• El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The nyt link I couldn’t read because it’s paywalled.

    The other link I do agree that he’s wrong about women’s oppression over time and I get that that’s why you call him a misogynist. To me, it seems he’s saying that women’s oppression was due to the constraints of the time period and not the active need of men to want to put women down. While I think he’s wrong I don’t think he hates women or thinks they’re inferior because of it. But the rest of the article is laughable. The reason people reject feminism and wokeness is not because of the need to maintain men in the pedestal of priviledge. It’s because it is hypocritical (tends to cherry pick issues and even subsets of issues) and because they hyperfocus on equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity.

    • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re throwing out unevidenced, and frankly not very relevant, generalizations again.

      Can you honestly not see that a man why literally describes women as inherently chaotic, and men as inherently ordered, who advocates openly for “forced monogamy”, is hateful. If so I guess we have nothing more to say to each other. Just because he dresses it up in flowery language doesn’t make it less repulsive.

      • El_Rocha@lm.put.tf
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        To me for something to be hateful, there needs to be intent to hurt behind it. In this case I believe he is just wrong and missguided.

        But to each person different definitions, I guess.

        • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nah the people he grifted were “misguided”. He had all the time in the world to realize the toxic impact he was having on the world, he was intellectually gifted and granted extraordinary power and influence (as a direct consequence of his deliberately reactionary positions he took), at that point you have to be giving a truly naive amount of benefit-of-the-doubt to not conclude malice.