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.
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.