idk, some incels will certainly act like not getting approval from women was the worst possible thing that could happen to them, and then go and do something much worse to others
While I agree, it specifically says “those men,” so I think the idea is that men who see women as wombs or genes or whatever should also expect to be viewed with the same lens
It’s not about that. It’s their choice of insult. Saying “people who voted for Trump are retarded” doesn’t make it not ableist just because you specified it’s about Trump voters. Catch my drift?
That’s how generalizations and language work. It’s ALWAYS implied that it’s not ALL of a group. Unless someone says “literally all men”, and then whatever that person is saying is wrong because there’s no way it’s literally all.
So good news, is you’re not like that, it’s not about you.
Awesome. So when other racists like yourself talk about “Blacks” or “Mexicans,” that’s fine because we can just assume you don’t mean “ALL Mexicans are rapists,” right?
Why excuse the same being done for men? I would have said “a group based on sex”, but the people doing this definitely understand the issue when it’s women.
I think white does most of the heavy lifting there, at least in western democracies (for example being white is not a benefit in say Japan). Straight carries a bunch of the rest (and would carry more, but you can’t tell someone’s sexuality just by looking at them), and then you get down to men.
To put it another way: If I asked to to provide statistical evidence that the criminal justice system is biased against black people, you could name off a bunch of stats that you would argue present compelling evidence. If I took the same data from the same sources and broke it down by sex instead of race, it would present a similar picture of men and you’d argue that same data is suddenly meaningless because it disagrees with your model. I’d argue that the idea that society has a sex hierarchy as such is the wrong model to use entirely.
Instead, when it comes to sex it’s all about perceived agency - men are perceived to have more agency than they do and women are perceived to have less. Essentially men are seen as more “responsible” for what happens to them/what they do and women are seen as less “responsible” for what happens to them/what they do. And this cuts both ways. If a man hits a woman, even in self defense it’s his “fault” and she’s just a victim. If a woman hits a man, even in an unprovoked attack people will start by asking what he did to deserve it. Men get worse bail, higher chance of conviction, loner sentences, etc in criminal justice because they are more “responsible” for their wrongdoing than women. At the other end, men are also treated as more “responsible” for their accomplishments, in general. Which helps men reach the very top positions at a higher rate than women. If a male teacher commits statutory rape of a female student, she’s definitely a victim and it won’t be called anything but rape but if a female teacher commits statutory rape of a male student the media will often describe it as an “affair” or “romp” or similar and focus on how complicit he was with the activity. Etc, etc.
They’re pretty much the only group I know of that uses female that way on purpose, but I suppose we could just throw in all misogynists and my comment would still apply
I think you’re not really getting what I’m saying. See my other comment:
It’s not about that. It’s their choice of insult. Saying “people who voted for Trump are retarded” doesn’t make it not ableist just because you specified it’s about Trump voters. Catch my drift?
Equating moral corruption to sexual undesirability is just stupid. It implies the inverse too, that sexually undesirable people are morally corrupt, which is actually a pretty huge problem in society. It also implies that men need validation from women which is just false.
I mean, I’ve been pretty clear… and nobody else is having trouble understanding what I’m trying to say. is it possible that on some level you kind of like, don’t want to understand?
idk, some incels will certainly act like not getting approval from women was the worst possible thing that could happen to them, and then go and do something much worse to others
yeah but this post isn’t about incels. posts like these shoot strays at all men
While I agree, it specifically says “those men,” so I think the idea is that men who see women as wombs or genes or whatever should also expect to be viewed with the same lens
It’s not about that. It’s their choice of insult. Saying “people who voted for Trump are retarded” doesn’t make it not ableist just because you specified it’s about Trump voters. Catch my drift?
Ah I see what you’re saying, yeah agreed. I think I too quickly read your comment, cheers
That’s how generalizations and language work. It’s ALWAYS implied that it’s not ALL of a group. Unless someone says “literally all men”, and then whatever that person is saying is wrong because there’s no way it’s literally all.
So good news, is you’re not like that, it’s not about you.
my entire point is that generalizations are harmful lmao
That’s your interpretation, and my point is that the way language works, you’re interpreting wrong.
Not all generalisations
Awesome. So when other racists like yourself talk about “Blacks” or “Mexicans,” that’s fine because we can just assume you don’t mean “ALL Mexicans are rapists,” right?
I don’t follow. How does being bigoted about a group based on race get better when you target less than 100%?
Why excuse the same being done for men? I would have said “a group based on sex”, but the people doing this definitely understand the issue when it’s women.
There’s a good chance you and I won’t ever agree on this, but let me check.
Do you believe that the current system is biased in favor of straight white men?
I think white does most of the heavy lifting there, at least in western democracies (for example being white is not a benefit in say Japan). Straight carries a bunch of the rest (and would carry more, but you can’t tell someone’s sexuality just by looking at them), and then you get down to men.
To put it another way: If I asked to to provide statistical evidence that the criminal justice system is biased against black people, you could name off a bunch of stats that you would argue present compelling evidence. If I took the same data from the same sources and broke it down by sex instead of race, it would present a similar picture of men and you’d argue that same data is suddenly meaningless because it disagrees with your model. I’d argue that the idea that society has a sex hierarchy as such is the wrong model to use entirely.
Instead, when it comes to sex it’s all about perceived agency - men are perceived to have more agency than they do and women are perceived to have less. Essentially men are seen as more “responsible” for what happens to them/what they do and women are seen as less “responsible” for what happens to them/what they do. And this cuts both ways. If a man hits a woman, even in self defense it’s his “fault” and she’s just a victim. If a woman hits a man, even in an unprovoked attack people will start by asking what he did to deserve it. Men get worse bail, higher chance of conviction, loner sentences, etc in criminal justice because they are more “responsible” for their wrongdoing than women. At the other end, men are also treated as more “responsible” for their accomplishments, in general. Which helps men reach the very top positions at a higher rate than women. If a male teacher commits statutory rape of a female student, she’s definitely a victim and it won’t be called anything but rape but if a female teacher commits statutory rape of a male student the media will often describe it as an “affair” or “romp” or similar and focus on how complicit he was with the activity. Etc, etc.
They’re pretty much the only group I know of that uses female that way on purpose, but I suppose we could just throw in all misogynists and my comment would still apply
I think you’re not really getting what I’m saying. See my other comment:
Equating moral corruption to sexual undesirability is just stupid. It implies the inverse too, that sexually undesirable people are morally corrupt, which is actually a pretty huge problem in society. It also implies that men need validation from women which is just false.
Well, I think we can agree on one thing. I guess I don’t really get what you’re saying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean, I’ve been pretty clear… and nobody else is having trouble understanding what I’m trying to say. is it possible that on some level you kind of like, don’t want to understand?