Feminism isn’t just about women.
Toxic masculinity isn’t caused just by men.
Black Lives Matter isn’t just about black lives.
“Believe women” isn’t about blindly believing what women say. “Christian charity” is the least charitable thing in the world.
“Defund the police” and “abolish the police” aren’t about eliminating police forces and letting crime run rampant.
AI is anything but intelligent.
“Global Warming” sounds tame for what’s actually happening: “climate disruption” and “climate catastrophe”. A bunch of countries with “communist” or “democratic” in their names are anything but.Words are stupid. Slogans are lazy. People lie.
Which is why I like the lyrics of ‘Enjoy the Silence’ so much.
Every single line item in your comment became ammunition for foreign agents to get into our culture over the last 20 years and just escalate the FUCK out of both sides of each idea there.
It was directly from the KGB handbook written over 50 years ago, that if you infiltrate a nation’s culture and just amplify the most radical takes of both sides of every issue, it will create so much chaos and completely destabilize a culture so that people tune out and stop trusting each other or any news story they read. This has the effect of making the population just default to whatever state media they see and stop caring about social issues entirely. It’s been shocking seeing how effectively it’s played out in the US.
I watched it happen, I was on the frontlines, managing a few social sites and moderating a huge subreddit about relationships. It was a creeping infection at first, but eventually it was like Helm’s Deep, but instead of orcs outside, it was astroturfers, crybullies, sea lions, and the entire goddamn ZOO of bad-actors and subversive chuds. For every horrible, shit-mouthed incel ranting about how women need to be put in cages, there was also some delusional, insane “feminist” screaming about how all men are rapists and men should never be left alone with children.
I gave up the fight, reddit banned me for being an involved human, but it continues to this day, getting worse by the day.
And the girl is the reason why feminists have such a bad reputation
Just don’t be a dick and treat everyone equal and with respect and we’ll be fine.
Now watch the down votes come in because I said that everyone should be treated equal and with respect and that the girl was wrong.
Yeeep. Notice how she doesn’t have a logical reply so she just resorts to insults.
You had all the pieces in front of you, labeled and sorted, and you still put them together wrong. Huh.
How to get the point across a bit better while also pointing out the guy actually doesn’t care.
All lives matter~
Once upon a time I objected to the Black Lives Matter moniker. I didn’t disagree with the message that black people need to be counted more than they were. I have always thought that I counted black people as equals to everyone, so I just subconsciously completed the sentence by adding the word “more” in my head. Thinking to myself “oh, they have a terrible branding issue because everyone who reads the phrase Black Lives Matter will automatically just think they mean Black Lives Matter More”. But ultimately that wasn’t the problem. It wasn’t the phrase that was the issue.
What was the real problem was the inherent racism that had be ingrained into my consciousness by untold years of media and politics that continually make black people out to be lazy selfish useless people who only want a handout. (See Ronald Reagan’s speech about the “welfare queen”. Hint, he wasn’t talking about a white woman.)
In the end the problem I had with the phrase “Black Lives Matter” wasn’t their fault for picking a bad phrase. It was, in fact, me and my own preconceived notions of what a black person is and should be. All based on how society has portrayed them my entire life.
So now I very loudly say “BLACK LIVES MATTER”. And more people need to embrace this instead of trying to logic it out of existence with the pointless platitude “well ackchually all lives matter” like some snivelling little child with an inferiority complex. Because yes all lives should matter but in our fucked up society black lives usually don’t.
A /s would go a long way.
I thought the ~ would suffice
Ugh, please be a joke.
Obviously
Sorry, I’ve had some pretty disappointing interactions with Lemmy users these past 2 days. It’s getting hard to tell.
nbd 😄
People like her would be the reason I’m against the current wave of feminism.
How come? It’s not sexism to want equal rights.
It’s sexism to have gained equal rights, but still believe there isn’t equality. So, “focusing on the inequality of women” translates to “we want special treatment”.
Unfortunately for those kinds of people, equality is a bitch and means nobody is entitled.
When it comes to special treatment and not equality, I’m actually okay with some of it. Like women’s abuse shelters, pregnancy support, workplace harassment prevention, reproductive health care access, and domestic violence protections aren’t really bad in my opinion. Is there one you want to get rid of?
Having them around isn’t a problem. But let’s put something into perspective; an abuse victim from… I think Canada… Tried seeking help, but nobody took him seriously because he was a guy, and he said his wife abused him.
He ended up setting up a shelter for abused men, which was a major uphill battle for him because… Well, men just don’t get abused by women. Women are always the victim.
He eventually ended up committing suicide.
The shelter he set up in Canada still exists, thankfully.
But the problem still exists to this day. Women don’t abuse men. Women don’t rape men. Just look at the statistics! Except the statistics rely on reporting, and the reporting only works if reports are actually taken seriously.
So, do I want womens shelters to disappear? No of course not. Domestic abuse is a very real thing and everyone deserves to be sheltered from that. But the key word here is everyone. No special treatment that makes it almost impossible for male shelters to exist.
So I’m OK with none of it. I wonder how many males will come forward about abuses when society opens up to actually listen. How many young boys inappropriately treated by their female teachers. How many teenage boys that got exploited during a party.
This may certainly help turning young men away from the so-called “manosphere”. Radicalisation helps nobody.
Do you know who is fighting for male sexual abuses to be taken seriously? Feminists.
I feel like this is a good argument for meninism, but it’s not really a good reason to be against feminism. I don’t think you can house women and men together in the same shelter because of trauma from their abuser. If the man can just enter the same shelter that the woman went to to try to get away from him it defeats the purpose of the women’s shelter in the first place.
In other words, instead of being against women wanting special treatment like domestic abuse shelters, wouldn’t it be better to be in support of additional shelters, inclusive of men, instead? Saying women don’t deserve “special treatment” is saying that special treatment should be eliminated, not extended to more genders.
Edit: Like I don’t think true equity should be the goal for cases like domestic abuse, just because it’s a numbers game. Domestic abuse happens a lot more often to women than to men. The goal should be to help anyone who needs it, even it isn’t equal between genders.
This is no way to argue. It’s only pointing with fingers while victimizing yourself.
Which person in the comic are you referring to? It could go either way.
It’s okay, the strawman can’t hurt you.
even worse it is just discussion in bad faith
You are the man in the comic
Not at all. People are more complex. What’s the idea here, everyone who disagrees with this meme is mysoginist (evil)? This is MAGA level of grouping.
My sis had a phase with this style of “discussing” while growing up. That’s why i react to it.
And yeah, the boys argument is dumb too.
If a particular group of people (be it gender wise, race wise or whatever) are being treated unequally, it sounds like a
retardedstupid board game to try to point this out without actually using this group’s name.Love the sentiment, but the R word slur contributes to treating a group unequally.
ok I suppose stupid does not necessarily isolate a group of people as it is a general adjective, otherwise we are a bit out of luck because it is also very hard to describe something strongly unpleasent without using such adjectives
Most of the time, whenever I see folks using the slur, I feel the word “asinine” would work just as well.
Other words that normally fit are: ludicrous, brainless, or downright silly.
sounds like a good one thanks
But sometimes you want to convey the backwardness, or that something is a product of a past that should be let go… is it still a slur if you’re not using it as a slur? Kind of like cracker, if you’re using it to refer to a white person it’s a slur, but nobody is going to stop you from calling a saltine or a cheese-it a cracker because that’s what they are… Or do we have to call them mass produced unleavened bread products?
Antiquated or barbaric (amongst others, language is diverse) are words that may express what you’re feeling. Of course, words have multiple meanings and those meanings change over time. Moron was used to describe a deficient intellectual capacity in a medical sense as well, however while an insult, it hasn’t adopted the slur title (maybe it has in some circles idfk). FR clothing is an example where the word is using the same definition as the insult, but describing a physical property instead of an abstract one.
At the end of the day, I usually try to avoid language and actions that are hurtful. With that being said, you can’t satisfy everyone, thus everyone has their own decisions on what values they wish to uphold.
deleted by creator
Only if you believe that word is referencing one group of people.
People with mental disabilities have flagged the word as harmful. Trust the victims to know what hurts them.
If the word isn’t being used in reference to people with mental disabilities it’s not the problematic context.
So if someone uses the N word slur for black people to refer to non-black people they dislike, it’s okay?
Well, it never was used as a term for “people that are disliked.” Regardless, it depends on intent and context, more often than the alternative, probably not… but etymologically speaking, it should (and needs to) change as a purposeful and intentional way to de-power the current general understanding of the word.
Society as a whole cannot collectively agree on nuance. That’s the problem with a lot of this. Words that started off neutral became harmful over time due to context and etymology. The N word didn’t originally have a racial connotation. It gained one over time and was assigned through racism.
Well, it never was used as a term for “people that are disliked.”
Bullshit. You’ve never heard kids online use it an an insult toward anyone regardless of race? Or Pewdiepie using it as a general insult? It absolutely happens.
Regardless, you don’t get to decide if an insult is offensive to a particular group. You can certainly keep using it after knowing it is, but you’ll be an asshole for doing so.
If you are using a word to refer to a person as belonging to any group with the intent to label that person as lesser or some kind of failure state of being then you are by extention calling anyone being part of that group as being something people wouldn’t want to be. You are implying members of the group are inferior.
Examples :
Calling someone “gay” in a way to mean “uncool”. You are implying that a person should never want to be gay. That being gay - is bad. Inferior to being straight.
“You ____ like a girl!” Your underlying premise is that being female is a failure state. You should be angry at being compared to something who lesser than you. This could apply to looks, ability, mannerisms etc. Hence it implies being a woman is a failure state as opposed to being a man.
Calling someone “the R-slur” when you mean something like “asinine”, “idiotic”, “mean” or “silly” you are implying those groups are failure states of being who those behaviours can be appended to as an expectation. That is a slur This sentiment is the same if you were to change the word you used but the specific history of this specific word as a slur is based on it’s once widespread use in context of being a synonym for “stupid” . Now it is less widespread but as the comic that spurred this conversation shows- it is still being used in the context of being a failure state. Intent makes the slur. If people didn’t use the word to refer to people in a way that was supposed to make them sit up and be indignant they are being compared to a disabled person it never would have become a slur. Since parlance never popularized the other use of the word as a verb “to stop or hinder” and the use of this one as a slur is still active it is far too early to attempt to “reclaim” this one.
You can argue “well a new word will just gain slur status!” and the answer is no. The problem stops when you realize the underlying problem is intent the lesson is understood and society stops creating new slurs by implying inferiority through context. English is vast. Use a word without the connotation of belonging to a specific group and you stop the underlying problem.
LMAO, ok so I don’t need a lecture. We’re not talking about using “gay” as a pejorative. That’s not the same word that’s being discussed here. Nor are we talking about using femininity as a negative state.
The “R” word originally meant “to slow” or to hold back progress. That’s what it meant before the medical community misappropriated the term for individuals with intellectual disabilities. At some point after that, the word changed into an informal pejorative and then became taboo. At this point, there’s very viable uses of the word that correlate with politics and perspectives that are counter-progressive.
You appearantly do need the lecture because you are not listening. There are plenty of words you can use without using one that, misappropriated or not, was and still is used to describe the disability community and is now primarily linked to that understanding.
Your statement of “well words are fine if they aren’t used at the people who they are meant for” is inherently incorrect, hence the examples each is an example of using the word in a disrespectful or phobic context. What you are proposing is using a word linked through current pejorative use to the disability community to be expanded to not just be used in the context of “stupid” but to now mean essentially “facist” because… Why? You particularly like the word?
That’s not better.
In typical usage, retard (pronounced /ˈɹiː.tɑːɹd/, REE-tard) is an ableist slur for someone who is considered stupid, slow to understand, or ineffective in some way as a comparison to stereotypical traits perceived in those with intellectual disability. The adjective retarded is used in the same way, for something or someone considered very foolish or stupid. The word is sometimes censored and referred to as the euphemistic “r‑word” or “r‑slur” Retard was previously used as a medical term.
In typical usage
so you agree it is a multifaceted word that requires contextual definition in order to be used properly.
The noun retard is recorded from 1788 in the sense “retardation, delay;” from 1970 in the offensive meaning “retarded person,” originally American English, with accent on first syllable. Other words used for “one who is mentally retarded” include retardate (1956, from Latin retardatus), and U.S. newspapers 1950s-60s often used retardee (1950).
https://www.etymonline.com/word/retarded
It’s unfair to judge a word that has over 500 years of use on the last 70 years of history.
Retard was previously used as a medical term.
As was idiot, cretin, moron, and imbecile, which suffered similar misuse.
Previously? It’s in my medical paper.
It has fallen into disfavor due to its constant misuse as a pejorative. Might want to update the paper.
Why are you telling me, I’m not the one calling patients the R word 😭
So it’s in your medical record. Depending on how old it is, that was very unprofessional of whoever wrote it.
Yea, and from the same wiki article:
The word retard dates as far back as 1426. It stems from the Latin verb retardare, meaning “to hinder” or “make slow”.
Much like today’s socially acceptable terms idiot and moron, which are also defined as some sort of mental disability, when the term retard is being used in its pejorative form, it is usually not being directed at people with intellectual disabilities. Instead, people use the term when teasing their friends or as a general insult.
I use the term as a general insult towards people who seem hellbent on never learning from their mistakes. Like when people keep voting for politicians who openly advocating for violence against those same people, or when people keep getting in car accidents because they think everyone else is the problem (Oh the irony though).
Would never use it towards someone medically incapable of learning from their mistakes, that’s just cruel and not their fault.
We’re not speaking bloody Latin ya ignoramus.
this is either the perfect comment that uses the word “ignoramus”, or the worst insult.
I’m still not sure if you actually meant to do it or not.
No, we’re speaking English. Do you know the definition of etymology?
Do you understand semantic shift?
Yea this is a slippery slope though, you can play this game with every word and easily turn it into a discussion in bad faith. English, not being my mother tongue, when I think of the word “retarded”, I automatically think of the word as related to describing foolish and stupid actions. But I do also know, on a higher level, that it actually is a medical term. So I am not against this correction (I would for instance be more careful at not be using the anologous word in my language in such a sentence).
Retarded is an outdated medical term, we use terminology such as intellectual disability these days because of the stigma behind the R word.
Retarded is an outdated medical term
Latin would like a word with you on that.
The etymology of the word is irrelevant in this context, only how it’s currently being used in English.
though I’m disappointed that you believe the history of language is irrelevant, I’m happy you feel that way!
in the original comment, they used it in a way to describe a board game, not against a person or people.
so no issue, right?
Agreed, in its core the problem lies in people’s inclination to be ableist. Whether or not making people conscious of usage of ableist terminology in sentences is helpful to this problem, I am not really sure. But I am also not against it.
deleted by creator
He had a point but he kinda fucked it up in the third panel.
Tbh I think the term is kind of unfortunate exactly because of this confusion and rebuttal. We would spend less time discussing this if it was actually called egalitarianism or whatever, I feel. People use the “fem” in feminism to make the movement seem unequal. I think the term is just kind of unnecessarily confusing and egalitarianism would be less ambiguous.
But I don’t really care that much, the ideas behind are obviously more important than the word we use - but words are also important.
People use the “fem” in feminism to make the movement seem unequal.
Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men, like shelters for abused men, helping men with legal fees to retain access to children or similar causes?
Or does it (obviously) go towards bettering women’s lives (which is the obvious stated purpose of feminism)?
There isn’t much wrong with establishing necessary things for women. Pretending those organizations are going to spend their efforts on male specific gender egalitarian issues is unrealistic.
On top of that, there are multiple incentives to help women and girls go into male dominated fields. This is good. I have yet to see incentives to help men and boys go into female dominated fields. There has been a feminist social change on how male nurses and such are seen, which is a good thing, but, organisations as such are not out there setting up drives to get more boys and men in those industries.
Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men
Yes.
One of the big ones that has been in active discussion is toxic masculinity (the social expectation that men act a certain way and more importantly that men not act a certain way), which has detrimental effects on boys and men, who in many cases grow up emotionally stunted and unable to cope with their emotions in a productive, safe, and healthy way. These feminist organizations are big on how to raise boys, how to talk to men about emotions, and other topics that relate to the mental and emotional health of boys and men.
In a related push, a big portion of pushing openness in certain spaces also has the effect of becoming more welcoming for certain men. Trying to make veteran spaces, science/technology/engineering spaces, sports/fitness/athletic spaces, business networking spaces, and other traditionally male-dominated spaces more open to women is often about opening things up to a lot more men, as well, especially men who don’t fit the stereotypes of those spaces.
For example, sometimes a gym that is intimidating to women can also be intimidating to lots of men. Recognizing and addressing the factors that drive away women also have the intended purpose of reducing barriers that we know affect men, as well.
I’m fully, unabashedly feminist. I’m also a straight cis man who fits a lot of male stereotypes (playing and watching sports, lifting weights, a career path through multiple male dominated professions), who recognizes that society leaves behind a lot of men who don’t fit this mold, and I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children), actively parent my son in a way that I hope will help him grow up to be a good man living a good life with fulfilling relationships with those around him, etc.
There’s no separating feminism from broader societal gender roles and expectations. And the things I do for my daughter are closely overlapping with the things that I do for my son.
The problem with your long and heartfelt reply is that it cuts in half the point I am making. I am posing the hypothetical question of if the funds go to assist in aliviting problems that are exclusively suffered by men, not if the efforts and funds of the feminist organisations have knock of effects in making men’s lives better, which, yeah they do via making a more gender dispersed society, and decreasing stressors in environments.
Do the money that feminist organizations go towards problems that affect men, like shelters for abused men, helping men with legal fees to retain access to children or similar causes?
These are scenarios that exclusively benefit men. My statement is that I do not believe such transfer of resources to enable things to be better exclusively to assist men do not happen, and nor is it expected to be that way; and framing feminist organisations as not being biased towards helping women as their central objective is misrepresentative.
and because this topic is constantly a powder keg; yes, those organisations are doing good , necessary work that I approve of.
I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children)
that’s great, you are doing commendable work and the orgaisations you work with are doing great work.
Sure, but its exactly because words are important that its called feminism. When you’re talking about “egalitarianism” the goal is so vague that everyone can be on it. That’s why you have names like “feminism”, because that movement is focused on how we live in a patriarchal society and how women have been historically treated unjustly under it. Or “black lives matter”, which, although I’m sure would also agree that “all lives matter”, are focused on why historically, black lives specifically haven’t as much. Same thing for trans rights.
When you combine that all into one, all the nuance of the different groups gets lost and the average becomes “yeah but human rights are so much better than 50 years ago” to shut down discussion.
Every. Single. Time.
Y’all really don’t get why subdividing makes movements weaker.
Here, I’ll give you an easy way to see the flaw I your argument. Apply it to this flag:
According to your logic, this flag shouldn’t be used, because it’s more vague than just the lesbian or trans flag for example.
Yet, the reason this flag is used is because unity is more powerful than division. All those groups are more powerful in fighting for their rights together than they are separate.
And that’s the flaw behind modern feminism - the issues feminism was created to tackle have been greatly delt with. While some certainly do still exist, they are now also caused by things other than a patriarchy, such as oligarchy. And thus tackling the issues that affect women too in modern times needs the involvement of other groups as well, such as unions and even anarchists, to effectively combat.
In such, movements and groups like these would more be much more effective in modern society reforming under an umbrella one such as egalitarianism, much like the LGBTQ+ ones have.
Multiple causes together are more powerful than a single ones divided. Continuing this insistence is literally missing the forest for the trees.
Its the “LGBTQ+ movement” not the “everyone movement” because it’s calling out how queer people have been historically marginalized and persecuted and not everyone. Cisgender, heterosexual people are the norm, that’s why this subcommunity exists. It just so happens that there are a lot of subgroups within this small community that share very similar idealogies and so it becomes (more or less) one bigger movement.
Moreover, the flag you sent came to be to specifically to call out all the different groups in the umbrella movement, to not let them get drowned out by the vagueness of the combined movement.
All these groups are fighting for different but not necessarily opposing things. Fighting simply for a “better life for all”, while noble, is really naive. You need to get specific about the things you want to tackle.
It’s not like these groups fight alone, you can be a feminist, anti-fascist, queer person of color and support multiple things you believe in.
Fighting simply for a “better life for all”, while noble, is really naive. You need to get specific about the things you want to tackle.
Egalitarianism isn’t just “better life for all” without a plan, just like Feminism isn’t “Equality for Women” without a plan.
Uniting under the banner of Egalitarianism as a group, rather than stating you’re not that but are instead a feminist, would be like saying “I’m not in the LGBTQ+ movement, I’m a Trans Rights activist”.
Everytime people like you insist (even if coming from a place with good intentions) we shouldn’t consider ourselves egalitarian, you weaken all groups that would benefit from standing united under it. There’s a reason right wing propaganda networks constantly argue against the term “Egalitarian” and try to keep groups like Feminists isolated from others - because it would hurt them if it actually gained in popularity.
There are indeed many people who would not qualify as egalitarian. Libertarians, Republicans, Musk - all of them hate it, because “equality for all” is in fact not as broad as you would hope, unfortunately.
I dont see how they were arguing for subdivisions. There are in fact many problems to solve, and we should unite to solve them. But if we are talking about a specific problem, we should use specific language. This shouldnt prevent us from seeing that there are common roots to all these problems.
Because they are arguing against the “egalitarian” label rather than supporting both it and feminism.
Today’s specific problems tend to be rooted in a more broader affecting cause. The Waltons and Sacklers for example are not all men, but women too. The issue that affects women the most today are no longer about simply just the patriarchy but instead of the wealthy versus the rest.
After all, the right wing usually doesn’t have issues with abortion itself - only with abortion of minorities and the poor. Of the others, not of themselves.
Wish I had more than one upvote to give. Movements and groups name themselves after their targeted focus, yet you never see someone going up to the teacher’s union rep and saying “but shouldn’t you also care about the other jobs?”
Say what you will about PETA (I’m sure I could say a lot), but you never see someone criticising them for their “narrow minded focus solely on the welfare of animals, without regard for the ethical treatment of humans, plants and fungi”
You’ll never catch someone criticising a homeless shelter for not doing enough to shine light on the prevalence of gun violence.
So why does anyone treat these bad-faith criticisms as anything more or less than attempts to silence the already-marginalised groups for which these movements are advocating?
yet you never see someone going up to the teacher’s union rep and saying “but shouldn’t you also care about the other jobs?”
For ducks sakes that’s literally how unions are SUPPOSED TO WORK. No wonder the US worker’s rights are so weak if that’s what you think, and based off your comment you’re on the side of the workers!
Here in Finland when one union goes on strike for a cause other unions join in! Airline union going on strike? Guess what, so I’d the railway, buses, logistics, grocery workers, and so on, with more joining in if it’s for a really good reason, even teacher unions.
You have just perfectly stated my point: a teacher’s union rep CLEARLY cares about other workers, but that’s not the POINT of a Teacher’s Union. I’m saying that you don’t see anyone complaining that there’s a union to protect those specific labourers, because such a complaint would be patently ridiculous. It is similarly ridiculous to assume that a Feminist opposes the rights of non-women just because their movement is focused on women. That is my point.
And my point is that it’s self defeating to call yourself a feminist if you’re egalitarian unless there’s a reason for it. Otherwise, just call yourself egalitarian to show you’re about equality to the general population, therefore you can recruit others to the cause more easily.
My wife doesn’t call herself a “teacher’s unionist” if asked, she just calls herself a unionist, because the rights of all workers supercedes those of only teachers. Unless talking specifically to other teachers, parent students, etc, she champions the rights of unions themselves, and supports and encourages people to join a union, and union.
The issue with many feminist groups is that they insist on being feminists first and foremost rather than egalitarians. This is what has lead in part to the existence of TERFs - by hyper focusing on women’s rights instead of just agreeing “yeah, and I’m also an egalitarian”, you open the door to exclusionary groups. Because while egalitarianism is open to all who are inclusive, feminism is not by definition of focus.
It’s not the only group afflicted by this, and it’s part of the reason why the right wing has managed to gain so much power over the years - because while they all might be different flavors of hate and contempt, they are at least united globally behind hate and contempt.
Meanwhile we have those who rally behind compassion and equality arguing we shouldn’t all be considered compassionate and pro equality because there’s “specializations” and that uniting under one banner weakens the cause somehow 🙄
That’s illegal in the US. Thanks to the Taft Hartley Act
If the rich face no consequences for breaking laws that help each other, but the poor do, then that is not justice.
It is up to the people to decide if they would then rather live quietly with injustice or fight loudly for their rights, regardless of supposed legality or consequences.
Agreed. I’m just telling you the root cause. We know that the brute squad will be unleashed if we try to do such tactics.
Or the org “No one should shoot anyone in the back”, every so often making a statement to gangsters, but having to spend most of its time pursuing cops.
Makes sense why the phrase is instead “ACAB”.
I completely agree with what you’re saying. However, on the other hand, “black lives matter” and “feminism” are equally exposed to the “all lives matter” and “equality” rebuttals from people that want to shut them down.
I think some progress could be made if those championing equality made a concerted effort to gain ownership of the “all lives matter” and “equality” slogans/campaigns, and then used that ownership to point out the problems (all lives matter, and black lives are currently being stepped on, etc.)
I feel like instead of changing the name, we should stop justifying it on “equality”. The purpose of the movement is to stop a form of oppression. The name of the movement clearly takes the side of the oppressed, recognizing the oppression. Saying that the movement is for “equality” backpedals the recognition that an oppression exists and the discussion shifts to another point of derailment like “but arent men and women naturally different in some ways? is equality actually appropriate? what is equality?”
The productive feminist discussions are in debating the oppressions that exist and how to change them, not getting tangled in teological discussions about “nature” and “equality”.
The problem with that is that people who use egalitarianism or all lives matter don’t actually want equality, they want oppressed people to shut up
The truth is our reality is shaped by narratives and, while calling it egalitarianism may be accurate in a vacuum, ignoring historical injustices makes us less self aware and resilient as a society. Something external forces can and have already capitalized on.
Yup “Equalists” are just the same as all lives matter folks completely missing the point and trying to poison the well.
If feminists are allowed to be egalitarian but focus on issues which harm women, others (whatever label they have) can be egalitarian with a different focus. But it needs to be real equality, not a deflection, like the person in the comic.
Where it goes wrong is in telling people they can’t focus on specific issues close to their heart, or in telling people that since legal equality has largely been achieved somewhere there’s nothing else to do.
“All lives matter” was an obvious reaction to a slogan which, to all but existing allies, seemed to be excluding something obvious. BLM people saw rampant violence against black people as evidence that society didn’t think black lives mattered. But that’s not something that comes through when it’s distilled to a slogan.
The UK currently has an “end violence against women and girls” campaign even though men are more often victims of violence. There are reasons to focus on violence against women, but there are also reasons to focus on other things… there is room for nuance here.
It’s like saying “I want everyone to be equal” and saying both men and women should be given a 10% pay raise to account for the gender pay gap.
Sure, you raised women’s wages to cover the gap… but now the gap remains because you also increased men’s by the same amount.
That’s false. If you want to make everyone equal, you close the pay gap.
To me, egalitarianism is making sure neither group is treated unfarly, so they should both receive the same pay for the same work, but also the same punishment for the same crime, etc.
The only wage gap we should be focusing on now is the gap between ultra rich capitalists and the worker class.
Anything else we can worry after we take care of that dumpster fire.
It’s not an either or, many feminists champion other issues.
The gap doesn’t just remain in that scenario, you actually increase the gap making it even worse.
“So you are a (rule) bender! You traitor, I devoted my life to you!”
(attacks the blood bender since that’s a great idea)
This is what I don’t get about the manosphere movement.
Young guys watch these influencers being abrasive macho dorks, talking exactly like this. They somehow combine that “dorky, petty semantic minutia” argument style with being aggressively condescending and being a macho jerk, all at once. I’m a pretty isolated guy, yet it’s amazing how grating it is to me.
And men watching these influencers conclude that… other people will appreciate that?
People seek confirmation that their negative traits are positive ones. Why put in effort to win, when you can just get an echo chamber to explain to you that you already won because of XYZ reason.
This isn’t limited to the manosphere stuff but it certainly is a big part of it. Any group that uses that other people are full of shit though as evidence that they are the good guys is also trying to pull the same trick.
There is value in feminisim because women’s rights are “new” and that is to say that there are people alive who grew up in a time where women’s rights were considered a joke. Women received the ability to have their own bank account without a man co signing in 1974. That means MOST Gen X people, when they were born, their mothers were not legally allowed to have a bank account. That isn’t ancient history like some folks like to act it is.
There is value in feminisim because women’s rights are “new” and that is to say that there are people alive who grew up in a time where women’s rights were considered a joke.
I’d like to remind everyone that men’s rights are new too. For example, in the UK, women got rights to vote in 1928. Men got it in 1918, a whole 10 years earlier.
Most of the population was (and continues to be) under the boot of the wealthy, their rights immaterial.
Things are already equal. Toxic masculinity comes from toxic femininity. Toxic femininity comes from toxic masculinity. It’s been like that forever, but we raised the living standard enough so now we can argue about this with our excess spare time.
Also, it is another way of divide and conquer to make sure that we keep fighting each other and not the billionaire class who needs to be defeated if you want to have a world in 20 years from now.
The quantum head fuck Is that men and women have always been equal in a weird way and at the same time equality can never be achieved because giving birth was given to one of the two sexes and not the other.
When it comes to class warfare, equality can be achieved.
Because while intelligence and skill and talent may not be equally distributed, the right to live is.
Things are already equal
My friend, go outside.
or even pull up the news
I don’t have to, the downvote ratio tells me the divide and conquer is alive and well.
‘The news’ is kinda how they do it.
The downvote ratio tells you you’re being ignorant. That’s literally it.
did you even read the link I posted?
My friend
Oh great, at least one gets it
go outside.
Sigh.
The only reason someone says my friend is cause they think your an idiot. It’s like saying bless your heart.
And considering what you said… Yeah… Oof
I’ve been saying it like
My friend…
I am not trying to rob you. I’m trying to help you.
Dumb and wrong
I honestly don’t know which way this comic is intending to go.
That’s alarming as this is very obviously in favour of feminism.
What is alarming about it?
Your lack of reading comprehension is alarming. The comic is pretty direct about what it means.
Hippy, politically correct, feminist, SJW, woke…
It doesn’t matter how many times you rebrand ~not being an awful person~ people will always make goodness the enemy
Well, tbf, Hippies were better known for free-love-ism, illicit substances, and fake gurus than the other groups. The free love and illicit substances probably contributed to the spread of a lot of disease, which might be why it died out.
Also world peace, anti-capitalism, conscientious objection, anti-authoritarianism, and nuclear disarmament. But don’t let that ruin your narrative.
I was listing how they were different from the other groups.
A lot of them weren’t even anti-capitalist, tbh. Look up what a Yuppie is.
My parents are Hippies. They don’t believe in free love, substance abuse, or the fake gurus. They are earthy crunchy people. According to them two factors caused the hippie movement to fail.
\1) The hippies were a TINY counterculture movement. I’m aware that they are talked about so much that it seems like 1/4 to 1/3 of the generation were hippies, but in reality it was more like 1/1000 to 1/100. No critical mass was achieved.
)2 More than half of the hippies sold out to capitalism and became yuppies.
ah tumblr
This is why we should all just agree to go by Yusuke Urameshi style equality.
Man, women, or baby, if your stupid you should get punched in the face. If your not stupid then you wouldn’t be sexist in the first place and would punch the stupid people.
It’s very simple.
if your stupid
Ah, good old ‘punching down’ hierarchical oppression. That always worked out well historically 😌
So, eugenics, but only focused on one type of people.
Wasn’t expecting a Yu Yu Hakusho analogy on punching sexism but I am here for it
Yeah, it’s definitely not a bad thing to focus on raising women to the same level in society as men.
The problem is, like with any group, the radicals who use the movement to spread hate and tarnish the reputation of everyone involved. Religion has the same issue.
In this case, it’s the ones who think equality means swapping positions of power so men are the ones who are oppressed. They give the whole movement a bad name and lead to associations like this.
Honestly, the well might be so poisoned at this point that rebranding with an umbrella term might not be a terrible choice, although it’s terrible that it’s not a terrible choice. It shouldn’t be this way, but humans suck.
Where are these hoards of feminists committing “reverse sexism” and oppressing men other than a random tumblr or twitter comment? Where is there institutional power and how are men structurally oppressed in a way not obviously connected to the patriarchy?
You make the mistake of conflating “patriarchy” with “men”. Patriarchy both harms, and is upheld, by both men and women - even plenty of would-be feminists.
I never said hoards. All it takes is a vocal minority.
It didn’t take hoards of Muslims to make people associate them with terrorists.
Why, it’s with affirmative action! /s
Who are you referencing when you reference, “the ones who think equality means swapping positions of power so men are the ones who are oppressed?” I’m curious to see what an example or two of that would look like.
I’ve have an example of this that happen recently. It was on a post about Spain (iirc, might have been Italy) making killing women because of their gender a hate crime.
People were arguing that men should receive harsher punishments for killing women because of their gender than women killing men because of their gender.
Which isn’t equality since criminal prosecution should be on a case by case basis. It should be a hate crime to kill anyone because of the way they were born. The fact that women are more often victims just means that more men will be prosecuted than women, but the sentences should be the same.
There’s also the crazies who think that any time a woman has sex with a man, the woman is being raped.
What they refer to is for example women using accusations of inappropriate behavior to ruin reputations and promotion chances of men to get ahead.
One that also pops up is how divorce is used as a way to strip mine the wealth of men because “the system” will advantage women always.
That’s some talking points you usually see.
They will just rant about women saying all men are trash or something equally inconsequential i already regret interacting myself.
Such people represent such a minority of a minority that their opinion is entirely irrelevant.
As long as men continue to have a kneejerk reaction to the word feminism, I think it holds educational value in agitation.
Their opinion isn’t irrelevant, though, as shown by the comic. It only takes a vocal minority to taint the public image.
It only took 19 Muslims to make people associate them with terrorists.
What’s fascinating about this argument is that when that radicalism supports patriarchy, whether through the state or religious institutions, it is often unchallenged. At its core, the argument tacitly accepts that institutions get to define right and wrong for us and that we must passively conform.
What do we do when the state or religious institutions are the source of hate and disrepute? Is it “radical” to then challenge them? Because the argument you are making is the same that those who are advantaged by the state or other institutions have been making since time immemorial. The question then becomes, how do we persuade people to start thinking beyond themselves and towards society at large.
The argument youre been making has been employed against those that fought for emancipation, suffragettes, anti segregationalists, MLK Jr, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela etc. When non state sanctioned violence is used then the cause is assumed to be immoral. But even if the approach is nonviolent well then Please temper your language I have a personally beneficial status quo to maintain here with the overall outcome being ongoing injustice for the sake of an often unsustainable peace.
We have not perfected society. No civilization has. There will always be a need for tweaking and tinkering. The least we can do then is listen, so that we don’t simply pass these issues down to our descendants as they have been passed down to us. It’s going to take more than policing language to break that cycle.
I disagree about religion, I think the good apples might be the exceptions in any ideology whose core tenants are 1. feelings over thoughts and 2. fear of punishment as basis of morality.
So every Muslim wants to murder the infidels and every Christian wants to bomb abortion clinics?
You’re letting a vocal minority taint your view of an entire demographic.
I didn’t say how bad, exactly, just that they’re almost all a net negative. You know, people who give more to the church than to charity, people who vote for autocrats, people who drill for oil and argue online about climate change. And some of them do indeed bomb abortion clinics and murder infidels, a small minority, but the average evangelical isn’t that far off from that ledge of no return.
The good ones are the ones who set up well regulated mobile soup and bread kitchens to feed the poor. They’re the ones who open shelters and secure the building to take people in during storms. They’re the ones who promote education despite contradictions with their beliefs. Those are few and far between.
Counterpoint maybe you should focus on the boys to raise them to be “not stupid” and not to “harm woman”. Ever man has a mother who raised him from a baby take some accountability woman.
