I think people who ask generalized questions like, “Why does group X have irrational opinion Y about subject Z?” should instead engage with individuals about why they feel a certain way on a specific subject. I think they would find that people make up a full spectrum, opinions are more diverse than the right one and the ridiculous one, and people don’t personify two extreme opposing memes.
The problem is the answer is usually that they’re a gullible idiot that doesn’t fact check memes they saw on Twitter
I think this article does a great job talking about there isn’t enough examples and models of an non-toxic masculinity out there. Women are told and have examples about many different ways to be women. Thanks to work of female feminists for years being childless, a stay at home mother, working a “feminine” job, working a “masculine” job, etc. are all valid options for women and are celebrated by women.
For men there is celebration of only one kind of man. We need more examples and celebrations of the varieties of men out there. I think this is especially true for straight men. I think straight men should borrow some of these examples from both the Gay community and from women. I personally as a straight man have found a lot of acceptance and value from how Gay men value diverse bodies types of men. I find it validating to me own experience and women are starting to do the same. We as men need to start celebrating each other in the ways that women do. After doing this enough and making it safe enough for women to join in a lot of good examples can be set for young men to see there are multiple celebrated options of masculinity. I think it might be hard for straight men to understand they are not the best at this and we should follow the lead of other but it is best course of options.
there needs to be real accountability for the impact of men like rogan, tate, musk, trump
This is definitely needed.
I would like to point on that these men are purposely trying to many people as possible to play their game since they know they can win. So recruiting men to think and act like them is their own point. Its helpful to note that all these “successful” people are all benefiting from the system that exists today that we are not. They need us more than we need them
The article gets so close to fully getting it but then misses the point in an attempt to identify a common enemy.
White male privilege was the bribe that was given to the group in exchange of accepting a shit deal (being a worker under capitalism) as long as that group helped enforce an even shitier deal to the rest.
Now that bribe is gone, so it’s actually a shittier deal than before (similar to what everyone else has, maybe worse cause of the stigma).
Men aren’t thinking, oh what’s the ideal solution. They are thinking, we did the right thing and agreed on equal rights, but you (feminism) didn’t fix the shit deal, so I don’t want more of your solution.
Imo, the solution to the shit deal wasn’t feminism, it was socialism (which includes equal rights for all humans).
I think this is by design, the owners knew feminism wouldn’t change their system of oppression much, so they let that one go through and crushed socialism in the process.
but you (feminism) didn’t fix the shit deal,
I’m just curious where feminists are in power. Maybe in some nordic countries - but than again those have rather high living standard and economical equality. Big corporations pandering to LGBT and co, does not really count.
Feminism has a lot of narrative power, and the whole middle management not just of individual companies but society as a whole is, by now, female-dominated.
If you’re getting laid off chances are a women wrote the reports that the layoff was based on, and a woman is signing off on your severance package. You go to the dole office and – yep, a woman works your case. Chances also aren’t too terrible that, above the layer of the predominantly male C-suite, there’s an heiress to the empire because generational capital accumulation doesn’t discriminate.
So, in a nutshell: Much feminist messaging can easily come across as HR telling a male truck driver “our boss is a man, therefore, you’re fired”.
Whether that power base can actually be, realistically, mobilised, is another topic. I guess academia in principle serves the place for middle management that unions play among workers but it’s a tough cookie no matter which side you look at. Doubly fucked in places like the US where middle management is even more prone to the temporarily embarrassed billionaire fantasy. And somehow I ended up at class analysis. Honestly, wasn’t intentional.
I think this is by design, the owners knew feminism wouldn’t change their system of oppression much, so they let that one go through and crushed socialism in the process.
This was definitely the strategy and it wasn’t an acceptance of feminism but a much limited feminist rights. These were limited to the rights to vote and work from other rich white families (i.e. from their own wives and daughters.) . From the earliest days feminism included socialistic elements with many of same people interacting in much in the same way civil right organization had socialist elements. The powers at be simple found the easiest path and did it. Moreover, they tried to highlight the most extreme man hating elements to isolate men from joining the cause.
While there are some points worth discussing in the article, I want to raise an issue with the community itself, since it’s actually fairly adjacent.
If you look through it, majority of posts in the community that calls itself “Men’s Liberation” is really not about, well, men’s liberation. It’s about how men should adapt to the realities of modern feminism, without getting a set at the table to discuss how it affects them and what they would’ve done differently. It just straight up mirrors feminist talking points and rephrases them to have “men” in the name.
This is very much why feminism is often hated: not because it gives women seat at the table, but because it takes the seat away from men, while vaguely claiming they have power elsewhere (but do they?).
Don’t get me wrong: feminism tackles important questions, but it always looks at issues through the women’s perspective, which might miss the unique circumstances men find themselves in and their angle with the issues raised. Since the community claims to come from the men’s side (it’s in the name), I find it deeply disingenuous and concerning.
I think when hearing about feminism and Men Liberation is to understand how feminist talk about the Patriarchy. I would really recommend The Will To Change by bell hooks. She does a great job explaining how the Patriarchy system harms men. It helps me to understand when people are talking about the Patriarchy they are talking about the “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” which is its full name. See below quote from bell hooks.
Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. -The Will to Change, Chapter 2 pg 39
Talking about the intersections of gender, race, class etc. is called Intersectionality which is what modern feminist are talking about. It talks about how one can be both discriminated and benefit from others being discriminated at the same time. This how you get the case of typically rich white powerful females using the language of feminism to support the patriarchal systems that keep them in power by dominating those who are below them.
Thanks, I am aware of patriarchy and the way it harms men. I don’t take the issue with men going against it, and it should absolutely be dismantled as it screws pretty much everyone, women and men.
What I do take issue with is that many just adopted the feminist approach and expect women to fix it for everyone, despite the fact feminism is and always has been about women, and what it does for men is rather collateral. Men are commonly not seen by feminists as someone whose voice matters much inside the movement, and if men don’t have much representation in it, we can’t expect it to be fair to us.
As per intersectionality, I’ve always found its ties with feminism concerning, much for the same reasons. Intersectional feminists are concerned with the issues of Black women, for example, but are Black men proportionally covered? We should accept that a white disabled man and a black able woman are both disadvantaged, and do our best to help everyone who is disadvantaged by any means. Intersectionality shouldn’t focus on women, or Black people, or disabled, or poor, or someone with mental issues, or anyone is particular; it should be about recognizing everything that drags people down and figuring out what can be done to shorten the divide.
I do think there can be more done to help Men within feminist spheres. I think one of the hard parts from a woman’s perspective is “Not all Men” men taking over debates in female circles and “Man-o-sphere” bros taking over any man and man discussion. Its good to have communities to discuss these things
One of the main points of discipline of /r/menslib back on reddit and now here is to avoid, at all costs, saying “all feminists”, as more MRAy places are prone to do, which in turn do tend to have a discipline regarding “all women”, that’d be incel and Tate bro talk. Maybe such an approach could be mirrored and cause something beautiful. Like a disarmament treaty of sorts.
I agree. No talking about whole subsets of populations.
If I’m not mistaken, this was the initial concept behind the community, no? The idea that this “manosphere” bullshit is a response to the erasure of men in the misguided attempt to bow to third (fourth now?) wave feminism.
In a nutshell, the plot of feminism got lost in the greater society as a whole finally trying to adopt some of its principles via straight up virtue signaling.
—fuck I can’t think of the phrase people use—value posturing? Ethics acting? I’m sure you all know the phrase I’m searching for, right wingers popularized it.But point is, it’s true. And yes, it happens on the white left, but its most devious incarnation is in corporate America. Putting a woman of color in your ad is not equality. Taking aunt jemima off your bottle isn’t erasing racism. It’s just lip service to something akin to progress to boost their bottom line.
So in this world of a bunch of meaningless putting women in the spotlight to say they’ve done it, young men are feeling like they don’t matter. So when you have the liberal world saying “shut up now, a woman is talking,” young men don’t hear “okay, it’s on my generation to take this and smile because there is a long history of women not getting a seat at the table.” Young men hear the most misguided of the fourth wave feminists shouting “men are pigs” and “oh a woman killed her husband? Good, one less man in the world,” and they don’t see much pushback on it. And their brains aren’t fully developed, so they don’t understand that this behavior, in context…well, it’s still very stupid and wrong, but they see society writ large mostly embracing this or laughing it off.
So what do they do? Where do they turn? To the people telling them that women, actually, are the ones who are trash and they need to shut up and get back in the kitchen. Because, to their eye, the world does seem to be trying to go out of its way to “oppress” men. When you hear those fucksticks say “white men are the most oppressed group,” young men don’t understand why that should be laughed off. Because, again, their young brains aren’t developed and hey don’t have centuries of history understood. They hear one side saying “whatever it’s just some white man,” and they hear the other saying “it’s okay to be a man, it’s actually great and you deserve everything.”
Who the fuck do we think they’re gonna listen to?
Not sure exactly how the lemmy.ca community came to be but I suppose it’s a continuation of the subreddit, vox has the original story in form of an interview:
I had gotten really into observing the online gender wars. It was entertaining for a while, and then it started to get pretty depressing. You had people on both sides of these issues who are passionate about the parts that they care about — but what they’re really passionate about is arguing, and making the other side look bad.
After a while, I realized that I either needed to stop observing it or I needed to try to help fix it. So I started thinking that what we needed was an actual solutions- and positivity-focused men’s group, where we could talk about these issues that are so important but ditch some of the bad habits of what we’ve seen before.
The term you’re looking for is ‘virtue signalling’. It’s a shame it got assigned a political bias, because it’s a handy term for what makes rainbow capitalism so infuriating.
Another big point that needs to be made is that engagement driven social media algorithms have pushed the most controversial content to the top, giving it an oversized representation. Then there are also those with vested interests in preventing unity who are more than happy to jump on any opportunity to stoke division.
You mean, virtue signaling?
I agree with you in that the less avenues we have for men to speak up and be listened to, the more radical they will become, and instead of coming with constructive and useful criticisms, they will instead follow everyone who says “the other side is a problem, so now it’s your time to violently state your way”.
One thing though - no one should be silenced or mistreated for the acts of previous generations. Those young men hold no relation to what happened there in the past, and those young women are not its victims, either. “Reverse” discrimination is just discrimination based on arbitrary concept, and acts of other people in other times should never be seen as a supporting argument here.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you. What I was trying to say there was that they’re not able to see the situation, as it is, through the lens of history. They don’t have the capacity for that kind of understanding. I’m not exactly saying that unequal treatment is good and fair.
However, after a long period of inequality, there is kind of a necessary middle point between inequality and equity where there has to be a balancing of the scales. We’ve all seen that sort of infographic/web comic where they’re showing the people looking over the fence, where inequality has the white boy standing on all the blocks and the others standing on one or none, and then under the “equality” header, they’re all standing on the same amount of blocks, and then under “equity,” the tall kid gets exactly enough o see over the fence, the short kid gets more, etc?
I mean, that is the main goal, right? Equity? There comes a time, especially after a long period of inequality, where those blocks have to get doled out. There has to be a time, after a long period of people not getting a seat at the table, where those disenfranchised people who have been historically kept out of the room get intentionally put in that room, given one of the seats at the table. And for all intents and purposes, there are only so many seats at any given table. See what I’m saying?
Now, these are all solutions under a capitalist system. Solutions to work within a system that is inherently flawed and inequitable. The answer is dismantling that system. But if we’re talking about jobs, positions of power, places at the capitalist table, etc., there is going to be a period of righting the wrongs, of giving those limited number of seats to people who belong to groups who have historically been kept out. But that’s talking about solutions within a flawed, unjust system. Because under capitalism, it is a hierarchy. And putting people in higher positions within it is the solution under capitalism—because you’re placing people still in a hierarchy, where others will be exploited at the hands of, now, the people who have suffered the exploitation the worst.
It makes no sense. You’re absolutely right.
So I think that’s what you are butting up against. It is that’s still inherently unfair because it requires overlooking the previously dominant groups, no matter that people didn’t choose to be born into the oppressor group, and they shouldn’t bear the pushback their ancestors catalyzed.
And rightly so, you should butt up against that because the system is built to be unfair. It thrives and literally operates on exploitation. So the solution you’re looking for is one that doesn’t involve hierarchy or capitalism. And I’m with you there. But we’re unfortunately talking about life under capitalism, so without demolishing that whole system in favor of a more equitable and just and healthy system, there will be inequality to right the imbalance. Should it be that way? No. But capitalism and hierarchy are forcing our hand here. But I’m with you, all the way.
I mean there is a duality in patriarchy, that each issue that touches on a woman also touches on a man. If you don’t understand how feminism is two halves a whole, and how it is actually a mirror for us to investigate our own masculinity, then I don’t know how to help you on your path to liberation.
Of course there is!
But that’s the very issue I take. The problems around gender stereotypes, patriarchy etc. are a complex combination of factors on both sides - and the only way to untangle this is to listen to both sides. Men should absolutely scrutinize their behavior using what women can share; but so should women hear male voices to see what can be changed on their end.
We can’t expect to find a common ground under the dictate of one side. Men didn’t manage to solve the issue of women back in the pre-feminism era, because they thought they knew better. Now women repeat the same mistake, thinking they hold the keys to the solution and not bothering asking men on what they think about it.
Because it is disingenuous. Most feminism frames the world in terms of women’s interests and experiences, and elevates them above men’s. It doesn’t seem a middle ground or acknowledge the difference in the sexes. It just sort of adopts ‘women are wonderful’ bias through and through, without realizing that women can be, and often are, awful people.
Liberation requires acknowledging our shared humanity outside of identity labels, but that type of thinking isn’t emotionally motivating for people because it can’t take a ‘us vs them’ approach.
Exactly!
Screw everyone who tries to put feminism as a band-aid for everything, and screw twice everyone who tries to take men’s movements and turn them into yet another feminist think tank, pretending it’s about men.
We need to consider both sides if we want to form any sort of balanced view, or to actually achieve anything on the grounds of gender equality.
Women are people. Men are people. Let’s figure out how to coexist in a way that makes everyone happy.
acknowledge the difference in the sexes.
If it does not acknowledge the difference in the sexes how does it value womens interest/experiences over mens? Like dude, get some basic logic going.
You could have read the description of community first:
“his community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people,”
But you chose not to which kind of begs the question of you arguing in good faith.
How is giving women a seat at the table taking it away from men?
while vaguely claiming they have power elsewhere
We can go check who is in positions of power around the world if you are inclined to defend this point.
You seem to misunderstand the core concept of feminism, which is not men vs. women it’s people against a specific power structure, which arguably benefits only few while keeping the majority down.
I did read the description - and initially tried to write it off, because in the minds of many people feminism=gender equality movement (it is not).
The point I raise is not that giving women a seat removed it from men in itself, but that feminism tries to sit on two chairs, claiming to be for equality and at the same time doing everything to show only female voices count, because men are presumably “powerful anyway” and don’t need to be heard out.
It is true that the top positions are predominantly taken by men. But does it convert the same way for the average Joe, does he actually have that much power? This place seems to recognize this is not true, yet comes with an answer that feminism (a movement that strongly boasts female voices over male, and often doesn’t consider men as actual allies) will magically resolve it without active men’s contributions by dismantling patriarchy. No it won’t, because it doesn’t work with the issue on the other end. Men are not invited to resolve issues that directly concern them; they are instead forced into the roles feminists have made for them, and this doesn’t work because men have issues and considerations of their own that are not addressed.
Again, feminism (as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it”) - cool. Masculism (as in the same but about men) - amazing. But we can’t have one of them and hope for it to fix stuff for everyone. Either we go united for an actual antisexism, or we need both to be balanced. What happens here is the subversion of the men movements into yet another feminist space. We have enough of that.
Again, feminism (as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it”) - cool. Masculism (as in the same but about men) - amazing. But we can’t have one of them and hope for it to fix stuff for everyone. Either we go united for an actual antisexism, or we need both to be balanced. What happens here is the subversion of the men movements into yet another feminist space. We have enough of that.
This space was created as a space to deal with men issues through the lens of feminism. While you claim that feminism is "as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it” - it is a sociological framework that explains social hierarchy and power structures, that grew over long period of time and gave power to a specific group of people, while disenfranchising other groups to different degrees. This framework can be used to understand problems quite a lot people face today (men and women) but is obviously not a theory of everything. It does not deal with all issues men and women encounter in a modern world. You are free to create your own space for men issues to analyse them from a different point of view. But in my experience such places often deteriorate into basic misogyny.
It is true that the top positions are predominantly taken by men.
How come?
yet comes with an answer that feminism (a movement that strongly boasts female voices over male, and often doesn’t consider men as actual allies) will magically resolve it without active men’s contributions by dismantling patriarchy.
I doubt that this is the conses opinion on this sub - you will have to present some evidence for this claim.
Men are not invited to resolve issues that directly concern them; they are instead forced into the roles feminists have made for them, and this doesn’t work because men have issues and considerations of their own that are not addressed.
Who exactly is stopping men from being involved in resolving their issues? Feminists? I don’t see how - you will have to elaborate on this one.
The point I raise is not that giving women a seat removed it from men in itself, but that feminism tries to sit on two chairs, claiming to be for equality and at the same time doing everything to show only female voices count, because men are presumably “powerful anyway” and don’t need to be heard out.
We seem to have a very different understand and view on feminism and what it’s about.
men’s liberation
feminist community
lol, is this some kind of joke? That’s cultural appropriation.
Men’s lib, as in the term at least, is as old as second-wave feminism. This is a place to talk about men’s issues that doesn’t bash feminism. At least not more than feminism bashes itself, that is, which can be a lot. Also not a place to be a pickme.
It’s a community to discuss men issues predominantly through the lens of feminism. Care to explain the joke?
Wow great read
What is this community about? I have read the sidebar, but I have not understand it…
As an outsider: “Feminism for men”. It currently exists as a counter to Men’s Rights, which was a movement deemed “too problematic” by the Feminists. Whether it is too problematic is something I’ll leave up to the reader. I for one think they’re just really good at trolling (and sometimes they were assholes).
Put simply, this is a community dedicated to criticism of the gendered constraints placed on men.
Removed by mod
Then click into the community and look at the other posts instead of making assumptions.
So like the one from 2 months ago?
Welcome to the Fediverse.
Why would you guess when you can look at the other posts?
deleted by creator
Things are breaking down because women work, not because oligarch are getting insanely greedy and sabotaging democratic structures.
deleted by creator
I mean, women do their part to contribute to consumerism.
The main reason why guys want money is so they can be more appealing to women.
that’s patriarchy, which enforces capitalism. that’s not the natural order. that’s how we’re programmed
Bro that is Feudalism and Tribalism as well. You’d rather marry your daughter off to a rich man, than a poor one. That’s nothing new to Capitalism. Except women now have the choice to do that themselves.
🥱
Genuinely feels like feminists come here just to argue with men, lol.
Goodbye.
But that’s not women’s fault, that’s patriarchys fault for instilling into men on a deep cultural level that they need to make money to “provide” and then capitalism exploiting us workers so hard that that “providing” goal is impossible for a lot of us.
A lot of men deal with that insecurity by entering hustle grindset mindsets. Others get taken advantage of by right wing groups and say it’s women’s expectations at fault, not understanding that feminism also combats that expectation.
The point being, patriarchy binds us all, men and women with its expectations, and capitalism has made meeting those expectations impossible for a lot of people resulting in a double wombo combo of fucking men over.
I think this ignores part of the problem some younger guys have expressed which is their perspective partner still expect the guy to earn more and that’s increasingly not the case.
A lot of men have no idea what feminism entails so they aren’t aware that it calls not just for the adjustment in expectations and attitudes for men but for women as well. Clarifying what feminism is could fix a bunch of minor issues.
that’s patriarchys fault for instilling into men on a deep cultural level that they need to make money to “provide”
Maybe that’s the case because it’s been the case since bartering started about 100,000 years ago… You’d rather your daughter marry a guy with a lot of stuff, rather than the guy with little stuff. If you think you can “just” change such an ancient system by introducing Feminism, then oh boy, are we even more fucked than I thought…
The only real issue is that Capitalism in the US has gone hogwild and concentrated most wealth down to 3 people. Europe is somewhat doing fine in that regard. Don’t we have superrich people? Yeah, sure, but our bottom line is a LOT healthier. Not as healthy as I wish it to be, but fine-ish for now.
But that’s not women’s fault,
I think at this point it’s time to take a step back and say “not all women”.
The reaction to “drizzle drizzle” has been particularly telling in this regard: You can scroll through miles of comments of feminists1 trying to analyse the thing as “a movement”, not really knowing what to make of it, where to put it, you can scroll through just as much mileage of “these men are gay” tiktoks from, well, the kind of women drizzle drizzle is taking the piss out of. And you’ll also see reactions from women totally getting it: The ones who can’t help but laugh along. Which is the only way to take this seriously.
The enforcement of patriarchy, or consumerism, whatever you want to call it and however you want to slice it, is not a particularly gendered thing. Just because you belong to an identifiable group doesn’t mean that your actions or opinions are beneficial to that group. That would presume people to not be idiots which is never a safe assumption to make, present company and myself included.
1 “feminist” as in “contains the word feminist in the subreddit name” and suchlike. Not intended to be a deep analysis of the *isms.
I think it’s always important to keep in mind that in any population of people there will be regressives.
I mean, sure. In this context in particularly though what I’m disappointed by is the cluelessness of self-identified feminists: As you yourself said in your other comment the “sprinkle sprinkle” sphere isn’t exactly feminist, going exactly against the adjustments of expectations feminism wants to make among women, then comes along drizzle drizzle to make fun of sprinkle sprinkle, very much in line with feminist thought (though with male humour and camaraderie) and they just don’t get it. Complete woosh.
…or,
<conspiracy_mode=on>, they do get it but play clueless to not have it publicly associated with feminism so that it can be more effective in influencing culture. 1d chess, 4d chess, who can tell the difference.Just to be clear Im not the same poster as the person who mentioned “sprinkle sprinkle”
Nope that was me myself. It’s very much “men should pick up the bill or get lost” type stuff though so I connected it with your “expect to earn more” thing.
Now we just need a strong representative to frame this as populist rhetoric and the left will finally be able to stand on two feet
It’s not their fault insomuch as they can’t think for themselves, I’ll agree with you there.
But the agreement stops when you blame the patriarchy over consumerism. No, this generation has been convinced to sell itself out to the lowest bidder. Average women are proud consumers that want to live like instagram models. Any kind of modesty is shunned in their social circles. It’s drowned out by “look at this new thing I bought! Please praise me for spending money!”
The sex speaks for itself. Men have a ridiculously easy time getting laid if they have money, even if they’re pieces of shit in every other way.
your post is concerning. What most people respond to is confidence and being fun/interesting. When I have previously had trouble getting dates the thing that needed fixing was my attitude NOT my finances.
Keep doing whatever you can to avoid holding women accountable for anything.
That’s how we treat them like children.
Why do you think women aren’t held accountable for anything? That’s silly.
I should also note. The concept you are referring to as “they can’t think for themselves” is called False Consciousness. The idea that oppressive systems like patriarchy and capitalism create this sense that you are acting with complete free will but you actually are following a set of expectations and thoughts and even language that feedback loops on itself in a never ending reinforcement loop.
It’s like, your right at the core of what your saying. There is truth there. But you use such anti women language rather than targeting the systems, ideologies and incentives that make both men and women this way.
but you actually are following a set of expectations and thoughts and even language that feedback loops on itself in a never ending reinforcement loop.
Isn’t that culture in general? Not saying it doesn’t apply to “the patriarchy”, but this definition is a bit too wide, IMO.
complete free will
Hyperbole.
It’s a spectrum, for sure. I wouldn’t be who I am without the influence of others.
That said, women are way more likely to go along with what the crowd (their peers) is doing than I am. If they disagree with the crowd, they are way less likely to put those disagreements into action than I am.
They cannot think for themselves and it’s encouraged by those who refuse to acknowledge it. It’s not a problem unique to women, but they suffer from it more than men because women have been conditioned to operate as one unit.
Have you talked to a therapist that specializes in cognitive behavioral therapy about your views here? You might be happier in the long run if you do.
I can tell you’re upset because I’m saying things you don’t like. It’s okay, I see it all the time and don’t expect more from you people on these forums.
Goodbye. Easy block.
You’re displaying really obvious signs of distress. You aren’t coming across as mentally healthy.
Brother, you are right now repeating the most common, basic and wrong male anti feminist talking points as you talk about how women are so baby brained that they can’t think.
It ain’t hyperbole. It’s academic theory. You are so caught up in not using the word you don’t like. I am telling you that you don’t know what that word means. I explain what it means. You then repeat “no” and then say the same thing but in a misogynist lens.
There’s even non misogynist ways to explain the “operating as one unit” borg brain you are talking about. It’s just the women’s side of patriarchy. That’s a built in function of patriarchy. You have a hard time seeing that because you are not a woman and have a flawed concept of the word patriarchy. Do you get what I’m saying?
as you talk about how women are so baby brained that they can’t think.
Saying it’s an ‘anti-feminist’ talking point holds no water when we’re describing reality. You’re literally supporting my argument by saying that women can’t rise above the expectations the patriarchy has put on them. They can’t think for themselves.
You’re also supporting my notion that you refuse to acknowledge greed and consumerism as being the root cause of these issues because you’re so distracted and invested in blaming “the patriarchy.”
It’s a lot easier for women to blame “the patriarchy,” because if they addressed their own greed then they would have to give something up. If all the blame is put on “the patriarchy,” then women can continue to consume just as they always have and delude themselves into thinking they’re not part of the problem.
It’s just the women’s side of patriarchy.
Now this is an interesting point to bring up, although it does reinforce my argument. Men are more likely to value autonomy, women are more likely to value homogeny. It’s why I said that women have a harder time thinking for themselves than men and why they’ve been conditioned to operate as one unit.
None of this is up for debate and you haven’t disproved any of my points. Even if these ideas aren’t acceptable in our social circles, it doesn’t mean they don’t describe reality.
Stop trying to look good in front of your peers.
You come across as if you never considered that your persoective is just that amd isn’t an unbiased reflection of reality.
When people talk about the patriarchy they are talking about the inherent sexism within society that creates all of the issues you are complaining about.
Look. We are talking in circles. So let me leave you off with a quote from one of the most famous feminist writers, Bell Hooks.
It is obvious that many women have appropriated feminism to serve their own ends, especially those white women who have been at the forefront of the movement; but rather than resigning myself to this appropriation I choose to re-appropriate the term ‘feminism’, to focus on the fact that to be ‘feminist’ in any authentic sense of the term is to want for all people, female and male, liberation from sexist role patterns, domination, and oppression. – Ain’t I A Woman: Black Women and Feminism, 1981
Like I said. You are stuck in a mind loop called a false consciousness. I was unable to break you out of it this conversation. I hope that this conversation is a seed in your brain that someday, someone else more able to speak your language waters and sprouts into understanding.
Please understand. You are not talking about “women”. You are talking about patriarchy. You are complaining about patriarchy. You are complaining about women who are also stuck in the same patriarchy false consciousness as you are, but from the other side. Your talk about women and greed is a complex intersection of patriarchy and capitalism. They effect each other and support each other.
I genuinely hope you take that extra step towards understanding and abandon your misogynist lens. It is doing more harm to you than you know.
You are still just complaining about the intersection of patriarchy and capitalism. What you are saying is feminist theory. We are still in agreement here, though I disagree with the way you word it.
For example. You say that the average women wants to live like Instagram models. You are right, but that is due to patriarchy creating the cultural expectations that men are unable to meet in the modern world due to capitalisms squeeze. It is women simply trying to meet their side of the expectation.
Feminism is in part about how patriarchy binds both genders by expectations. People generally focus on the way it binds women. However it fucks men over as well. We are expected to have money, we are expected to “provide” weather in the classical sense of a family or in the modern sense of just having the money to meet consumerist whims, it doesn’t really matter which one your talking about, it’s still patriarchy.
When patriarchy is normally discussed it’s about how men are privileged and women are oppressed. And while even as a, as the incels like to say, “low value man” you do have some societal privileges, it is very often ignored that patriarchy oppresses us men as well for not meeting those expectations. In this case, having money. Which we don’t because capitalism funnels money into fewer and fewer hands, making fewer and fewer men able to achieve those expectations.
I hope I explained this well and didn’t talk in too many circles. Like I said. Wombo combo of capitalism and patriarchy that tag team to fuck over men.
You are right, but that is due to patriarchy creating the cultural expectations
This is where we disagree, and it’s not just the words that we use. Women are greedy, too. They like the nice things men buy them. They don’t care about the true cost of consumerism because they’ve been conditioned to ignore it.
It is women simply trying to meet their side of the expectation.
This is why I agree with you insomuch as women aren’t able to think for themselves. I don’t put that expectation on them. People richer than us do. Even though I’m able to rise above their influence, the average person cannot. This goes doubly-so for women because women have been encouraged for generations to function as one entity as much as possible.
That’s still not disagreeing with me though. You are agreeing fundamentally with what I am saying, but you don’t understand what the words mean. You have a false consciousness of your own that is at this moment blocking you from understanding what mean by “patriarchy”.
The only difference in what we are saying is that you don’t know the big fancy words and theory backing it up and instead replace it with anti women language that you have picked up and understood. At the core, past the language and operating on pure ideas, we are saying the same thing.
It is disagreeing, though. You’re saying that women can’t rise above the expectations put on them by “the patriarchy.” I agree that women, on average, cannot think for themselves.
It’s not the fault of the patriarchy that women like expensive things and are willing to reward males who buy them things with sex. Women themselves encourage this behavior.
Trying to absolve them of any responsibility is just contributing to the culture of treating women like children.
That’s not what I am saying. Women and men can rise above those expectations. It’s called feminism.
Wrong, you just described patriarchy. You do not know what that word means. You understand it as “men good, women bad”. You described an aspect of patriarchy as it effects both women’s expectations of men and men’s expectations of women.
Of course everyone is responsible for their own actions. However when discussing the way a group of people, especially such a wide one as half the population, you use terms that accurately describe the ideologies at work rather than the group itself. Because to do so builds stereotypes and reinforces false consciousness related to that group. In your case, you are stuck in the male patriarchal false consciousness that is clouding your ability to see that we are saying the same thing.
With attitudes like I see you displaying, I wouldn’t sleep with you either. Listen to yourself and the words you use. That’s not thinking for yourself, that’s focusing on perceived others’ faults in order to take zero responsibility for own faults.
Women themselves encourage this behavior.
The women whose minds are also enslaved to the patriarchy encourage this. Sounds like we’re saying the same thing
I hate none of the three.
Then you don’t know what capitalism is.
Or perhaps I just think differently than you.
Perhaps. It’s also possible you’re confusing capitalism with a market economy in general. Market economies are pretty useful, but capitalism in particular generates massive wealth inequality.
And the ultimate goal of capitalism is to end competition, antithesis to a functioning market economy.
Let me try this again in light of trying to meet you where you are at instead of just saying “wrong” and moving on.
What do you think the article meant by its title? What do you think it ment by “capitalism” so we can be on the same page.
Am I needed in this discussion? I thought that you can read my mind when you’re so confidently educating me about my own views.
There’s no easy way to tell someone on the Internet that they are wrong without sounding patronizing. All I can say is that I genuinely want to try and explain something to you that you clearly do not understand. I would like you to understand. I would like for us to be able to talk about this topic. I mean this with love and sincerity. That’s the best I can do.
You weak, little, and petty troll, go, shoo!
Or just try not to be on the same page at all. Also okay.
You think differently because you don’t understand what you are thinking about. You think you do, but you don’t. It’s called false consciousness. Which our world is full of as oppressive systems such as capitalism naturally make use of false consciousness.
This is to say, you don’t know what capitalism is.
Probably both.
I do not think it’s worth acknowledging a difference in opinion when the problem at its core is the difference in what those words mean. I don’t think we have a difference in opinion. I think he does not know what I or the article mean. If someone could just find the words to tell him in a way he understands then I feel we would be surprised to see that no disagreement existed in the first place.
Now to find the words…
I think you may have better luck by adopting the Mr Roger’s style of communication.
Telling someone they don’t know what a word means probably is going to make them become defensive and bounce off instead of engaging with what you’re saying, regardless of you being correct.
I appreciate the video and advice. You are right, it does make people instantly defensive. I actually never really watched Mr Rodgers as a kid. My dad thought PBS was communist propaganda lol. So I will try to learn from this best I can. Thank you.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted for a difference in opinion, I think we should try to converse with people who have different views, lest we are just an echo chamber.
With that in mind, do you support the current version of capitalism which is very laissez faire? Or are you in favour of the system if it is regulated more than we do now.
He’s being down voted because he had an uninformed and uncritical response to a valid point. Not because of a difference in opinion but because he entered a conversation with the sole intent of saying “not me”, clearly showing he didn’t even begin to engage in any way with the topic.
It is disingenuous to call it a difference in opinion.
However, conversation is good, and I appreciate your attempt at getting him to put some more thought into the topic. It’s something I need to be better at myself rather than being snippy.
In that spirit of conversation I do wanna say that I think focusing on different versions of capitalism misses the point of the topic as well. It isn’t about laissez faire vs more regulated systems. It’s that the incentives regardless of the specific system of capitalism seek to squeeze wealth out of every orifice. It’s a constant struggle between the oppressed being squeezed and the squeezers doing the squeezing.
What does this have to do with feminism and whatnot? Well you see, due to the endless squeezing, men have lost the ability to do the thing they have been told their whole life to do. Provide. This has happened at the same time as women and LGBT rights becoming more and more equal. Due to this, many right wing groups prey on men’s insecurity with their lack of ability to “provide” and blame that changing world on the fact women and queer folk are more open and equal.
As if putting women in the kitchen and queer folk in the closet will revert the economic status of those men back to the time when women were forced to be in the kitchen and queer folk were forced in the closet.
This is the topic. To say to all that “I don’t hate capitalism” is to fundamentally not understand the topic at all. Conversation is good, but to conversate we need to have a common topic and a common language to communicate ideas about that topic. A language that the person you replied to does not have as shown by his non-understanding of what was even said.
This is called a false consciousness. It’s a natural outcome to oppressive systems to take people within it and give them a language incompatible with people outside of that same false consciousness. Conversation becomes difficult because what I mean by capitalism and what he means by capitalism are fundamentally different.
Both I and the article are using the academic meaning. Meanwhile he thinks we mean like, Owning a house as capitalism.
As I said before, I need to be better at engaging people and being less snippy and just pointing and saying “your wrong and here’s why”. Meeting people where they are is my goal but I’m not quite there.
Anyways, good luck with your attempt. Sorry that I talked so much. Please take it with genuine love that I want to give it with.
Thanks for the reply. I will respond to this at some point today, just a little busy right now and don’t want you to think I just ignored your insightful response.
Take your time. Ill be here, willing to talk the best I can.
He’s being down voted because he had an uninformed and uncritical response to a valid point. Not because of a difference in opinion but because he entered a conversation with the sole intent of saying “not me”, clearly showing he didn’t even begin to engage in any way with the topic.
I agree with this and I should have been a little more critical in my reply to them.
It is disingenuous to call it a difference in opinion.
Apologies, this wasn’t my intention and I will try and communicate better in the future.
However, conversation is good, and I appreciate your attempt at getting him to put some more thought into the topic. It’s something I need to be better at myself rather than being snippy.
I appreciate you pointing this out and also recognising that you have room for improvement in this regard. Not too many people admit to these things.
In that spirit of conversation I do wanna say that I think focusing on different versions of capitalism misses the point of the topic as well. It isn’t about laissez faire vs more regulated systems. It’s that the incentives regardless of the specific system of capitalism seek to squeeze wealth out of every orifice. It’s a constant struggle between the oppressed being squeezed and the squeezers doing the squeezing.
What is the alternative though? As in not against learning about alternative systems. You could argue that for all of capitalisms failings it has advanced us a civilisation very quickly, whether that is a good thing or not is hard to say.
What does this have to do with feminism and whatnot? Well you see, due to the endless squeezing, men have lost the ability to do the thing they have been told their whole life to do. Provide. This has happened at the same time as women and LGBT rights becoming more and more equal. Due to this, many right wing groups prey on men’s insecurity with their lack of ability to “provide” and blame that changing world on the fact women and queer folk are more open and equal.
I agree completely with this assessment.
As if putting women in the kitchen and queer folk in the closet will revert the economic status of those men back to the time when women were forced to be in the kitchen and queer folk were forced in the closet.
It’s always been the case, not that it’s acceptable, that the media and people with power like to keep us hating each other. Class war not culture war.
This is the topic. To say to all that “I don’t hate capitalism” is to fundamentally not understand the topic at all. Conversation is good, but to conversate we need to have a common topic and a common language to communicate ideas about that topic. A language that the person you replied to does not have as shown by his non-understanding of what was even said.
This is called a false consciousness. It’s a natural outcome to oppressive systems to take people within it and give them a language incompatible with people outside of that same false consciousness. Conversation becomes difficult because what I mean by capitalism and what he means by capitalism are fundamentally different.
Both I and the article are using the academic meaning. Meanwhile he thinks we mean like, Owning a house as capitalism.
I guess this leads to the question above, what would another system look like and how would we get there.
As I said before, I need to be better at engaging people and being less snippy and just pointing and saying “your wrong and here’s why”. Meeting people where they are is my goal but I’m not quite there.
I don’t know! You have responded to me in an engaging manner and gave me food for thought and way I can communicate better online.
Anyways, good luck with your attempt. Sorry that I talked so much. Please take it with genuine love that I want to give it with.
I have ADHD, I am an expert at talking too much. 😉
Appreciate the reply. I should really learn how to do the quote thing your doing so my reply can be more accurately interpreted.
Anyways, I want to focus on your question. The obvious answer is communism, socialism, ect. A concept alot of people don’t understand is that Marxist theory does not see capitalism as this evil thing that has invaded our lives, but as a natural progression of human economic development. Marx says that the formation of a communist society must first progress through capitalism and industrialization as the benefits of those systems set the stage that makes communism even feasible.
The part that gets people confused is that outside of theory and in real life, never has a industrialized capitalist society progressed to communism. Instead all attempts were pre industrial feudal or near feudal revolutions who attempted to leap frog over capitalism straight to industrial communism.
This history has resulted in many many different forms of communist thought. Maoist, leninists, trotskyist, stalinists, and so on. But we are not talking about those. I want to hard focus in on Marxism as just a foundational idea, because holy shit you have no clue how influential Marx was to like, our understanding of sociology and economics.
That is all to say, I do not have a silver bullet answer for you on “which system” and “what exactly that looks like”. There’s a lot of different possibilities, and as we get increasingly into late stage capitalism, our ideas about communism change to meet the world we know. Marx didn’t know what a fucking Uber eats was ya know lol.
The best answer I have for you is to genuinely and with an open mind free of pre considered notions (as best you can for that impossible task) try and read The Communist Manifesto. I guarantee it’s not the book you think it is.
However please also temper expectations. It’s a foundational text. Talking about some base concepts. It will not hand you a silver bullet but Instead will just fill you with the feeling that we can do better than what we currently are. I am going to put a quote from disco Elysium, wonderful game, in here about the feeling of understanding this and what it can do to you.
“0.000% of Communism has been built. Evil child-murdering billionaires still rule the world with a shit-eating grin. All he has managed to do is make himself sad. He is starting to suspect Kras Mazov (game stand in for Karl Marx) fucked him over personally with his socio-economic theory. It has, however, made him into a very, very smart boy with something like a university degree in Truth. Instead of building Communism, he now builds a precise model of this grotesque, duplicitous world.”
Again I am quite busy so a reply will take me some time, just wanted to let you know again.
As for the quotes. You can use “>” without the quotation marks. Followed by a space and the text you’re quoting. For more you can search the internet for Markdown syntax. You can do italics and bold and lots more.
I don’t hate capitalism, it’s better than feudalism, and the human race’s attempts at communism have failed so spectacularly descending into absolute tyranny and corruption putting the sins of capitalism to shame. I also don’t hate women, or feminism, there are some women I hate, but it’s an individual judgement.
Capitalism is that abusive boyfriend that keeps bringing up your super abusive ex so you know how lucky you are to have him.
Capitalism is feudalism with rule by grace of money instead of grace of god. Don’t confuse it with having a market economy, especially a well-regulated one: Capitalism is when there’s unbridled capital accumulation, unbridled accumulation of economical and political power. Capitalism is when the 0.1% exist and, in the broader sense, capitalism is that set of memes which infect the majority to put up with that nonsense.
If you think communism put capitalisms sins to shame then you don’t know what capitalism has done.
“Confessions of an economic hit man” would be a good book to remedy that.
I think the point is that unbridled capitalism is creating increasing wealth inequality that many straight, white men are feeling but aren’t accurately attributing to their being on the losing end of wealth inequality. This could be ameliorated with any number of policies in a capitalist system, such as a more progressive tax code, better labor protections, or universal healthcare, but the US employs none of these, and straight, white men are largely blaming women, immigrants, and LGBTQ people instead of the class of people keeping them poor.
It’s not just the US that is feeling this.
Yes, but this article is about the US specifically. There’s also a global right-wing propaganda machine contributing to this problem
Fair.
Complete BS. There are socialist countries currently doing just fine.
For example? Also socialism != communism
Cuba, Laos, Vietnam. And you know that. I know that. People who say shit like this rarely know that.
“ In his end-of-year speech to the plenum of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, President Miguel Díaz-Canel said, “We are going through a very difficult period. We are practically living day by day”, noting that "The people have many complaints,” which he described as “fair”.”
Cuba is having a really rough moment right now. The economy contracted in 2023. There wasn’t enough growth in 2024 and the hurricanes have been awful last year. I don’t think Cuba should be listed given their current situation.
Laos and Vietnam are both currently strong.
But how would Cuba be doing without foreign interference? Trade embargos and global climate change don’t speak to the strength of their economic system at all.
Oh many of Cuba’s issues would disappear had the embargo been lifted but we are talking about the current reality and right now Cuba is hurting.
Right, I understand that. I just don’t think it’s fair to pin the results of sixty years of deliberate sabotage on their chosen economic system. People are always quick to point out how these systems never work as if the capitalists haven’t done every single thing possible to keep it from working for them.
Laos and Vietnam, like China, could also more accurately be described as having “state capitalist” economic systems
China has a stock market and investor class. They are an authoritarian capitalist state.
No argument here
Which ones and please don’t name a nation with a stock exchange.
Found the stockholm syndrome victim.
How is capitalism different?
It’s not you’re just biased.
We hate Babylon, actually, and all the stupid things that money makes people do to each other because they forgot what it means to actually live as a real person in the real world, instead of chasing clout inside systems designed to ensure the house always wins, regardless of which banner it happens to be flying today, be it feminist, Marxist, capitalist, socialist, or whatever other asinine idea people who produce nothing real come up with to explain why someone else is to blame for the shit state of affairs.
And no, we very definitely do not hate women. We do very much hate what this shitty world turns women into, which is why we have worked ourselves to death to protect them from it in past generations. But that peace was broken, and now there’s going to be hell to pay.
You hate “what women are turned into”???
What a pathetic excuse. Shameful, even.
Unfortunately, the homogenization of women works against them when they’re all conditioned to be proud consumers living vicariously through those richer than them.
Willfully conditioning yourself to be special and small minded is an act of weakness. Your open jealousy of the wealth of others reeks of fear and shame. If all you desire is power over another, you sacrifice any power over yourself. There is no strength in desiring to cause harm, and that is the only thing you will find on this path.
What do you have to offer other than malice?
Edit: Your assumption that women only want riches and wealth proves that your views are rooted in hatred of capitalism. Oops.
🥱
Yeah, no. You might want to look into a ‘crab mentality’ and see how much you and your peers exhibit it.
Gonna block you now.
There you go guys; if you don’t intentionally harm your peers, you’re just a crab!
Sigh. I know I went a wee bit overboard, but I can’t stand incel mentality. But still, bludgeoning him with words was clearly a failure on my part.
Anybody have advice on better approach to that side? I’m all ears…
Yes, I do hate when people have become so bitter with the world that they lash out at everyone and everything they touch. It happens to men too, and there’s absolutely no shame in hating to see it happen to good people.
Explaining your reasoning for your prejudice doesn’t help. Not to mention the clear implication that all women are corrupted, but not all men. Never occurred to you to look at people as distinct individuals? Maybe don’t punish a person for somebody else’s sins.
Removed by mod
