|
The misandry probably isn't ironic, but it's doubtful whether or not that ever leads into anything substantial, or has the capacity to. So possibility of mental instability, balanced against powerlessness. Though that would also depend on what that instability is. Paranoia can be consoled, a sense of superiority cannot be consoled. The former would make them misunderstood, the later just makes that bad people who should feel bad.
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Ultimately I don't think misogyny/misandry/patriarchy are good labels, the theory has evolved to such a point that it's not useful to think of it in terms of 'hate' or 'rulership', but ideology. Like patriarchy isn't an actually coherent system like oligarchy, it's a language, a virus, a set of symbolic associations, a religion, a set of faulty assumptions, etc. Though I know how that must sound, "The etymology is wrong, what a tragedy", but I think it's important to have the right first impression. Which I kind of think is what motivates the thread topic in the first place, as a framing of something to do with the relations between sexes only (which is why the constant refrain to the rape of women getting highlighted is 'well men get raped to'), when the correct framing should be of one ideology versus another - the 'traditionalism' that disempowers women and shits on effeminate men for the sake of enforcing highly constrained & demeaning gender roles, and, well the feminism that seeks to grant people freedom to self-express.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
The browser doesn't know the difference, all it does is download a list of sites from google that are flagged as malicious. You can report sites to Google, but I don't think they'd just ever take your word for it, so it's more likely to be actually bad. Google doesn't seem to be transparent over if they actually have a review process or not, but I can't imagine they don't.Railtus posted:I agree the labels tend to be pretty bad. Labels like “Patriarchy“ and “Feminism“ attempt to shoe-horn a gender onto a point of view, and even the very notion of “Patriarchy“ seems to presume the old-fashioned gendered assumptions of men as actors and women as acted upon. I would find terms like Traditionalism & Egalitarianism as far better for discussion the actual issues and belief systems in place, rather than attempting to assign a gender to one side or the other. You can also make another comparison to people who automatically equate anything sexual with objectification, though that's more fringe-loners on tumblr than actual academic feminists or serious activists. Still, we're definitely in an era of transition, I think things will work out better in the end, but there's gong to be a lot of confusion and stumbling along the way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
So to turn it back to your case, Railtus, the reformation would be that there aren't victimizers in the usual sense when we're talking about this trivialization (ie criminal, like the people who abused you), but people who fit and people who don't. People's whose experience and position largely confirms their emotional attachment to the dominant ideology (them), and those who cannot make that reconciliation (you). It's then totally natural to want to discard information if it doesn't fit, which is why you got trivialized, but everyone does it everywhere, just on different things. Hell, you have to, you can't afford to take everyone and everything at their word, that'd just lead to themselves being abused. Which is then when we come back to the stereotypes you bring up, menino, because in an odd way they're not actually that different from traditionalist prescriptions of male behavior. Men are dangerous, sure it's only a couple of really bad eggs, but can you trust all of them? It's ultimately still playing off gender as a homogenized group with some variance, rather than a battleground of different belief systems. Conversely, some women are just 'faulty', because they have 'internalized misogyny'. So we have Men (some good guys + some bad guys) & Women (enlightened and ignorant). But, rotate that dichotomy by 90 degrees, and you have Traditionalist (formerly 'bad guys + ignorant') vs. Modern (formerly 'good guys + enlightened'). Now the feminists you ran into, Railtus, that you were really put off by, they see things the first way, not the second, which is probably why you got so much pushback - you hadn't been 'vetted', so they were super defensive about accepting or giving legitimacy to something that may have been bad. So, and I'm just guessing here, their first assumption would be that you had provoked it in some way, that this would have been her way of fighting back against something you had done, because that fits the framing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Okay, but you get what I was saying, right? This behavior happens with everyone, it's just that the issue it can happen on varies depending on what set of beliefs are tied up with your identity. Doesn't matter what a person believes, you (well I can) get them into a panicked self defense of it, if you push the right buttons. It's just that, in this case, the belief system is tied up with assumptions of an essential nature of X. Men are A, Women are B. The reason you got more push-back from the feminist 'allies' than you did from the traditionalist is because 'women being bitchy' was an already established meme for the later, but 'women are victims' was the meme for the former. In both cases, inconvenient evidence would have been dismissed (up to a point). Hell, you would do the same, in the same position. Not that I'm pessimistic enough to say there's isn't an answer to all this, there is. But you have to introduce psychology, classifying people solely on behavior and patterns of assumptions which, for your case, would have lead to more people willing to recognize your carer/partner as abusive personalities. Though that's not as obvious, and not something you can ever get from a first impression, so naturally that hard work scares people. Railtus posted:First of all, I want to murder your gif. It's so distracting when I'm trying to think of an intelligent comment. :P  I don't see the problem
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
The real tragedy is limiting self-expression. If you're a woman, you're a human being, you like sex and you want to have it. But you can't express it that, you've got to set up an elaborate charade where you're not the actor, because otherwise you're a slut. "Why won't he talk to me", you have no control because you can't communicate like a person should. If you're a man, you've got a sensitive side, you don't want to be the bad guy. Well too bad, now you've got to pretend to be something you're not, because that's what's expected of you. The people genuinely happy with that situation, who can't think of a better way it could be done, can't be more than 10% at any one time, even if some people obviously fit a lot more than others. Apologizes, you did say you had a new partner, so I should have caught that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Re: emotion in men, the only acceptable emotion for men to display is 'anger'. In fact, toddlers are socialized this way from a very young age, and this happens even from couples that say they treat both genders equally. Of course, if women express anger, they're likely to be seen as bitchy/emotional, which is it's own level of bullshit. But the only way to get emotional and remain 'a man' is rage, the more destructive the more manly. You essentially have to lose half of your humanity. Also re:gaslighting, you've got to be careful about assuming 'gas-lighting' is happening, because human memory is unreliable. It is often self-serving and will miss crucial details, and this can happen involuntarily. Railtus posted:There's some interesting commentary (for people who haven't read the book) here - http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/04/messages-of-shame-are-organized-around-gender/275322/ - if anyone is interested. quote:"Most women pledge allegiance to this idea that women can explore their emotions, break down, fall apart—and it's healthy," Brown said. "But guys are not allowed to fall apart." Ironically, she explained, men are often pressured to open up and talk about their feelings, and they are criticized for being emotionally walled-off; but if they get too real, they are met with revulsion. She recalled the first time she realized that she had been complicit in the shaming: "Holy poo poo!" she said. "I am the patriarchy!" edit: And like the fact that she was surprised by this demonstrates my earlier point, that 'patriarchy' is a dumb label, because the image it conjures is one of an external other dictating events - if only you could find them, overthrow them, then the world would be better! But it turns out, it was inside you all along, cue violins. rudatron fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Mar 7, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Both men and women chastize men who act womanly, and for exactly the same reasons - because they're ideologically motivated to. The women aren't being pressured into doing it anymore than the men are. It is absolutely atypical for it to be just men. Like can you admit that? Are even willing to entertain it, or is that a bridge too far?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
And the unfortunate reality is that the term itself has become abused. Google search it and pull through a few articles, and you'll see exactly what I said being referred to as 'gaslighting'. Oh this man is self-depreciating, clearly that's gaslighting. It's kind of entered this state as a catch-all for when you & your partner see things differently. The normal give-and-take of relationships gets equivocated to the patterns of domestic abuse, and it's kind of depressing. What may result from a lack of communication is assumed to be part of some insidious plot. Now I can't really say anything about your experience, knowing nothing about it, but my intention wasn't to say 'well just assume abuse isn't happening', but that the same behavior can have multiple explanations, and so if you want to examine whether or not your parnter may have an abusive personality, it's important to take in a lot of different data points. Certainly, getting other people's perspectives is super important, as you did in your case. Like here's an example: depressive people are terrible to be around, but it's not their fault. Otoh, abusers can act in the same way, when it's convenient, to get what they want. The correct response in either case is different. A depressive will respond well to positive reinforcement, an abuser will just be emboldened by that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
I don't think the point was so much about what you personally like, and for what reasons, but the social expectations (not necessarily placed by you) on car ownership (or any property) as that relates to gender, which links into how others treat you.Blue Star posted:I don't think so. I don't think anyone chastises men for showing emotions, not even other men. If a guy gets upset, people typically give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has a good reason. Women aren't given that luxury; if a woman gets pissed or upset, people just think she's hysterical or a bitch. Even when men just break down and cry, people think they're brave for doing it in front of them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i mean there are lots of not-internet, irl examples of entrenched misogyny but when it comes time to talk about how women damage men it's like "jezebel! cosmo! i got yelled at on tumblr once!" Here's a question that I want to you to introspect over before answering: why did you contrast 'entrenched misogyny' with 'how women damage men', as if they were total opposites? rudatron fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Mar 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
PTD's constant reframing of the problem as something 'one gender does to another' keeps getting pointed out as problematic - yet he keeps barreling ahead with it. "Well the patriarchy hurts men, but collectively their hurt is less than women receive, so women are just victims", correction, some women are victims, and some men are the victimizers. The harm perpetrated against and by is not distributed evenly. In fact, it correlates with ideology. There are plenty of women who are happy to engage in, and give validation for, the 'patriarchal' treatment of the victimized, whoever they are. They are just as much a part of, and agents of, as the system as the men are. By constantly shifting the frame to the grounds of pure identity, you're absolving some people of the responsibility of a choice they have made, and did not have to make. Abusers are abusers, simple as that. Happy International Women's day.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
What would be a good international women's day movie? Where are the cinema nerds when you need them? And don't say 'cinema discussio', we both know that's not true.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
I don't think it's as much that feminism turns into traditionalism, but that traditionalism creeps into the heads of people who regard themselves as feminists, out of their blind spots. Like they're not holding themselves to the same standards they ask of others. It's the unexamined assumptions, taken for granted, inherited because they feel 'normal'. In that mindset, feminism as an political project isn't strictly an ideological one, but a 'women's issues' movement - if you want to address women's issues, protect women, then you become a feminist. Which is in opposition to an ideological-political movement, which is inherently transformative. I mean take the #KillAllMen thing - it's not serious, it's ironic mockery of caricatures of feminism, 'oh they hate men'. But there's still a fair amount of enjoyment on display in making that kind of mockery, and they certainly felt they needed to mock it, rather than just dismiss it off hand. That's not, I think, because the caricatures are true, that they hate men, but the assumption behind the hashtag, is that the problem of sexism stems from men. Men and men alone are the problem, and absent them, everything just resolves. And it's that assumption that's the hold over from traditionalism, that only men have agency, that the set of assumptions bound up in traditionalist ideology is related to some essentialist masculine nature, that structural social problems are fundamentally linked to individual human beings and whether or not they act 'good' or 'bad', and that if people acted less 'bad' then the problems wouldn't exist. edit: But all of this is extant in feminism (though phrased differently), it's just that a lot of the people labeling themselves as 'feminists' aren't acting consistently with their professed ideology. Not that I think that's a bad thing, it just means more people need to go beyond them, surpass them. rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2016 13:43
|
|