Yup this is a racist tantrum, “anti woke” is just the new coat of paint. It isn’t “anti woke” that’s getting more common, it’s racism, xenophobia, and hate in general.
If you’d read the article, you’d know that it is not all it is.
If you have, in fact, read the article, read it again. To the end. Maybe take in some of its links too.
This is not ‘just’ a racist tantrum. It is a billionaire-funded fascist takeover. Lazily dismissing them won’t work. People need to start turning up to school board meetings to outnumber these fucking psychopaths. Even if no one is paying them to do it.
I didn’t mean “that’s it” as if it’s merely a racist tantrum. In fact, calling it a tantrum like the article does infantilizes the problem - as if they’re harmless babies and we can ignore their crying. I didn’t mean to imply it’s “just” a racist tantrum. Rather, what I meant is that we need to call racism racism and be precise with language, not lazily dismiss them as “anti-woke” as if that means anything.
I take your point about language. It is important to say “racist” when you mean “racist”.
But they’re also targeting LGBTQ+ people and women, and any other group they can use to distract attention from the fact that billionaires are robbing us blind lest they lose one tiny drop of power.
So, in this case, “anti-woke” is a perfectly reasonable term to use. Not least because if we want to destroy these fuckers, it will take every single one of us making common cause, not fighting about who gets top billing.
This is about racism but it is about racism because it is about power. Power protecting itself by throwing everyone else under the bus. “Look! Over there! The poor people have all your money!”
We cannot defeat them by retreating into identity siloes. Obviously, we all have different specific battles to fight but they’re all the same war. Against fascism. We do need a language that acknowledges that.
Fair. Connecting this specific spate of racism to the broader fascist trend of smearing everyone who isn’t an affluent straight white male christian (i.e. part of the in-group) is good politics, but there’s already a word for that: reactionary
Yes, that is a fair point and one I’d missed a bit from your original post. I appreciated the scare quotes in the article but you’re not wrong.
That said, I don’t know if you’re exactly right either. “Woke” was co-opted by the fash. I don’t think we should just let them have it. A good starting point is for every interlocutor to stop them and ask them to define the word every time they use it. The word is not the problem.
You’re only letting them have it if you also let them define it. They are anti-woke. Woke (aware of structural injustice) is not a bad thing to be. 90% of the population has every reason to be woke because 90% of the population is subject to structural injustice. But far too many have been distracted by the idea that some other fucked-over group has it better than them, or gains consolation from not being quite at the bottom of the pile.
It’s a neat trick but so easy to expose. And one of the simplest ways to expose it is to make them spell out what they think it means.
White-passing Americans (white or white-mixed) make up 71% of the country. 35% are white men. Based on the most common numbers I’m seeing, 30% are straight and cis. 80% of America is Christian (fug it’s that high???), so that gives us roughly 22% straight white cis christian males.
That huge mass of people is predisposed to being anti-woke because they stand to lose the most from anti-racism and anti-sexism and queer acceptance and religious tolerance etc. Structural injustice isn’t just a historical accident, it was a deliberate creation by the ruling class through the usage of genocide and slavery and apartheid to ensure that a huge minority of the population would be too comfortable and to loyal to their rulers to ever revolt and would stand up for their privileges against the mobs of the havenots.
Call them anti-woke if you want. They’re also settlers, reactionaries, and Amerikkkan Nazis
90% of the population are either too poor not to be suffering structural injustice, or are relatively well off but still too Black, too queer, too female,. Class and race cannot be separated. If we ignore the people who are struggling just because they’re blaming the wrong people for their struggles, fascism will win.
Do you think a working class Israeli faces the same injustices as a working class Palestinian? A working class Jew in 1935 Germany the same as a working class Christian?
You’re the one trying to separate class and race. Don’t think of America like a country, think of it like an occupation or a regime.
We gotta destroy whiteness. You can’t win by just making whitey woke.
Do you think a working class Israeli faces the same injustices as a working class Palestinian? A working class Jew in 1935 Germany the same as a working class Christian?
No, of course I don’t. But a working class Israeli has a hell of a lot more in common with a working class Palestinian than they do with the Israeli ruling class. And they may not get much publicity (and a lot of jail time) but quite a lot of Israelis recognise that; I know because I have worked with some of them.
Oppression Olympics is a dismal fucking sport. Divide and fucking rule from the bottom up. Completely self-defeating. It is structural and if you refuse to expose the structures, you’ll never change a thing.
This isn’t oppression olympics, it’s anti-imperialist struggle! Divide and conquer already happened when the ruling class elevated a portion of the working class to use as a bludgeon to oppress the rest of the working class. It’s too late to coddle the white mob and beg them to join us in the struggle for liberation - we have to take away their whiteness, render them as workers just like the rest of us.
The woke philosophers have only interpreted structural oppression in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
The concept of whiteness needs to go. But white people are no more a homogeneous blob of identity than Black people, or LGBT people, or Jewish people (some of whom are white). I’ll oppose those who turn to racism and bigotry as a solution to their problems. As I do Louis Farrakhan for his anti-semitism, homophobia, misogyny and general cunty conservatism. Being oppressed is not an excuse to do some oppressing of your own. But it’s really fucking easy to see how people fall into that trap. And really fucking racist to believe that Black people can’t be authoritarian fuckwits, or that Jewish people can’t oppose Israel, or that white people can’t be oppressed by poverty.
Steven Avery and Brendan Darcy were fucked over because they are poor, not protected because they are white. Black people are fucked over with impunity because the colour of their skin is a marker of powerlessness. Women and LGBT people are fucked over because that which is feminine is despised.
She later woke in a hospital bed with no memory of what had happened and minus her clothes. Now 26, the woman said she believed the officers had treated her in the way they did because she was black. According to the woman, when she came round in hospital she spoke to the police officer at her bedside, who said she was very well spoken and asked where she was born. When the woman replied: “Hampstead”, the officer radioed a colleague and was overheard saying: “I think we made a mistake…”
As soon as she opened her mouth … “I think we made a mistake.”
The concept of whiteness needs to go. But white people are no more a homogeneous blob of identity than Black people, or LGBT people, or Jewish people (some of whom are white).
I completely agree, and in fact, abhor whiteness because it seeks to turn all so-called “white” people who accept it into such a homogeneous blob of identity. That’s why it was invented!
What I’m trying to say is that the white identity, itself, has to be abolished. As long as whiteness exists it will be used by the US/NATO empire to enforce its own hegemonic rule over its imperial subjects in the Global South and on subjects in its internal colonies.
It’s important to note that whiteness is a lot more complicated than just skin color. Did you know white women that married Japanese men were sent to internment camps? Their fair skin did not protect them, because by race mixing they lost the privilege of being “white”.
… I have no idea where I’m going with this. I just think white people being woke isn’t enough. White people need reject whiteness, not just be made aware of it.
They're not very creative, so they can't think up other nefarious schemes so they just accuse their enemies of what they're doing. Grooming kids? Check. Corrupt sons of presidents involved with "overseas investors?" Check. Stealing an election? Check.
It also works to help obfuscate Democratic corruption as it's nowhere near as bad and when pointed out is immediately compared to the much worse Republican corruption, which in turn pushes the envelope (full of cash) forwards even more. It sucks.
There’s a reason dollar amounts are seldom mentioned in conservative Hunter Biden tabloid articles. Otherwise simple math would reveal the comparative and objective scale of potential foreign interest.
I don’t think that liberals will ever understand so-called Republican “hypocrisy”
The truth is, Republicans don’t believe anything. All of their arguments are just tools to be used or discarded as needed to achieve their agenda. They don’t believe in free speech, they just know they can use it rhetorically to get what they want. If another free speech issue comes up and they don’t like it, they just discard free speech for another tool.
There’s some psychopaths, sure, but they’re between 1/4th and a 1/3rd of the country. You can’t think they’re all just demons lol
The majority are cynics and believe politics is about redistributing pain. They believe religious oppression is natural and inevitable, the only question is who the victims are. The only way for Christians to win is for everyone else to lose, etc etc
Your argument is so ridiculously asinine, all due respect.
Yes. Yes, we can. No matter their numbers. They’re a bunch of fucking assclowns of varying depravities and inclinations. Period. Whether they’re ⅓ or ¼ or ½ of the country doesn’t change a fucking thing.
“The majority” [citation needed] are setting the example for those further down the human centipede, but that doesn’t mean slicing up the shitworm at any point along the chain isn’t helping the entire fucking world.
You missed the point on this one. Republican politicians don’t give a shit about any of that, rather than as a method of achieving fascism for their donors.
That’s literally what cynicism is. They’re not robots, they’re just convinced life is transactional and inherently about sacrificing others for yourself.
That’s not cynicism. That’s being a piece of shit. There’s no ism. The whole classification as “Republican” is as much a container as a Hefty bag straining at the seams to hold a festering, steaming volume of soupy shit. Soon, even that hero of a garbage bag is going to break.
It’s a world outlook and agenda. There are always winners and losers, so the only thing that matters is being on the winning team and making sure the losers lose. We can’t all work together because someone is always screwing someone else over. I got mine, fuck you. Etc
You can hate this outlook, but there is actually an underlying ideology behind it. They aren’t just demons lol
<span style="color:#323232;">An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">"the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals."
</span><span style="color:#323232;">A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act.
</span>
I’d agree that people at the top of the party are cynical and mostly just want tax breaks and to keep government regulations away from their financial investments. Many of the voters do earnestly vote based on Christian nationalism (especially pro-life people) and fear of immigrants, though.
These voters have also been subjected to 20+ years of propaganda from right wing radio and TV networks. Have you ever subjected yourself to that shit? It’s like a constant fear response.
My point is the voters at the bottom may not always have a consistent principled worldview, but they’re not always acting cynically with their votes. Many of them really do believe this stuff.
The title and some comments read like a revelation of people who, without looking into it, assumed feminism is for women or is anti men and are surprised that the movement actually wants to free everyone from the cycle of abuse.
In my experience, in general for all movements, loudest ones are always a bit more extreme and sometimes over the edge. It seems to be very strongly coupled with activism and in many cases drives the movement forward. So I have trouble accepting that reason as an excuse to so quickly dismiss something, especially a major movement.
However this is a very widespread issue and a reason my comment sounded a bit annoyed. But since it is an actual problem, articles and discussions like this are important and meaningful. Hope your community keeps growing and more men who struggle with of abuse from the patriarchy are able to find a safe space and a support system 🧡
Yep. There's an unfortunate amount of people who cloak themselves under the guise of being a feminist, or claiming to care about women's issues, that could be more accurately referred to as misandrists.
It's my belief that there's a heavy overlap between these people and TERFs. With TERFs hating trans women in particular (notice how prominent TERFs like JKR never seem to talk about trans men? It's always "men in dresses infiltrating women's public toilets", which amusingly is also pushing the misogynistic idea that women are delicate fragile flowers that eternally need protection in every aspect of their lives).
But why? Why trans women in particular? Because not only do these TERFs view trans women as men, it's worse. They view trans women as men infiltrating their women-only "club", and that's something they don't tolerate.
It's unfortunate that terminally online minorities within movements that screech the loudest can have such a profound effect on the image of that movement. I think it's also a big part of why menslib movements struggle. People hear anything to do with it and their brain is clouded with preconceptions like angry incels, Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, etc. People who often purport themselves as activists of men's rights, when in reality they're usually either grifters or people yearning to be back in the 1950s.
It's unfortunate that terminally online minorities within movements that screech the loudest can have such a profound effect on the image of that movement.
It’s cause we are in the age of valuing the loudest opinion not the most logical.
It probably is. Not everyone has a robust education, misinformation is rampant, and there is always a new generation still learning the world. At a glance the word "feminism" appears as a movement just for women, so occasionally having headlines like this can help the misinformed or still learning to reevaulate their understanding.
Some people are surprised to learn it is not just about women.
It's because of the name and history of fighting for women. The movement should have gone for "egalitarianism" if they didn't want people to think of women first/exclusively.
It's why I've vehemently rejected the label of feminist even when I'm in feminist spaces with feminist friends: I'm here for everyone, there's a word for that, use it.
Except movements are often named after the oppressed group. Black Lives Matter, for example, doesn’t really want cops to only stop killing Black people. Black people are just disproportionately impacted.
Feminism is about raising up women’s status in society. That benefits men in the process though.
Except movements are often named after the oppressed group
That's nice, but I don't care. Doing things in a stupid way because "that's how we've always done it" is literally conservativism, which I'm not really for.
This thread originates from a comment surprised that people would look at a gendered term and assume actions done in that name are for said gender, this should be an obvious and predictable outcome, one that's been seen countless times, and has a simple and easy fix
No your position is dumb, it is petty and so silly and a perfect example of how dumb you're being. No one decided this. It just developed this way. Your critique is the name?
Feminism is an egalitarian movement that likely you'd not even know what the word meant had this movement not continued for its history. Feminism is the grandmother of almost any egalitarian movement today.
That's petty and sexist as fuck. Literally the perfect example of toxic masculinity
It is the equivalent of only using soaps labeled "for men"
Do you need things gendered correctly for you to use it? Maybe your gender should've fought for equality first then. Maybe then you can have your Malenism or whatever you'd want it to be called
This man is against a movement that champions for him because the name is gendered towards a group that he doesn't identify with. He is resistant to it and the position it takes up because of the name.
There is no council of "the Feminists" who vote the name. This is a term that has evolved into this place, not one person put it this way and the absolute silly pettiness of it is his reason to oppose it?
And you think I'm failing to understand that position? You know who takes positions like that? Children.
But they're not. They are simply saying that lay people assuming feminism is for feminine gender is to be expected as they may go on the face value of it. They aren't saying that the goal of feminism is anti men, rather they agree it is anti abuse due to patriarchal structures but the naming only brings confusion and irrational reactions for the uninformed.
He is not a feminist because they should've renamed themselves. That's not a criticism, that's a stance of someone masquerading as an ally it is a well-known position many men take so they don't have to actually support the movement that works on their behalf.
That criticism has been used to bring genuine resistance to the movement and the fact all these dudes in here still say/think this shit shows why this person is a dummy.
Ok, but is that the case for this specific person? Or are you using the general trend to attack someone in particular who may not exhibit the negative traits you associate with their position? Condemning someone as a fake ally when they are not is not a good move for several reasons.
"They said something negative about my movement, they must be an enemy"
You assumed their gender, they did not mention it in the comment. Given the context, quite embarrassing.
You can't accept simple critique about a name. Their only complain of the movement is the name, that's a fucking good ally to have. I'm all in about the feminist movement, I acknowledge that it's about everyone, and I still see why some people would get confused.
Are you a troll? You must be a troll. If you are not, you really need to talk with someone about how incapable you are about receiving critique.
To address the least objectionable part of this comment (it bugs me and the rest has been covered already):
This is a term that has evolved into this place, not one person put it this way
How do you expect terms to evolve without people making arguments like this? You accept it as a fact that these terms evolve and are agreed upon somehow, but you're missing that this happens through individual people making points like this.
Why does it need to evolve? It is feminism you know what it is. You are for all of it but the name, so you won't support it?
And don't do what dummy above said and claim you support it but don't use the label because it is gendered. That is some privileged ass shit bro. Bore me to death out here
I mean, we do, but a surprising amount of people don't. This is precisely why the name should evolve. Well, that and the perspective that the movement's goals have changed significantly enough from individual liberation of women to comprehensive equality of everyone, which should come with a corresponding change in the name. These are related.
You are for all of it but the name, so you won’t support it?
It's more that if people are informally introduced to the movement, their preconceptions are formed by its name. This can turn them off from seeking or accepting the real nature of the movement once it's explained to them. As a reminder, most people put very little thought into this sort of thing, so making a good impression for the people who are potential allies is important. You can argue that that's stupid and shouldn't be necessary, but it won't stop it from working like that.
And don’t do what dummy above said and claim you support it but don’t use the label because it is gendered.
I don't think I've ever encountered a situation where it's useful to directly say "I am a feminist" because it's generally clear from my other opinions, but I would if the situation required it. I do agree that an alternative label would be better, though.
That's not evolution lol that is forced rebranding because of how some dudes feel. If their hurdle is the term feminism then good, they're not ready to be adults.
Shake my god damn mother fuckin entire head bro. shake that shit left and then right over how foolish you boys are.
Horsepower, Butterfly, Literally, Blowjob, The Democraric People's Republic of Korea. You cool with that shit but not Feminism? Because your weiner isn't in the title????
Like bro there are still places called Indian Creek in America. Feminism is the term we gotta go after though?
I bet every dude saying this line of thought uses words like literally and doesn't bat an eye.
Every movement has a canon: the core principles behind it, a mythology about its history, and the textbook statement of its objectives.
Every movement also has a reality. Thousands or millions of people with their own ideosynchratic beliefs forming a complex social web. Within this web, a vibrant biosphere of memes [0] develop, spread and evolve on this social web. A movement is simply a name we give to a cluster of memes within this complex web. It is not any of the myths we tell about it; those are merely particular memes holding the cluster together.
The author of this article is a self described liberal feminist. She identifies a change that occurred within her bubble of feminism, where it became increasingly anti-man.
To be clear, that is not all the author says. Once she gets to the "Let's talk about how the patriarchy harms men and boys" section, she stops the meta conversation about the movement itself, and spends the rest of the article discussing mens issues directly.
However, to your comment, and the first part of the article, maybe we need to stop hiding behind the mythology we tell ourselves about feminist; and start recognizing that the "feminist" portions of the social web are still susceptible to anti-feminist memes.
[0] in its original sense; as a direct analog to the genes of biology.
I think that it’s very straightforward that the movement fighting against patriarchy benefits everyone suffering under it and empowers all of its victims. I will elaborate more in a second but first, here is the fundamental definition of feminism:
Feminism is a range of socio-political movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.
Gender equality, also known as sexual equality or equality of the sexes, is the state of equal ease of access to resources and opportunities regardless of gender, including economic participation and decision-making; and the state of valuing different behaviors, aspirations and needs equally, regardless of gender.
I understand your concerns about the word, and it was about women when it started, obviously, as women have needed and still need to fight for basic legal rights and autonomy, but since its inception the movement has evolved and widened a lot. It is also crazy how arguments like yours disregard all the battles that feminists fought - ones that are the reason why we all have a better society, healthier relationships and kinder childhoods. All these changes have benefited men no less than women. Men have been substantially liberated from many harsh and crushing burdens of more extreme patriarchy, such as the stress from unequal financial burden or the responsibilities and expectations disrupting bonding with children, trauma of watching mothers receive unequal treatment or live through abuse or themselves being victims, etc. Not supporting the movement that keeps fighting for that change that benefits everyone, just because women are being abused by patriarchy more, and are therefore more represented in the movement more, is shocking to me. Disregarding and diminishing all the efforts and benefits by nitpicking over the origin of the word just seems ungrateful and unfair.
fighting against patriarchy benefits everyone suffering under it
So right from the get go, the language you use assumes masculinity or “patriarchy” is inherently broken and needs to be fixed. I find that sexist and imo a non sexist take is to free people from human greed and selfishness.
as women have needed and still need to fight for basic legal rights and autonomy
Yes! That’s when feminism made sense. It was named after women, for women’s rights, which they got. Feminism being a success meant it was not needed as much.
ones that are the reason why we all have a better society,
That’s is VERY subjective and I doubt you would get most people to agree that feminism made their life better. As I guy I can inform you that it has made my life much, much worse. I doubt you would believe me though.
Disregarding and diminishing all the efforts and benefits by nitpicking over the origin of the word just seems ungrateful and unfair.
I mean if that’s what you took away from my comment then you misunderstood. Feminism worked well for women, and I’m happy for them. They are the judge on what helps them and what does not. Same way women have that right, I have the right to state that feminism has made life better for women at the expense of men.
If there are women out there fighting for true equality, please note that if your truly fighting for men, you would use the terminology that communicates that the best, by not using the label feminism.
IMO this is why it’s super important that the Republicans, especially Trump, don’t win the next election (even more so than usual.) There are already literal nazis outside Disney Land, the absolute last thing anyone needs is some dickhead pardoning the Proud Boys and emboldening the far right even further.
How do you see the dems stopping the rise of fascism? Not asking in bad faith, it’s just that the things you describe are happening under a democratic president.
The sentencing of these proud boys truly is a good thing, don’t get me wrong (but we must also add that their convictions only came after threatening the state, not the threatening of marginalized people). The rise of fascism however isn’t stopped with this ruling. The conditions that foster it aren’t adressed.
What do you think the democrats should do after an electoral victory in 2024 to achieve this?
I’m not going to lecture anybody on voting for dems but the bar is so low that “what are they gonna do to stop the rise of fascism” they aren’t going to pardon all of them and embolden them. I don’t think they’ll ever do anything to really meaningfully oppose them but not pardoning them and showing people there’s literally no consequences from it is the least most bad option.
Yea I’m basically at the point where I don’t think things will get better under a democrat but a lot of people far more vulnerable to fascists then me have talked about preferring to not have the president using them as a scapegoat everyday.
Although as somebody who lives in the boonies all the chuds around me get way more fired up and antagonistic when there’s a dem president. There’s a shitload of flags telling me to go fuck myself on the way to work and the numbers increased in the last couple years.
Although it has been interesting to take the temperature of your average chud by checking to see if the one trump/ DeSantis flag is still up.
I am encouraging you to be honest, not to sacrifice yourself, though if you think my complaint with the dems is “ideological purity” then you clearly don’t understand why liberals are so terrible to begin with.
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by “dems are in power now”? Are you saying they have complete and unfettered control over the entire government to do as they wish?
As best they can. Are you saying they can take unilateral action without the full support of the House of Representatives? What do you think they could be doing that they’re not?
you should read how the republicans plan to avoid congress in order to accomplish their aims the next time they seize the white house. and also how fast the dems are moving right on trans issues.
I am fully aware of how Republicans have abandoned democracy in order to accomplish their goals. And I have no doubt that Democrats are being spineless about trans issues. But I asked a very specific question that, given your complaints, you ought to be able to answer easily. Without control of both houses of Congress as well as the Oval Office, what could the Democrats be doing that they aren’t?
I mean honestly I think the dems being in power is kind of like sticking a band-aid on a gunshot wound at this point, but the Republicans in power is like treating it with… more gunshots or something lol. I think the US needs pretty fundamental change to actually fix anything substantial, but I don’t think that’s realistically going to happen anytime soon. Not trying to “lesser of two evils” it or anything, I just meant that the first step is to probably to shut the nazis down.
And are the dems taking meaningful action to do this? From where I’m sitting, I’d say they are not as the fash is only gaining steam under the current administration.
But the Nazis aren’t getting shut down, and we have a Dem president already. Clearly something other than red/blue elections are needed to shut Nazis down, as history hopefully helps demonstrate.
Right but all those other things get shit down immediately, its just the harm reduction argument again.
If the options are do nothing, elect the fascists who want to murder Trans people, or elect useless libs who aren’t actively calling for the execution of trams people seems like one of those options is preferable even if still shitty.
So I guess I’d turn the question around, what are the better alternatives to shut this shit down at this point.
Again not arguing that anybody should feel like voting for libs is gonna solve anything but if it means the people literally explicitly calling for violence against minorities have slightly less direct access to governmental power that seems like the least worst option available at this point.
If republicans actually oust Matt in the house, that will be some of the best news from republicans since 2016. I highly doubt they can right their ship at this point but this would certainly be a good signal to Americans that they’re through with chaos.
He’s my rep, so I have a close eye on this dirtbag.
He’s young and already loaded with baggage. You can have one or the other, not both. He kept his mouth shut while his court case was in the air, since that fell off the radar for lack of evidence/testimony, and he gave it some time to blow over, he thinks he can get mouthy again. He cannot.
He makes headlines and has an R in front of his name. Fair enough for the good people of NW Florida. Not good enough for the GOP leadership.
Leadership has to be thinking, “If this young asshole would have piped the fuck down, we might have done something with him in a decade or so.”
Like Boebert and Greene, he thinks anything goes after the GOP anarchy of the last few years. Nope. I’d wager he gets his ass handed to him, like that one young pup from NY.
The right/bigots is always talking about the gay agenda. We don't have one. We just want to live our lives. Its the right who has an agenda. They worked hard to rig the court and are now making up lies to take to the court so the LGBTQ rights can be taken away. They want us back in the closet. And it's not just the LGBTQ community that they are looking to strip rights from. Non-christians, women, minorities, and workers to name a few.
Every accusation seems to be a projection from the right wing. They claim an agenda from their targets so that when they are accused of an agenda they can point to their own claims and say “We are just responding”
It also seems that their imagination is so limited; that when they are pressed to create something their opponents would do, they use one of their own actions or desires.
Also if their own actions or desires are so awful when projected onto their opponents; what does that say about them.
The right/bigots is always talking about the gay agenda. We don't have one.
Okay, but you can tell me what the gay agenda really is. Is it like the Jew agenda? Seems like that one came up a lot before people switched to talking about the gay agenda.
we watched him do this shit for 4 years 3 years ago, and they’re “stunned” about this now???
they knew. they always knew. that’s why they went into business with him. this objection is purely performative so they can take his dirty money while trying to stay clean.
I’m so sick of everything being blatantly corrupt. You can’t take a shit without it making four shady deals on the way down to the water. The rot has spread so much the cleansing flames would engulf the world. Human potential, wasted completely on profits and racketeering. It would take a global movement to uproot what has taken hold of all of us.
It meant we’re so entangled with this shit that undoing it would unravel the world. And every elite is drinking from their own glass, they truly believe they do no harm.
eh… I don’t believe that. maybe some of them might, but I refuse o believe they’re all so oblivious to the harm they cause and that at least some of them aren’t enjoying it.
They aren’t oblivious. They justify it in their own minds. Maybe I’m saying that because I don’t want to believe we built a society that turns psychopaths into gods.
Don’t mind the libertarians booing you. Its obvious a society built on individualism and man-eat-man would turn to this. I still don’t want to believe this is the best we could come up with.
Honestly, I think it’s both. Watch pretty much any interview with him from the 80s or 90s. He was still an egotistical dumbass, but he was far more coherent.
Back in 2008, I told my friends, “never underestimate the racists and hate that persists in the south” when they were appalled by me saying, “I’ll be surprised if there isn’t an attempt at Obama.”
The true problem isn’t that racists exist. It’s that far too many comfortable people fail to understand THAT racists and hateful bigots still exist.
What is ‘it’? Why do you experience it? What are you doing to deserve it? Being ignorant to your privilege? Trying to use your privilege like those morons that parked their boat?
If you’re receiving racism as a white dude … you probably deserve it. This is coming from a white dude.
You last paragraph suggests you’ve already made up your mind. People who victim blame ask questions all the time, they just don’t bother waiting for the answer before stating their preconceived conclusion. Just like you did, tbh.
The only slight silver lining for me in this whole shit show is that it shined a light on how prevalent racism is across the country. As an older white guy on the west coast, I knew there was still a fair amount of racism, but figured it was mostly found in the rural south and scattered uneducated cretins. It turns out that a giant percentage of our population are racists who used to keep those opinions to themselves. Now they feel like it’s completely acceptable to voice those opinions, and the rest of us can see the magnitude of the problem.
I write in the book that there's a weird combination of entitlement and inadequacy. You're entitled as your birthright as a male to women's bodies, you're entitled to power, you're entitled to glory, you're entitled to this heroic position. But you're also never going to meet it, so you're always going to feel shame and inadequacy. That combination makes is like a perfect storm for this resentment and emasculation.
This is interesting, Ive never thought of it that way. Tell men they have a right to a particular way of life, then make it next to impossible to achieve and finally feed off the resentment that perceived failure breeds.
I have actually never felt entitled to these things. What I mostly feel is a responsibility. If something breaks I'm supposed to know how to fix it. Because of this I have become good at fixing things. If we are lost I'm supposed to find where we are, so I study maps before I go somewhere new. If a decision needs to be made, again, eyes turn to me, so I need to know a little about everything, and never look indecisive. If an unexpected expense comes up, I need to have money saved away for this purpose. The punishment for failing things like this is not disapproval from other men or feeling less masculine. The punishment is that I'm viewed as less by my girlfriend. This is how I think things go hand in hand. By helping women get empowered, we can share responsibilities. By women helping us feel valued for ourselves, worthy of love, desired as we are, we don't need to constantly fear being seen as less... then, I don't know. Maybe it would also lead to men feeling safer to be better human beings. The impossible dilemma now, for me, is that I'm still expected to be successful in the traditionally masculine things, while at the same time not being successful in the traditionally masculine things. No way to win.
Yes, because men are entitled to these things (ie that is their purview) they are expected to automatically excel in those areas. Then when they fail to live up to those expectations, they feel badly about themselves.
I think your experience sums it up perfectly, as long as you don't get too hung up on the word "entitled."
Maybe I am hung up on the word, but I feel more forced into it. I don't feel bad about myself for failing to live up to that standard, it's more feeling unvalued as a person, as myself. It's an external invalidation.
Wow the only sane comment I found in this thread so far.
The issue isn’t masculinity or how it can be toxic (to even suggest it is insulting imo).
The issue is:
Society does not value men!!!
That’s it, it’s not complicated at all. It’s not this weird problem with masculinity.
Society does not value men inherently like women (as in for just existing), it values the benefit they can provide.
This has been the case in all of human history. The difference now is that we no longer prepare most/all men to be able to provide the most value they can.
I always thought the solution was to value men inherently too. But that means saying a “you go bro” to incels and other “low value” men.
salon.com
Top