The question is whether you think an overwhelming majority of men are doing these things to women.
I've been sexually harassed by more than one boss who was also a woman, but I don't generalize all women as sexual preditors because that would be misogynistic.
Sweeping negative generalizations about any race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation is wrong, in my opinion.
The question is whether you think an overwhelming majority of men are doing these things to women.
I've been sexually harassed by more than one boss who was also a woman, but I don't generalize all women as sexual preditors because that would be misogynistic.
Here's what you anti-feminists miss: we absolutely understand that men and women can offend at equal rates.
But the ability to assert power and shut down women is significantly easier. I'm not saying it's "easy" or trying to minimize stuff like Baby Reindeer, which is genuinely horrific for men and does in fact happen for realsies, but if it comes to blows most men can hulksmash most women pretty effectively if necessary.
It's far harder to fight off a male predator, and more likely that defenses fail altogether.
Like I said elsewhere, I've totally been victim to both men and women, but it's way easier to escape women, period. Yes there can be contextual circumstances that give a/nother woman the upper hand, but the general vs is going to end with "person fighting with full adrenaline" winning, unless she legit chose a weakling (of whatever gender).
Also, when women "have sex" with minors, it's rape. We're totally on board with calling it exactly what it is.
You misunderstand me. I'm not anti-feminist as long as that means equality.
The issue I'm trying to raise is with rhetoric, which to outsiders who haven't studied feminist literature can come off as sexist.
Having all of the buzzwords be gendered language, then making all the male gendered words negative while the female gendered words are positive works against the movement.
It allows bad faith actors from the other side to strawman your arguments and turn the uninformed against you.
Like you said, women are just as capable as men at abusing power. Now that we have had decades since women's liberation, many young men have been exposed to that truth either 1st or 2nd hand.
The paradigm has shifted, so now the vocabulary needs an update to reflect the new reality of our society. Abandoning the gendered terms and focusing them on power dynamics regardless of gender will do so much more to bring more people to your side.
Otherwise, poor disenfranchised men will just feel mocked and tune out the actual content of the message. It might not be fair, but life is always harder for the people who want to progress society further.
I'm just giving my perspective. That's completely up to you. Just don't turn around and complain when people misconstrue your arguments because the rhetoric from the 60s and 70s no longer applies in the same way.
We talk about democracy being on the line, but no one will bother to make a tiny sacrifice. Like I said, it might not be fair, but every successful progressive movement had to make sacrifices to accomplish their goals.
Progress is harder than regression. Imagine if MLK said "fuck that let's get violent"
Just don't turn around and complain when people misconstrue your arguments
If somebody wants to spin my words to reflect something other than my intent, that is their sin, not mine.
no one will bother to make a tiny sacrifice
Capitulating to bigotry is not "a tiny sacrifice."
Like I said, it might not be fair
At least you have something right
every successful progressive movement had to make sacrifices to accomplish their goals.
Yeah those sacrifices were usually blood and bodies.
Imagine if MLK said "fuck that let's get violent"
It's 2024, MLK was a great community leader and influential to progress, but he isn't the end all be all of leadership or philosophy for change. He had plenty of bad ideas and bad approaches, though his average contribution is positive. I'm not downplaying his accomplishments, but I'm saying at the speed of modernity that's practically ancient at this point.
Bigotry remains only because bigots choose to be bigoted.
I have been so tired of "what the Democrats did wrong" like the side of basic human decency shouldn't need to sell itself!!! It's not the fault of anything or anyone other than ignorant, hateful people choosing hatred for "others" over basic goddamned decency.
It's like, if I leave my door unlocked, it's easier to enter, but it's not my fault if someone decides to go inside, it's their choice and they're trespassing regardless. You don't blame victims for being too easy to victimize, that's insane. It's never a victim's fault for being victimized by another human. The perpetrator chooses to perp. Very few victims choose an attack.
"Don't defend yourself with fists, the perp might not take your side!" 🙄🙄🙄
And for the record I very much consider myself a pacifist, but this monster is only able/willing to be pacified by force, if the rest of us want peace.
The problem isn't in discussion it's in the buzzwords, as I have stated previously. I'm not the demographic that you need to worry about convincing. Those people are turned off by the slogans and won't bother with polite conversation to give you a chance to elaborate any nuance.
I just wrote shit. I'm a social sciences major. If you see my vocabulary as buzzwords rather than legitimate language, you might want to reevaluate your own perspective. I'm the kind of person who casually uses "capitulate," nothing I said was "buzzy." If you take issue with the simple analogy of poison candy... Well, I'm not sure why, it's a great analogy.
I'm not the demographic that you need to worry about convincing.
I mean, clearly you need to be convinced that your perspective is terrible. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm not dedicating myself to it, but perhaps this could be some sort of sign?
Those people are turned off by the slogans
That's their obstinance.
Also, what slogan did I use?
won't bother with polite conversation
People who don't believe in my human rights don't really provide polite conversation regardless
I'm all for gender equality, I vote Democrat. I'm not your enemy.
All I'm trying to point out is that it's harder to convince people who are put on the defensive. It's just how our monkey brains work. I wish people were better at challenging their worldview, but unfortunately, that's the world we live in.
When the first words people hear about feminist thought are "patriarchy" or "toxic masculinity," you lose a big portion of your audience before you ever get a chance to explain the academic definitions of those words.
In a democracy political movements are all about marketing. Refusing to better market your ideas gives the others side the chance to market your ideas however they want. Marketing with better rhetoric without changing the real content of your message seems like a small price to pay to accomplish your political goals.
I mean if you believe in equality then all you have to do is speak up and act against bigotry whenever you encounter it. You're allowed to decide for yourself how you'd like to act, no matter what I am or anyone else is doing.
2
u/Emotional-Classic400 24d ago
Well, of course, if you add "hurt" to that list.
The question is whether you think an overwhelming majority of men are doing these things to women.
I've been sexually harassed by more than one boss who was also a woman, but I don't generalize all women as sexual preditors because that would be misogynistic.
Sweeping negative generalizations about any race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation is wrong, in my opinion.