• PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    But they’re related. They’re different facets of the same thing: the roles and expectations that society forces people into.

    Setting aside what you do and don’t think is impactful, the point is that these are expectations that society puts on people, and where these expectations come from is complex. Have you ever heard of the Five Whys? It can be a helpful way to look at these problems; it can’t capture the complexity but it illustrates that the causes run deep.

    For example, there are some pretty easily accessible YouTube videos (podcasts?) on the history of the women’s fashion and cosmetics industries, and how they pivoted their marketing to great effect to sell products to women by pressing these kinds of expectations into society, and those marketing teams contain a lot of men. This doesn’t explain all of history, but it’s an example of what I’m talking about.

    And always remember; hurt people hurt people.

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah, I understand all of that, I just don’t think we should be using the term “privilege” for every little echo of history. Are men’s pockets a form of privilege? Women are privileged to have more variety of tops? At a certain point, the term loses all meaning.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        If by “loses all meaning” you mean “loses significance” then there is some truth to that, but I leave it up to the general opinion of the people who are put at risk by that loss of significance to decide when it becomes a problem.

        Realistically I think that it was probably meant as a half joke, as in its funny in how unserious it is, but also a real criticism in how pervasive this kind of toxic behavior is.
        I think that the reply, that men aren’t involved in it, is taking an willfully ignorant stance.

        • Tedesche@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I mean that using a charged term to describe a trivial issue or problem is a form of hysteria and drama-seeking. The issue being cited in the image is trivial and—as pointed out by the response—maintained pretty much entirely by women. There’s a point at which you have to stop blaming things on gender inequalities, because regardless of whether or not they can be traced back to cultural conditioning, the simplest solution is that you personal responsibility and stop conforming to them. The problem isn’t that other women will criticize you for wearing the same dress twice; they’re problem is that you care.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            I have nearly zero respect for the intellectual capacity of someone who thinks that female gender roles are perpetuated mainly by women, and especially little respect for people who think they’re above social conditioning and that it should be a simple matter for others to shrug it off. It shows a shocking lack of self awareness.
            I don’t think there is value in continuing this discussion with you.

            • Tedesche@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I didn’t say I thought that female gender roles are perpetuated mainly by women. That’s a blanket statement that I would never make. I said the specific practice cited in this post is maintained by women—because it is. Men don’t punish women socially for wearing the same dress on two different occasions.

              Nor do I think women should be immune to social conditioning; all of us are influenced by it. But I reject the notion that we’re entirely imprisoned by it. When you’re aware of it, you can work on reprogramming yourself and rejecting it. And you know what? That’s far more effective than expecting the world to change to suit your preferences.

              Paint me as a misogynistic POS in your own head all you like; I know I’m not. I’m sorry the nuance here was too much for you.

                • Tedesche@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 hours ago

                  Your imaginary conclusions are not mine. Seriously, you think yourself an amazingly progressive person, but you’re just as vulnerable to stereotypical thinking as those you despise. My advice to you is that you tend your own gardens before you cast aspersions towards those who disagree with you on nuanced issues. You’re letting your anger make a fool of yourself here. Stop. Think. Be better.

                  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 hours ago

                    you are inferior for casting aspersions on me, but the aspersions I cast on you show me to be superior

                    Great job dude.
                    I can see why you are unable to connect the dots between men setting up the conditions that pressure women to turn in each other, and the women who actually turn on each other.

                    Great talk 👋👋👋