"Prouductive" is rapidly becoming yet another word that's being both overused and mangled beyond all definition. "Safe"/"Safety", "Bullying", and "Narcissim/Narcissistic" now have a new play mate
Crypto isn't a gamble when you study them and realize that the only fucking one out there that maintains respect for you is Monero.
Bitcoin is the snitchcoin. Great to force all businesses to handle it and reveal their entire financial existence and movement to tax them knowing everything.
Everything else is just exactly this fucking shenanigan.
There's facts explaining this. Ask your questions because if you have anything contrary to say then I have no problem schooling you. Your welcome.
- the average feminist, advocating female supremacy and male genocide.
“The future must be in female hands, women alone must control the reproduction of species; and only 10% of the population should be allowed to be male “
- Sally Miller Gearhart, feminist icon of the 20th century, advocating female supremacy and the violent eradication of most males.
As in all extremist organizations, moderates have zero power. They are there purely as window dressing and cannon fodder and to give the movement a wafer-thin veneer of legitimacy and respectability. It is the tail - the extremists - that wags the dog. And feminism has shown their hatred of men far more than any love of them.
So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".
That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception.
Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. I've been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one.
But I want you to know. You don't matter. You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."
You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.
You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.
You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.
You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.
You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.
You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.
You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.
You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."
You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.
And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.
You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.
Hold on just a fucking minute. The misandrists are fringe, never forget that. The great mass of feminists - and women more generally - do not hate men. I say this as someone who's been calling out feminism, check my post history. I'm not a feminist, I have my issues with feminism, but don't fall into the trap of thinking they all believe that.
In all fairness, as a woman, you have no shortage of reasons today. I'm a man and likewise but I do recognize that the entirety of society today has zero respect for you that isn't taken from the man that "owns" you.
I think it's worth differentiating between men's rights and men's liberation.
Men's rights organizations are often interested in advocating against legitimate issue in the courts system, lack of assistance for male victims of abuse and more. However, some bad actors have used it as a smokescreen to roll back the gains feminism has made for women. Some going so far as to demand violence.
Men's liberation on the other hand is more about becoming healthier people with good relationships. It's about divorcing our expectations for ourselves from societies expectations for men and by extension changing what it means to be a man in society.
Both movements I think have value but I don't think it's surprising that many feminists side eye men's rights orgs.
I tend to agree, but it's the mirror image of modern feminism IMO. Plenty of bad actors there too as well.
It would be great if they could co-exist, but I honestly think in comparison, the societal level opinion of a group that supports the rights and causes of men is viewed much less favourably across the board, since they are viewed as on of the most privileged classes.
Real issue is egalitarianism is a horrible word, and there is still value in groups having a more narrow focus.
I suppose it's the same issue on the other side. I have a hard time believing that MRAs are not just the misogynist assholes I see vocally supporting the movement, maybe the same as people have a hard time believing feminism isn't just the "political lesbianism" TERFs they see online.
Men's liberation is feminism. The patriarchal system hurts men and divorcing yourself from the harmful aspects of it is fantastic and in line with feminist goals.
The most prominent faces of The MRM(Who also happen to be the stars of The Red Pill)were to "Men's issues" what Andrea Dworkin and her ilk were to The Women's Movement. I say this as someone who agrees with MRAs on many points
Just recently we had a popular post: "The Will To Change Men, Masculinity, And Love By bell hooks". I can take a couple quotes from the preface of that book:
I had not been able to confess that not only did I not understand men, I feared them.
Militant feminism gave women permission to unleash their rage and hatred at men...
I think too many feminists do hate men, and to say "no true feminist hates men" is falling into the no true scotsman fallacy. Typically the loudest people in a group are the most extreme and I don't believe most feminists hate men, but I also think it's understandable how some people do believe that.
I'm a cis, heterosexual, white male. I also pretty heavily defend human rights, try not to be a skeeze ball, and like to think of myself as generally a pretty decent dude. During the height of the MeToo movement and the #NotAllMen thing, though, it really felt like society as a large, or at least the parts of it I want to occupy, viewed many aspects of my simple existence as villainous.
Believe me, I KNOW that no one reasonable has ever thought it was all men, or all white people, or all straight people, or all cis gendered people. That doesn't stop it from hurting anymore when you're walking around the city with a woman you consider a really good friend, and she's posting pictures of stickers that actually DO say "all men suck" she finds to social media.
I'm also not blind. I know this is the same treatment that marginalized groups have faced since the dawn of time. Maybe it's finally time for men to get theirs. Or, we can all acknowledge that any condemnation over an immutable human feature just plain sucks. Just my 2 cents on the matter.
During the height of the MeToo movement and the #NotAllMen thing, though, it really felt like society as a large, or at least the parts of it I want to occupy, viewed many aspects of my simple existence as villainous.
I just stopped bothering. My input was clearly neither desired nor welcome, so I stopped offering it. I'll happily stay out of the way, but if they want active support I want to stop hearing that my opinion isn't valid on any given set of subjects, before I even voice it.
Mostly the "man" part. Pretty clear in the OP I thought. I was quite simply born as a male, and happened to identify as that gender. A significant enough portion of the population seems to believe that, because a patriarchy exists, all men have benefited from it, and all men want to continue it. The same idea plays through well enough for skin color, and orientation.
I know what I am, I know my thoughts, my feelings and my intentions. It starts to play with your sense of self-worth to be told that these things, things that have never caused you to do anything to harm anyone else, must be bad parts of yourself, because look at what people have done in their name.
It's not the same scale, no. I'm not facing segregation, and don't have to fight for my right to vote. Any of a number of other advantages you want to point out. Yeah, I benefited in some ways from the circumstances of my birth. All of this, common talking points from the sides of the aisle that I want to belong to. The side of the aisle that believes that no person should ever feel marginalized because of something that they had no control over. To hear that, and then feel like these same people are telling you you're part of the problem because of your existence... It's not hard to see how that can really impact one's sense of worth to the world.
telling you you're part of the problem because of your existence... It's not hard to see how that can really impact one's sense of worth to the world.
I don't mean to invalidate what you're feeling, but that's what it's like to be a minority in America. I have dealt with that in some shape or form for as long as I can remember. Sorry, I don't have any answers, but I do empathize with you.
Right. I explained in both of my previous comments that I understand that. I recognize that it's a similar mechanism of action, and that relatively speaking, I've got it good. It's really disheartening to see so many (the 'left' not you) getting so close to understanding that -everyone- deserves to be treated with respect by the default, and somehow turning it into a zero-sum game where, for it to get better for some, there must be a class that suffers.
Is it necessary? If so, it's a zero-sum game. Fine. That's just going to encourage an endless cycle of warfare to be the class currently not suffering.
If it's not necessary, if it's NOT a zero-sum game, then why are we treating it like it is?
I'm sorry that you've had to experience this. It terrible to have sexism not only impacting one group of people, but both/all. I haven't experienced what you have, it's not possible for me to exactly as I'm female. Could you share one or two specific examples that made you feel that way? It would help me to understand your experience to help paint a picture. You are under no obligation to, nor does my request imply your argument is invalid.
Sometimes discrimination can be more of a gut feeling. Sometimes it is obvious but hidden, and sometimes it is direct. I'm going to list a few examples. None of which left me weeping and defeated, but all of them felt unpleasant. I want to hear your experience particularly so I can avoid doing this to others, but also because your experience is outside of my own.
Some of my examples:
as a Flight Attendant, we have to do cabin checks every 10-15 minutes, this includes bathrooms. I've had two people go unconscious in the bathroom, it's not personal when I knock and ask if you're OK. I did so recently, the man came out shortly afterwards stood over me and shouted three inches from my face, "can't I even take a shit?". I responded, calmly (I've been at this too long), "any time someone is longer than ten minutes we have to check on them, I'm so sorry." His response, "I wasn't ten minutes, bitch," and he returns to his seat.
I was a regulatory compliance manager having a regular meeting with the director of regulatory compliance who was like a mentor to me. He lived an hours flight away with his wife on weekends and rented an apartment to stay in near the office during the week. He knew I was divorcing at that time. He suggested we had future meetings at his condo, using phrases such as "I know you must be lonely," and "I'm away from my wife too often." I was polite but declined and changed the subject. He canceled our future meetings on the calendar, when I asked, via email, he responded by email to say I no longer needed his mentorship.
I was so proud to pass my private pilots final stage check with less than fifty hours, about average for our class but some took upwards of seventy. I shared my accomplishment in the class groupchat to be told, by a male student, "your examiner goes easy on women." I didn't press it because it was a stand alone comment amongst the congratulations, but I felt he implied that somehow my PPL was worth less than his.
It seems so silly to type out these things that hurt me. I almost feel it's an unfair ask to commit yours to 'paper', I just don't know how else to learn what your feeling, except to assume that your situation may be different but your feelings similar to mine.
You're being downvoted, but even though most wouldn't express it explicitly, men consistently demonstrate a very similar danger response to other men as women.
Are we though? Are we bastards, or is that a product of the environment, the society, we've been born into? Is there something specific to men that makes them somehow evil, aggressive, bad, whatever word you want to use to describe them? Are there no good men? If there are, how do we explain them?
I believe there are good men. The existence of good men means there isn't something inherent to man that makes one not good. So again, why are men right bastards?
It's a self feeding loop. Men have to be bastards because men are bastards, and only bastards get ahead. Or, we can accept that, regardless of these arbitrary lines and divisions, each human is an individual, capable of acts of good, evil, and everything in-between.
The rare wackadoodles proposing an asexual lesbian commune are simply not who most people are talking about, when they mention feminism. Those loons can wear the label. Nobody can stop them. But they're not relevant.
Feminism is gender egalitarianism with an archaic name. When people denounce self-proclaimed feminists who don't agree with that, it's not fallacious bickering, it's active gatekeeping, and it's fucking important. Some clear boundaries are necessary for a movement demanding systemic change. Any political label can have a complicated history, and it's not somehow a contradiction to point to the fringe weirdos and say they were just plain wrong.
I'd argue that it's everyone's responsibility to call out shitstains who claim to believe one's own ideology. Muslims should disavow Isis. Jews should disavow Netanyahu. Just as men's lib disavows Andrew Tate.
That's the myth I routinely have to bust to guys I meet who hate feminists. I ask if they think women should have the right to vote. When they yes, I say that's feminism. It's simplistic and I usually follow up with other basic rights until I get to the contemporary issues. I say that if they want all that stuff then they are also feminists. Their reaction after this depends on how entrenched or how stupid they are.
"Feminism" is just a sloppy term. It's "egalitarianism": people deserve rights, your demographic shouldn't decrease your rights. Those who you're referring to when you use the term "feminists" will insist upon this interpretation, for good reason.
"Feminism", as a term, conjures images of the uplifting of women, which was a potent image when women weren't allowed to vote or work most jobs. Now, with many of those low-hanging battles won, equality is largely the case, and the image of uplifting women feels a lot more like favoritism and bias than leveling the field.
Yes there are gender specific issues, but those exist in both directions much more equally than when the "feminism" label was solidified. The goal should not be to uplift women, the goal should be to trivialize the influence of gender and sex on the involuntary conditions of life. When that results in the uplifting of women, great. But men face struggles intrinsic to being men too, and naming your egalitarian movement after femininity only deepens the divide with marginalized men.
Yeah, but no. To refuse the term feminism is like to say “white lives matter too”. Of course men deserve rights, and of course white lives matter too. But white people and men don't need to fight for themselves.
Swing and a miss, mate. Many people who have a problem with the name feminism are nonbinary people, who want equality but have been excluded from the movement by enbyphobic women, AKA TERFs. While there are lots of feminists who say feminism also means uplifting enbies, some enbies feel misgendered by this terminology, and reality is nonetheless more complicated. But your comment reducing every opponent of the term to male privilege is perfectly symbolic of the nonbinary exclusionism practiced by many who use the term feminism, and demonstrates exactly why some nonbinary people have a problem.
Swing and a miss, mate. Many people who have a problem with the name feminism are nonbinary people, who want equality but have been excluded from the movement by enbyphobic women, AKA TERFs.
I'm not sure the mere existence of TERFs has led to any significant movement to rename feminism among the NB community.
It's a complicated issue. I'm being a bit reductive when I say every enbyphobic feminist is a terf. There's lots of people who think of themselves as trans allies, but still don't believe in genderfluidity, xenogenders, or two-spirit. They think they're allies of nonbinary people, because they simply choose not to believe in the nonbinary people they exclude and oppress. Does that make them TERFs? It's complicated.
We haven't assembled into a movement about this because it's not that big a deal, and we have more pressing problems like impending genocide. We can't waste time organising about a word. But on a personal level, the word still makes us uncomfortable. When we're told feminism is for nonbinary people, some of us feel like we're being called female. Misgendered. But if feminism isn't for nonbinary people, well that's a bigger problem.
The debate around terminology for spaces intended for women (and the tendency for folks to make nebulous assertions about the inclusion of NBs) seems to me to be an entirely separate issue.
Fundamentally, I see what you're saying but I'd like to push back on the idea that the term "feminism" needs rethinking at this point in time.
I'd even go so far as to say the parent comment where a rejection of the term feminism is portrayed as tantamount to "all lives matter" is more correct than the idea that "feminism" is a poor term because it feels like misgendering. This is a space centered around the idea that feminism is good for men because feminism is not a term that should leave you feeling gendered in it's primary usage.
At this point in time I tend to take terms like "intersectional feminist" to mean someone is probably an ally, but if someone just calls themself a feminist without any adjectives, that gives me absolutely zero information as to whether they're interested in gender equality for all genders. I know they support cis women, but I have no idea whether they support any kind of trans person.
Throwing out feminism because it does not essentialise trans and NB rights feels like very poor praxis. From the perspective of one individual assessing the views of another, I don't disagree with your metric, but I disagree with your application of the ideas to the broader movement. Particularly in so far as it grants to right wingers that feminism is a sexist term.
Well this is a debate about prescriptivism vs descriptivism, right? I'm saying the complexities of the ways the word is used no longer make its meaning clear unless certain adjectives are applied. You're arguing we should stick to the "intended" meaning. But at what point does denying the evolution of language to become more transphobic deny the genuine harms suffered by trans people? Surely there's a point where that's the case, right? How do you know we haven't reached that point?
Well this is a debate about prescriptivism vs descriptivism, right?
No I don't think so.
You're arguing we should stick to the "intended" meaning. But at what point does denying the evolution of language to become more transphobic deny the genuine harms suffered by trans people?
I'm arguing that your particular claimed usage of feminism as a transphobic term (that is, the general inclusion of NBs as a class for whom feminism benefits is tantamount to gendering them female) simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. This is distinct from the issue of women's spaces explicitly including NBs feels like misgendering (which is valid).
The premise of this community is fundamentally dependent on the idea that being a beneficiary of feminism MUST be entirely seperate from being gendered female.
Ah, no, I meant to say that feminism losing its implication of progress for all gender identities (if it had such an implication in the past), is evidenced by the fact that if someone says they're a feminist, that doesn't tell you whether they support equality for enbies.
Many people who have a problem with the name feminism are nonbinary people, who want equality but have been excluded from the movement by enbyphobic women, AKA TERFs.
I assert that the quantity of nbs who hold this opinion is so small as to be negligable and that ceding a major right wing talking point for gender equity for nbs (a group in which I, and the majority of my social circle are a part of) is mostly just ceding a right wing talking point.
Put another way, the idea that "feminism" is an insufficient term is tantamount to "all lives matter".
When you say "cedineg a right wing talking point", you mean admitting the right is correct about something, right? I'm as left as they come but I don't see a problem with that. The right is correct that the sky is blue. The right is correct that water is wet. The right was (partially) correct that chemicals in the water were turning the frogs gay, and the right is (partially) correct that an armed population is a necessary component of a healthy democracy. I'm just seeing this as an issue of ego. If you have an unhealthy ego, then you worry about denying any and all criticism. But if you have a big healthy ego, then you take criticism onboard and improve. 99% of what the right criticises us for is wrong, but that 1% is a chance for us to improve. I have a huge ego, and my thinking is we could either fight the right on this and be 99% correct, or we could be nonbinary allies, "cede a talking point", and get closer to perfection.
I don't know I'm not trying to be reactionary, I'm just thinking that pretending enbies' criticisms don't exist in order to "stick it to the right" is erasure and bad. It should be about doing the right thing, not about winning. We only truly win by doing the right thing.
I don't think feminism is the wrong word in this case. The way men are harmed by patriarchy is directly related to how women are understood as lesser. Male only drafts, male worth based on possession of women, unequal familial rights, and harmful beliefs about men's emotion all exists as ways to subjugate women.
For the draft and emotions, men's "violent nature" is cultivated because "we have to protect the women." The only emotion you allowed to have is righteous anger used to defend women. This dynamic ties neatly into men as predators. Men are naturally violent, look at how that violence protects the women, but when improperly raised they become monsters.
Men often feel as though they have no social standing if they haven't had sex with a woman. The way that relationship is framed is often conquest and power rather than mutual connection and understanding. The truth is men would benefit far more from connection, understanding, and knowing that they can have social standing beyond fucking somebody.
Unequal family rights are directly related to the societal expectation that women are the primary care givers. Which frequently results in women working full time jobs, taking care of the children, and taking care of the house.
I don't think the term feminism is really the problem. Billions of dollars have been spent by right wing billionaires to control this narrative. It's no wonder young people have a skewed perception of what feminism is. I don't think changing the term to gender equality really would have helped much.
The truth is men would benefit far more from connection, understanding, and knowing that they can have social standing beyond fucking somebody.
Please stop viewing men as defective women. Maybe fucking somebody is more important than you think. Maybe the problem is that instead of supporting men we're telling them to stop wanting the things they want.
As a man who has had sex, it's not as good as connection, understanding, and social belonging. Granted, that's just me. Maybe other men do in fact need to fuck somebody to feel like a worthwhile person.
Granted, that’s just me. Maybe other men do in fact need to fuck somebody to feel like a worthwhile person.
Correct. And I'm saying that's not a defect. That's just an aspect of personality, and it's as valid as any other.
Anyone who says you're less of a man for not wanting to fuck a different girl every night is an idiot and an asshole. But conversely, anyone who says I'm toxic for wanting to fuck a different girl every night is also an asshole.
It's easy to fall into motte-and-bailey reasoning though. The motte is an easily defended simple thing most people agree with. The bailey is a controversial thing you want to advance. If the bailey is debated, you can retreat into the motte and make claims that it's simple and uncontroversial. Most ideologies or systems of thought have a core that many people agree with, and then that's taken as approval of all its extrapolations. For example, do you believe that people should be able to decide what they use their money for? Well, then you must agree with laissez-faire neo-liberalism. Do you want children to be safe online? Then you agree that the government should inspect all your communication. Do you want everyone to be equal? Then you must agree with everything the soviet union did.
With feminism, it's easy to defend the core ideas, but it also encompasses implementations like affirmative action which not everyone agrees with, and practices that are not about dismantling hierarchies but rather just "wanting a better seat at the table of tyranny", to quote White Lotus.
On a personal level, I work in a female dominated workplace, where women hold all the positions of power. There's a lot of remarks and actions that would absolutely not be ok if the genders were reversed. A constant flow of explanations why men are stupid, sexualizing male workers, "playful" sexual harassment, ridiculing men etc. Many of them are self-proclaimed feminists. And it's cheered on and praised as a form of "girl power". If you ask me to identify as a feminist, these are the people I think of.
I have struggled a lot with setting boundaries and not letting myself be taken advantage of, so I'm very reluctant to be a part of something that requires self-flagellation over which group of people I belong to. I agree with the core of feminism, but to call myself a feminist I'd like my voice to be as welcome as a womans voice, which is rarely the case in my experience.
There's a bit of... something, irony maybe, in my experience that I'm trying to be aware of. I can't judge a movement by the not-true-feminists while feeling hurt that I'm judged by what other men have done. Maybe there's a difference between an ideological label and a gender, but still. It's this generalization that feels similar. I know that when I am given compassion I am much more likely to care about others. And vice versa. Maybe I need to look past the loud not-true-feminists and try harder to see the points of the true feminists. Maybe they need to look past bad men and not treat me as a villain by default. It's this stalemate I feel locked into.
We all live in our own little bubbles; they may not be true feminists to you, but they sound quite consistent with the people around me who describe themselves as feminists. A significant portion of feminist activists in my online bubble also seem to subscribe to the same ideas.
Sounds like you have a toxic work environment, I'm sorry these people suck. I'm assuming HR is all women, but start documenting and pursue a lawsuit if you don't want to leave. You shouldn't have to suffer this bullshit.
"what we see around us" – where? there are very few "modern radical feminists" in real life, they're all on shitty youtubros' channels and weird conservatives' twitter feeds. i guarantee you've met a ton of feminists without even knowing, hell a lot of your childhood idols and role models were probably feminists (there are a lot more self-identified feminist role models than you may think).
specifically focusing on the distinction between "modern feminism" and "previous feminism" is a conservative talking point that has unfortunately made its way into common internet culture, there is nothing less righteous about the modern feminist/equality movement than before – although there are bad parts of it which still exist like TERFs. "it was okay before, but now i can't tolerate it" is basically what righties say whenever a movement threatens the hierarchy too much and they want to make it seem "radical" and therefore "bad". the reality is that the past of the feminist movement has had many flaws and a lot of bigotry (especially in the context of LGBT), which "modern" feminists have made significant improvements on.
And in doing so, they drill the idea of "men are at fault for existing" down the brains of little boys. I have said this before and I will keep saying it: feminism was defined as promoting women's equality with relation to men, but it's now about the equity women can get from men
I think k the issue with patriarchy is a class issue, not a sex issue…. We should be fighting the men at the top, not the men at the bottom…. By calling it the patriarchy we do ourselves wrong, because we lose a lot of butt hurt guys at the bottom of the ladder….
That's like saying we shouldn't deal with neo-nazis who aren't in power. They're choosing to side with evil and thus deserve equal punishment. "Oh no they might feel bad about it" good they should feel bad. They should genuinely feel bad.
In case you haven’t noticed literally nazis marched through Charlottesville without any push back while students protesting literal genocide are having their faces smashed into the pavement while being called anti semites
What a terrible comparison. One chooses to be a nazi, it comes with clear negative traits, you cannot be a good nazi. One doesn't choose to be male, you can be a good person even if you are, wtf.
The issue with patriarchy is ultimately culture's views on gender and making artificial distinctions on who you should be, how you should act, etc. based on it – that's what feminism is at its core, gender issues and how human psychology interacts with the social construct of gender (which is why it's so closely tied in with the LGBT movement).
It's hard for society to even acknowledge – let alone overcome – unfair differences in treatment based on gender, when our culture raises us to have subconscious biases on what a man or a woman should be, that men and women are two different groups with certain behavioural archetypes that they surely follow, that they must have certain behaviours based on their gender. almost everyone, despite thinking otherwise, has a deep division between their understanding of different genders and behaviours associated with gender – men can or can't do X thing, women can or can't do Y thing. A man who lacks trait A is weak and pathetic, a woman who has that same trait is normal, or the other way around. Women telling others not to talk over her in a meeting is bitchy, a man crying or being "feminine" (physically or otherwise) is weird (as is a woman being "masculine"); a woman who works in a trade is assumed to be unskilled and is constantly demeaned by both customers and coworkers (applies to most "male-centric" jobs), a man who works a job with children is seen as an alien and might be seen as creepy by a lot of people. Single parents experience sexism a lot in different ways, in fact the sexism can be one of the most mental health eroding things some parents face from society.
Whether you're a man or a woman (or don't fit either of those norms) and which gender norms you follow (or go against) is one of the most important factors in determining how others treat you. You will face a completely different treatment from the same people based on your gender alone, and people will react to the same behaviours in radically different ways based on your gender. It's why a lot of feminists are gender abolitionists – "gender" and "sex" are ultimately dumb cultural concepts, yet they are some of the most important aspects of a person in our society and basically control how you can live your life, so we should work to get rid of the manmade concept of gender altogether (that's the thinking, anyway).
Ultimately feminism is only one part of the "social justice" movement as a whole; where feminism mainly focuses on the gender issues (and possibly sexuality), other movements may focus more on society's perception of race/ethnicity, class, etc. and a lot of the times these are very intertwined (a lot of research in feminism is centered on how race affects peoples' perceptions on gender, such as doctors tending to have a strong bias against minorities based on both their race and gender, for example).
Class does play a part in it though, so feminism and leftist movements e.g. socialism often overlap. The philosophical understanding is that gender equality can't happen under capitalism, as right-wing systems require hierarchies based on identity (including immutable traits) in order to function, so discrimination based on sex and gender is inevitable.
Explicitly calling it "patriarchy" has caused some problems, with men thinking it paints them to be the problem rather than the whole culture/society/government (and of course the ruling class), but as always the general populace misconstrues academic/movement terminology and there's not much that can be done to help that, especially when the public has adopted a preconceived idea of what "feminism" and "patriarchy" means that they really refuse to budge on.
Polarization doesn't help anyone. Both groups are suffering as they retreat further and further into their own in-groups. It sucks and it takes a lot of conscious effort on all parties' part to overcome. And unreciprocated effort feels awful and risks pushing people away at an even faster rate.
I'm not sure we're really equipped, as a society/species to overcome that effort barrier given our current information diet (infinite) and our stupid monkey brains (very limited).
By who? What lie? I think you'd have a hard time arguing that polarization isn't harmful to all groups. Did you think I was arguing that men really are monsters? Because I hate that characterization.
Yeah, it's hard talking people out of Andrew tate positions when it's so easy to point to reactionary hate and so hard to find nuanced opinions.
We really need to get to the point we recognize everyone as human and acknowledge that means we're all flawed and biased and needy, and that's OK because that's what life is.
It also helps when we can learn to not take things personally. I know it would help because I have such a hard time with that. It is one of my fatal flaws. It is something I suspect I'll always struggle with because no amount of self rationalization ever prevents that next episode of being generalized negatively and feeling personally attacked.
Men's Liberation
Hot