongdoing. In fact, it more accurately points out who is doing the fuckups.
- The Patriarchy =/= Men
- Attacking men =/= feminism
- Casual sexism toward men as a growing part of liberal rhetoric has pushed young men toward right wing dickheads. This is a bad thing and everyone is wrong here.
- The remedy to point 5 is to consistently point out that the problem is patriarchy and everyone suffers for it. You don’t attack the rhetoric, you make it irrelevant.
To correct your analogy, it’s like blaming slavery on white people. It just obfuscates the actual root of the problem and creates a new fucking problem with a dumbshit red herring. You blame the system of slavery, not white people. The slave owners are mostly white? Cool, most of the people you’ll be fighting will just so happen to be white. But it’s the fucking system of slavery you want to abolish, not white people. Blame it on white people because it’s white people things? Well shit, you’re not nearly as bad as a fucking slaver, but does it make you feel good to use their logic?
You focus on the system of slavery, slave holders will be your first fucking target, holy shit. You know why you don’t go after men if you focus on the system of patriarchy? Because it’s not their identity as a man that perpetuates the patriarchy. That’s the fucking point of focus on the system; you identify the actual problem instead of creating a new one.
Right… No one has established that all men are being blamed for the system of the patriarchy. I specified that men who actively participate and benefit from reinforcing the hierarchy should be criticized.
However, if you attribute the problems of the system of patriarchy to men instead of the system, suddenly you start getting dumbfuck rhetoric like the post above.
Again… I never said to blame only and all men? Just that some men who benefit and perpetuate the problem will justly deserve criticism. I feel like you are trying to conflate that with me saying all men deserve to be blamed
The system is the problem, not the people of the system.
So this argument seems to negate your prior claims. You agreed that the slavers should be targeted for the system of slavery. Isn’t that people of the system being a problem?
Blaming it on the system does NOT absolve anyone of wrongdoing
So certain people within the system are the problem?
The Patriarchy =/= Men
I never claimed that the patriarchy = men. Just that men overwhelmingly benefit and control it.
Attacking men =/= feminism
Attacking certain men guilty of perpetuating the patriarchy can be an act of feminist praxis
Casual sexism toward men as a growing part of liberal rhetoric has pushed young men toward right wing dickheads. This is a bad thing and everyone is wrong here.
And conflating criticism towards certain men who deserve it is often being conflated as sexism as a way to push young men towards right winged dickheads.
patriarchy and everyone suffers for it. You don’t attack the rhetoric, you make it irrelevant.
I mean that’s just incorrect. The people who actively perpetuate the patriarchy often benefit from it. Even the people whom do not actively perpetuate it passively benefit from it in certain ways.
correct your analogy, it’s like blaming slavery on white people. It just obfuscates the actual root of the problem and creates a new fucking problem with a dumbshit red herring.
I mean, that’s kinda the opposite of what I was saying even with your modifications. No one has said all men are being blamed but you. My point was that you cannot dismantle a system like slavery without targeting the people who participate and benefit from it. Which conflicts with your claim of only attacking the system, not the people. I think people blaming all white people for slavery is just as unlikely as someone blaming all men for the patriarchy.
But it’s the fucking system of slavery you want to abolish, not white people. Blame it on white people because it’s white people things? Well shit, you’re not nearly as bad as a fucking slaver, but does it make you feel good to use their logic?
Can you point out a single time I said I was blaming all men?
Okay, you have to be a troll or something. Just fuck off.
Says the person whose argument constantly contradicts itself. The only thing you consistently claim is that I am blaming men in general for the patriarchy despite saying things like
“I don’t think non slavers have to be explained that they are not at fault for the actions of slave holders. No one is claiming that labeling all male communication as mansplaining is okay”
But I guess hoping for honest discourse out of a person is a bit too much to ask from a person using ad hominems as a rebuttal. Have a good one.
nobody should be punching anybody
I cannot think of a joke - except for puns - that do not have a victim.
A newly wed couple is going on a 14-day cruise for their honeymoon. The husband pulls over on the way to the Port. “Why are you stopping?” asks the wife, “Oh I’m just picking up some condoms from this pharmacy - although we just got married we said we’d wait a year before starting a family?” “OK, but pick me up some dramamine too so I don’t get seasick.” So the husband goes to the pharmacist and asks for a 14 condoms and 14 dramamine tablets. The pharmacist says “If it makes you feel so sick, why do you keep doing it?”
Men in general / the husband is the victim of the punch line here. Or maybe pharmacists?
Much like dramatic narrative, from Shakespeare to Ted Lasso, all rising tension is resolved by a winner and loser.
I think you completely missed the point. “Nobody should be punching anybody” isn’t about jokes, but discrimination. The answer to discrimination against women isn’t to add discrimination against men. I’m pointing out that feminism is about liberation from discrimination rather than redirecting it to the “right group”. The system should be the focus, not the people.
Also, it’s not all victim this, winner that. It’s not pie. Everyone can win, everyone can lose. Again, it’s the system that’s the problem, not the people.
I’m speaking dramaturgically. There’s no literal Romeo and Juliet getting hurt, but in the story they both die.
That’s what is meant by “punching.”
Every rising action is met by a falling action. In a comedy format the tension rises to a punch line, where the punching happens, the fall is the release of laughter, and then resetting for the next joke.
I cannot think of a joke - except for puns - that do not have a victim.
You either don’t hear enough jokes or you have a bad sense of humour. Either way this is just objectively wrong
it’s not just jokes (again, excepting word play) - all narrative forms adhere to this. The concept of all stories is essentially based on conflict, where a platform is established, corrupted and reset.
“Punching down” means making jokes at the expense of vulnerable people. But all jokes have a punch line of some description- so it is impossible to be both a joke and have no resolution.
Some surreal humor relies on subverting this form somewhat, but the tension is usually released in other ways (i.e. a “straightman” or “fish out of water”, commenting on it or else a structural change like cutting to a different scene)
deleted by creator
There’s no punching done in this joke, no winner or loser. It’s just observational humor. The pharmacist draws a mistaken conclusion from his observation.
it’s “winner” and “loser” not winner and loser.
If Cinderella, Cinderella is the loser to the step sisters, the winner to the prince’s affection, the loser to time constraints, the winner to the final slipper fit.
It’s a method of discussing rising and falling action in Aristotlean poetics w/r/t narrative mores.
Well it’s a pretty inane method then
I mean it’s how our brains are wired after roughly 10,000 years of oral storytelling tradition, and you can draw a direct line of storytelling methodology in most cultures back about 4000 years. These methods are what constructed the odyssey, the Iliad, the aeneid, the plays of Aesceleus, Euripedes, Sophecles, Aristophanes… all the way up to modern comic books, superhero movies and telenovellas.
First of all, you’re telling me aesceleus euripedes et al were talking about “winners” and “losers” as the fundamental dynamic of literature?
And second of all, that’s all one western tradition you’re talking about. And i was raised on it too read translations of the classics and all that. But now that im older, ive since realized that the legacy of the ancient Greeks through the Renaissance to the modern West is simply not innate to humans, it’s just the way one specific culture evolved.
One big realization for me was that all the characters in the Illiad are colossal pieces of shit slave owners who are more concerned with first their ego and second the monetary value of their enslaved humans kept as chattel. (With the possible exception of Hector, who seemed to really put others above himself and was doing what he thought was necessary to save his people.). And yet walk into any university in the west and they indoctrinate freshmen with the idea that these were honorable men we should hold up as role models.
First of all, you’re telling me aesceleus euripedes et al were talking about “winners” and “losers” as the fundamental dynamic of literature?
No, I’m saying that when we as modern readers discuss dramaturgical theory, we recognize that a key element of the path to a resolution of a narrative necessitates conflict in the vast majority of narrative theory. Can you name a narrative without conflict?
now that im older, ive since realized that the legacy of the ancient Greeks through the Renaissance to the modern West is simply not innate to humans, it’s just the way one specific culture evolved.
Which cultures are you referring to that doesn’t have stories that follow a narrative path, or have narrative paths without tension and resolution?
I’m afraid I can’t see why Achilles being a bad person disproves that narratives have a structure and across cultural and language barriers those structures hold for at least a few thousand years.
My place looks like a laboratory. I’m still on the original primer on the walls. Blow me.
I’m adding wall plates for my Ethernet any day now…
In the wall? I just have the cable strewn across the floor.
Through the wall, I have plenty on the floor.
I got some cable clips and routed mine along the top of the wall 😎
Any memories I have of cables strewn across the floor of my living space are memories of good times in my life.
I still have cables on the floor. But now they are long enough that they go around the edges of the room behind furniture and stuff. These days a CAT8 25ft cable is like $10.
