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.
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.