If a particular group of people (be it gender wise, race wise or whatever) are being treated unequally, it sounds like a retarded board game to try to point this out without actually using this group’s name.
Love the sentiment, but the R word slur contributes to treating a group unequally.
ok I suppose stupid does not necessarily isolate a group of people as it is a general adjective, otherwise we are a bit out of luck because it is also very hard to describe something strongly unpleasent without using such adjectives
I appreciate the correction. You’re right, it can be hard to find a good word to describe something negative, since so many are rooted in ableism.
It’s why I’ve adopted the word “wild” to use in place of “crazy” or “insane.”
Edit: Unrelated, apparently we can un-delete comments. This was an easy one to re-write after I accidentally hit “Delete” instead of “Edit,” but this is good info to know in case it happens to someone with a longer post.
Most of the time, whenever I see folks using the slur, I feel the word “asinine” would work just as well.
Other words that normally fit are: ludicrous, brainless, or downright silly.
But sometimes you want to convey the backwardness, or that something is a product of a past that should be let go… is it still a slur if you’re not using it as a slur? Kind of like cracker, if you’re using it to refer to a white person it’s a slur, but nobody is going to stop you from calling a saltine or a cheese-it a cracker because that’s what they are… Or do we have to call them mass produced unleavened bread products?
Antiquated or barbaric (amongst others, language is diverse) are words that may express what you’re feeling. Of course, words have multiple meanings and those meanings change over time. Moron was used to describe a deficient intellectual capacity in a medical sense as well, however while an insult, it hasn’t adopted the slur title (maybe it has in some circles idfk). FR clothing is an example where the word is using the same definition as the insult, but describing a physical property instead of an abstract one.
At the end of the day, I usually try to avoid language and actions that are hurtful. With that being said, you can’t satisfy everyone, thus everyone has their own decisions on what values they wish to uphold.
sounds like a good one thanks
Only if you believe that word is referencing one group of people.
People with mental disabilities have flagged the word as harmful. Trust the victims to know what hurts them.
If the word isn’t being used in reference to people with mental disabilities it’s not the problematic context.
So if someone uses the N word slur for black people to refer to non-black people they dislike, it’s okay?
Well, it never was used as a term for “people that are disliked.” Regardless, it depends on intent and context, more often than the alternative, probably not… but etymologically speaking, it should (and needs to) change as a purposeful and intentional way to de-power the current general understanding of the word.
Society as a whole cannot collectively agree on nuance. That’s the problem with a lot of this. Words that started off neutral became harmful over time due to context and etymology. The N word didn’t originally have a racial connotation. It gained one over time and was assigned through racism.
Well, it never was used as a term for “people that are disliked.”
Bullshit. You’ve never heard kids online use it an an insult toward anyone regardless of race? Or Pewdiepie using it as a general insult? It absolutely happens.
Regardless, you don’t get to decide if an insult is offensive to a particular group. You can certainly keep using it after knowing it is, but you’ll be an asshole for doing so.
That’s not how it works. I’m sorry you disagree with English, but people are able to be hurt but words not pointed directly at them.
If you are using a word to refer to a person as belonging to any group with the intent to label that person as lesser or some kind of failure state of being then you are by extention calling anyone being part of that group as being something people wouldn’t want to be. You are implying members of the group are inferior.
Examples :
Calling someone “gay” in a way to mean “uncool”. You are implying that a person should never want to be gay. That being gay - is bad. Inferior to being straight.
“You ____ like a girl!” Your underlying premise is that being female is a failure state. You should be angry at being compared to something who lesser than you. This could apply to looks, ability, mannerisms etc. Hence it implies being a woman is a failure state as opposed to being a man.
Calling someone “the R-slur” when you mean something like “asinine”, “idiotic”, “mean” or “silly” you are implying those groups are failure states of being who those behaviours can be appended to as an expectation. That is a slur This sentiment is the same if you were to change the word you used but the specific history of this specific word as a slur is based on it’s once widespread use in context of being a synonym for “stupid” . Now it is less widespread but as the comic that spurred this conversation shows- it is still being used in the context of being a failure state. Intent makes the slur. If people didn’t use the word to refer to people in a way that was supposed to make them sit up and be indignant they are being compared to a disabled person it never would have become a slur. Since parlance never popularized the other use of the word as a verb “to stop or hinder” and the use of this one as a slur is still active it is far too early to attempt to “reclaim” this one.
I think you have it backwards - calling someone a slur doesn’t make the negative association, society as a whole has already decided those traits are negative, and as a result, we use them as slurs. Stopping people from using hurtful words does not fix the problem, I think it lets some people self-righteously think they’re helping, but it doesn’t really do anything.
We’ve seen that happen with using “gay” as an insult - society has shifted over the years, so that being gay is no longer seen as a bad thing (at least not so much so as it was in the 90s, we still have some room for improvement…) therefore it has lost its power as an insult. Somebody calls me gay today, I don’t really care - it’s inaccurate, but it doesn’t hurt me any. And because it doesn’t hurt me, they’re not going to use it as an insult, because that’s what they’re going for, and it’s not effective.
But certain classes of people will always be looked down on, so those traits will always be used as insults. If society makes it unacceptable to use those words, assholes will continue to use them when they think they can get away with it, or find new words. Think of how many words there are for “mentally deficient”. Many of those words were the clinical term for specific disabilities until they fell out of favor after being used as insults. Stupid is one, as is idiot, moron… The only real difference is recency.
Slurs have a couple of different ways of coming about. Calling someone “gay” in the context of being uncool or unmanly was one whete the attitude shifted but consider that because of underlying attitude of homophobia became more appearant to the average listener in the attempt to use it in context of a slur. Once something reflects the small mindedness of the speaker more than insults the listener it does lose it’s power.
Now consider something you said about the disability community :
But certain classes of people will always be looked down on, so those traits will always be used as insults
There is a very large body of disability advocacy that is involved in fighting for a social attitude where this is not the case. In fact it hasn’t always been the case. Our concept of “normal” is historically more recent than you would think and people with mental disabilities in the English world were not really considered a distinct class. You are taking for granted that the disability community will be considered inferior by the wider population because you cannot imagine a state otherwise. That is ableism my friend and it doesn’t change unless you look it in the face and recognize it for what it is.
A fundamental thing lacking in your understanding of slurs is your insistance that their existence is a full negative for the community that they are levied against. It is more useful to look at the designation of slurs almost more as a form of technology those communities use both as a form of self advocacy to spread awareness of underlying prejudices and to identify individuals and groups who hold them particular opposition or threat. They aren’t just about “getting upset” or giving people an avenue to press buttons.
Consider the “N-slur” in light of it being a technology. Those who use it are either :
-
Identifying themselves as a member of the ‘in’ group and using it as a means of solidarity.
-
Identifying themselves as an individual that believes they have “the right” to use the slur companionably thus often identifying themselves as a problem who at best doesn’t quite understand the assignment or at worst believes they can make unilateral decisions as part of a group to which they do not belong presenting a threat
-
Identifying themselves as a legitimate threat by using the word with the full weight of it’s oppressive and derogatory context.
This is legitimately words as weapons of war. A technique hit upon by modern civil rights movements as a means of fighting back. The meeting place of sociology and etymology where people started looking at words beyond strict meaning. What you are attempting to do is disarm a community making use of this but in reality you are identifying yourself using this tech as the second form of threat. The one that treats advocacy as a lost cause because the idea of implicit inferiority is so ingrained you can’t see the paternalism.
-
LMAO, ok so I don’t need a lecture. We’re not talking about using “gay” as a pejorative. That’s not the same word that’s being discussed here. Nor are we talking about using femininity as a negative state.
The “R” word originally meant “to slow” or to hold back progress. That’s what it meant before the medical community misappropriated the term for individuals with intellectual disabilities. At some point after that, the word changed into an informal pejorative and then became taboo. At this point, there’s very viable uses of the word that correlate with politics and perspectives that are counter-progressive.
You appearantly do need the lecture because you are not listening. There are plenty of words you can use without using one that, misappropriated or not, was and still is used to describe the disability community and is now primarily linked to that understanding.
Your statement of "well words are fine if they aren’t used at the people who they are meant for is inherently incorrect, hence the examples. What you are proposing is using a word linked through current pejorative use to the disability community to be expanded to not just be used in the context of “stupid” but to now mean essentially “facist” because… Why? You particularly like the word?
That’s not better.
Yea this is a slippery slope though, you can play this game with every word and easily turn it into a discussion in bad faith. English, not being my mother tongue, when I think of the word “retarded”, I automatically think of the word as related to describing foolish and stupid actions. But I do also know, on a higher level, that it actually is a medical term. So I am not against this correction (I would for instance be more careful at not be using the anologous word in my language in such a sentence).
Retarded is an outdated medical term, we use terminology such as intellectual disability these days because of the stigma behind the R word.
Retarded is an outdated medical term
Latin would like a word with you on that.
The etymology of the word is irrelevant in this context, only how it’s currently being used in English.
though I’m disappointed that you believe the history of language is irrelevant, I’m happy you feel that way!
in the original comment, they used it in a way to describe a board game, not against a person or people.
so no issue, right?
Agreed, in its core the problem lies in people’s inclination to be ableist. Whether or not making people conscious of usage of ableist terminology in sentences is helpful to this problem, I am not really sure. But I am also not against it.
It’s a cycle, words we’d never think today would be actual medical terms like idiot etc used to be medical conditions too.
In typical usage, retard (pronounced /ˈɹiː.tɑːɹd/, REE-tard) is an ableist slur for someone who is considered stupid, slow to understand, or ineffective in some way as a comparison to stereotypical traits perceived in those with intellectual disability. The adjective retarded is used in the same way, for something or someone considered very foolish or stupid. The word is sometimes censored and referred to as the euphemistic “r‑word” or “r‑slur” Retard was previously used as a medical term.
Yea, and from the same wiki article:
The word retard dates as far back as 1426. It stems from the Latin verb retardare, meaning “to hinder” or “make slow”.
Much like today’s socially acceptable terms idiot and moron, which are also defined as some sort of mental disability, when the term retard is being used in its pejorative form, it is usually not being directed at people with intellectual disabilities. Instead, people use the term when teasing their friends or as a general insult.
I use the term as a general insult towards people who seem hellbent on never learning from their mistakes. Like when people keep voting for politicians who openly advocating for violence against those same people, or when people keep getting in car accidents because they think everyone else is the problem (Oh the irony though).
Would never use it towards someone medically incapable of learning from their mistakes, that’s just cruel and not their fault.
We’re not speaking bloody Latin ya ignoramus.
this is either the perfect comment that uses the word “ignoramus”, or the worst insult.
I’m still not sure if you actually meant to do it or not.
I chose it for its Latin-ness, if that’s what you’re asking.
No, we’re speaking English. Do you know the definition of etymology?
Do you understand semantic shift?
Retard was previously used as a medical term.
As was idiot and cretin, which suffered similar misuse.
Previously? It’s in my medical paper.
It has fallen into disfavor due to its constant misuse as a pejorative. Might want to update the paper.
Why are you telling me, I’m not the one calling patients the R word 😭
So it’s in your medical record. Depending on how old it is, that was very unprofessional of whoever wrote it.
In typical usage
so you agree it is a multifaceted word that requires contextual definition in order to be used properly.
The noun retard is recorded from 1788 in the sense “retardation, delay;” from 1970 in the offensive meaning “retarded person,” originally American English, with accent on first syllable. Other words used for “one who is mentally retarded” include retardate (1956, from Latin retardatus), and U.S. newspapers 1950s-60s often used retardee (1950).
https://www.etymonline.com/word/retarded
It’s unfair to judge a word that has over 500 years of use on the last 70 years of history.
It’s unfair to judge a word that has over 500 years of use on the last 70 years of history.
A bridge that has stood for 500 years can be considered unusable today due to recent developments.
The word clearly isn’t having the effect you say you want. The solution isn’t to bemoan the poor treatment of the word - the solution is to change the word you use.
You have many options - be creative!
more analogies that have no other purpose but to oversimplify and confuse the topic. I can’t fault you though, if this is the best way you can understand language. you tried your best after all.
if the intent of the speaker is misunderstood by the listener it’s the listeners fault for misinterpreting and failing to understand contextual intonation.
simply put, the speaker speaks and the listener listens. intent is conveyed through our words and their meaning. if the listener misinterprets the meaning based on context given, it’s the listeners fault.
have you observed that when listening to the speech of someone who is classically educated that their vocabulary seems to be endlessly descriptive and their intent often lost on the uneducated masses? that those with higher education are often ostracized or mocked because they are perceived as “thinking they’re better”.
that’s because the uneducated masses fail to understand the meaning of the words they speak. the peasants fail to understand the nobility of the spoken word. they simply use common to communicate with their simpleminded friends and neighbors.
I’m sure at this point you have clearly understood my intent of this comment.
if not, read a book.
On the contrary, a skilled orator adjusts the message to suit the audience, and a skilled craftsman chooses the tool best suited to the task.
However, your intent here seems to be primarily to offend, rather than to convince or persuade, as evidenced by both your word choice and the direction of your statements - this is your choice of course, and I will similarly choose to ignore it!
I honestly don’t know which way this comic is intending to go.
That’s alarming as this is very obviously in favour of feminism.
What is alarming about it?
Your lack of reading comprehension is alarming. The comic is pretty direct about what it means.
And yet I don’t get it. Why do you have to be an asshole to people who struggle. Do you bully everyone in your life too or just on the internet?
The alarming part is that the comic was made as simple as possible without treating it’s intended audience as children and it still went over you’re head. But I’ll attempt to explain it for you in adult terms.
The first half of the comic is saying that being a feminist means pushing for egalitarianism with a focus on the unequal treatment of a particular group in the same way that doctors often focus their education on a single area of anatomy. A general practitioner knows about heart health but not nearly as much as a cardiologist does. But no one accuses a cardiologist about being indifferent to your foot health, they just recommend you to a podiatrist because those doctors focused their education on feet.
Some people truly fail to grasp this but even more people either oppose equal treatment between genders, are contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, or treat any criticism of how society treats women as a personal attack against them. That’s the second half of the comic.
Don’t have to be a dick about someone not understanding something. Hope you don’t have kids FFS.
And the girl is the reason why feminists have such a bad reputation
Just treat everyone equal and with respect and we’ll be fine.
You had all the pieces in front of you, labeled and sorted, and you still put them together wrong. Huh.
Feminism is simply the belief that men and women should have equal rights. I don’t really care to know anyone who doesn’t believe that, although I suppose there are “female chauvinists” I also don’t care to know.
Sadly the word has been tampered with by extremists and its meaning is now unclear
If you don’t get why people mix things and don’t want to put a bit of energy to understand them, you’re not better than them
women dont want to be raped or called a bitch if they refuse a man advances, your comment pretty much cement that would likely occured. and that happens quite often when women are harrased for refusing people.
because I said that everyone should be treated equal and with respect
You’re either delusional or making an incredibly bad faith argument.
That first part of the because is not good faith, but there’s a second part as well that you’re ignoring in similar bad faith
And frogs should have wings so they don’t bump their ass when they jump.
BLM and Feminisim exist because society is so loaded with selfishness, mysogony and racism that left on it’s own, racism and mysogony are the default. Even if 75% devided to embrace equal, that last 25% would be set on fucking over 60% of the population. These same people that start companies and get into power.
Saying that everyone should just magically agree publically and privately to equality and anyone who is oppressed should just wait for it to happen is why you get downvotes for being tonedef.
Yeeep. Notice how she doesn’t have a logical reply so she just resorts to insults.
Ragebait art by someone who wants to seek rage from both sides. Mastered art.
‘Both sides’? No, I assure you only one side would rage over this and if you felt rage, you should work on that.
The only thing the guy said was wrong was that it’s reverse sexism. If he said “so your main concern is improving things for women? That’s not egalitarian unless you believe women have it much worse than men today.” It’s someone misinformed being told he’s an enemy. Ragebait
I mean… reverse sexism it is wrong as well, just like reverse racism. Racism is racism it can come from any side, same thing with sexism, but it does not make the term less right, just inaccurate (and legally invalid but this is not a court and we are no judges).
Women do have it much worse than men today. And I say this as a man, we hold so much privilege compared to any one else it’s not funny.
Not really. There’s many areas that women do have it better. Sociologist have started to label it even. They’re called the lost boys. A generation of boys who for one reason or another have failed to move onto post secondary education. Education in our society is something that increases our chances of success in life. But right now post education is filled with women. They believe the push to get women in schools was successful but nobody put the same effort into the boys. STEM careers and other post secondary streams were advertised to women and the boys were forgotten. Can’t tell me that those boys are not now feeling that pressure with having reduced social and capital mobility as a whole. It’s just one example of how women do not have it “much worse” today then men.
News flash, women have it faaaaaaaaar better than men.
So then he is misinformed, which many people are. I don’t put someone into the “enemy” box for being misinformed or stubborn, that’s pretty much the default state of most humans.
Men and women will never be equal just like any animal in nature
Have you considered eating shit and dying?
Sane response to biological facts
Equality is easy to accomplish. It’s the default state of nature. You have to work overtime to discriminate.
How exactly is nature equal? There are literally spiders that eat their mates
Humans aren’t spiders and cannibalism is not a part of the human reproductive cycle.
Can you explain why you think the default state of nature is equality though? I can’t think of any species where this is true
Even if you truly believe that do you really want parents and society and the patriarchy continuing to enforce this shit for more generations?
Even if you believe in innate biological differences (which most people do) I still don’t want the principle steering my daughter into nursing and my son engineering because he’s too fucking lazy to do anything, repeat ad infinitum for every little bit of inherited “wisdom” every had decided they need to pump back into the world constantly.
If you want to get into jobs, look at stats for which genders did which jobs 100 years ago and then look at the data for today. Basically the same list. Mostly men are still fixing power lines and mostly women are still working at schools. The differences in biology make for different strengths and weaknesses and there’s literally nothing wrong with that
Also I hate to say this but the patriarchy is what allows feminism to exist so I think we are on a pretty good path right now
OK great but let people choose, not systems.
Under that logic, no one is equal. I knew a tall, reedy guy who was a great artist. I’m more average height, a little stocky, and am great at math. Are we equal because we both happen to save similar (quite likely not identical!) genitalia? I went to the same school as a women who was about my height, weighed a little less than me, seemed to have a good handle on math, and had a programming style so similar to mine that I couldn’t tell which of us wrote it unless I actually remembered writing it. Is she more or less equal to me than the guy I knew simply because of the greater difference (again, presumably) between our genitalia?
Tbh, yes, everyone is unequal. Everyone has unequal talents and abilities, everyone has unequal chances and reducing this down only to the gender is deeply lacking in understanding.
And this leads to very weird situations like actresses complaining that it’s discrimination if they only earn a hundred million for a movie because a male actor on the same movie earned two hundred million.
There’s certainly specific gender unfairness, e.g. the distribution of chores and work, but in many cases there’s far bigger discrimination along lines we really don’t care about.
For example, a female capitalist earns as much as thousands or even millions of other women, and yet there’s little tangible shitstorms against class devices compared to the shitstorms raging against gender divides.
So while feminism is certainly important, it sadly is often abused by the wealthy and governing classes to distract from the class conflict that is more and more of an issue.
To put it more pointedly: According to the German Wikipedia, the country with the best female to male gender pay ratio is Burundi. Because if nobody earns anything, everyone earns the same. And while the male and female peasants are fighting each other, the rich get to eat everyone’s share.
So, once again, equity is the goal and pointing out how there are differences on some arbitrary line detracts from that goal. On the other hand, giving everyone equal opportunities and equal access to support regardless of those differences so they can all reach some reasonable standard for quality of life helps to achieve that equity, whereas focusing on the lack of equity for some specific demographic may not.
People like her would be the reason I’m against the current wave of feminism.
How come? It’s not sexism to want equal rights.
It’s sexism to have gained equal rights, but still believe there isn’t equality. So, “focusing on the inequality of women” translates to “we want special treatment”.
Unfortunately for those kinds of people, equality is a bitch and means nobody is entitled.
When it comes to special treatment and not equality, I’m actually okay with some of it. Like women’s abuse shelters, pregnancy support, workplace harassment prevention, reproductive health care access, and domestic violence protections aren’t really bad in my opinion. Is there one you want to get rid of?
Having them around isn’t a problem. But let’s put something into perspective; an abuse victim from… I think Canada… Tried seeking help, but nobody took him seriously because he was a guy, and he said his wife abused him.
He ended up setting up a shelter for abused men, which was a major uphill battle for him because… Well, men just don’t get abused by women. Women are always the victim.
He eventually ended up committing suicide.
The shelter he set up in Canada still exists, thankfully.
But the problem still exists to this day. Women don’t abuse men. Women don’t rape men. Just look at the statistics! Except the statistics rely on reporting, and the reporting only works if reports are actually taken seriously.
So, do I want womens shelters to disappear? No of course not. Domestic abuse is a very real thing and everyone deserves to be sheltered from that. But the key word here is everyone. No special treatment that makes it almost impossible for male shelters to exist.
So I’m OK with none of it. I wonder how many males will come forward about abuses when society opens up to actually listen. How many young boys inappropriately treated by their female teachers. How many teenage boys that got exploited during a party.
This may certainly help turning young men away from the so-called “manosphere”. Radicalisation helps nobody.
Where is the narrative that women can’t abuse or rape men rooted? Who says that? Is it generally women who say that? Where does this issue start?
You want the answer to be some sort of side. But in actuality it’s everyone. Everyone benefits from having an easy scapegoat. It skirts responsibility.
Is that what you tell yourself to deny that being a man doesn’t protect you from the persecution of patriarchy and “masculine” men?
Do you know who is fighting for male sexual abuses to be taken seriously? Feminists.
Haha hahahaha haha haha ha!
Boy aren’t you funny.
Didn’t know I can be a comedic genius by stating simple facts. But here we go.
I feel like this is a good argument for meninism, but it’s not really a good reason to be against feminism. I don’t think you can house women and men together in the same shelter because of trauma from their abuser. If the man can just enter the same shelter that the woman went to to try to get away from him it defeats the purpose of the women’s shelter in the first place.
In other words, instead of being against women wanting special treatment like domestic abuse shelters, wouldn’t it be better to be in support of additional shelters, inclusive of men, instead? Saying women don’t deserve “special treatment” is saying that special treatment should be eliminated, not extended to more genders.
Imagine if we had a group that funded shelters for men and women. Nothing says they have to be in the same facilities - women aren’t all lumped into one facility, either, so this shouldn’t be inconceivable. Also, would it not be equality if all abuse victims, both women and men, got the help they need?
Literally noone is against that, feminists included.
I don’t want “meninism”. And I don’t want equity, not before we have equality. And equality only exists as an absolute (no, this doesn’t mean housing everyone in the same facilities. Why woukd you get that impression?)
These types of guys are split between contrarians, guys that take any criticism of “men” as a personal attack against them, and misogynists who just don’t want equality. In any case, it’s why we can’t have nice things in our society.
I am on the feminist side, firmly. But at the same time I think it’s extremely necessary to update terminology.
The feminist side is really good at reckognizing the power of words and demanding that actually accurate wording is used… when they are on the receiving end of bad wording.
At the same time that side seems to be totally oblivious to bad wording when it affects their opponents.
Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic. But that’s not at all what the concept is about. It’s about a misguided understanding of masculinity which is problematic. Why not just use “machismo”, or maybe “toxic machismo”? Suddenly the word is not an attack against all men, but against a subset defined by specific behavior. Done.
Or “mansplaining”. Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be “overexplaining”, and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.
Fighting rhethoric like that is great if you want to get into a fight and make sure that you alienate the other, but it’s utterly useless to further your cause.
Woah, careful with all that common sense and level minded thinking you might hurt somebody’s brain. Seriously though I agree with every word
Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic.
Well, no. Taking “rotten apples” literally doesn’t mean apples are inherently rotten, it’s just a descriptor.
What I have more of a problem with is that the exact same thing exists within stereotypes of femininity, but “toxic femininity” never gained any steam as a concept/term at all. That does more to imply ‘it’s all the males’ fault’, I think.
I’m reminded of someone once mocking the notion of a fanny pack being marketed to men with a camo pattern, calling it an example of “fragile masculinity” that was inherently misogynistic. I asked them if a tool set with pink handles being marketed to women was an example of “fragile femininity”, and response I got was no, that that was also misogynistic, somehow.
Also, “manspreading” is supposedly a misogynistic, aggressive act by men denying women space in public settings, and yet, (primarily) women taking up entire extra seats by putting their purses/bags on them never ‘went viral’ in the same way, again no colloquialism for it, despite being an act that’s significantly more common, and deprives others of more space than a guy whose knees are spread out.
Ideologues won’t see the obvious flaws in their logic no matter how blatant you make them.
Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic.
Does “hawaiian pizza” imply that all pizza is from Hawaii, or just that this one particular pizza here is from Hawaii?
Fun fact: Hawaiian Pizza has nothing to do with Hawaii. It was created by a Greek guy in Ontario after he was inspired by the Chinese-Canadian dishes that he worked on making. He chose the name Hawaiian because he got his canned pineapples from the Hawaiian Pineapple Company. The dish itself is a Canadian abomination.
Orange Soda must imply that all sodas taste like orange
“Ugh, gross pizza!”
Does that imply that the issue is that you find pizza gross or does this statement only refer to this one specific slice because you don’t like the specific topping on it?
If it was hawaiian I’d assume the latter
You’re not being honest here
Or “mansplaining”. Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be “overexplaining”, and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.
“Overexplaining” already has an established unrelated definition, though. I’ve ‘coined’ “splaining” as slang for the behavior, which is not only perpetrated by both sexes, but is also perpetrated for reasons other than sex. It’s kind of a subcategory of condescension, I’d say.
When someone assumes another is ignorant on a subject, because of any characteristic that does not actually have a relationship with knowledge of that subject, and as a result, condescendingly explains something to them, that’s ‘splaining’. Also of note is that EVEN IF the ‘receipient’ actually happens to be ignorant of that subject, and of the information being given to them, it’s STILL ‘splaining’. What defines it is the combination of the unfair assumption, and the action taken based on said assumption. Assuming you know more about X than someone because they’re younger than you, is a non-sex example of the exact same behavior.
Yeah, that’s fair. Tbh, I’m not solid on which terms to use and I’m totally open to better suggestions. “splaining” does make sense. It fits the categories we talked about and I think it’s still quite intuitive to grasp what’s the difference between “explaining” and “splaining”.
One thing that’s kinda difficult to avoid though is people misusing these words to defend against situations where no defence is necessary.
I’ve seen the same thing happen with “mansplaining” before, where a new female hire would tell an experienced manager to not “mansplain” an important concept to her, so he stops explaining and she runs head-first into the problem he tried to warn her of.
In certain contexts (especially safety-related or other critical stuff) it’s better to err on the side of explaining things the recipient might already know instead on the side of missing important things. For example, telling a flight attendant on a plane that they don’t need to “splain” where the exits are would be kinda stupid.
To stay with the aviation example: Pilots are trained to call out and confirm everything they do. It would be quite bad if one pilot told the other one to shut up because obviously they already noticed that the other one changed the flap settings or something like that.
(But obviously all of that is besides the point which was: We need better words, and “splaining” is a totally valid replacement for “mansplaining”)
Neat way to categorize those who don’t walk in lockstep with you as the enemy. I seek equality but refuse to be associated with a movement that sees me as a threat for my gender. Is your anger real or is it caused by cognitive dissonance trying hold egalitarian ideals in an inherently unegalitarian framework.
Neat way to categorize those who don’t walk in lockstep with you as the enemy
I’m guessing you’re the “guys that take any criticism of men as a personal attack against them”. Especially using the word “enemy”.
Is your anger real
Where’s my anger? Cut and paste it for me. Or are you assuming I’m some kind of “angry feminist” trope?
The rest of you’re comment is all hat and no cattle. You appear to literally be the kind of guy depicted in the Comic.
When the criticism is “How dare he express his own pain.” Yeah you better fucking believe I’ll see you as the enemy and come out swinging, men are EXTREMELY disadvanted in society regarding having our mental health issues and trauma recognized as legitimate.
Edit: After surviving my last suicide attempt I promised myself to never be silent when the same pain that eats at my soul to this day is dismissed. This entire post is soaked in it.
Well some people literally just don’t realize that other people have problems they don’t have, and don’t look into it further or are actively told it’s not a problem. Source: me from 13 to 16 until I watched a lot of speeches on it and talked to friends irl about it.
He had a point but he kinda fucked it up in the third panel.
Tbh I think the term is kind of unfortunate exactly because of this confusion and rebuttal. We would spend less time discussing this if it was actually called egalitarianism or whatever, I feel. People use the “fem” in feminism to make the movement seem unequal. I think the term is just kind of unnecessarily confusing and egalitarianism would be less ambiguous.
But I don’t really care that much, the ideas behind are obviously more important than the word we use - but words are also important.
I think feminism is a perfectly appropriate word choice for the movement. The focus is on the fact that women are discriminated against, and that is a very specific scope of problems that need to be addressed. Calling it egalitarianism kinda loses the point and draws focus away from the actual problem. I.e. the movement is about solving problems, not about a hypothetical utopic end state. You could argue about what that utopia should look like forever, but the movement has already identified concrete issues that need to be addressed.
Anyone who nitpicks the word choice like in the comic is just not sympathetic to the issue and causing a distraction.
People use the “fem” in feminism to make the movement seem unequal.
Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men, like shelters for abused men, helping men with legal fees to retain access to children or similar causes?
Or does it (obviously) go towards bettering women’s lives (which is the obvious stated purpose of feminism)?
There isn’t much wrong with establishing necessary things for women. Pretending those organizations are going to spend their efforts on male specific gender egalitarian issues is unrealistic.
On top of that, there are multiple incentives to help women and girls go into male dominated fields. This is good. I have yet to see incentives to help men and boys go into female dominated fields. There has been a feminist social change on how male nurses and such are seen, which is a good thing, but, organisations as such are not out there setting up drives to get more boys and men in those industries.
Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men
Yes.
One of the big ones that has been in active discussion is toxic masculinity (the social expectation that men act a certain way and more importantly that men not act a certain way), which has detrimental effects on boys and men, who in many cases grow up emotionally stunted and unable to cope with their emotions in a productive, safe, and healthy way. These feminist organizations are big on how to raise boys, how to talk to men about emotions, and other topics that relate to the mental and emotional health of boys and men.
In a related push, a big portion of pushing openness in certain spaces also has the effect of becoming more welcoming for certain men. Trying to make veteran spaces, science/technology/engineering spaces, sports/fitness/athletic spaces, business networking spaces, and other traditionally male-dominated spaces more open to women is often about opening things up to a lot more men, as well, especially men who don’t fit the stereotypes of those spaces.
For example, sometimes a gym that is intimidating to women can also be intimidating to lots of men. Recognizing and addressing the factors that drive away women also have the intended purpose of reducing barriers that we know affect men, as well.
I’m fully, unabashedly feminist. I’m also a straight cis man who fits a lot of male stereotypes (playing and watching sports, lifting weights, a career path through multiple male dominated professions), who recognizes that society leaves behind a lot of men who don’t fit this mold, and I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children), actively parent my son in a way that I hope will help him grow up to be a good man living a good life with fulfilling relationships with those around him, etc.
There’s no separating feminism from broader societal gender roles and expectations. And the things I do for my daughter are closely overlapping with the things that I do for my son.
The problem with your long and heartfelt reply is that it cuts in half the point I am making. I am posing the hypothetical question of if the funds go to assist in aliviting problems that are exclusively suffered by men, not if the efforts and funds of the feminist organisations have knock of effects in making men’s lives better, which, yeah they do via making a more gender dispersed society, and decreasing stressors in environments.
Do the money that feminist organizations go towards problems that affect men, like shelters for abused men, helping men with legal fees to retain access to children or similar causes?
These are scenarios that exclusively benefit men. My statement is that I do not believe such transfer of resources to enable things to be better exclusively to assist men do not happen, and nor is it expected to be that way; and framing feminist organisations as not being biased towards helping women as their central objective is misrepresentative.
and because this topic is constantly a powder keg; yes, those organisations are doing good , necessary work that I approve of.
I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children)
that’s great, you are doing commendable work and the orgaisations you work with are doing great work.
These are scenarios that exclusively benefit men.
Yes, and I’m saying there are prominent feminist voices advocating for specific approaches and helping boys navigate the world, with only incidental benefits to women (who avoid being abused by those men). They’re publishing books, running workshops, providing online resources for these specific things.
Feminist organizations dedicated to protecting women’s reproductive rights are also distributing condoms that go on penises, even for men fucking other men.
Maybe they are motivated by the “knock on” effects on women, but it’s very clear that feminist organizations and advocates are doing things to address problems that only affect men and boys.
I am posing the hypothetical question
I’m talking about actual things we’re doing, not just hypotheticals.
I’m mainly arguing against a narrow view where addressing problems is thought in terms of the demographic identity of the recipient of that help. Organizations try to tackle problems, and trying to gender code the problems and solutions I think is counterproductive.
trying to gender code the problems and solutions I think is counterproductive.
Then why are we gender coding the name of the movement?
Are you asking feminists to stop helping men or something? I’m describing how feminist groups and organizations help men. The organizations they work for usually don’t have gendered names, and even when they do, they tend to take on specific causes regardless of gender, because those causes are themselves important for elevating women’s status towards equality.
The ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, co-founded and operated by prominent feminist Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did some big work in the 70’s, and their goal was to elevate women by fighting for gender equality, including (and perhaps especially) when men were the victims of discrimination. Craig v. Boren was probably the most famous example of their work on that front, where the Supreme Court struck down a higher drinking age for men in Oklahoma.
So it seems to me that you’re pivoting away from “but why don’t they help men” argument to fussing about the way they name themselves. The name is the name. I’m a feminist, I volunteer for feminist organizations, for important causes for women, in a way that often helps men directly.
So it seems to me that you’re pivoting away from “but why don’t they help men” argument to fussing about the way they name themselves
Just to point out I’ve only commented once in the thread above, I’m not the same person you were originally replying to.
Are you asking feminists to stop helping men or something?
No, of course not. I’m just pointing out how the name of the movement ‘feminism’ is gender coded, which is ironic considering your earlier statement about not gender coding solutions and stuff
The truth is our reality is shaped by narratives and, while calling it egalitarianism may be accurate in a vacuum, ignoring historical injustices makes us less self aware and resilient as a society. Something external forces can and have already capitalized on.
Sure, but its exactly because words are important that its called feminism. When you’re talking about “egalitarianism” the goal is so vague that everyone can be on it. That’s why you have names like “feminism”, because that movement is focused on how we live in a patriarchal society and how women have been historically treated unjustly under it. Or “black lives matter”, which, although I’m sure would also agree that “all lives matter”, are focused on why historically, black lives specifically haven’t as much. Same thing for trans rights.
When you combine that all into one, all the nuance of the different groups gets lost and the average becomes “yeah but human rights are so much better than 50 years ago” to shut down discussion.
Or the org “No one should shoot anyone in the back”, every so often making a statement to gangsters, but having to spend most of its time pursuing cops.
Makes sense why the phrase is instead “ACAB”.
Wish I had more than one upvote to give. Movements and groups name themselves after their targeted focus, yet you never see someone going up to the teacher’s union rep and saying “but shouldn’t you also care about the other jobs?”
Say what you will about PETA (I’m sure I could say a lot), but you never see someone criticising them for their “narrow minded focus solely on the welfare of animals, without regard for the ethical treatment of humans, plants and fungi”
You’ll never catch someone criticising a homeless shelter for not doing enough to shine light on the prevalence of gun violence.
So why does anyone treat these bad-faith criticisms as anything more or less than attempts to silence the already-marginalised groups for which these movements are advocating?
yet you never see someone going up to the teacher’s union rep and saying “but shouldn’t you also care about the other jobs?”
For ducks sakes that’s literally how unions are SUPPOSED TO WORK. No wonder the US worker’s rights are so weak if that’s what you think, and based off your comment you’re on the side of the workers!
Here in Finland when one union goes on strike for a cause other unions join in! Airline union going on strike? Guess what, so I’d the railway, buses, logistics, grocery workers, and so on, with more joining in if it’s for a really good reason, even teacher unions.
What you’re effectively saying is, “We’re specifically not focused on equality, only on where women have it worse than men.” And that’s fine, but then don’t also say, “If you support equality you support feminism,” because both of those things can’t be true at the same time. “We want to achieve equality between the sexes and for the most part women are disadvantaged, so we will focus on the inequality that is impacting women until they are at least on the same level where inequality is impacting men,” would be more appropriate in my opinion, but certainly isn’t going to be a winning slogan.
You have just perfectly stated my point: a teacher’s union rep CLEARLY cares about other workers, but that’s not the POINT of a Teacher’s Union. I’m saying that you don’t see anyone complaining that there’s a union to protect those specific labourers, because such a complaint would be patently ridiculous. It is similarly ridiculous to assume that a Feminist opposes the rights of non-women just because their movement is focused on women. That is my point.
And my point is that it’s self defeating to call yourself a feminist if you’re egalitarian unless there’s a reason for it. Otherwise, just call yourself egalitarian to show you’re about equality to the general population, therefore you can recruit others to the cause more easily.
My wife doesn’t call herself a “teacher’s unionist” if asked, she just calls herself a unionist, because the rights of all workers supercedes those of only teachers. Unless talking specifically to other teachers, parent students, etc, she champions the rights of unions themselves, and supports and encourages people to join a union, and union.
The issue with many feminist groups is that they insist on being feminists first and foremost rather than egalitarians. This is what has lead in part to the existence of TERFs - by hyper focusing on women’s rights instead of just agreeing “yeah, and I’m also an egalitarian”, you open the door to exclusionary groups. Because while egalitarianism is open to all who are inclusive, feminism is not by definition of focus.
It’s not the only group afflicted by this, and it’s part of the reason why the right wing has managed to gain so much power over the years - because while they all might be different flavors of hate and contempt, they are at least united globally behind hate and contempt.
Meanwhile we have those who rally behind compassion and equality arguing we shouldn’t all be considered compassionate and pro equality because there’s “specializations” and that uniting under one banner weakens the cause somehow 🙄
That’s illegal in the US. Thanks to the Taft Hartley Act
If the rich face no consequences for breaking laws that help each other, but the poor do, then that is not justice.
It is up to the people to decide if they would then rather live quietly with injustice or fight loudly for their rights, regardless of supposed legality or consequences.
Agreed. I’m just telling you the root cause. We know that the brute squad will be unleashed if we try to do such tactics.
the goal is so vague that everyone can be on it.
Could you elaborate on why that is a bad thing? I’m sort of confused why you wouldn’t want everyone to be in on it. To be clear, I don’t think we really need to change the goal, I just think the wording is unfortunate.
But again, I think we honestly shouldn’t focus on this small disagreement of the words, as long as we agree on the idea itself. We may not agree on feminism or egalitarianism as words, but I think we both agree on the much more important ideas behind it.
It may also be that I’m coming at this discussion from a Danish perspective, which is very different from an American perspective (I’m assuming you’re american, sorry if that’s not correct). We usually use a word like “ligestilling” which translates as “equality” rather than use a term like feminism.
I completely agree with what you’re saying. However, on the other hand, “black lives matter” and “feminism” are equally exposed to the “all lives matter” and “equality” rebuttals from people that want to shut them down.
I think some progress could be made if those championing equality made a concerted effort to gain ownership of the “all lives matter” and “equality” slogans/campaigns, and then used that ownership to point out the problems (all lives matter, and black lives are currently being stepped on, etc.)
I feel like instead of changing the name, we should stop justifying it on “equality”. The purpose of the movement is to stop a form of oppression. The name of the movement clearly takes the side of the oppressed, recognizing the oppression. Saying that the movement is for “equality” backpedals the recognition that an oppression exists and the discussion shifts to another point of derailment like “but arent men and women naturally different in some ways? is equality actually appropriate? what is equality?”
The productive feminist discussions are in debating the oppressions that exist and how to change them, not getting tangled in teological discussions about “nature” and “equality”.
The problem with that is that people who use egalitarianism or all lives matter don’t actually want equality, they want oppressed people to shut up
Every. Single. Time.
Y’all really don’t get why subdividing makes movements weaker.
Here, I’ll give you an easy way to see the flaw I your argument. Apply it to this flag:
According to your logic, this flag shouldn’t be used, because it’s more vague than just the lesbian or trans flag for example.
Yet, the reason this flag is used is because unity is more powerful than division. All those groups are more powerful in fighting for their rights together than they are separate.
And that’s the flaw behind modern feminism - the issues feminism was created to tackle have been greatly delt with. While some certainly do still exist, they are now also caused by things other than a patriarchy, such as oligarchy. And thus tackling the issues that affect women too in modern times needs the involvement of other groups as well, such as unions and even anarchists, to effectively combat.
In such, movements and groups like these would more be much more effective in modern society reforming under an umbrella one such as egalitarianism, much like the LGBTQ+ ones have.
Multiple causes together are more powerful than a single ones divided. Continuing this insistence is literally missing the forest for the trees.
Its the “LGBTQ+ movement” not the “everyone movement” because it’s calling out how queer people have been historically marginalized and persecuted and not everyone. Cisgender, heterosexual people are the norm, that’s why this subcommunity exists. It just so happens that there are a lot of subgroups within this small community that share very similar idealogies and so it becomes (more or less) one bigger movement.
Moreover, the flag you sent came to be to specifically to call out all the different groups in the umbrella movement, to not let them get drowned out by the vagueness of the combined movement.
All these groups are fighting for different but not necessarily opposing things. Fighting simply for a “better life for all”, while noble, is really naive. You need to get specific about the things you want to tackle.
It’s not like these groups fight alone, you can be a feminist, anti-fascist, queer person of color and support multiple things you believe in.
Fighting simply for a “better life for all”, while noble, is really naive. You need to get specific about the things you want to tackle.
Egalitarianism isn’t just “better life for all” without a plan, just like Feminism isn’t “Equality for Women” without a plan.
Uniting under the banner of Egalitarianism as a group, rather than stating you’re not that but are instead a feminist, would be like saying “I’m not in the LGBTQ+ movement, I’m a Trans Rights activist”.
Everytime people like you insist (even if coming from a place with good intentions) we shouldn’t consider ourselves egalitarian, you weaken all groups that would benefit from standing united under it. There’s a reason right wing propaganda networks constantly argue against the term “Egalitarian” and try to keep groups like Feminists isolated from others - because it would hurt them if it actually gained in popularity.
There are indeed many people who would not qualify as egalitarian. Libertarians, Republicans, Musk - all of them hate it, because “equality for all” is in fact not as broad as you would hope, unfortunately.
I dont see how they were arguing for subdivisions. There are in fact many problems to solve, and we should unite to solve them. But if we are talking about a specific problem, we should use specific language. This shouldnt prevent us from seeing that there are common roots to all these problems.
Because they are arguing against the “egalitarian” label rather than supporting both it and feminism.
Today’s specific problems tend to be rooted in a more broader affecting cause. The Waltons and Sacklers for example are not all men, but women too. The issue that affects women the most today are no longer about simply just the patriarchy but instead of the wealthy versus the rest.
After all, the right wing usually doesn’t have issues with abortion itself - only with abortion of minorities and the poor. Of the others, not of themselves.
Actually, I don’t really like the progress flag and think it contributes to division. The original rainbow flag is perfect: sexuality and gender expression are a broad spectrum, the stripes don’t represent individual groups, the whole rainbow represents all groups.
The progress flag adds symbols for specific groups which were already included in the rainbow. Once you start singling groups out piecemeal, you enter an endless spiral of having to individually acknowledge every group, and there’s always another subdivision being left out.
I also like the reclamation of the word “queer” and think it’s a far more unifying label than LGBTQIA+, for the same reason.
It’s fine to have focused actions, but unified movements are better.
I agree on the flag for the same reason - it’s more divided in my opinion than the original rainbow flag. But I used it since it’s the current “official” flag.
But it also somewhat illustrates my point as well - that the divisions weaken things more than a simpler unification.
I’m glad “queer” is being used more for the same reason you listed.
This is what I don’t get about the manosphere movement.
Young guys watch these influencers being abrasive macho dorks, talking exactly like this. They somehow combine that “dorky, petty semantic minutia” argument style with being aggressively condescending and being a macho jerk, all at once. I’m a pretty isolated guy, yet it’s amazing how grating it is to me.
And men watching these influencers conclude that… other people will appreciate that?
they also watch those “pickup artists” how to “science behind tricking women into dating you”, they picked alot of thier terminology to, which is the alpha/beta crap, shit tests,etc. so they are probably also dissecting womans behaviour, “if they dont like me they automatically a bitch or a slut that is looking for someone more attractive”
People seek confirmation that their negative traits are positive ones. Why put in effort to win, when you can just get an echo chamber to explain to you that you already won because of XYZ reason.
This isn’t limited to the manosphere stuff but it certainly is a big part of it. Any group that uses that other people are full of shit though as evidence that they are the good guys is also trying to pull the same trick.
There is value in feminisim because women’s rights are “new” and that is to say that there are people alive who grew up in a time where women’s rights were considered a joke. Women received the ability to have their own bank account without a man co signing in 1974. That means MOST Gen X people, when they were born, their mothers were not legally allowed to have a bank account. That isn’t ancient history like some folks like to act it is.
There is value in feminisim because women’s rights are “new” and that is to say that there are people alive who grew up in a time where women’s rights were considered a joke.
I’d like to remind everyone that men’s rights are new too. For example, in the UK, women got rights to vote in 1928. Men got it in 1918, a whole 10 years earlier.
Most of the population was (and continues to be) under the boot of the wealthy, their rights immaterial.
So… look, I hate having to pick at something that I generally agree with, but it wasn’t illegal for women to have bank accounts or credit cards or whatever prior to 1974. It just became illegal to discriminate against women for bank accounts as of the 1974 law.
I get that it’s a subtle distinction, but the reason it is important is because there are those who would think that as long as the government isn’t actively oppressing a group, then it’s doing fine (“it was illegal for women to have bank accounts, now it’s not. Job’s done!”), as opposed to recognizing that it is people who oppress others and it is the government’s job (like it was in 1974) to prevent it.
Banks (most, anyway) did not allow women to have bank accounts or lines of credit. And they’d do it again (or some other discriminatory bullshit) without government regulation.
Because the other side tells you that you suck and your problems are not real.
If you are a boy and you look around one side blaming you for all of societies ills and the other simply is not what aide are you going to gravitate to?
Why do you think there are two sides and one of them is blaming men?
One side has crated an entire vocabulary around gender where ever male gendered term is something bad. How else can that be interpreted?
So there are two sides. Everyone in the world falls into one these sides. And all of one side got together and came up with a new set of words. These words they demand everyone use and each has built into them explanations that men are bad.
Can you point to evidence that supports this theory? If it was half of the people I assume there are some large communities these words are heard often but I’ve never heard them.
I was talking about the language used in gender discussion. And yes, in my country there really is no other side beside facist and liberal/left.
And men watching these influencers conclude that… other people will appreciate that?
Nah, they think other people should appreciate that. Because that would make their lives easier, not having to challenge their own privileges.
Things are already equal. Toxic masculinity comes from toxic femininity. Toxic femininity comes from toxic masculinity. It’s been like that forever, but we raised the living standard enough so now we can argue about this with our excess spare time.
Also, it is another way of divide and conquer to make sure that we keep fighting each other and not the billionaire class who needs to be defeated if you want to have a world in 20 years from now.
The quantum head fuck Is that men and women have always been equal in a weird way and at the same time equality can never be achieved because giving birth was given to one of the two sexes and not the other.
When it comes to class warfare, equality can be achieved.
Because while intelligence and skill and talent may not be equally distributed, the right to live is.
Dumb and wrong
Things are already equal
My friend, go outside.
My friend
Oh great, at least one gets it
go outside.
Sigh.
The only reason someone says my friend is cause they think your an idiot. It’s like saying bless your heart.
And considering what you said… Yeah… Oof
I’ve been saying it like
My friend…
I am not trying to rob you. I’m trying to help you.
or even pull up the news
I don’t have to, the downvote ratio tells me the divide and conquer is alive and well.
‘The news’ is kinda how they do it.
did you even read the link I posted?
Send me the link that proves that decades feminism has had tangible impact on policy in Western society in data.
You can’t. Because they are not a well funded lobby group and this is a capitalist system you’re trying to change.
Yes, that argument makes anyone who makes it sound like an incel, but that doesn’t mean that’s the case, nor does it invalidate the argument.
We have the sea rising by nearly 5cm per decade now, we blew straight through 1.5° and the President of the biggest military in the world is and actual pedophile.
On the other side men can become women and vice versa without being thrown into a lake to see if they drown or publicly burnt.
I think focusing on climate change and not having the biggest pedophile coverup in human history succeed is a much higher priority.
Teach sons to be good, teach daughters about the sons who aren’t. Help female coworkers negotiate the same salary as men. But then maybe move on to the sons and daughters to be safe, and actually have a future.
The downvote ratio tells you you’re being ignorant. That’s literally it.
The downvotes ratio tell me that the “off with their head” human hive psychology is still working and that’s the primary weapon the oligarchs use to stay in control.
I’m not ignorant, I’m making a point to broaden the perspective, and a few people believed that I’m claiming that “women make enough money now” or “pay inequality is no longer an issue” or “violence against women is not disproportionately larger than with men”.
The problems with deciding things are “equal-ish” have already been well addressed, so I just want to point out - just because the billionaire class might use a topic as a wedge issue against us doesn’t excuse us from working to fix it.
They might be setting fire to houses as a distraction, but the houses are still on fire. The people inside can’t wait for us to find and deal with whoever hired the arsonists.
I completely agree with you, and that’s a great analogy.
Cartoons like this post aren’t helping the firemen and women though. And if it isn’t helping them, who is it helping?
Yeah, it’s definitely not a bad thing to focus on raising women to the same level in society as men.
The problem is, like with any group, the radicals who use the movement to spread hate and tarnish the reputation of everyone involved. Religion has the same issue.
In this case, it’s the ones who think equality means swapping positions of power so men are the ones who are oppressed. They give the whole movement a bad name and lead to associations like this.
Honestly, the well might be so poisoned at this point that rebranding with an umbrella term might not be a terrible choice, although it’s terrible that it’s not a terrible choice. It shouldn’t be this way, but humans suck.
Yeah, it’s definitely not a bad thing to focus on raising women to the same level in society as men.
The problem is, Strawman Strawman Strawman
In this case, Strawman Strawman
I don’t think you know what a strawman is.
I disagree about religion, I think the good apples might be the exceptions in any ideology whose core tenants are 1. feelings over thoughts and 2. fear of punishment as basis of morality.
So every Muslim wants to murder the infidels and every Christian wants to bomb abortion clinics?
You’re letting a vocal minority taint your view of an entire demographic.
I didn’t say how bad, exactly, just that they’re almost all a net negative. You know, people who give more to the church than to charity, people who vote for autocrats, people who drill for oil and argue online about climate change. And some of them do indeed bomb abortion clinics and murder infidels, a small minority, but the average evangelical isn’t that far off from that ledge of no return.
The good ones are the ones who set up well regulated mobile soup and bread kitchens to feed the poor. They’re the ones who open shelters and secure the building to take people in during storms. They’re the ones who promote education despite contradictions with their beliefs. Those are few and far between.
Counterpoint maybe you should focus on the boys to raise them to be “not stupid” and not to “harm woman”. Ever man has a mother who raised him from a baby take some accountability woman.
Who are you referencing when you reference, “the ones who think equality means swapping positions of power so men are the ones who are oppressed?” I’m curious to see what an example or two of that would look like.
What they refer to is for example women using accusations of inappropriate behavior to ruin reputations and promotion chances of men to get ahead.
One that also pops up is how divorce is used as a way to strip mine the wealth of men because “the system” will advantage women always.
That’s some talking points you usually see.
I’ve have an example of this that happen recently. It was on a post about Spain (iirc, might have been Italy) making killing women because of their gender a hate crime.
People were arguing that men should receive harsher punishments for killing women because of their gender than women killing men because of their gender.
Which isn’t equality since criminal prosecution should be on a case by case basis. It should be a hate crime to kill anyone because of the way they were born. The fact that women are more often victims just means that more men will be prosecuted than women, but the sentences should be the same.
There’s also the crazies who think that any time a woman has sex with a man, the woman is being raped.
They will just rant about women saying all men are trash or something equally inconsequential i already regret interacting myself.
Where are these hoards of feminists committing “reverse sexism” and oppressing men other than a random tumblr or twitter comment? Where is there institutional power and how are men structurally oppressed in a way not obviously connected to the patriarchy?
You make the mistake of conflating “patriarchy” with “men”. Patriarchy both harms, and is upheld, by both men and women - even plenty of would-be feminists.
Why, it’s with affirmative action! /s
I never said hoards. All it takes is a vocal minority.
It didn’t take hoards of Muslims to make people associate them with terrorists.
What’s fascinating about this argument is that when that radicalism supports patriarchy, whether through the state or religious institutions, it is often unchallenged. At its core, the argument tacitly accepts that institutions get to define right and wrong for us and that we must passively conform.
What do we do when the state or religious institutions are the source of hate and disrepute? Is it “radical” to then challenge them? Because the argument you are making is the same that those who are advantaged by the state or other institutions have been making since time immemorial. The question then becomes, how do we persuade people to start thinking beyond themselves and towards society at large.
The argument youre been making has been employed against those that fought for emancipation, suffragettes, anti segregationalists, MLK Jr, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela etc. When non state sanctioned violence is used then the cause is assumed to be immoral. But even if the approach is nonviolent well then Please temper your language I have a personally beneficial status quo to maintain here with the overall outcome being ongoing injustice for the sake of an often unsustainable peace.
We have not perfected society. No civilization has. There will always be a need for tweaking and tinkering. The least we can do then is listen, so that we don’t simply pass these issues down to our descendants as they have been passed down to us. It’s going to take more than policing language to break that cycle.
Such people represent such a minority of a minority that their opinion is entirely irrelevant.
As long as men continue to have a kneejerk reaction to the word feminism, I think it holds educational value in agitation.
Their opinion isn’t irrelevant, though, as shown by the comic. It only takes a vocal minority to taint the public image.
It only took 19 Muslims to make people associate them with terrorists.
This is no way to argue. It’s only pointing with fingers while victimizing yourself.
It’s okay, the strawman can’t hurt you.
Which person in the comic are you referring to? It could go either way.
Both of them are, that’s the problem
You are the man in the comic
Not at all. People are more complex. What’s the idea here, everyone who disagrees with this meme is mysoginist (evil)? This is MAGA level of stupid grouping.
My sis had this style of “discussing” until she learned better after ca. age 20. That’s why i react to it.
You are the man in the comic
Bad bot
Cope
even worse it is just discussion in bad faith
What a dumpster fire in here. How many shitty man came over from Reddit? Please go back.
Hippy, politically correct, feminist, SJW, woke…
It doesn’t matter how many times you rebrand ~not being an awful person~ people will always make goodness the enemy
Well, tbf, Hippies were better known for free-love-ism, illicit substances, and fake gurus than the other groups. The free love and illicit substances probably contributed to the spread of a lot of disease, which might be why it died out.
There are tons of hippies. You just don’t realize it till they put on patchwork pants and wire-wraps before heading to a festival.
My parents are Hippies. They don’t believe in free love, substance abuse, or the fake gurus. They are earthy crunchy people. According to them two factors caused the hippie movement to fail.
\1) The hippies were a TINY counterculture movement. I’m aware that they are talked about so much that it seems like 1/4 to 1/3 of the generation were hippies, but in reality it was more like 1/1000 to 1/100. No critical mass was achieved.
)2 More than half of the hippies sold out to capitalism and became yuppies.
Also world peace, anti-capitalism, conscientious objection, anti-authoritarianism, and nuclear disarmament. But don’t let that ruin your narrative.
I was listing how they were different from the other groups.
A lot of them weren’t even anti-capitalist, tbh. Look up what a Yuppie is.
A Yuppie is a “Young Urban Professional”, it refers to young adults in the hyper-capitalistic 80s, not Hippies who were young adults in the 60s.
Please stop commenting about things you clearly don’t know anything about.
yuppie, term used most frequently in the 1980s and ’90s to describe college-educated young professionals. Yuppie is short for “young urban professional” or “young upwardly mobile professional.” These individuals were typically of the American baby boomer generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) and worked high-paying jobs in cities. Yuppie started as a fairly neutral expression, but its connotations shifted toward the negative, especially as it began to be associated with social issues regarded as problematic, such as gentrification. Since its peak in the early 1990s, yuppie has largely been phased out as a descriptor, though the term remains familiar to a large number of Americans.
The neologism yuppie was likely used and spread colloquially by word of mouth before appearing in print, probably for the first time in a 1980 issue of Chicago Magazine. Journalist Dan Rottenberg, who did not take credit for coining the term, used it in his article about a growing trend of individuals moving into fashionable neighborhoods in Chicago. Indeed, at the time, much of the media was hyping a reversal of so-called white flight, suggesting that baby boomers, characterized as a generation of former hippies who were then entering their 30s, were shifting away from the suburbanized notion of the American dream of their parents and toward a new idealized urban lifestyle.
Man, you don’t seem to know anything about hippies, political correctness, feminists OR “woke”.
Politically correct just means whatever it takes to get elected which makes defending women the opposite of politically correct these days.
SJWs were incredibly awful people.
Somehow whenever people bemoaned “social justice warriors”, I always pictured Lex Luthor slandering Superman.
Except Superman is the role model that SJWs imagine themselves to be, while holding not a single one of Superman’s qualities.
Any examples? I mostly remember the term being applied to the Greta Thunbergs of the day.
If your idea of the “Greta Thunberg” is someone who walks into a restaurant and starts to Karen about them serving onions (on behalf of those allergic to onions. They weren’t allergic themselves), then, uh… Sure.
I have honestly never heard the term SJW applied to a Karen.
So apparently being an egalitarian does not include women’s rights. Okay, yikes…
