alright, i’m sorry to have been uncharitable; i see what you were saying with your first comment now.
Ah yes, saying that hating half the population of the world due to their gender is ‘reasonable and based’ is something an extremely reasonable person would say, for sure.
this part still bothers me though because i don’t think it’s unreasonable for the oppressed to come to the conclusion that they hate their oppressor especially when in practice that hate manifests much differently because of those roles as well, i.e. women resenting and avoiding men because of men’s hostility toward them, while men control,removed, and murder women because patriarchy teaches them that’s what they’re owed and lash out when women try to be sovereign. while i do understand now that you aren’t arguing it’s the same, comments like this one come off as dismissive and mirrors rhetoric used by MRAs to argue that men are being treated unfairly.
Given the complete online media divide that exists to solely separate and drive gender antagonisms (which is usually a small foundation of real grievances onto which a mountain of bullshit is heaped)
i also feel that this inaccurately portrays the situation as much less one-sided than it actually is. there’s a media drive to maintain patriarchy and provoke intense hatred toward women who don’t fall in line. liberals often try to portray this as a “gender war” pitting both sides against each other, when in reality one side is oppressed and the other oppresses, and by not acknowledging the power imbalance the status quo is maintained (with progressive aesthetics).
So my understanding comes from my liberal college education (whoa ho, check out the privilege on this guy), however, specifically from the like, six (?) Women and Gender Studies classes that I took, though feminist theory was actively present and presented through all of my schooling.
To preface the second comment first, because I am an asshole, but also because it will allow the discussion to flow better. I was specifically discussing things in terms of the interpersonal dynamics between individuals, and was more referring to the ‘straight male gamer’ end of things at that point in the conversation (as the question was “Are the straights alright?”), but I definitely phrased it too broadly.
Which brings me to the first comment, which is that, my schooling taught me that ‘patriarchy’ is extremely damaging to all genders, and that associating it simply with ‘men’ is reductive and (at least according to the most Marxist one I knew) reactionary. You want to hate the patriarchy, not specifically men.
I have had several, and I mean at least three to my memory, different female-presenting Woman and Gender Studies professors have it out with the class (who were on the whole on your side of the argument, also being the only man in those classes was… interesting, to say the least) over this exact topic. And those ranged from, extremely girl-boss adjacent Hillary-stan liberal teacher to marxist teachers union agitator, who did not like each other but did agree on this.
Their argument is simply that when you look at the sheer scale and amount of violence that men do to each other and to themselves, due to enforcement of patriarchal gender norms, the books aren’t quite so lopsided. This is also with the repeated family studies that show that It is just as often that it is mothers who are the strongest and most active enforcers of traditional gender norms at a young age in a household.
Now, obviously, this is all under the auspices of a patriarchal state apparatus that rewards such behaviors, so this isn’t to blame women, it is simply to say that thinking that all men are the sole oppressors is to misunderstand how patriarchy systemically perpetuates itself within individuals. It is a system perpetuated for the benefit of men in power, not for the benefit of men as a whole, that sells itself as a system that benefits both genders by giving them a defined role in society that is supposedly ‘natural’. And after all, much like racism, sexism is prejudice plus the power to enforce it.
And this also is where that pesky word ‘intersectionality’ comes in. Now, I assume at this point that the comment I was responding to was a Dworkian-esque exaggeration for affect, trying to get a rise out of me, but let’s take it seriously for a second.
If you say ‘A hatred of men is fairly reasonable and based’, then you are also saying that you hate trans-mascs, because they are, as the same user pointed out, men. It also means that you hate a Filipino man who is under debt bondage to his landlord and works for less than 5 dollars a day. It also means that you hate Hizbollah fighters who are putting their lives on the line fighting Israel. You are talking about hating 3.4 billion people, of which an extremely small and shrinking percentage enjoy the full benefits of patriarchy. Does this sound like a reasonable statement? After all, Zionist women are more than eager to hate all Muslim men. Are they correct to do so? After all, Muslim men benefit from the patriarchy. Or is it only ok if they just hate them for being men, and it is only the Muslim part that is problematic?
Anyways, idk, other than that feminist theory is pretty fucking cool shit. Alot of arguments to be had there.
Edit: Also this is how I personally know that MRA’s (both male and female) are full of shit and haven’t ever read a single book of feminist theory or ever actually talked to someone with a degree in Gender Studies, because they will say shit like “No one ever talks about men’s problems.”, when half of gender studies is discussing issues that specifically pertain to how the patriarchy affects men.
But this is usually the state of online discourse (not this one in particular, but I see this shit all the time), about well, everything. Which is one person who hasn’t read anything disagreeing with another person who hasn’t read anything, only to be corrected by a third person who also hasn’t read anything, with the person who has read something looking at the conversation going "There is so much wrong here that I don’t know where to start, so I am just going to forget I saw this and move on with my day for the sake of my sanity).
this is all fair honestly and i’m so sorry for how accusatory and dismissive i was in my responses to you.
Which brings me to the first comment, which is that, my schooling taught me that ‘patriarchy’ is extremely damaging to all genders, and that associating it simply with ‘men’ is reductive and (at least according to the most Marxist one I knew) reactionary. You want to hate the patriarchy, not specifically men.
that’s absolutely true! and i don’t mean to argue that men are the sole enforcers of patriarchal oppression, but i do think men of any social standing benefit from it directly and enforce it even when its to their own detriment. patriarchy does indeed oppress non-powerful men since they must adhere to its norms (e.g. military drafting), and patriarchy can indeed be upheld by women who are conditioned by it, but regardless its still a system designed with the intent to keep women under the power of men. i don’t feel it’s unreasonable for someone belonging to the group designed to be oppressed by patriarchy to harbor a resentment and distrust toward the people designed to benefit from it and enforce it the most because of those benefits.
You are talking about hating 3.4 billion people, of which an extremely small and shrinking percentage enjoy the full benefits of patriarchy.
i also feel it’s important to note that saying “i hate men” isn’t saying “i hate all men including the impoverished filipino man who doesn’t know i exist” more than it’s saying “i’m actively hurt by the men around me so i don’t want to be around men” since hatred of men again is a consequence of victimhood under patriarchy, and not a systemic effort to oppress all men. it would be fantastic if nobody had to feel that way, and destroying patriarchy is how we achieve that. i also argue that the entirety of men enjoy benefits even if it isn’t to the same degree as powerful men, while women enjoy none.
also, on the topic of intersectionality, oppressed people do engage in the oppression of other varieties of oppressed people. hezbollah is violently oppressive to women and LGBTQ+ people for example. it’s reasonable to fault those on the outside who use that as an excuse to dismiss the good they’re doing, since obviously they’re contributing to greater liberation long term, but should we consider it unreasonable if the victims of their oppression hate them?
Women absolutely enjoy benefits from patriarchy. If they are considered aesthetically pleasing to the patriarchs, they will never have to work a day in their life (outside of the beauty regime, which tbf is fairly intense, but usually not as intense as say, working 8 hours a day 5 days a week for minimum wage) as it simply isn’t expected of them. You can have all the benefits of luxury without any of the responsibility to maintain it. Why do you think there is such a resurgence of nostalgia for the 50’s housewife? They want patriarchy to work the way it is advertised, not the way it actually works. Same as the men who participate in it. Again, very few men in the world actually experience the benefits of the patriarchy, and they blame this on women and minorities, and whatever, and not on the fact that it simply was always a scam to begin with.
And yeah, I mean fuck me, I hate having to listen to conservatives bitch and moan and complain about shit they don’t understand the mechanisms of, with definitions they have no consistency on. But it is part of my job at this point.
It’s fine and reasonable to say, “I hate the men that I am surrounded by”. It is fine and reasonable to say, “Despite the work they do against Israel, I do not like how Hizbollah men treat women and LGBTQ+ people.”
However, you yourself have just admitted by saying that you don’t mean a Filipino man you have never met that, that it is not fine and reasonable to say “Hating men is fairly reasonable and based.” I would say, in fact, that we have demonstratively proven that that is an unreasonable statement.
Remember, fascists are at liberty to play with language because language is not important to them, only the administration and exercise of power. We, as leftists, do not have that kind of luxury. And I admit, I was abit loose in that regard earlier in my analysis and further commentary, but I didn’t double down on it or engage in a complete non-sequiter, and at this point, I can only assume she might have meant exactly what she said as she has not walked anything back or engaged productively.
If I was to engage with her at the same level as she engaged me, I would have to assume that she is the epitome of a trans liberal, a ContraPoints, who only cares about oppression in so far as it pertains directly to her, a bad day away from liberal Zionism. Which is fine, and her choice, but hardly a reasonable response that I can engage with. However, I don’t assume that. I have absolutely no idea what her issue is because she failed to clarify it, so it’s whatever at this point, if she doesn’t want to agree with me fine, we do not share a party, so we are not at any moral obligation to come to a compromise.
All I know is that what I said was particularly triggering for her, which is unfortunate as it was just supposed to be a lighthearted observation and criticism of a stupid fucking meme.
I don’t need people to hate perfectly. It would be pretty fucking nice though.
If you read through the rest of the thread, that is not what I am saying.
alright, i’m sorry to have been uncharitable; i see what you were saying with your first comment now.
this part still bothers me though because i don’t think it’s unreasonable for the oppressed to come to the conclusion that they hate their oppressor especially when in practice that hate manifests much differently because of those roles as well, i.e. women resenting and avoiding men because of men’s hostility toward them, while men control,removed, and murder women because patriarchy teaches them that’s what they’re owed and lash out when women try to be sovereign. while i do understand now that you aren’t arguing it’s the same, comments like this one come off as dismissive and mirrors rhetoric used by MRAs to argue that men are being treated unfairly.
i also feel that this inaccurately portrays the situation as much less one-sided than it actually is. there’s a media drive to maintain patriarchy and provoke intense hatred toward women who don’t fall in line. liberals often try to portray this as a “gender war” pitting both sides against each other, when in reality one side is oppressed and the other oppresses, and by not acknowledging the power imbalance the status quo is maintained (with progressive aesthetics).
So my understanding comes from my liberal college education (whoa ho, check out the privilege on this guy), however, specifically from the like, six (?) Women and Gender Studies classes that I took, though feminist theory was actively present and presented through all of my schooling.
To preface the second comment first, because I am an asshole, but also because it will allow the discussion to flow better. I was specifically discussing things in terms of the interpersonal dynamics between individuals, and was more referring to the ‘straight male gamer’ end of things at that point in the conversation (as the question was “Are the straights alright?”), but I definitely phrased it too broadly.
Which brings me to the first comment, which is that, my schooling taught me that ‘patriarchy’ is extremely damaging to all genders, and that associating it simply with ‘men’ is reductive and (at least according to the most Marxist one I knew) reactionary. You want to hate the patriarchy, not specifically men.
I have had several, and I mean at least three to my memory, different female-presenting Woman and Gender Studies professors have it out with the class (who were on the whole on your side of the argument, also being the only man in those classes was… interesting, to say the least) over this exact topic. And those ranged from, extremely girl-boss adjacent Hillary-stan liberal teacher to marxist teachers union agitator, who did not like each other but did agree on this.
Their argument is simply that when you look at the sheer scale and amount of violence that men do to each other and to themselves, due to enforcement of patriarchal gender norms, the books aren’t quite so lopsided. This is also with the repeated family studies that show that It is just as often that it is mothers who are the strongest and most active enforcers of traditional gender norms at a young age in a household.
Now, obviously, this is all under the auspices of a patriarchal state apparatus that rewards such behaviors, so this isn’t to blame women, it is simply to say that thinking that all men are the sole oppressors is to misunderstand how patriarchy systemically perpetuates itself within individuals. It is a system perpetuated for the benefit of men in power, not for the benefit of men as a whole, that sells itself as a system that benefits both genders by giving them a defined role in society that is supposedly ‘natural’. And after all, much like racism, sexism is prejudice plus the power to enforce it.
And this also is where that pesky word ‘intersectionality’ comes in. Now, I assume at this point that the comment I was responding to was a Dworkian-esque exaggeration for affect, trying to get a rise out of me, but let’s take it seriously for a second.
If you say ‘A hatred of men is fairly reasonable and based’, then you are also saying that you hate trans-mascs, because they are, as the same user pointed out, men. It also means that you hate a Filipino man who is under debt bondage to his landlord and works for less than 5 dollars a day. It also means that you hate Hizbollah fighters who are putting their lives on the line fighting Israel. You are talking about hating 3.4 billion people, of which an extremely small and shrinking percentage enjoy the full benefits of patriarchy. Does this sound like a reasonable statement? After all, Zionist women are more than eager to hate all Muslim men. Are they correct to do so? After all, Muslim men benefit from the patriarchy. Or is it only ok if they just hate them for being men, and it is only the Muslim part that is problematic?
Anyways, idk, other than that feminist theory is pretty fucking cool shit. Alot of arguments to be had there.
Edit: Also this is how I personally know that MRA’s (both male and female) are full of shit and haven’t ever read a single book of feminist theory or ever actually talked to someone with a degree in Gender Studies, because they will say shit like “No one ever talks about men’s problems.”, when half of gender studies is discussing issues that specifically pertain to how the patriarchy affects men.
But this is usually the state of online discourse (not this one in particular, but I see this shit all the time), about well, everything. Which is one person who hasn’t read anything disagreeing with another person who hasn’t read anything, only to be corrected by a third person who also hasn’t read anything, with the person who has read something looking at the conversation going "There is so much wrong here that I don’t know where to start, so I am just going to forget I saw this and move on with my day for the sake of my sanity).
this is all fair honestly and i’m so sorry for how accusatory and dismissive i was in my responses to you.
that’s absolutely true! and i don’t mean to argue that men are the sole enforcers of patriarchal oppression, but i do think men of any social standing benefit from it directly and enforce it even when its to their own detriment. patriarchy does indeed oppress non-powerful men since they must adhere to its norms (e.g. military drafting), and patriarchy can indeed be upheld by women who are conditioned by it, but regardless its still a system designed with the intent to keep women under the power of men. i don’t feel it’s unreasonable for someone belonging to the group designed to be oppressed by patriarchy to harbor a resentment and distrust toward the people designed to benefit from it and enforce it the most because of those benefits.
i also feel it’s important to note that saying “i hate men” isn’t saying “i hate all men including the impoverished filipino man who doesn’t know i exist” more than it’s saying “i’m actively hurt by the men around me so i don’t want to be around men” since hatred of men again is a consequence of victimhood under patriarchy, and not a systemic effort to oppress all men. it would be fantastic if nobody had to feel that way, and destroying patriarchy is how we achieve that. i also argue that the entirety of men enjoy benefits even if it isn’t to the same degree as powerful men, while women enjoy none.
also, on the topic of intersectionality, oppressed people do engage in the oppression of other varieties of oppressed people. hezbollah is violently oppressive to women and LGBTQ+ people for example. it’s reasonable to fault those on the outside who use that as an excuse to dismiss the good they’re doing, since obviously they’re contributing to greater liberation long term, but should we consider it unreasonable if the victims of their oppression hate them?
Women absolutely enjoy benefits from patriarchy. If they are considered aesthetically pleasing to the patriarchs, they will never have to work a day in their life (outside of the beauty regime, which tbf is fairly intense, but usually not as intense as say, working 8 hours a day 5 days a week for minimum wage) as it simply isn’t expected of them. You can have all the benefits of luxury without any of the responsibility to maintain it. Why do you think there is such a resurgence of nostalgia for the 50’s housewife? They want patriarchy to work the way it is advertised, not the way it actually works. Same as the men who participate in it. Again, very few men in the world actually experience the benefits of the patriarchy, and they blame this on women and minorities, and whatever, and not on the fact that it simply was always a scam to begin with.
And yeah, I mean fuck me, I hate having to listen to conservatives bitch and moan and complain about shit they don’t understand the mechanisms of, with definitions they have no consistency on. But it is part of my job at this point.
It’s fine and reasonable to say, “I hate the men that I am surrounded by”. It is fine and reasonable to say, “Despite the work they do against Israel, I do not like how Hizbollah men treat women and LGBTQ+ people.”
However, you yourself have just admitted by saying that you don’t mean a Filipino man you have never met that, that it is not fine and reasonable to say “Hating men is fairly reasonable and based.” I would say, in fact, that we have demonstratively proven that that is an unreasonable statement.
Remember, fascists are at liberty to play with language because language is not important to them, only the administration and exercise of power. We, as leftists, do not have that kind of luxury. And I admit, I was abit loose in that regard earlier in my analysis and further commentary, but I didn’t double down on it or engage in a complete non-sequiter, and at this point, I can only assume she might have meant exactly what she said as she has not walked anything back or engaged productively.
If I was to engage with her at the same level as she engaged me, I would have to assume that she is the epitome of a trans liberal, a ContraPoints, who only cares about oppression in so far as it pertains directly to her, a bad day away from liberal Zionism. Which is fine, and her choice, but hardly a reasonable response that I can engage with. However, I don’t assume that. I have absolutely no idea what her issue is because she failed to clarify it, so it’s whatever at this point, if she doesn’t want to agree with me fine, we do not share a party, so we are not at any moral obligation to come to a compromise.
All I know is that what I said was particularly triggering for her, which is unfortunate as it was just supposed to be a lighthearted observation and criticism of a stupid fucking meme.
I don’t need people to hate perfectly. It would be pretty fucking nice though.