God, this shit pisses me off so fucking much because it’s this bullshit-ass pop-philosophy that liberals have settled into that pushes away young men and perpetuates the patriarchal bullshit in the world. “tHeY’rE jUsT pUnChInG uP” NOBODY SHOULD BE PUNCHING ANYBODY. The problem is the fucking system, not who is doing the punching. Libs get so wrapped up in anything but the system that they make the problem worse. Like the popularization of the term “mansplaining”. Oh neat, so now the problem women face about being seen as competent is about men. Because, of course, feminism didn’t come about to improve the treatment of women, but to point out who the bad people are. The would you rather for women about running across a bear or a random man is about how man worse than bear, not that women feel so egregiously unsafe in their daily lives. Libs are so far up their own ass, they’d rather create another fucking problem than actually engage in being part of the solution. Libs will see one problem and be like “but what if it could be two problem?” Libs see women get mistreated for no reason then go “men should suffer, too”, then pat themselves on the back because now everyone hates everyone, no matter the gender[bullshit-ass heart emojis].
They have to play men and women against each other. Or else they would have to explain how systemic patriarchy manages to self-replicate despite worsening the lives of nearly all of the people (of all genders) who suffer under it. And the answer to that is: capitalism. Which is not an acceptable answer for the donor class.
You and I seem to have the same opinion about this.
Feminism has basically been co opted into a kind of psuedo liberal, privileged, socially acceptable because it calls itself feminism, form of misandry.
Like this OP image person would be the same person who would likely call a straight dude gay, as an insult, because he declined a second date with her.
Its wild because… like… these people are ostensibly ‘liberal’, they’ll tell you they are, but they’re actually not.
They believe in the concept of equal rights and opportunity, universally, for all… to the same the same extent that conservatives believe in Democracy or States Rights.
They don’t actually believe in them.
They believe in them as rheotically useful dialects to speak about things from… but they don’t actually believe in the actual principles.
Like we’ve gotten to the point in politics and society where everyone is so thoroughly full of shit, that we have an illiberal center, roughly, that then just pantomimes different flavors of rhetorical style… and then on the extreme ends you have people that actually believe in any principles beyond ‘Im awesome and my team rocks’.
We are so fucking cooked lol, the owners have divided and conquered our minds extremely thoroughly.
Feminism has basically been co opted into a kind of psuedo liberal, privileged, socially acceptable because it calls itself feminism, form of misandry.
Has it? Or is this just what people opposed to actual feminism claim feminism is all about?
There is a feminist subgroup here on lemmy and it does not look anything like this post.
There are many people who call themselves feminists who fit the description I gave.
“Many people” who behave like this and call themselves feminist does not mean “Feminism has basically been co opted”.
My point is that there are groups of political actors that either fabricate or boost the few examples of this type of behaviour to radicalize young and impressionable men into right winged behaviour/spaces.
But the word has become multifarious and muddled, leading to mass confusion and needless hostility.
So can making a post claiming that this is predominant behaviour, or that this is something that should redefine feminism.
Can you name a single famous or culturally significant misandrist that a non terminally online individual would know? Because I could name quite a few famous and culturally significant/powerful men who are actively misogynist on a daily basis.
No actually that is basically what co-opting is or means.
Who said this was ‘predominant’ behavior, of all feminists?
Not me.
Who claimed that the definition I gave was of what I consider real feminism?
I specifically set it apart, gave it a new conceptual descriptive name, as well as definition.
Nobody at any point said that misogyny is not a prevalent problem as well, with very prominent proponents.
I’m not gonna be talking to you anymore, because you’re apparently not capable of engaging in this discussion in good faith, you’re either consciously or unconsciously putting a crap ton of words into my mouth that I did not say.
actually that is basically what co-opting is or means.
To successfully take over or assimilate something you typically require more representation than the opposition. You claiming that feminism has been co-opted implies that there are a large number of people behaving this way.
Can you name a single famous or culturally significant misandrist that a non terminally online individual would know?
I don’t think we’re quite as similar as you might think because I do take issue with the semantic framing made here. If it contains any form of gender discrimination, it’s NOT feminism, full stop. I don’t think the rise of casual discrimination against men is something done consciously, but rather a poor interpretation and extrapolation of female rage. Rather than a deliberate sabotage of feminist philosophy, this is just another example of people having no fucking clue what they’re talking about in any field of philosophy, and a further illustration of the great divide between pop-philosophy and where actual academic philosophy stands today. I deliberately used the example of the term “mansplaining”, since this is a term that absolutely did not come from feminist philosophy and illustrates how pop-philosophy completely misses the point. It’s stupid team-sport bullshit that doesn’t belong in philosophy of social justice.
There are far fewer legitimate believers in the anti-men movement than it appears, especially on the internet. The problem, hence my rant, lies in the rhetorical drift of platformed “feminism” of the democratic party in America. As someone else was quite apt to point out, it’s another corrupted offering of capitalism. To “empower” women to be “girl-bosses”, “queens”, and “ackshually gurls rool da wurld”. It’s the system trying to pit us against one another yet again via some kinda ‘gender competition’. My frustration is in the very real effect this rhetorical bullshit has made on younger generations of men pivoting hard to the right and some into the arms of the “manosphere”. Liberals once again aiding fascists.
And what is honestly my biggest contention with your take; we’re not cooked. That’s silly. All this bullshit? This too shall pass. Legitimate feminism continues to gain ground and put in the hard work. Many men’s liberation movements are beginning to find they actually have fundamentally mutual goals with feminists and are joining the fight. The dipshit ruling class is getting dumber, lazier, and more complacent than ever. More people are joining the fight, and boy has the media been quiet about just how big, angry, and unified the people have gotten. I don’t rage about this shit because it’s losing us the fight, I rage because a better future has never looked so clear and worth fighting for.
God, this shit pisses me off so fucking much because it’s this bullshit-ass pop-philosophy that liberals have settled into that pushes away young men and perpetuates the patriarchal bullshit in the world.
To start with… Have you ever even met anyone in real life that spoke this way? I feel like people on lemmy are so quick to see a post from an unknown random on the internet and speak about it as if it’s an epidemic.
The problem is the fucking system, not who is doing the punching. Libs get so wrapped up in anything but the system that they make the problem worse. Like the popularization of the term “mansplaining”. Oh neat, so now the problem women face about being seen as competent is about men.
I think the critique is aimed at a functional aspect of the system. You seem to acknowledge the patriarchy, which is a critique of a hierarchical system that is largely controlled by and benefits men. I don’t see how agitating against mansplaining is anything but critical towards people talking over or diminishing the voices of women.
Because, of course, feminism didn’t come about to improve the treatment of women, but to point out who the bad people are. The would you rather for women about running across a bear or a random man is about how man worse than bear, not that women feel so egregiously unsafe in their daily lives.
How do you change a system without being critical about aspects of the system that require change?
The man vs bear is definitely an allegory about how women feel unsafe due to the discrepancy of power between the sexes, in both physical and societal power.
Libs see women get mistreated for no reason then go “men should suffer, too”, then pat themselves on the back because now everyone hates everyone, no matter the gender[bullshit-ass heart emojis].
I think the point is to highlight the discrepancy between the experiences of men and women. For example the man vs bear scenario isn’t claiming that men too should be more afraid to run across a random woman than a bear. It’s a way to highlight their perspective, the point is we should live in a society where women do not have to feel like they could become prey to unjust violence from a random man.
I think most of my sarcasm didn’t translate well here. I should know better, this being the internet/text and all. I’ll try to be more clear about my stance because I don’t think we fundamentally disagree, but I suspect there may be a point or two we may want to make more granular.
As a response to your first paragraph(sorry, on mobile), yes, I legitimately have met many people irl who use this rhetoric, though, as you point out, it’s not an epidemic, nor do I think there are many “true believers”, so-to-speak, as much as it’s casual, unthinking discrimination. Admittedly, they skew young and college age and will typically correct course if explicitly addressed. Those that double down are usually the youngest and/or self-described assholes.
As for the patriarchy, yeah, that’s the primary problem. My point is to primarily focus on the system(the patriarchy) as the problem, rather than people (men). After all, many women will perpetuate and even sometimes benefit from the patriarchy. Hence my contention with the term “mansplaining”, as I attempted to point out this takes the focus away from the problem of the optics of women’s competence and focuses on men specifically looking down on women. It’s a crude and unhelpful pop-philosophy term that admittedly was deliberately used precisely because it’s an emotionally defended term of pop-feminist philosophy and is a good illustration of the gulf between pop-philosophy and where actual academic philosophy stands. The problem isn’t that a man is doubting someone else as the term would imply, but that a woman is seen as incapable of competence. The goal of women’s liberation is co-opted by pointing the finger at men. I think the nefarious reason this term is so sticky is because it is indeed rooted in real life examples of the most common optical occurrence of perpetuating doubt about women’s competence. And as the primary point of my rant illustrates, liberal rhetoric has crept into blaming/attacking men at the expense of the goal of gender liberation.
Now, I should be very clear about what my focus on the system rather than the people is/isn’t doing; focus on the patriarchy as the problem rather than on men as the problem will indeed still call out the actions of men more often. However, what this primarily accomplishes as a direct criticism of pop-philosophy is separate the action from the actor to more accurately describe why the action is wrong as opposed to who is doing the wrong. Rather than trying to root out problematic groups of people, now we more accurately root out problematic behavior amongst all of us. Pop-philosophy would rather you just lazily say “ugh, men, amirite?”
The allegory of man vs bear in the woods isn’t lost on me. I think my sarcasm got a bit too thick in the characterization of liberals missing the point with it. I think it’s a great illustration of demonstrating reality that even when recognizing the problem is indeed patriarchy and not men, women would still be wise to pick the bear over the random man in the woods due to how the patriarchy manifests itself in social power dynamics. Most men probably are relatively safe, but the unsafe men pose enough of a risk that it’s impossible to ignore. This is definitely a perspective all men should do their best to come to understand about the very real experiences of women. However, my point in bringing this particular allegory up was to show the unhinged nature of the careless use of inaccurate language by liberals and pop-philosophy in saying it’s all men when confronted by those who didn’t understand the point. In looking at my post, I see now that it was very unclear I moved on from the allegory completely at the end of that sentence.
My point at the end there was to illustrate how dumb the rhetoric of attacking men is when considering the assumed premise of the rhetoric is pro-feminist = anti-men. Now everyone is miserable in discrimination because of their gender and women’s liberation dies in great irony. When in reality feminism does indeed include men’s liberation from patriarchy. While men are the primary beneficiaries of patriarchy, they also face discrimination because of patriarchy as well, obviously to a much lesser degree than women.
So, to sum up my rant: the anti-men rhetoric becoming casually included in pop-philosophy is problematic because:
It is fundamentally anti-feminist to be anti-men.
Being anti-men once again distracts from the actual goal of gender liberation.
Pushes away men who would otherwise be allies and even personally benefit from feminism.
And to reiterate the points you brought up that I do agree warrant emphasis that I originally failed to mention:
This isn’t an epidemic, nor are there really that many “true believers” in anti-men rhetoric. Loud online assholes are usually the larger offending demographic.
While I have indeed heard this rhetoric unironically irl fairly often, the perpetrators were usually young, immature, and not usually full of conviction. I suspect most have/will grow out of it.
Much of this rhetoric comes from Hollywood, the democratic party, and online trolls. I think naming these sources speaks enough about how much of this problem is real versus manufactured.
And, admittedly, I think this is probably the point to come after me about: the problem is more manifest in how the rhetoric is currently creeping into casual conversation and unspoken premises rather than an actual intentional belief system. The problem is more rhetorical drift than ideological.
As for the patriarchy, yeah, that’s the primary problem. My point is to primarily focus on the system(the patriarchy) as the problem, rather than people (men). After all, many women will perpetuate and even sometimes benefit from the patriarchy.
So this is really the source of my confusion when it comes to your response. How does one go about dismantling a hierarchical system without being critical towards the people who operate and reinforce the system?
To me that would be like saying yes chattle slavery is bad, but we shouldn’t attack southern slave holders, after all plenty of northern cloth makers profit from cotton produced in the south.
separate the action from the actor to more accurately describe why the action is wrong as opposed to who is doing the wrong.
Sticking with my analogy, I don’t think non slavers have to be explained that they are not at fault for the actions of slave holders. No one is claiming that labeling all male communication is mansplaining is okay.
inaccurate language by liberals and pop-philosophy in saying it’s all men when confronted by those who didn’t understand the point.
Again, i don’t think we should be blaming the people making the allegory for the people who fail to realize the point. In most cases those who interpret it as “all men” are not making that claim in good faith.
Going back to my analogy, it would be like saying many white plantation owners also owned slaves, and having someone claim that I said all white people in the south were slavers.
to illustrate how dumb the rhetoric of attacking men is when considering the assumed premise of the rhetoric is pro-feminist = anti-men.
I think this argument only aids the people who are conflating criticism against men practicing misogyny as criticism against all men.
When dismantling a hierarchical system like the patriarchy, there will be people who operate and benefit from that system who feel attacked. While I agree that we shouldn’t single out every male who vicariously benefits from the system(I am a male after all). I disagree that being critical towards individuals who actively work to reinforce that system is “anti-male”. Hierarchical system are human constructs, and thus the individuals who perpetuate that construct are inseparable from them. You can’t target the system without targeting the people who make and reinforce the system.
Your analogy is wildly off base. That is objectively NOT analogous, nor does your accusation that I’m saying men shouldn’t be “criticized” make any sense. Did you even actually read my comment(s)??? Slave holders as an identity is EXACTLY the problem of slavery as a system. You absolutely should go after slave holders as slave holders because them not changing their identity is the problem of the fucking system. You focus on the system of slavery, slave holders will be your first fucking target, holy shit. You know why you don’t go after men if you focus on the system of patriarchy? Because it’s not their identity as a man that perpetuates the patriarchy. That’s the fucking point of focus on the system; you identify the actual problem instead of creating a new one. And since I apparently have to spell out this simple fucking concept; the problems of the system of patriarchy include things like enforcement of gender roles, either explicitly or casually as an unspoken expectation. Obviously this includes the oppression of women by confinement to a house, in a perptual forced state of submission to others, restrictions on their own independence and self-expression, their value based on their appearance, and way too many etc. Men will mostly be there perpetrators and men will usually be most egregious perpetrators. But men will not be the only perpetrators. Women who want to take away every woman’s right to vote is someone who perpetuates and at least attempts to benefit from the patriarchy. Women who say a woman couldn’t be a president because she’ll nuke everyone as soon as it’s “that time of the month” are part of the problem in perpetuating the system of patriarchy. This is why I emphasize that it is indeed the fucking system, not people. The people are fully capable of NOT being a part of the problem. Even the most misogynist man in existence is perfectly capable of succumbing to reason and the most basic form of moral decency by no longer being a misogynist. If he’s no longer a misogynist and also no longer perpetuating the patriarchy, but he’s still a man, then holy fucking shit, it wasn’t because he was a man, now was it? It was precisely because of the fucking system that he was a problem.
However, if you attribute the problems of the system of patriarchy to men instead of the system, suddenly you start getting dumbfuck rhetoric like the post above. Now, instead of working on solutions to the problem of patriarchy with men, now the men are the target. The line is not really that fine or blurry, but pop-philosophy is stupid as fuck and sure doesn’t see a difference between “fuck the patriarchy” and “fuck men”, because pop-philosophy reasons like a toddler and is heavily funded by the rich fucks that want us to fight each other instead of turning on their greedy, destructive asses. You know why they fund it? Because people fucking buy it. And this rhetorical bullshit has been creeping into liberal rhetoric in the recent past as some team sports bullshit to differentiate themselves from the “others”. And this has lead to pushing young men to the right in the alienating language of making the oppression of women a part of men’s identity. Some of it is manufactured, sure, but a growing amount of it is not. It’s the wrong message for these young men to take from this, yeah no shit, but that’s what political tone does if you’re that careless. It shouldn’t work like that and we shouldn’t have to soften the message to appeal to more people, hard agree, but welcome to fucking politics since fucking always.
So, to sum up:
The system is the problem, not the people of the system.
Blaming it on the system does NOT absolve anyone of wrongdoing. In fact, it more accurately points out who is doing the fuckups.
The Patriarchy =/= Men
Attacking men =/= feminism
Casual sexism toward men as a growing part of liberal rhetoric has pushed young men toward right wing dickheads. This is a bad thing and everyone is wrong here.
The remedy to point 5 is to consistently point out that the problem is patriarchy and everyone suffers for it. You don’t attack the rhetoric, you make it irrelevant.
To correct your analogy, it’s like blaming slavery on white people. It just obfuscates the actual root of the problem and creates a new fucking problem with a dumbshit red herring. You blame the system of slavery, not white people. The slave owners are mostly white? Cool, most of the people you’ll be fighting will just so happen to be white. But it’s the fucking system of slavery you want to abolish, not white people. Blame it on white people because it’s white people things? Well shit, you’re not nearly as bad as a fucking slaver, but does it make you feel good to use their logic?
You focus on the system of slavery, slave holders will be your first fucking target, holy shit. You know why you don’t go after men if you focus on the system of patriarchy? Because it’s not their identity as a man that perpetuates the patriarchy. That’s the fucking point of focus on the system; you identify the actual problem instead of creating a new one.
Right… No one has established that all men are being blamed for the system of the patriarchy. I specified that men who actively participate and benefit from reinforcing the hierarchy should be criticized.
However, if you attribute the problems of the system of patriarchy to men instead of the system, suddenly you start getting dumbfuck rhetoric like the post above.
Again… I never said to blame only and all men? Just that some men who benefit and perpetuate the problem will justly deserve criticism. I feel like you are trying to conflate that with me saying all men deserve to be blamed
The system is the problem, not the people of the system.
So this argument seems to negate your prior claims. You agreed that the slavers should be targeted for the system of slavery. Isn’t that people of the system being a problem?
Blaming it on the system does NOT absolve anyone of wrongdoing
So certain people within the system are the problem?
The Patriarchy =/= Men
I never claimed that the patriarchy = men. Just that men overwhelmingly benefit and control it.
Attacking men =/= feminism
Attacking certain men guilty of perpetuating the patriarchy can be an act of feminist praxis
Casual sexism toward men as a growing part of liberal rhetoric has pushed young men toward right wing dickheads. This is a bad thing and everyone is wrong here.
And conflating criticism towards certain men who deserve it is often being conflated as sexism as a way to push young men towards right winged dickheads.
patriarchy and everyone suffers for it. You don’t attack the rhetoric, you make it irrelevant.
I mean that’s just incorrect. The people who actively perpetuate the patriarchy often benefit from it. Even the people whom do not actively perpetuate it passively benefit from it in certain ways.
correct your analogy, it’s like blaming slavery on white people. It just obfuscates the actual root of the problem and creates a new fucking problem with a dumbshit red herring.
I mean, that’s kinda the opposite of what I was saying even with your modifications. No one has said all men are being blamed but you. My point was that you cannot dismantle a system like slavery without targeting the people who participate and benefit from it. Which conflicts with your claim of only attacking the system, not the people. I think people blaming all white people for slavery is just as unlikely as someone blaming all men for the patriarchy.
But it’s the fucking system of slavery you want to abolish, not white people. Blame it on white people because it’s white people things? Well shit, you’re not nearly as bad as a fucking slaver, but does it make you feel good to use their logic?
Can you point out a single time I said I was blaming all men?
Says the person whose argument constantly contradicts itself. The only thing you consistently claim is that I am blaming men in general for the patriarchy despite saying things like
“I don’t think non slavers have to be explained that they are not at fault for the actions of slave holders. No one is claiming that labeling all male communication as mansplaining is okay”
But I guess hoping for honest discourse out of a person is a bit too much to ask from a person using ad hominems as a rebuttal. Have a good one.
I cannot think of a joke - except for puns - that do not have a victim.
A newly wed couple is going on a 14-day cruise for their honeymoon. The husband pulls over on the way to the Port. “Why are you stopping?” asks the wife, “Oh I’m just picking up some condoms from this pharmacy - although we just got married we said we’d wait a year before starting a family?” “OK, but pick me up some dramamine too so I don’t get seasick.” So the husband goes to the pharmacist and asks for a 14 condoms and 14 dramamine tablets. The pharmacist says “If it makes you feel so sick, why do you keep doing it?”
Men in general / the husband is the victim of the punch line here. Or maybe pharmacists?
Much like dramatic narrative, from Shakespeare to Ted Lasso, all rising tension is resolved by a winner and loser.
I think you completely missed the point. “Nobody should be punching anybody” isn’t about jokes, but discrimination. The answer to discrimination against women isn’t to add discrimination against men. I’m pointing out that feminism is about liberation from discrimination rather than redirecting it to the “right group”. The system should be the focus, not the people.
Also, it’s not all victim this, winner that. It’s not pie. Everyone can win, everyone can lose. Again, it’s the system that’s the problem, not the people.
I’m speaking dramaturgically. There’s no literal Romeo and Juliet getting hurt, but in the story they both die.
That’s what is meant by “punching.”
Every rising action is met by a falling action. In a comedy format the tension rises to a punch line, where the punching happens, the fall is the release of laughter, and then resetting for the next joke.
it’s not just jokes (again, excepting word play) - all narrative forms adhere to this. The concept of all stories is essentially based on conflict, where a platform is established, corrupted and reset.
“Punching down” means making jokes at the expense of vulnerable people. But all jokes have a punch line of some description- so it is impossible to be both a joke and have no resolution.
Some surreal humor relies on subverting this form somewhat, but the tension is usually released in other ways (i.e. a “straightman” or “fish out of water”, commenting on it or else a structural change like cutting to a different scene)
There’s no punching done in this joke, no winner or loser. It’s just observational humor. The pharmacist draws a mistaken conclusion from his observation.
If Cinderella, Cinderella is the loser to the step sisters, the winner to the prince’s affection, the loser to time constraints, the winner to the final slipper fit.
It’s a method of discussing rising and falling action in Aristotlean poetics w/r/t narrative mores.
I mean it’s how our brains are wired after roughly 10,000 years of oral storytelling tradition, and you can draw a direct line of storytelling methodology in most cultures back about 4000 years. These methods are what constructed the odyssey, the Iliad, the aeneid, the plays of Aesceleus, Euripedes, Sophecles, Aristophanes… all the way up to modern comic books, superhero movies and telenovellas.
First of all, you’re telling me aesceleus euripedes et al were talking about “winners” and “losers” as the fundamental dynamic of literature?
And second of all, that’s all one western tradition you’re talking about. And i was raised on it too read translations of the classics and all that. But now that im older, ive since realized that the legacy of the ancient Greeks through the Renaissance to the modern West is simply not innate to humans, it’s just the way one specific culture evolved.
One big realization for me was that all the characters in the Illiad are colossal pieces of shit slave owners who are more concerned with first their ego and second the monetary value of their enslaved humans kept as chattel. (With the possible exception of Hector, who seemed to really put others above himself and was doing what he thought was necessary to save his people.). And yet walk into any university in the west and they indoctrinate freshmen with the idea that these were honorable men we should hold up as role models.
First of all, you’re telling me aesceleus euripedes et al were talking about “winners” and “losers” as the fundamental dynamic of literature?
No, I’m saying that when we as modern readers discuss dramaturgical theory, we recognize that a key element of the path to a resolution of a narrative necessitates conflict in the vast majority of narrative theory. Can you name a narrative without conflict?
now that im older, ive since realized that the legacy of the ancient Greeks through the Renaissance to the modern West is simply not innate to humans, it’s just the way one specific culture evolved.
Which cultures are you referring to that doesn’t have stories that follow a narrative path, or have narrative paths without tension and resolution?
I’m afraid I can’t see why Achilles being a bad person disproves that narratives have a structure and across cultural and language barriers those structures hold for at least a few thousand years.
God, this shit pisses me off so fucking much because it’s this bullshit-ass pop-philosophy that liberals have settled into that pushes away young men and perpetuates the patriarchal bullshit in the world. “tHeY’rE jUsT pUnChInG uP” NOBODY SHOULD BE PUNCHING ANYBODY. The problem is the fucking system, not who is doing the punching. Libs get so wrapped up in anything but the system that they make the problem worse. Like the popularization of the term “mansplaining”. Oh neat, so now the problem women face about being seen as competent is about men. Because, of course, feminism didn’t come about to improve the treatment of women, but to point out who the bad people are. The would you rather for women about running across a bear or a random man is about how man worse than bear, not that women feel so egregiously unsafe in their daily lives. Libs are so far up their own ass, they’d rather create another fucking problem than actually engage in being part of the solution. Libs will see one problem and be like “but what if it could be two problem?” Libs see women get mistreated for no reason then go “men should suffer, too”, then pat themselves on the back because now everyone hates everyone, no matter the gender[bullshit-ass heart emojis].
Fuck the patriarchy.
They have to play men and women against each other. Or else they would have to explain how systemic patriarchy manages to self-replicate despite worsening the lives of nearly all of the people (of all genders) who suffer under it. And the answer to that is: capitalism. Which is not an acceptable answer for the donor class.
You and I seem to have the same opinion about this.
Feminism has basically been co opted into a kind of psuedo liberal, privileged, socially acceptable because it calls itself feminism, form of misandry.
Like this OP image person would be the same person who would likely call a straight dude gay, as an insult, because he declined a second date with her.
Its wild because… like… these people are ostensibly ‘liberal’, they’ll tell you they are, but they’re actually not.
They believe in the concept of equal rights and opportunity, universally, for all… to the same the same extent that conservatives believe in Democracy or States Rights.
They don’t actually believe in them.
They believe in them as rheotically useful dialects to speak about things from… but they don’t actually believe in the actual principles.
Like we’ve gotten to the point in politics and society where everyone is so thoroughly full of shit, that we have an illiberal center, roughly, that then just pantomimes different flavors of rhetorical style… and then on the extreme ends you have people that actually believe in any principles beyond ‘Im awesome and my team rocks’.
We are so fucking cooked lol, the owners have divided and conquered our minds extremely thoroughly.
Has it? Or is this just what people opposed to actual feminism claim feminism is all about?
There is a feminist subgroup here on lemmy and it does not look anything like this post.
There are many people who call themselves feminists who fit the description I gave.
Lemmy is not the entire world.
If those people aren’t real feminists to you, then you and I agree.
But the word has become multifarious and muddled, leading to mass confusion and needless hostility.
“Many people” who behave like this and call themselves feminist does not mean “Feminism has basically been co opted”.
My point is that there are groups of political actors that either fabricate or boost the few examples of this type of behaviour to radicalize young and impressionable men into right winged behaviour/spaces.
So can making a post claiming that this is predominant behaviour, or that this is something that should redefine feminism.
Can you name a single famous or culturally significant misandrist that a non terminally online individual would know? Because I could name quite a few famous and culturally significant/powerful men who are actively misogynist on a daily basis.
No actually that is basically what co-opting is or means.
Who said this was ‘predominant’ behavior, of all feminists?
Not me.
Who claimed that the definition I gave was of what I consider real feminism?
I specifically set it apart, gave it a new conceptual descriptive name, as well as definition.
Nobody at any point said that misogyny is not a prevalent problem as well, with very prominent proponents.
I’m not gonna be talking to you anymore, because you’re apparently not capable of engaging in this discussion in good faith, you’re either consciously or unconsciously putting a crap ton of words into my mouth that I did not say.
To successfully take over or assimilate something you typically require more representation than the opposition. You claiming that feminism has been co-opted implies that there are a large number of people behaving this way.
I’m guessing you don’t have an answer for this?
I don’t think we’re quite as similar as you might think because I do take issue with the semantic framing made here. If it contains any form of gender discrimination, it’s NOT feminism, full stop. I don’t think the rise of casual discrimination against men is something done consciously, but rather a poor interpretation and extrapolation of female rage. Rather than a deliberate sabotage of feminist philosophy, this is just another example of people having no fucking clue what they’re talking about in any field of philosophy, and a further illustration of the great divide between pop-philosophy and where actual academic philosophy stands today. I deliberately used the example of the term “mansplaining”, since this is a term that absolutely did not come from feminist philosophy and illustrates how pop-philosophy completely misses the point. It’s stupid team-sport bullshit that doesn’t belong in philosophy of social justice.
There are far fewer legitimate believers in the anti-men movement than it appears, especially on the internet. The problem, hence my rant, lies in the rhetorical drift of platformed “feminism” of the democratic party in America. As someone else was quite apt to point out, it’s another corrupted offering of capitalism. To “empower” women to be “girl-bosses”, “queens”, and “ackshually gurls rool da wurld”. It’s the system trying to pit us against one another yet again via some kinda ‘gender competition’. My frustration is in the very real effect this rhetorical bullshit has made on younger generations of men pivoting hard to the right and some into the arms of the “manosphere”. Liberals once again aiding fascists.
And what is honestly my biggest contention with your take; we’re not cooked. That’s silly. All this bullshit? This too shall pass. Legitimate feminism continues to gain ground and put in the hard work. Many men’s liberation movements are beginning to find they actually have fundamentally mutual goals with feminists and are joining the fight. The dipshit ruling class is getting dumber, lazier, and more complacent than ever. More people are joining the fight, and boy has the media been quiet about just how big, angry, and unified the people have gotten. I don’t rage about this shit because it’s losing us the fight, I rage because a better future has never looked so clear and worth fighting for.
To start with… Have you ever even met anyone in real life that spoke this way? I feel like people on lemmy are so quick to see a post from an unknown random on the internet and speak about it as if it’s an epidemic.
I think the critique is aimed at a functional aspect of the system. You seem to acknowledge the patriarchy, which is a critique of a hierarchical system that is largely controlled by and benefits men. I don’t see how agitating against mansplaining is anything but critical towards people talking over or diminishing the voices of women.
How do you change a system without being critical about aspects of the system that require change?
The man vs bear is definitely an allegory about how women feel unsafe due to the discrepancy of power between the sexes, in both physical and societal power.
I think the point is to highlight the discrepancy between the experiences of men and women. For example the man vs bear scenario isn’t claiming that men too should be more afraid to run across a random woman than a bear. It’s a way to highlight their perspective, the point is we should live in a society where women do not have to feel like they could become prey to unjust violence from a random man.
I think most of my sarcasm didn’t translate well here. I should know better, this being the internet/text and all. I’ll try to be more clear about my stance because I don’t think we fundamentally disagree, but I suspect there may be a point or two we may want to make more granular.
As a response to your first paragraph(sorry, on mobile), yes, I legitimately have met many people irl who use this rhetoric, though, as you point out, it’s not an epidemic, nor do I think there are many “true believers”, so-to-speak, as much as it’s casual, unthinking discrimination. Admittedly, they skew young and college age and will typically correct course if explicitly addressed. Those that double down are usually the youngest and/or self-described assholes.
As for the patriarchy, yeah, that’s the primary problem. My point is to primarily focus on the system(the patriarchy) as the problem, rather than people (men). After all, many women will perpetuate and even sometimes benefit from the patriarchy. Hence my contention with the term “mansplaining”, as I attempted to point out this takes the focus away from the problem of the optics of women’s competence and focuses on men specifically looking down on women. It’s a crude and unhelpful pop-philosophy term that admittedly was deliberately used precisely because it’s an emotionally defended term of pop-feminist philosophy and is a good illustration of the gulf between pop-philosophy and where actual academic philosophy stands. The problem isn’t that a man is doubting someone else as the term would imply, but that a woman is seen as incapable of competence. The goal of women’s liberation is co-opted by pointing the finger at men. I think the nefarious reason this term is so sticky is because it is indeed rooted in real life examples of the most common optical occurrence of perpetuating doubt about women’s competence. And as the primary point of my rant illustrates, liberal rhetoric has crept into blaming/attacking men at the expense of the goal of gender liberation.
Now, I should be very clear about what my focus on the system rather than the people is/isn’t doing; focus on the patriarchy as the problem rather than on men as the problem will indeed still call out the actions of men more often. However, what this primarily accomplishes as a direct criticism of pop-philosophy is separate the action from the actor to more accurately describe why the action is wrong as opposed to who is doing the wrong. Rather than trying to root out problematic groups of people, now we more accurately root out problematic behavior amongst all of us. Pop-philosophy would rather you just lazily say “ugh, men, amirite?”
The allegory of man vs bear in the woods isn’t lost on me. I think my sarcasm got a bit too thick in the characterization of liberals missing the point with it. I think it’s a great illustration of demonstrating reality that even when recognizing the problem is indeed patriarchy and not men, women would still be wise to pick the bear over the random man in the woods due to how the patriarchy manifests itself in social power dynamics. Most men probably are relatively safe, but the unsafe men pose enough of a risk that it’s impossible to ignore. This is definitely a perspective all men should do their best to come to understand about the very real experiences of women. However, my point in bringing this particular allegory up was to show the unhinged nature of the careless use of inaccurate language by liberals and pop-philosophy in saying it’s all men when confronted by those who didn’t understand the point. In looking at my post, I see now that it was very unclear I moved on from the allegory completely at the end of that sentence.
My point at the end there was to illustrate how dumb the rhetoric of attacking men is when considering the assumed premise of the rhetoric is pro-feminist = anti-men. Now everyone is miserable in discrimination because of their gender and women’s liberation dies in great irony. When in reality feminism does indeed include men’s liberation from patriarchy. While men are the primary beneficiaries of patriarchy, they also face discrimination because of patriarchy as well, obviously to a much lesser degree than women.
So, to sum up my rant: the anti-men rhetoric becoming casually included in pop-philosophy is problematic because:
And to reiterate the points you brought up that I do agree warrant emphasis that I originally failed to mention:
So this is really the source of my confusion when it comes to your response. How does one go about dismantling a hierarchical system without being critical towards the people who operate and reinforce the system?
To me that would be like saying yes chattle slavery is bad, but we shouldn’t attack southern slave holders, after all plenty of northern cloth makers profit from cotton produced in the south.
Sticking with my analogy, I don’t think non slavers have to be explained that they are not at fault for the actions of slave holders. No one is claiming that labeling all male communication is mansplaining is okay.
Again, i don’t think we should be blaming the people making the allegory for the people who fail to realize the point. In most cases those who interpret it as “all men” are not making that claim in good faith.
Going back to my analogy, it would be like saying many white plantation owners also owned slaves, and having someone claim that I said all white people in the south were slavers.
I think this argument only aids the people who are conflating criticism against men practicing misogyny as criticism against all men.
When dismantling a hierarchical system like the patriarchy, there will be people who operate and benefit from that system who feel attacked. While I agree that we shouldn’t single out every male who vicariously benefits from the system(I am a male after all). I disagree that being critical towards individuals who actively work to reinforce that system is “anti-male”. Hierarchical system are human constructs, and thus the individuals who perpetuate that construct are inseparable from them. You can’t target the system without targeting the people who make and reinforce the system.
Your analogy is wildly off base. That is objectively NOT analogous, nor does your accusation that I’m saying men shouldn’t be “criticized” make any sense. Did you even actually read my comment(s)??? Slave holders as an identity is EXACTLY the problem of slavery as a system. You absolutely should go after slave holders as slave holders because them not changing their identity is the problem of the fucking system. You focus on the system of slavery, slave holders will be your first fucking target, holy shit. You know why you don’t go after men if you focus on the system of patriarchy? Because it’s not their identity as a man that perpetuates the patriarchy. That’s the fucking point of focus on the system; you identify the actual problem instead of creating a new one. And since I apparently have to spell out this simple fucking concept; the problems of the system of patriarchy include things like enforcement of gender roles, either explicitly or casually as an unspoken expectation. Obviously this includes the oppression of women by confinement to a house, in a perptual forced state of submission to others, restrictions on their own independence and self-expression, their value based on their appearance, and way too many etc. Men will mostly be there perpetrators and men will usually be most egregious perpetrators. But men will not be the only perpetrators. Women who want to take away every woman’s right to vote is someone who perpetuates and at least attempts to benefit from the patriarchy. Women who say a woman couldn’t be a president because she’ll nuke everyone as soon as it’s “that time of the month” are part of the problem in perpetuating the system of patriarchy. This is why I emphasize that it is indeed the fucking system, not people. The people are fully capable of NOT being a part of the problem. Even the most misogynist man in existence is perfectly capable of succumbing to reason and the most basic form of moral decency by no longer being a misogynist. If he’s no longer a misogynist and also no longer perpetuating the patriarchy, but he’s still a man, then holy fucking shit, it wasn’t because he was a man, now was it? It was precisely because of the fucking system that he was a problem.
However, if you attribute the problems of the system of patriarchy to men instead of the system, suddenly you start getting dumbfuck rhetoric like the post above. Now, instead of working on solutions to the problem of patriarchy with men, now the men are the target. The line is not really that fine or blurry, but pop-philosophy is stupid as fuck and sure doesn’t see a difference between “fuck the patriarchy” and “fuck men”, because pop-philosophy reasons like a toddler and is heavily funded by the rich fucks that want us to fight each other instead of turning on their greedy, destructive asses. You know why they fund it? Because people fucking buy it. And this rhetorical bullshit has been creeping into liberal rhetoric in the recent past as some team sports bullshit to differentiate themselves from the “others”. And this has lead to pushing young men to the right in the alienating language of making the oppression of women a part of men’s identity. Some of it is manufactured, sure, but a growing amount of it is not. It’s the wrong message for these young men to take from this, yeah no shit, but that’s what political tone does if you’re that careless. It shouldn’t work like that and we shouldn’t have to soften the message to appeal to more people, hard agree, but welcome to fucking politics since fucking always.
So, to sum up:
To correct your analogy, it’s like blaming slavery on white people. It just obfuscates the actual root of the problem and creates a new fucking problem with a dumbshit red herring. You blame the system of slavery, not white people. The slave owners are mostly white? Cool, most of the people you’ll be fighting will just so happen to be white. But it’s the fucking system of slavery you want to abolish, not white people. Blame it on white people because it’s white people things? Well shit, you’re not nearly as bad as a fucking slaver, but does it make you feel good to use their logic?
Right… No one has established that all men are being blamed for the system of the patriarchy. I specified that men who actively participate and benefit from reinforcing the hierarchy should be criticized.
Again… I never said to blame only and all men? Just that some men who benefit and perpetuate the problem will justly deserve criticism. I feel like you are trying to conflate that with me saying all men deserve to be blamed
So this argument seems to negate your prior claims. You agreed that the slavers should be targeted for the system of slavery. Isn’t that people of the system being a problem?
So certain people within the system are the problem?
I never claimed that the patriarchy = men. Just that men overwhelmingly benefit and control it.
Attacking certain men guilty of perpetuating the patriarchy can be an act of feminist praxis
And conflating criticism towards certain men who deserve it is often being conflated as sexism as a way to push young men towards right winged dickheads.
I mean that’s just incorrect. The people who actively perpetuate the patriarchy often benefit from it. Even the people whom do not actively perpetuate it passively benefit from it in certain ways.
I mean, that’s kinda the opposite of what I was saying even with your modifications. No one has said all men are being blamed but you. My point was that you cannot dismantle a system like slavery without targeting the people who participate and benefit from it. Which conflicts with your claim of only attacking the system, not the people. I think people blaming all white people for slavery is just as unlikely as someone blaming all men for the patriarchy.
Can you point out a single time I said I was blaming all men?
Okay, you have to be a troll or something. Just fuck off.
Says the person whose argument constantly contradicts itself. The only thing you consistently claim is that I am blaming men in general for the patriarchy despite saying things like
“I don’t think non slavers have to be explained that they are not at fault for the actions of slave holders. No one is claiming that labeling all male communication as mansplaining is okay”
But I guess hoping for honest discourse out of a person is a bit too much to ask from a person using ad hominems as a rebuttal. Have a good one.
I cannot think of a joke - except for puns - that do not have a victim.
Men in general / the husband is the victim of the punch line here. Or maybe pharmacists?
Much like dramatic narrative, from Shakespeare to Ted Lasso, all rising tension is resolved by a winner and loser.
I think you completely missed the point. “Nobody should be punching anybody” isn’t about jokes, but discrimination. The answer to discrimination against women isn’t to add discrimination against men. I’m pointing out that feminism is about liberation from discrimination rather than redirecting it to the “right group”. The system should be the focus, not the people.
Also, it’s not all victim this, winner that. It’s not pie. Everyone can win, everyone can lose. Again, it’s the system that’s the problem, not the people.
I’m speaking dramaturgically. There’s no literal Romeo and Juliet getting hurt, but in the story they both die.
That’s what is meant by “punching.”
Every rising action is met by a falling action. In a comedy format the tension rises to a punch line, where the punching happens, the fall is the release of laughter, and then resetting for the next joke.
You either don’t hear enough jokes or you have a bad sense of humour. Either way this is just objectively wrong
it’s not just jokes (again, excepting word play) - all narrative forms adhere to this. The concept of all stories is essentially based on conflict, where a platform is established, corrupted and reset.
“Punching down” means making jokes at the expense of vulnerable people. But all jokes have a punch line of some description- so it is impossible to be both a joke and have no resolution.
Some surreal humor relies on subverting this form somewhat, but the tension is usually released in other ways (i.e. a “straightman” or “fish out of water”, commenting on it or else a structural change like cutting to a different scene)
deleted by creator
There’s no punching done in this joke, no winner or loser. It’s just observational humor. The pharmacist draws a mistaken conclusion from his observation.
it’s “winner” and “loser” not winner and loser.
If Cinderella, Cinderella is the loser to the step sisters, the winner to the prince’s affection, the loser to time constraints, the winner to the final slipper fit.
It’s a method of discussing rising and falling action in Aristotlean poetics w/r/t narrative mores.
Well it’s a pretty inane method then
I mean it’s how our brains are wired after roughly 10,000 years of oral storytelling tradition, and you can draw a direct line of storytelling methodology in most cultures back about 4000 years. These methods are what constructed the odyssey, the Iliad, the aeneid, the plays of Aesceleus, Euripedes, Sophecles, Aristophanes… all the way up to modern comic books, superhero movies and telenovellas.
First of all, you’re telling me aesceleus euripedes et al were talking about “winners” and “losers” as the fundamental dynamic of literature?
And second of all, that’s all one western tradition you’re talking about. And i was raised on it too read translations of the classics and all that. But now that im older, ive since realized that the legacy of the ancient Greeks through the Renaissance to the modern West is simply not innate to humans, it’s just the way one specific culture evolved.
One big realization for me was that all the characters in the Illiad are colossal pieces of shit slave owners who are more concerned with first their ego and second the monetary value of their enslaved humans kept as chattel. (With the possible exception of Hector, who seemed to really put others above himself and was doing what he thought was necessary to save his people.). And yet walk into any university in the west and they indoctrinate freshmen with the idea that these were honorable men we should hold up as role models.
No, I’m saying that when we as modern readers discuss dramaturgical theory, we recognize that a key element of the path to a resolution of a narrative necessitates conflict in the vast majority of narrative theory. Can you name a narrative without conflict?
Which cultures are you referring to that doesn’t have stories that follow a narrative path, or have narrative paths without tension and resolution?
I’m afraid I can’t see why Achilles being a bad person disproves that narratives have a structure and across cultural and language barriers those structures hold for at least a few thousand years.
No, you were saying it’s all about winners and losers and now you’re saying your argument is just that narratives have structure.