Imagine if a man were to make a “joke” at women’s expense, and then when women get angry in the comments he says “see, women are sensitive/emotional creatures after all!”
It wouldn’t be the “gotcha” that you seem to think this is. So tell me, what’s different?
Also, just because the people responsible for the turmoil are overwhelmingly cishet men, does not mean that cishet men writ large are overwhelmingly responsible for it. That’s painting with a very large brush, and it should be no surprise that people got upset about it.
When else is it ever okay to blame an entire demographic for the actions of a very small percentage of them? What are working class white men supposed to feel when you lump them into the same category as the oligarchs with such sweeping generalizations? Do you see how that might impede class solidarity?
Also, “/s” is an abbreviation of a word, which everyone on the internet understands and knows what it means. That doesn’t change the fact that you said you were serious, only to backtrack and say you were joking.
Imagine if a man were to make a “joke” at women’s expense, and then when women get angry in the comments he says “see, women are sensitive/emotional creatures after all!”
Having been around since 1978 i assure you this this was the case for a very long time and still very much is the case in parts of the internet.
Well in those cases, it’s wrong. And in this case, it’s still wrong. Just because it’s happened the one way, doesn’t make the other way okay. Both are wrong.
The equivalency stands. And if you don’t think so, then you’re a hypocrite.
Not saying one is right, but there are a lot of things you need to learn beyond your kindergarten level of right and wrong about power dynamics and how actions and comments impact differently across these strata. The fact I had to point out to you that men denigrating women is the majority of western history and am now also pointing out there’s a sharp uptick very loudly occurring right now makes me think you are not in a position to start screaming hypocrisy because some rando talked shit about cis men on a single lemmy thread.
Note this: I never said it’s okay for men to denigrate women. It’s not.
Note this also: you’re essentially arguing that it’s okay for women to denigrate men. It’s not.
And for you to insist that one is okay while the other isn’t, is called a double standard. You haven’t examined your own biases, because you think you don’t even have to.
If that’s your line of reasoning, then I’m not going to take you seriously. You’re no better than a misogynist.
Unfounded personal attacks? This entire thread is about you and one other person claiming it’s completely okay for you to denigrate an entire demographic of people. One which happens to include me.
But now you feel personally attacked when I say I can’t take you seriously because you’re just as bad as a misogynist?
If I were to make denigrating comments about women, and you were to call me a misogynist, would that be an “unfounded personal attack?”
You can’t even see your own biases. You’re the one whose argument is rife with logical fallacies. And you don’t even realize that you’re the one being childish. So much projection out of you. And no, saying that isn’t an “unfounded personal attack.”
actions and comments impact differently across these strata
implying that women’s feelings matter, but men’s don’t.
You also said
Don’t try that equivalency
implying that women denigrating men is somehow different from men denigrating women
And it’s all in the context of you coming to the defense of someone who basically said “cis men should be excluded from class solidarity.” And then laughing about men feeling “triggered” and “mansplaining” in the comments.
So how would it be different if I said “oh, haha, a woman got triggered and now she’s trying to womansplain.”
Unless you see the similarity there, there’s no way my tiny voice will reach you up on that high moral pedestal you’re on.
You’ve basically been derailing this whole time. I called out someone’s bigotry and you said “but what about all those times men were bigots!” Well, we’re not talking about those times in this thread because that isn’t what this conversation is about. Nobody is saying that’s okay either, but apparently you can’t handle a man telling a woman that it’s not okay for her to be a bigot either, and you felt the need to come to her defense.
I’m agender, and this person is reminding me of all the mean girls who bullied me for not being femme enough. It’s the same kind of middle school logic that said that me not wearing makeup made me a man, and that I ought to kms.
I honestly think that assholes follow the standard deviation pattern in humans, regardless of biology. It’s only when you start looking at categories that can self-select for behavior that you start seeing an over-representation of them.
I do disagree on that! The internet is a self-selecting group, and I’m gonna blame Meta, Alphabet, et all for creating algorithms that reward asshole behavior and caused an over-representation of assholes online.
Furthermore, I believe that non-assholes have the capacity to temporarily act like assholes when exposed to stress. Everybody can have a bad day, but that a few isolated incidents of assholery doesn’t make you an asshole.
Good point. Social media has done a lot of damage to the human psyche, both on the individual level and the societal. I wish people and governments could recognize this for what it is: tech companies altering the course of human evolution; and take proactive regulatory steps accordingly. But that’s clearly not going to happen any time soon. There might have been a time when it could have been done, but that ship has sailed.
Also yeah, you raise a good point that transient behaviors don’t necessarily define one’s personality. Moods are ephemeral and effect behavior, and just cause a person has an off day every now and then doesn’t make them an inherently bad person. I wish more people could recognize that, while also not losing sight of the harmful nature of people who are consistently jerks. That level of nuance doesn’t exist in the era of viral ragebait and reactionary sensationalism, however. Sad to see it so…
Okay, ngl most of these comments are just funny stupid man shit, but now you’re calling me a bigot for literally pointing out indisputable facts about a patriarchal society.
Chuds are not your friend, they will not reward you for siding with them.
Goddamn, imagine if I were to go around describing feminism as “stupid woman shit” (I wouldn’t, because actually I agree with a lot of feminist philosophy such as bell hooks and Carol Gilligan, whom you’ve apparently never heard of).
But let’s just say I did. Imagine your reaction. And then go look in a fucking mirror. Newsflash: you are a bigot.
And then to call your generalizations and assumptions “indisputable facts” is a new level of arrogance. Do you even hear yourself?
There is also zero reward for siding with people who think that if you’re not a woman, you’re a man.
Turns out, what you’ve got in your pants has nothing to do with who you are as a human, and I’ve got penis-having friends who don’t judge me for not being femme.
Interesting, could you explain how making fun of cis men equates to transphobia and TERFs?
I see comments like these and I fear for queer youth who do not understand how their oppression functions structurally. Making fun of cis men, who are indeed in charge of every institution this meme is referencing, is not gender essentialism.
Because it’s the same reductive binary bullshit they do. If you’re in this category, you’re bad, lets just ignore the rest of it because it doesn’t fit the black and white thinking.
I also don’t fit the black and white thinking, ergo you won’t like me either.
Jesus Christ you’ve been so miseducated. You think TERFs care about explaining what gender essentialism is?
Purposeful misunderstanding from, “as one of the queers myself,” is also a common engagement tactic by chuds to gain info on disarmed queer people online as a form of intimidation. If you really are a queer person without education on what that even means systemically, feel free to DM and I can provide a reading list.
And there it is. I’m afab and don’t want to conform to your rhetoric, and in your eyes that makes me as good as a cis man.
You’re a TERF.
Edit: And to talk theory?
Patriarchy is the problem, not men. Patriarchy in the western world is a system established by Christians, where inheritance (aka, power) flows through the oldest male child. Today this expression has softened, but it is still men that receive preferential treatment by society. The Patriarchy is regulated by social gatekeeping what it means to be a man, in order to receive maximum benefit from social norms. This is what we mean when we say that The Patriarchy hurts men too.
By continuing to insist that one’s gender is what makes them the problem, you are upholding The Patriarchy, and you need to stop.
Well said. Funny how they said you need education because you are far more emotionally intelligent than they are (assuming they aren’t just a troll, which they probably are, but even then).
How do you justify in your mind that it’s okay to make fun of a cis man who has never been anywhere near wealth or power in his entire life, just because most people near those levers happen to have the same genitalia as them?
That sounds a lot like gender essentialism, no matter how you say that it isn’t.
I’m not recycling any talking points, whatever tf a “chud” is. My points were valid, and since you refuse to address them rationally and instead resort to insulting me (and half the world’s population at that), I can only assume you don’t have a valid response.
You would pout if someone made light of misogyny, and yet here you are making light of misandry. Are you aware of your double-standard, or completely blind to it?
Imagine a man making fun of women for something stereotypical, and imagine the response you would have. Then ask yourself, are you really any better than those “men” you despise so much?
Like, honestly, I’m politically left and believe in social progress and egalitarianism and all that, but comments like yours make me really not want to care about the oppression of people like you.
Imagine if a man were to make a “joke” at women’s expense, and then when women get angry in the comments he says “see, women are sensitive/emotional creatures after all!”
It wouldn’t be the “gotcha” that you seem to think this is. So tell me, what’s different?
Also, just because the people responsible for the turmoil are overwhelmingly cishet men, does not mean that cishet men writ large are overwhelmingly responsible for it. That’s painting with a very large brush, and it should be no surprise that people got upset about it.
When else is it ever okay to blame an entire demographic for the actions of a very small percentage of them? What are working class white men supposed to feel when you lump them into the same category as the oligarchs with such sweeping generalizations? Do you see how that might impede class solidarity?
Also, “/s” is an abbreviation of a word, which everyone on the internet understands and knows what it means. That doesn’t change the fact that you said you were serious, only to backtrack and say you were joking.
Having been around since 1978 i assure you this this was the case for a very long time and still very much is the case in parts of the internet.
Don’t try that equivalency.
Well in those cases, it’s wrong. And in this case, it’s still wrong. Just because it’s happened the one way, doesn’t make the other way okay. Both are wrong.
The equivalency stands. And if you don’t think so, then you’re a hypocrite.
Not saying one is right, but there are a lot of things you need to learn beyond your kindergarten level of right and wrong about power dynamics and how actions and comments impact differently across these strata. The fact I had to point out to you that men denigrating women is the majority of western history and am now also pointing out there’s a sharp uptick very loudly occurring right now makes me think you are not in a position to start screaming hypocrisy because some rando talked shit about cis men on a single lemmy thread.
Note this: I never said it’s okay for men to denigrate women. It’s not.
Note this also: you’re essentially arguing that it’s okay for women to denigrate men. It’s not.
And for you to insist that one is okay while the other isn’t, is called a double standard. You haven’t examined your own biases, because you think you don’t even have to.
If that’s your line of reasoning, then I’m not going to take you seriously. You’re no better than a misogynist.
ok that’s twice now you’ve decided to end your comments to me with unfounded personal attacks. You need to stop doing that.
I mean, there’s a bunch of other logical fallacies going on there as well. But ending with sniping is a ridiculously childish tactic.
Unfounded personal attacks? This entire thread is about you and one other person claiming it’s completely okay for you to denigrate an entire demographic of people. One which happens to include me.
But now you feel personally attacked when I say I can’t take you seriously because you’re just as bad as a misogynist?
If I were to make denigrating comments about women, and you were to call me a misogynist, would that be an “unfounded personal attack?”
You can’t even see your own biases. You’re the one whose argument is rife with logical fallacies. And you don’t even realize that you’re the one being childish. So much projection out of you. And no, saying that isn’t an “unfounded personal attack.”
Show me in this thread where i said it’s ok to denigrate men. Or even when i did.
Go on.
Now do you get it? You’re making shit up and attacking people over it.
You said
implying that women’s feelings matter, but men’s don’t.
You also said
implying that women denigrating men is somehow different from men denigrating women
And it’s all in the context of you coming to the defense of someone who basically said “cis men should be excluded from class solidarity.” And then laughing about men feeling “triggered” and “mansplaining” in the comments.
So how would it be different if I said “oh, haha, a woman got triggered and now she’s trying to womansplain.”
Unless you see the similarity there, there’s no way my tiny voice will reach you up on that high moral pedestal you’re on.
You’ve basically been derailing this whole time. I called out someone’s bigotry and you said “but what about all those times men were bigots!” Well, we’re not talking about those times in this thread because that isn’t what this conversation is about. Nobody is saying that’s okay either, but apparently you can’t handle a man telling a woman that it’s not okay for her to be a bigot either, and you felt the need to come to her defense.
I’m agender, and this person is reminding me of all the mean girls who bullied me for not being femme enough. It’s the same kind of middle school logic that said that me not wearing makeup made me a man, and that I ought to kms.
I’m sorry you experienced that, those people didn’t deserve you. Bigots exists in every gender, unfortunately…
I honestly think that assholes follow the standard deviation pattern in humans, regardless of biology. It’s only when you start looking at categories that can self-select for behavior that you start seeing an over-representation of them.
Unfortunately, I think non-assholes are the deviation…
The mean, median, and mode are all squarely within “asshole” range…
I do disagree on that! The internet is a self-selecting group, and I’m gonna blame Meta, Alphabet, et all for creating algorithms that reward asshole behavior and caused an over-representation of assholes online.
Furthermore, I believe that non-assholes have the capacity to temporarily act like assholes when exposed to stress. Everybody can have a bad day, but that a few isolated incidents of assholery doesn’t make you an asshole.
Good point. Social media has done a lot of damage to the human psyche, both on the individual level and the societal. I wish people and governments could recognize this for what it is: tech companies altering the course of human evolution; and take proactive regulatory steps accordingly. But that’s clearly not going to happen any time soon. There might have been a time when it could have been done, but that ship has sailed.
Also yeah, you raise a good point that transient behaviors don’t necessarily define one’s personality. Moods are ephemeral and effect behavior, and just cause a person has an off day every now and then doesn’t make them an inherently bad person. I wish more people could recognize that, while also not losing sight of the harmful nature of people who are consistently jerks. That level of nuance doesn’t exist in the era of viral ragebait and reactionary sensationalism, however. Sad to see it so…
Okay, ngl most of these comments are just funny stupid man shit, but now you’re calling me a bigot for literally pointing out indisputable facts about a patriarchal society.
Chuds are not your friend, they will not reward you for siding with them.
Goddamn, imagine if I were to go around describing feminism as “stupid woman shit” (I wouldn’t, because actually I agree with a lot of feminist philosophy such as bell hooks and Carol Gilligan, whom you’ve apparently never heard of).
But let’s just say I did. Imagine your reaction. And then go look in a fucking mirror. Newsflash: you are a bigot.
And then to call your generalizations and assumptions “indisputable facts” is a new level of arrogance. Do you even hear yourself?
There is also zero reward for siding with people who think that if you’re not a woman, you’re a man.
Turns out, what you’ve got in your pants has nothing to do with who you are as a human, and I’ve got penis-having friends who don’t judge me for not being femme.
Interesting, could you explain how making fun of cis men equates to transphobia and TERFs?
I see comments like these and I fear for queer youth who do not understand how their oppression functions structurally. Making fun of cis men, who are indeed in charge of every institution this meme is referencing, is not gender essentialism.
Because it’s the same reductive binary bullshit they do. If you’re in this category, you’re bad, lets just ignore the rest of it because it doesn’t fit the black and white thinking.
I also don’t fit the black and white thinking, ergo you won’t like me either.
Jesus Christ you’ve been so miseducated. You think TERFs care about explaining what gender essentialism is?
Purposeful misunderstanding from, “as one of the queers myself,” is also a common engagement tactic by chuds to gain info on disarmed queer people online as a form of intimidation. If you really are a queer person without education on what that even means systemically, feel free to DM and I can provide a reading list.
And there it is. I’m afab and don’t want to conform to your rhetoric, and in your eyes that makes me as good as a cis man.
You’re a TERF.
Edit: And to talk theory?
Patriarchy is the problem, not men. Patriarchy in the western world is a system established by Christians, where inheritance (aka, power) flows through the oldest male child. Today this expression has softened, but it is still men that receive preferential treatment by society. The Patriarchy is regulated by social gatekeeping what it means to be a man, in order to receive maximum benefit from social norms. This is what we mean when we say that The Patriarchy hurts men too.
By continuing to insist that one’s gender is what makes them the problem, you are upholding The Patriarchy, and you need to stop.
Well said. Funny how they said you need education because you are far more emotionally intelligent than they are (assuming they aren’t just a troll, which they probably are, but even then).
Okay chud.
How do you justify in your mind that it’s okay to make fun of a cis man who has never been anywhere near wealth or power in his entire life, just because most people near those levers happen to have the same genitalia as them?
That sounds a lot like gender essentialism, no matter how you say that it isn’t.
Jesus you really want me to acknowledge you again. Check out this cool trick:
You must be seriously full of yourself if you think I care about your acknowledgment. Get the fuck over yourself.
#notallmen. Hmm, yes, of course, how could I make fun of men when it isn’t all men. This is misandry! 😰
Since you’re just recycling chud talking points here’s a recycled joke:
I’m not recycling any talking points, whatever tf a “chud” is. My points were valid, and since you refuse to address them rationally and instead resort to insulting me (and half the world’s population at that), I can only assume you don’t have a valid response.
You would pout if someone made light of misogyny, and yet here you are making light of misandry. Are you aware of your double-standard, or completely blind to it?
Imagine a man making fun of women for something stereotypical, and imagine the response you would have. Then ask yourself, are you really any better than those “men” you despise so much?
Like, honestly, I’m politically left and believe in social progress and egalitarianism and all that, but comments like yours make me really not want to care about the oppression of people like you.