• repungnant_canary@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Now you’re reading it incorrectly: it is “treat [wretched people] as wretched because [wretched people] are wretched”, not "treat [men] as wretched because [men] are wretched "

    • Gustephan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Quote me a single part of that third post that is explicitly gender neutral rather than explicitly about men, without adding your own interpretation in brackets.

      • wervenyt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        don’t treat them as wretched just because they are men

        Why would gender-neutral language be appropriate for this venue? It’s a discussion of how men are treated, and people who parrot “men are scum” will automatically say “yeah but what about the bad men? are we just supposed to feel bad for them?”. It’s written for an audience that is not specifically you.

        • Gustephan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gender neutral language would not be appropriate for this venue, but it would be required for the “it’s about wretched people, not wretched men” interpretation in the comment I was replying to

    • MrSqueezles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s written incorrectly. “Only some men are sad. Don’t treat all men as though they’re sad.” How insightful and almost converse of the point, which is, “Gender doesn’t determine sensitivity or need.”