So your conception contradicts the other person in this thread’s, because they said it’s not about group dynamics and you just said it is. They literally said men mansplain to each other.
https://lemmy.world/comment/19090994
Yet again we must come to the conclusion that the only thing everyone can agree on regarding mansplaining is that it’s “a man explaining.”
Yes, we agree on most things and that’s nice.
The solution to male disposability IMO should not be to increase female disposability. It should be to make male life more valuable. Use automation to make jobs safer. There should just be less need for dangerous work in the first place, we have the societal wealth to make that investment. But first we have to… care.
Title IX issues:
It’s meaningless to talk about how Title IX “works” because it varies from school to school and anyway it seems like it mostly “doesn’t work.”
You say “women also want this fixed” regarding female rapists being impossible but I have never signed on to a Feminist space and seen them discussing that issue. That’s a large part of why there is more than just feminism.
There are fewer male applicants in part because of Title IX. Obama even went as far as to say that’s the point.
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2012/07/president-obama-proves-how-different.html
I may have read Brotopia but that doesn’t mean I agreed with it. I used to work in Silicon Valley and didn’t really find the book particularly accurate. Same with SMNTY, the podcast was absolutely infuriating at times and I eventually had to stop listening to it. There are things feminism gets wrong, I don’t know what else to say about that.
Look, it’s only natural that people generally seek more power for themselves and their friends. They aren’t even thinking about or have any way of knowing the trail of destruction that causes in many cases. I’m not saying the masculism movement is right about everything either, I’d actually prefer we have both movements to balance each other out. Which is why it’s frustrating to hear people say feminism covers everything, if you believe in equality you’re a feminist, and even something as unhinged as that misandry doesn’t exist.
To say those people aren’t feminists is a way to avoid accepting that feminists can believe those terrible things. Yes, it’s destructive and yes it discredits the rest of the movement. Feminists rarely if ever disown them.
The fact that the boiling is not spontaneous is not obvious especially on account of how it’s not true. So that definition is going to need some tweaking. And anyway I think it’s much more likely that the person just didn’t notice they were replying to an astronaut than that they thought they could elevate their status. They were trying to share their (incorrect) knowledge.
OK, I’m just going to throw it out there that most people consider extreme feminists to be feminists.
It’s extremely unclear what you’re trying to say. When were you defending me?
Is extreme feminism not considered feminism in your mind?
Sure thing. Thanks for asking. Well, I would say main ones are:
I never said the core idea of feminism isn’t egalitarianism. Just that you can be egalitarian without being a feminist, since feminism involves so many other ideas. They don’t all spring from “equality” and equality itself has many different conceptualizations. Feminism’s conceptualization of how to achieve equality is essentially limited to, “women should be given more supports” which is not a good way of thinking about it any more than an elevator’s best way of operating is “just move the person higher and higher.”
Well, I’m on my phone so apologies if my replies are shorter generally. I will attempt to answer some of these. Yes, I have engaged in a ton of discussion with hardcore feminists. I have listened to podcasts by them including Stuff Mom Never Told You and unfortunately read Brotopia. This is not my first rodeo. And you don’t need to listen to Tate or Kirk any of those extremely distasteful people to know that feminism claims to speak for men’s interests while completely ignoring them. Feminism 100% claims to be acting in the interest of both men and women, and at least for men, it completely falls short of that. You will try to correct me. That is the problem.
Any ideology that posits “<ideology> is necessary” is self-serving and borderline cult. The ideas of the ideology are what matter, and the ideology itself is just a name. If the ideas were any good, you should just as easily be able to create a new ideology from those ideas with a different name and have it be just as valid.
Which is really funny because masculism and feminism both claim to be about equality. But only feminism is the one that is right, apparently.
A good chunk of the population has been listening to feminism for… decades. What do you mean, when will the grievances be heard? We’ve heard them. Women are oppressed, the second sex. Abortion is a right. Equal access to healthcare. 84 cents to a dollar. Alimony. Some of these are addressable, some of them have been addressed, and some of them are not addressable. It’s complicated.
Perhaps I should be asking you when will men’s grievances be heard?
Can someone just do the needful?
Well, it’s a perfectly well-formed sentence.
There are several parts of the word’s meaning, some of them optional:
But the only real requirement is #1. Despite what anyone says, even if the thing is not explained dismissively and is explained well to someone who doesn’t know about it, you could still call it mansplaining because it’s punching up. Which again only serves to say that attempting to explain is the shameful part.
Second, and pretty unrelated, I think feminism is a dishonest platform and has far exceeded its mandate. Women are oppressed in the Middle East. To say they’re oppressed here currently, relative to males, is somewhere between dishonest and delusional.
First wave feminism had a very strong reason to exist. Second wave as well. But intersectionality is a complete mess that only creates problems instead of solving them, and ideas like antiracism are positively counterproductive
Anyway, feminism doesn’t have a monopoly on egalitarianism. You can be pro-equality without being feminist, despite what feminism would say.
I guess your mind lacks the ability to imagine implied punctuation:
And in your book, incels can have sex — right. We can skip all the mental-institution-worthy nonsense, then.
Saying someone is mansplaining is a normative statement. You’re stating a moral position by using the word. One aspect of that moral position is the use of this obnoxious spelling, “splaining,” which is clearly meant to denigrate the desire to explain things. This is anti-intellectual, yet it’s couched in the oh-so-innocent veneer of being pro-feminism.
To contrast, calling someone a bigot is stating a moral position, but the only moral position it states is that bigotry is bad, which isn’t anti-intellectual.
Yes, likening one person saying to another that they are mansplaining, to defending oneself from literal death by chemical weapon, is misrepresenting my argument. If you are being threatened with death, defending yourself is not punching up or punching down, it’s not even a voluntary action at all, it’s just human instinct and you can’t even call that a choice.
Also, are you trying to paint a random commenter on the Internet who probably didn’t even fully read the post they’re replying to, as an “authority?”
(re edit: thanks, I appreciate that)
State of morons. They deserve it.
It’s tempting to see authority as an ordering of humans, but it isn’t. Anthony Fauci is not more of a human than you are. And it’s not okay to punch Anthony Fauci for the same reason it’s not okay to punch you. But we still need authorities and so it can’t be the case that every person in the country is the authority on diseases.
No, punching back is not the problem. The problem is the idea that there exists something called “punching up” that is more excusable generally than “punching down.” THAT idea reinforces social hierarchy and oppressive structures. Particularly if you believe that “punching up” will always be punching up, invariant of what happens in the world, because that asserts that the hierarchy is fixed which even further reinforces it.
And in your book incels can have sex, right, we can skip all the mental institution worthy nonsense
Are all your comments that low-effort?
Had a discussion with my 8yo niece the other day… turned out the lesson was, sometimes it can be worse to know the wrong thing than to know nothing at all.