You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

MedicPigBabySaver ,

Buzz off. None of that shit hurts my feelings.

Dienervent OP , (edited )

Why is it that practically everyone I interact with on kbin is basically an irony machine. Are you at least self aware of the irony. Or is it just something you do instinctively?

One of my points is that all of these things are things that SHOULD bother you but men tend to downplay or refuse to let it bother them out of some sort of bravado.

So saying that this doesn't bother you makes it seem to me like you didn't understand what I said or didn't make it clear enough.

If you disagree with my point that this is something that should bother you, then please explain why.

Because if you're not going to be constructively contributing to the conversation then why are you even saying anything?

Edit: changed machismo to bravado. It's more accurate.

Also. PS:

I change my mind, it's not something that should bother you. You're perfectly entitled to be bothered or not bothered by whatever it is you damn well please.

But it is something that bothers many men. It is something that I believe many men are bothered by without being particularly self aware of. And insist that it is something that needs to be addressed to help society move forwards to more egalitarian outcomes and hopefully just generally more harmonious relationships between different people.

RandoCalrandian ,
@RandoCalrandian@kbin.social avatar

Have you ever considered it's you who are wrong, and not all these men you keep throwing names and adjectives at when they don't agree with you?

Yes, saying "toxic masculinity" is sexist as fuck, and we should use a different term. Your projection of hurt feelings onto your audience is what makes your advice shit, tho. It's wrong to use because it's intentionally insulting and sexist, not because it makes men feel bad.

"Patriarchy" we should absolutely keep talking about, because it's a very popular brainwashing tool to convince people that all problems in the world are the fault of the class of men, and specifically not the fault of anyone not in the class of men, don't you even dare think women might be at fault for something! -- but seriously, it's a psyop so that feminists have an excuse for their bigotry, and we should keep mocking the term to point that out.

"Feminism" we should absolutely keep using, because "Say Gender equality or egalitarian" is for people who actual give a shit about equality, and that's not feminists. This one your post mostly agrees with, but i don't think you take it quite far enough. Letting most feminists "rebrand" into egalitarianism will just make egalitarianism the same sexist dumpster fire. It's like suggesting most KKK members move to an "equality for all races" movement and pretending that stops the problem. It's not that feminists needed to change their terminology, it's that they needed to realize they were, are, and are actively saying they will continue to be misandric sexist pieces of shit in just about everything they say and do.

As for why you get pushback saying these things, it's very clearly because you presume to tell men what they are and should be feeling, which is the same bullshit gynocentric attitude that led men to be subject to this nonsense in the first place.

Dienervent OP , (edited )

I agree with pretty much everything you've said, except your characterization of my intentions, motivations and inner thoughts.

It's absolutely not my intention to tell men how they should feel. Nor is it my intention to imply that the only thing wrong with those things I mentionned is the names that they are given.

But I understand now, that I really should have made that more clear.

I do maintain that the terminology is hurting men's mental health in general. And I do suggest that on that basis alone there is sufficient justification to ask that we stop using this terminology.

One of the primary motivations behind this is to remove one of the more powerful tools misandrist have at their disposal by using of equivocation with that terminology.

I'll do a bit of a point by point of the rest of your post to try and explain why my approach has potential. But clearly it's not getting the kind of traction I was hoping for.

It's wrong to use because it's intentionally insulting and sexist

To me that's functionally equivalent to hurt feelings. I don't presume to claim that this is the intention of everyone that uses the phrase "toxic masculinity" but I strongly suspect that most of them know what they're doing.

"Patriarchy" we should absolutely keep talking about, because it's a very popular brainwashing ...

Only under certain definitions of patriarchy. Under other definitions of patriarchy it means very different things. I suspect that the closer you get to where policy makers are, the less sense this argument will make. I've had a few arguments with "academic feminists" end with them saying that only right-wing reactionary lunatics thinks that anyone believes the interpretation of Patriarchy you just used.

Arguing the merits of the meaning behind the word Patriarchy is futile, every version of Patriarchy has been debunked all the way to the deepest depth of academia. Except for the vary latest interpretation that hasn't had the time to get debunked yet.

It doesn't matter, it's going to be equivocation all the way back up to the politician and/or business executive that will be implementing policy that end up unjustly negatively affecting men's lives.

Take away their ability to use the word on the basis that hurts your feelings and they can't do equivocation anymore. They have to speak directly to the merit of the thing and there is none, which gives us a much better fighting chance.

Letting most feminists "rebrand" into egalitarianism will just make egalitarianism the same sexist dumpster fire.

I could be wrong here, but I disagree. Language is much more powerful than this very few of the misandrists will be willing to transfer to a different label, they'll lose so much of their power. The more moderates we can convince to let go of the feminist label the more blatantly and unacceptably radically misandrist those that remain will be.

The way I see it, feminism is a full blown industry that informs decision makers who want to try to make sensible moral decisions (because they have no morals of their own). It's an industry that these decision makers rely on and has taken decades to build up. I hypothesize that to really get some real world change happening we need to either reform the existing infrastructure or build an alternative one. I just don't see building an alternative as something that's feasible. I believe that feminism got to where it is because it organically grew out of the void left behind by the loss of religious morality.

So I think that to have some real success, we need to rebuild the existing infrastructure. Think "regulatory capture", not "revolution". I think maybe starting with nomenclature is the best first step.

... all these men you keep throwing names and adjectives at when they don't agree with you?

The guy was flippant towards me, I was flippant in return in my own way. I spent a lot of thought and effort into my post and someone that just replies to that with "Buzz off" doesn't really deserve that much respect.

As for why you get pushback saying these things, it's very clearly because you presume to tell men what they are and should be feeling

Again, not my intention, but I see how it came across that way, I should have qualified what I said better.

MedicPigBabySaver ,

Blah, blah, blah… Sure do like to hear yourself talk, eh? Don’t need a reply.

a-man-from-earth ,
@a-man-from-earth@kbin.social avatar

banned for rudeness and personal attack

RandoCalrandian ,
@RandoCalrandian@kbin.social avatar

Would you mind unbanning mine? The use of the term 'dipshit' was highly relevant, as intended insult to the audience was very much the topic of conversation

a-man-from-earth ,
@a-man-from-earth@kbin.social avatar

I didn't ban you.

Korbo ,
@Korbo@kbin.social avatar

This doesn't hurt my feelings but it gets on my nerve. The way that language is weaponized in debates to prevent men to protest.

RandoCalrandian ,
@RandoCalrandian@kbin.social avatar

apparently to OP that counts as "hurt feelings". Anything we don't like for any reason counts as "hurt feelings" under that definition.

Completely ignoring the real life sexist impact these statements have.

Dienervent OP ,

Did you not read everything I just replied to you? How am I ignoring the real life sexist impact the statements have. The whole point of my whole thing is to try and have more tools to fight that off.

But yes, I consider "it gets on my nerves" as having hurt feelings. You at least got that one right.

RandoCalrandian ,
@RandoCalrandian@kbin.social avatar

you ignore them by describing them as "hurt feelings" when it's far more impactful than that

Dienervent OP ,

I've clarified this to you already in my reply AND I've clarified it in an edit of my original post.

Read my words, "I unreservedly assert that the damage caused by those three things I mentioned is far more than just "hurt feelings""

Any impression I may have given that I believe otherwise or would want others to believe otherwise is completely unintentional.

Was that sufficiently clear and direct for you? I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to see how you'll manage to mischaracterize this one.

Dienervent OP ,

I really like this take. What I was trying to go for is sort of a simple universal complaint anyone can make, even in a formal setting vs highly educated and potentially bad faith actors.

Like, imagine you're in a marketing strategy meeting about finding a socially responsible way to engage with your customers. Your company has hired a consultant to help with this and that consultant starts using that terminology.

If you try just using a rational argument, it's just not going to work. These things have already been debated ad nauseum and you're not going to come up with something the consultant hasn't heard before and isn't ready to counter.

But if you start with "It just gets on my nerves". That's subjective, the consultant can't argue about that. You also have a rational (at least to you) justification so you're not being unreasonable. The consultant could try to argue that your justification is incorrect but they'd just be wasting everyone's time, it won't change the fact that "it just gets on my nerves" something the consultant can't argue against.

The point is to create a social cost to using that terminology so that in any kind of formal setting that terminology won't be used and more gender neutral terminology comes in to replace it.

I believe that gender neutral terminology alone can really temper the outcome of these kinds of discussion because it just changes the whole "vibe" of the discussion which can lead to real world change. But beyond that, it makes it more difficult for misandrists to use equivocation, and the gender neutral terminology should level the battlefield when arguing against misandrists.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •