Feminism isn’t just about women.
Toxic masculinity isn’t caused just by men.
Black Lives Matter isn’t just about black lives.
“Believe women” isn’t about blindly believing what women say. “Christian charity” is the least charitable thing in the world.
“Defund the police” and “abolish the police” aren’t about eliminating police forces and letting crime run rampant.
AI is anything but intelligent.
“Global Warming” sounds tame for what’s actually happening: “climate disruption” and “climate catastrophe”. A bunch of countries with “communist” or “democratic” in their names are anything but.Words are stupid. Slogans are lazy. People lie.
Which is why I like the lyrics of ‘Enjoy the Silence’ so much.
Every single line item in your comment became ammunition for foreign agents to get into our culture over the last 20 years and just escalate the FUCK out of both sides of each idea there.
It was directly from the KGB handbook written over 50 years ago, that if you infiltrate a nation’s culture and just amplify the most radical takes of both sides of every issue, it will create so much chaos and completely destabilize a culture so that people tune out and stop trusting each other or any news story they read. This has the effect of making the population just default to whatever state media they see and stop caring about social issues entirely. It’s been shocking seeing how effectively it’s played out in the US.
I watched it happen, I was on the frontlines, managing a few social sites and moderating a huge subreddit about relationships. It was a creeping infection at first, but eventually it was like Helm’s Deep, but instead of orcs outside, it was astroturfers, crybullies, sea lions, and the entire goddamn ZOO of bad-actors and subversive chuds. For every horrible, shit-mouthed incel ranting about how women need to be put in cages, there was also some delusional, insane “feminist” screaming about how all men are rapists and men should never be left alone with children.
I gave up the fight, reddit banned me for being an involved human, but it continues to this day, getting worse by the day.
I watched it happen because I saw it happening and read the (too few) news reports that pointed out that it was indeed happening.
But it’s like climate change. It seems to go in one ear and out the other for the vast majority of the population.
The fact that our species has a glaring weakness in identifying abstract threats, while at the same time we’re developing tools capable of performing the most abstract possible attacks on our free-will and agency, makes me feel a tad uncomfy about the near term future.
Well as long as you’ve correctly identified the KGB and Russia Russia Russia, your job is done.
You don’t have to be Russia to use KGB handbooks anymore
I hate the Kremlin so much. I hope the whole russia will crumble and disappear.
Genocide isn’t the answer either
What are you even talking about?
The KREMLIN and Russia as a country should be no more. Who talked about a genocide?
No walking it back now. The destruction of a nation frequently leads to the slaughter of it people, look to the Middle East for plenty of examples.
Yes but what to do with imperial russia then? They are killing its own people too already.
They got their chance in the nineties, the west poured billions into russia, helped with tech and so on.
My suggestion is NOT GENOCIDE is that clear enough? How stupid do I have to make it.l before you understand the obliteration of a people and culture are wrong, evil actions?
No, see, we are good persons, and they are bad, so when they do genocide, it’s bad, because they’re bad, but when we do it, it’s good, because we’re good!
So you support the Kremlin because other countries are bad too? Good old whataboutism.
…Y’know what, let’s try and dumb this down a bit, middle school style:
- The post you’re replying to accentuates the words good and bad. Why is that?
- When the post talks about actions, what adjectives are used to describe them? How does that relate to the actors doing them? What is the causal relation implied?
- The action used in the post is genocide - why is that, in particular used as an example? Is the post justifying genocide? What does the example of genocide mean for the causal relation implied?
- What is the opinion of the author on the sentiments expressed in the post?
- Does the post take a stance on real-world political actors? Does the post even mention any? If so, does it justify them, or condemn them?
Yes. Genocide is wrong no matter the targets. If you have a problem with that you are a fascist
Oh no, won’t anyone think of the poor Kremlin!!! They can get fucked. I want to see the Kremlin in its current form crash and burn.
You realize the Kremlin isn’t all there is to Russia right? There are people there, ones that aren’t fascist bastards.
Good thing I didn’t say Russia then. I said I wanted to see the Kremlin in its current state crash and burn, and I stand by that.
while the techniques were pioneered and written down by the KGB, I’m not even saying the blame lay on Russia alone. There are a lot of forces adopting this tactic, both foreign and domestic.
Wait 'til you learn about Twitter.
i’d dissapoint you, but the thing the prevous commenter listed are not unique to America nor the western world. It’s not the KGB necessarily, it’s just how the manipulations work. You don’t have to read KGB books to apply them
I didn’t even say it was the KGB doing it entirely, just that it was first documented as a “thing” in their manual from decades ago, and we still didn’t do anything to protect our society broadly from it.
I know well that we’ve been under assault from an absolute charcuterie board of forces both foreign and domestic. Twitter alone is like the Ukraine war, in that it re-wrote how we thought modern tactics are going to unfold, people are going to writing manuals about how to do what Musk has done with that platform.
The craziest part here is that the primary goal of these movements isn’t to actually achieve their objectives, but to virtue signal. If all it took to get a huge chunk of the population on your side was to change your messaging a bit, then any reasonable movement would jump at such a low hanging fruit of an opportunity to advance their cause… but they don’t. These movements would really rather sacrifice optics and stall their movements than accept some criticism and adapt.
Hmm, this is an interesting line of thought. I’ve always thought these movements are dominated by left leaning people and the left usually understands the importance of inclusive wording. So why do they use such exclusive labels?
Surely many people do try to jump at that low hanging fruit and adopt more inclusive labels. But, I guess it’s not an idea that spreads so easily? These movements must rely on people with strong feelings on specific issues and have to target them with a label they can identify with. I guess the more moderate majority would associate with other terms, but don’t have the motivation to take much action in the name of it.
I suspect that all these slogans originated in more radical far left circles where extremism and purity testing are more rampant. Meaning that the face value meaning of the slogans is the intent. As the slogans became more mainstream, the moderate left tried to damage control by introducing alternate meanings to appeal to the public. However, that hasn’t really worked out because the average person doesn’t care about the extra nuance. They’ll just see the slogan and take the face value meaning as the intention. At face value, a lot of these terms are just bad and people rightfully oppose them. Having someone try to explain to them something along the lines of “ackhsually the slogan doesn’t actually mean what it says” doesn’t sound very convincing. Bad optics is a really a big problem on the left, and the crazy thing is that there’s a good chunk of the left that sees no issue with it.
Mottes aren’t actually baileys
Ragebait art by someone who wants to seek rage from both sides. Mastered art.
It’s a valid point though. A simple change in terminology and messaging is literally all it would take for these types of criticisms to go away.
Women have equality and a generally preferable status in Western society. I sure as hell wish I was a woman. My sexual assault would’ve been taken seriously, police would be less suspicious and hostile toward me, better education opportunities, better financial support.
Focusing on their issues is comparable to an egalitarian focusing on issues that affect white people. I’m sure everyone here would question that, right?
So apparently being an egalitarian does not include women’s rights to the OP.
Okay, yikes… If you’re gonna ragebait, at least be smart about it. Acting like a Low-IQ monkey will only embarass you even more.
What a dumpster fire in here. How many shitty man came over from Reddit? Please go back.
And the girl is the reason why feminists have such a bad reputation
Just don’t be a dick and treat everyone equal and with respect and we’ll be fine.
Now watch the down votes come in because I said that everyone should be treated equal and with respect and that the girl was wrong.
You had all the pieces in front of you, labeled and sorted, and you still put them together wrong. Huh.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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
deleted by creator
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
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.
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.
Edit: Like I don’t think true equity should be the goal for cases like domestic abuse, just because it’s a numbers game. Domestic abuse happens a lot more often to women than to men. The goal should be to help anyone who needs it, even it isn’t equal between 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?)
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?
Edit: Downvote all you want, not liking the answer doesn’t invalidate it as the answer. Maybe answer the question.
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?
Its lacking to attempt define feminism clearly without its historical context / origin.
Men and women will never be equal just like any animal in nature
Removed by mod
Sane response to biological facts
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?
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.
We do get to choose. And people still tend to stick to what they did before they couldn’t, interestingly enough
Equality is easy to accomplish. It’s the default state of nature. You have to work overtime to discriminate.
deleted by creator
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?
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 the…
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.
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.
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.
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?
To continue the analogy: He asks her why she fights fires, and in response to her explanation, talks about the benefits of fire-retardant foam over water. She then realizes he smells of gasoline.
The comic is pointing out needlessly divisive behavior on his part - she’s already working on one aspect of the class division, and he’s pushing for her to spread out and weaken her efforts.
Removed by mod
Things are already equal
My friend, go outside.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Yup “Equalists” are just the same as all lives matter folks completely missing the point and trying to poison the well.
It’s like saying “I want everyone to be equal” and saying both men and women should be given a 10% pay raise to account for the gender pay gap.
Sure, you raised women’s wages to cover the gap… but now the gap remains because you also increased men’s by the same amount.
The only wage gap we should be focusing on now is the gap between ultra rich capitalists and the worker class.
Anything else we can worry after we take care of that dumpster fire.
It’s not an either or, many feminists champion other issues.
That’s false. If you want to make everyone equal, you close the pay gap.
To me, egalitarianism is making sure neither group is treated unfarly, so they should both receive the same pay for the same work, but also the same punishment for the same crime, etc.
The gap doesn’t just remain in that scenario, you actually increase the gap making it even worse.
If feminists are allowed to be egalitarian but focus on issues which harm women, others (whatever label they have) can be egalitarian with a different focus. But it needs to be real equality, not a deflection, like the person in the comic.
Where it goes wrong is in telling people they can’t focus on specific issues close to their heart, or in telling people that since legal equality has largely been achieved somewhere there’s nothing else to do.
“All lives matter” was an obvious reaction to a slogan which, to all but existing allies, seemed to be excluding something obvious. BLM people saw rampant violence against black people as evidence that society didn’t think black lives mattered. But that’s not something that comes through when it’s distilled to a slogan.
The UK currently has an “end violence against women and girls” campaign even though men are more often victims of violence. There are reasons to focus on violence against women, but there are also reasons to focus on other things… there is room for nuance here.
“So you are a (rule) bender! You traitor, I devoted my life to you!”
(attacks the blood bender since that’s a great idea)
How to get the point across a bit better while also pointing out the guy actually doesn’t care.
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.
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?
“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
I am, I hate pineapple on pizza that much
Orange Soda must imply that all sodas taste like orange
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.
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.
There’s different types of qualifiers that you can put before words. Gramatically they work the same, but they are different.
“Rotten apples” talks about a subset of apples because being rotten is an obvious, clearly defined state and it’s clear to everyone that not all apples are rotten.
When I see someone ordering chopped liver and I say “Uhg, gross liver”, that’s something different. It’s totally possible that a person thinks liver as food in general is gross. Now it’s a statement that describes all instances of liver and not just this specific plate of liver.
Toxic masculinity is originally meant as the first category: a qualifier for a subcategory of masculinity. But it’s easily understood as the second category: A general description.
That issue is not helped by the fact that the definition is so loose that it’s almost inexistent, plus it’s frequently used as a general complaint/offense towards literally everything a man might do that this specific woman doesn’t like.
And to tie this back to the beginning: it’s a fighting term used to attack and divide and not to actually improve things.
I do agree with you about the “one-genderedness” of these terms. To be fair, the opposite does exist too (e.g. “hysteria”), but these terms are mostly outdated, are falling out of use and aren’t actively pushed by a current ideology.
(And in regards to “manspreading”: the actual issue at hand is that public spaces and especially public transport aren’t designed with male proportions in mind. It’s rather unsurprising that a petit woman fits into a tiny public transport seat while a large man doesn’t. The actual outrage should be with public transport companies not desigining their seats wide enough to fit people, but instead we see fatshaming and terms like “manspreading” to shame people with bigger bodies.)
Ideologues won’t see the obvious flaws in their logic no matter how blatant you make them.
That is certainly true, especially for people who are in fighting mode, and nowadays that seems to be everyone constantly.
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”)
Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic.
Literally taken, that phrase means a variety of Masculinity that is toxic. That you would assert using toxic as an adjective implies that all masculinity is toxic is bizarre. When I say Tomato Sauce, that doesn’t mean that all sauces contain tomatoes. That means that tomato sauces contain tomatoes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective
Or “mansplaining”
I will admit this gets over alleged but you’re off base on what this means as well. Mansplaining is a pop culture term first off, not a Feminist one. And it specifically describes men who explain things to women that women have first hand knowledge that men lack (such as having a period) or offering an unsolicited explanation to a woman because they either assume the woman is ignorant or unintelligent on account of her gender. Often the recipient of mansplaining has equal or greater knowledge of what is being “mansplained”
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.
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.
