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.
It creates such a weird environment because women bashing men has become a very socially accepted if not encouraged thing. In some cases that’s not bad, but it’s putting young men just emerging into a world of social media in a position where they feel they’re being viewed as the bad guy.
That’s why you have all these far right influencers scooping up young guys and feeding them all the validation they aren’t getting in a positive way from the society around them.
Idk I don’t have a solution but I do have a little boy and trying to teach him to navigate the world keeps me awake at night.
It creates such a weird environment because women bashing men has become a very socially accepted if not encouraged thing. In some cases that’s not bad, but it’s putting young men just emerging into a world of social media in a position where they feel they’re being viewed as the bad guy.
Women: treat young men like they're an asshole by default
Men: act like an asshole because they're treated like one regardless
I mean it’s not really about who started it. The goal is to create a more equitable society right? So demonizing men-young men in particular—doesn’t really achieve that goal.
I’d even argue that doing so will do exactly the opposite. Young men with delicate identities aren’t receiving positive reinforcement about their being from any direction unless they already have a strong role model.
There is the big big big underlying issue that a lot of men really, really suck and make it impossible to create systems that will provide that reinforcement… so guys just have to figure it out.
Women: treat young men like they're an asshole by default
This is different than demonizing young men.
An asshole would maybe do things like sexually harassing a woman, or give her unwanted attention, or be dangerous to her.
The issue is that women sometimes have to expect that a man could do these things for their own safety.
Like a man offering to give a woman a ride when she's walking down the street. Or a man offering a woman a drink at the bar that she didn't see poured.
Those could be nice gestures if the man isn't an asshole. But if the man is an asshole, the woman could get herself killed or worse. So women have to anticipate that ANY man could be an asshole because their lives literally depend on it.
And if that translates to anticipating that ALL men are assholes, and treating all situations as such, until proven otherwise... that's going to be upsetting to some men.
Men need to recognize that this problem is not caused by women, but instead caused by assholes. If you're not an asshole, and someone anticipates that you are, the answer is to react with understanding and to figure out how to adjust your behaviour so that it doesn't look like something that the evil assholes would do. (E.g. if you want to buy her a drink, let her see the server pour it)
I know that it's hard for men to figure it out, because we don't really have many positive role models or even instructional videos. Someone needs to bring back those instructional videos for social norms they had in the 50's, but adjust them for modern times...make some TikToks or something, lol
And it shouldn't need to be said, but I'm not saying that women should be throwing refused drinks in the faces of strange men. But I don't think that's what the original commenter meant is happening.
I think that, when women are mad at the things men do, men need to be mad at asshole men for doing those things, not at women for being victims of the assholes.
Let's talk about dogs. You want to raise your kid to not be terrified of dogs, but dogs kill and main a lot of kids every year. So you have two choices. First, any time a dog comes near your kid, you can shout, "Stay away from that dog! They're dangerous and could kill you!" Or you could explain to them that dogs can be dangerous. They're tough, they have sharp teeth and strong jaws, and some are taught to be particularly dangerous for a variety of reasons. You should be wary when you meet a new dog, and should watch for signs that the dog is friendly or not, and approach it in stages if you want to be friends with it, while being wary that things can change quickly.
One says all dogs are bad, the other says any dog could be bad, and you shouldn't assume differently before they make their intentions clear. One demonizes dogs, the other promotes due caution. Neither one gives the dog the benefit of the doubt, but one does leave the door open for the dog to be friendly.
Bro, let’s stop pretending that men are in the driver’s seat for women’s behavior. They are grown adults. I’m not saying you’re all wrong, this kind of behavior is often understandable. Having said that, lot of the toxicity I see has nothing to do with men’s actions, it’s just people bullying other people and getting a dopamine rush from it.
Stuff like saying how stupid and simple minded the male mind is in a story about boys underperforming girls in school. Things that are rooted in resentment but not directly tied to any asshole in particular, and wouldn’t be considered acceptable if they were flipped the other way around. Another one I saw recently was that men should be subjected to genital mutilation so they know what it’s like (which is a good one considering how normalized circumcision is). Cruelty for the sake of cruelty. Does it come from resentment? Maybe, but since when was it appropriate behavior to take our grievances out on everyone?
What I’m saying is that there’s a lot of genuine bullying out there that can’t be justified as a reaction to others.
Grownups of all genders aren’t taking responsibility for things they say. It’s like everyone’s turning into their own little Donald trump and can say whatever fucked shit that’s on their mind, and their in-group immediately validates, excuses and reinforces it.
How many black folks do you see bragging on social media about committing crimes and getting endorsements from other black people? The way posts like KillAllMen or any other such posts get traction on social media?
Based on your statements, I'd say "Enough" means at least one so that you can claim some moral high ground.
Which in turn make some men feel alienated and push them towards content creators like Peterson or Tate.
Which, as you say, is a choice. Their choice. They can either suck it up and not take a minority of vocal extremists as gospel, or they can become the same because they're insecure.
Listen, if I have to specifically follow what these feminists say about 'man-hating' content that is going viral, then that's not very useful.
Because even if I know these feminists don't agree what's being posted, their views have low visibility compared to misandrist content which doesn't help the victimization that other young men are feeling.
If a black person robs your house and he says "I robbed your house because I'm black", you're gonna hate black people because they commit crimes. The thing is, no one says "I robbed your house because I'm black" because it doesn't make sense and it's not true.
However, the feminists that hate men do say "I hate men because I'm feminist", which make a lot of men think that feminism is about hating men, before they have to chance to learn what feminism is really about. Specially considering that the "I hate men" feminists are very loud.
The name doesn't make it easier though. This doesn't happen in English, but in spanish (my language) when a man does sexism it's called "machismo". And we say "machismo" way more often than "sexismo". To someone unaware, "feminist" seems like "the women version of machismo".
In my opinion we should stop using the term "feminism" and change to a more accurate term that isn't misleading. In the western modern society (not the USA, abortion banning troglodytes) women don't really need that radical of change anymore, we're almost there in gender equality, can't risk going back by making young men afraid of the movement just because the name is no longer accurate.
However, the feminists that hate men do say “I hate men because I’m feminist”, which make a lot of men think that feminism is about hating men, before they have to chance to learn what feminism is really about.
Then maybe they should stop wallowing in ignorance and listen to something other than an extreme. It's still their choice to react rather than think about their positions. Making someone else change because you're too scared to do it first is lazy and cheap. There's no way to scream a rational position like there is an extreme position, and you're never going to get rid of them by reacting as they do.
Stop using them as an excuse for your unwillingness to change. They're not at fault for your choices.
I suggest you read my comment again. It seems like you are replying to another dude. I don't know what my "unwillingness to change" refers to.
I am a feminist suggesting that we should change the name from "feminism" to any other thing like "gender equality" or whatever.
Because a lot of people are politically lazy. They don't care to inform themselves about what "feminism" means, they just heard their Andrew tate telling them that it's a women-run society or whatever bullshit. Which would make sense if it's the first time you heard the term, it's right there "fem-something".
It's much easier to convince people that A means equal rights if A is called "equal rights". It works too well, some people even think that china is communist because it's ran by the communist party, and that the DPRK is democratic because the D stands for democratic.
I agree, but words are important. Men will find it hard to relate to a movement called feminism. It's not just being uninformed. It's being excluded by the language.
I don't think so. The Hispanics would have to travel a long way to be an illegal immigrant in my country to steal my job. Why wouldn't they just go somewhere closer to LATAM?
This is true, but it’s just like how the alt-right morphed. With the internet these days, and with social media more specifically, there are these identities wherein people try to out-____ each other: out-“leftist” each other, out-“conservative” each other, etc. So, with feminism, people wanted to “out feminist” the other feminists. For strangers. On the internet. To think they’re more hardcore. It’s fuckin dumb, but it’s fuckin everywhere, and within every ideology. You think women deserve equal rights? Well I believe women deserve REPARATIONS! You think women deserve reparations? Well, I hate MEN!
Similarly: “you think we should stop immigration? Well I think we should kill all non whites!”
No ideology is immune. I’ve seen it in every circle.
There will always be idiots, trying to claim an ideology for their own image, and who utterly misunderstand the idea itself. To be fair, though, some of those people just have really personal reasons for being drawn to an idea in the first place, and their emotions get the best of them. However, that doesn’t excuse the behavior. Because racists use the same logic. “I was robbed by black men…BLACK MEN ARE ALL CRIMINALS!” It’s boiler plate prejudice. Those feminists that hate men are falling into the same trap as racists. They generalize and slip under the current of hate. Now, it’s hard to start at the same place, because feminism has some logical backbone while racism doesn’t. But the catalyst is the same: prejudice and hate.
Yeah, some feminists hate men, but they’re small minded people who like the concept of claiming an ideology for themselves and who bastardize and undercut the goals. It’s sad, but it’s true. And it’s everywhere. The problem with it is that people who dislike the original, sound idea, will use those idiots as effigies to paint the entire idea with the worst brush available. It’s a shame.
I hate it, I consider myself a feminist because I want to claw the term back, not give it up to some assholes. It's feminist to give men grace and understanding because vulnerability isn't a feminine trait, it's a human one. It's feminists to demand paternity leave because new mothers shouldn't be carrying the entire weight of child rearing along with a job while men are obligated to miss formative years of their child's existence. Etc, etc
I wish I could push that message and blot out all the genuine misandrists (who almost invariably are also transphobic), but it's an uphill battle when the assholes on the other side only give voice to those people to prove their point.
They used to just be on the Internet, but that brainrot is reaching gen z. Half of my younger female coworkers openly talk shit about men.(then pull the "oh I don't mean you" card when I give them the side eye. Like that's less offensive)
If the possibility that a man will treat a woman badly (everything between belittling and straight up murder) is high enough, it is a life insurance to expect every man to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Its the same logic as "don't talk to cops".
I've seen other men giving me answers to questions my wife asked to many times. Of course thats not dangerous, but thats still asshole-behaviour and you can recognise a whole lot of this behaviour everyday, if you just listen to your female coworkers instead of giving them the side eye.
They probably wouldn't feel the need to "not-you" you, if they KNEW you are not a possible asshole.
If the possibility that a man will treat a woman badly (everything between belittling and straight up murder) is high enough, it is a life insurance to expect every man to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Its the same logic as "don't talk to cops".
No, it's not life insurance. It's pathological paranoia that doesn't effectively improve one's safety. If you go through life with an incredibly simplistic model of judgement, where any interaction with men or cops is dangerous until proven otherwise, you are simply trading one set of risks for another. There are many situations where a certain cop or man could be in a position to help or protect you, and you might fail to recognize that.
If you're not making any distinction between "belittling and straight up murder", then you're really just handicapping your ability to distinguish people who are actually violently dangerous from people who are just normal people. Most people act like assholes on a regular basis, but that doesn't make them dangerous.
The fear of men is vastly over exaggerated. Men are still far more likely to be assaulted or murdered than women. Even when women are attacked, it's rarely a stranger.
Tons of men I've known endlessly talk shit about women. It's a standard feature of our species to talk shit about the opposite gender. It's a standard of our species to talk shit in general really.
Talking shit about a person is one thing, grouping people into categories and denigrating or dehumanizing the whole category is another.
I'm not saying either are good, but the whole grouping people and creating an us vs them attitude is very harmful to society. Much more than talking shit about Joe because he's being a dick. There are very few situations where it's useful such as when one group by its definition harms the other, such as slave owners, corporate executives with a fiduciary duty for profit over employees and customers, etc... In any situation where there is nuance it's best to avoid making groups.
Hate misandry or misogyny without projecting it as a feature common to all men or women or feminists even if you feel a large portion of them exhibit that feature.
My problem isn't per se in the fact that Cleese is transphobic, it's the fact that saying to a transphobe "hey, you're like this moronic character that was created by a transphobe" might be taken as a compliment by said transphobes, and so not have the intended effect.
The US Supreme Court is an illegitimate, unelected governing body wielding about as much power as all of our elected congresspeople combined. It is one of the reasons that the United States is not considered a full democracy.
The SCOTUS has that much power by design: to create checks and balances. It literally is intended to have as much power as the executive and congressional branches.
Yes, the founding fathers were deeply worried about peasants voting to redistribute wealth or give themselves civil liberties. These were the impulses that needed checking and balancing. Hence the existence of a Senate and a Supreme Court. Democratic scholars know this, yet schoolchildren continue to be taught incorrect information.
“Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. […] Democracy, will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes, and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure and every one of these will soon mold itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues, and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."
John Adams (1807)
"Too many... love pure democracy dearly. They seem not to consider that pure democracy, like pure rum, easily produces intoxication, and with it a thousand mad pranks and fooleries.”
First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay
"If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy."
Hamilton (1787)
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Are pregnant women going to send them on vacations, pay for their summer homes, and give sweet jobs to their relatives? No? Then fuck them, go on and die. They should have been richer.
As far as 3, you really think that’s a hill he wants to die on? I know some state legislatures have killed similar bills, but a governor expending political capital to veto it?
msmagazine.com
Hot