politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm a leftist man and I hate that this phenomenon is considered acceptable. On one hand, a lot of women make criticisms of "men" without further qualification, and even make fun of anyone who says "not all men", but then they'll turn around and say "oh we didn't mean you, just misogynists". I'm on the fence about even identifying as a man (as opposed to non-binary), and my political views generally very well aligned with feminists', but nonetheless even I feel insulted, so I imagine a huge number of men feel much more insulted turn I do.
How hard is it for critics of toxic masculinity to just say what they actually mean instead of saying a bunch of blatantly sexist things things and then claiming they meant something else when they're called on it? It has exactly the same energy as the "Schrodinger's douchebag" phenomenon, but in that case we see it as obviously disingenuous, but with criticisms of "men", we're supposed to accept that women really don't mean what they say.
Women who do this need to fucking stop, because they're draining enthusiasm from their male allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.
You said so well what I have felt and expressed for so long. It's really heartbreaking to feel like you're a "lesser ally". Thank you for taking the time to write this.
Thanks to the internet, j came to understand that to successfully fight off a modern feminazi you have to out-crazy them. Say something like 'i identify as a cat, how dare you' then yowling and hissing like an angry cat until they leave you alone and in peace or something crazier.
Tbh, pretty difficult. At least for the vast majority of people. Putting together a comprehensive argument pertaining to socioeconomics or politics without it being full of internal contradictions is nearly impossible. Especially if your ideological framework isn't accounting for things like class consciousness.
For example, you are complaining about the reductive reasoning that leads to people make a bunch of sexist claims. However, you yourself utilized reductive thinking to come to that conclusion.
How prevalent is this attitude among feminist? Is this a majority or minority opinion, and if it is a minority opinion, how impactful is it? If it is just a few people making a lot of noise, is it fair to really judge half the global population for it? It is essentially the same "Schrodinger's douchebag" you were speaking about.
Is essentially the same as saying the men who are misogynist need to stop because they are draining enthusiasm from their female allies and driving recruitment for their enemies.
None of these are actual solutions to problems, they don't even really identify a problem, it's just rhetoric.
How so? I'm criticizing women who make blanket statements about men, and I was careful to make it clear that I'm taking about that subset of women, not women in general.
It's prevalent enough that I've encountered it numerous times in my IRL social groups. It's also prevalent enough that it's a common complaint from men.
They do need to stop. But I didn't think it's an apples to apples comparison because misogyny is an internalized trait that goes way beyond rhetoric, and what I'm criticizing is a certain brand of feminist rhetoric, not feminism per se.
Idk, you said" a lot of women" and "I imagine a huge number of men feel much more insulted turn I do", not exactly specific language.
Again, anecdotal evidence. I have not experienced this, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Assuming that all societal discourse is reflection of your own experience is a product of reductive reasoning.
Right, but who are you making that request to? If a woman randomly yelled out to you that misogynist men needed to be cast out of society, what assumptions would you make? How different would it be if they just specified men, not misogynist men?
My point is that actual productive discourse requires context, nuance, and patience. That even if you are talking to a person who doesn't utilize as precise language as you would like, it doesn't automatically mean that their point is moot. Nor does it really mean they were unintentionally making a claim.
If someone is making a claim like "men evil" and there is surrounding context that should lead you to believe that this is not a literal statement, like them having a boyfriend or being married to a man....isn't saying "not all men" pedantic? Or even worse, could be interpreted as you purposely misinterpreting the intent of the statement?
Couldn't your need for specified absolution be an example of internalized misanthropy? One could assume that people who do not self associate with accusations intended for misogynists, have no real need for this type of pedantic relief.
Again, my whole point that political discourse is exceedingly hard. And it's made even more difficult by someone forcing a pedantic dispute any time someone isn't being specific enough for their taste.
All I'm really asking for is for people to say anything at all besides just "men" when making complaints about certain men. It doesn't need to be precise, just clear enough that it's obvious that all men aren't the target of criticism. I met the same standard I'm asking for, so I don't thing I'm being hypocritical or overly reductive. I don't think it's too much to ask for people to use a qualifier like "many" when complaining about a specific subset of men.
I'm not doing that. I'm making my point in a thread that's specifically about why feminism is often seen in a bad light. Where else could I possibly find a more appropriate venue for such a criticism?
I never said it did. I'm saying it causes an emotional reaction that is extremely unhelpful for productive dialog.
I know better than to say "not all men". You're missing something critical: while I used myself as an example, my comment was not about me. It's about all the men who see women talk that way and come away with the impression that feminism is hostile to them just because they're men. You don't need to convince me of anything, and even if you did, convincing me would not solve the problem.
Right, but isn't it a bit far fetched to be taken literally? That there are a significant amount of women who hate every man in their life?
If I said men love sports, would you demand me pretext that with "not all men"?
That was in reference to the "not all men" rhetoric.
Maybe that means you may be overreacting?
You're just validating their interpretation?
I think people whom think that way are just finding pedantic reasons to be upset at something they already have made opinions about.
Not trying to convince you of anything besides my original retort, communication about politics is hard. Just look at our conversation.
It might not be so hard if everything you said wasn't dripping with condescension.
Lol, are you this overdramatic every time someone disagrees with you? I think you may be a bit sensitive when encountering criticisms, which may explain the whole taking the generalization of men personally.
See, there you go again.
Ahh yes, I forgot. Anything that runs counter to your expert opinion is condescending.
Sounds like a perfectly legitimate rebuttal....
Let's see, you said I was reductive, I'm overdramatic, I'm a misanthrope, I'm seeking absolution, I'm intentionally misinterpreting things, I'm pedantic, I'm constantly detailing conversations with women, I'm pretending to be an expert...
I was trying to have a conversation about the state of feminist discourse, and you've tried to make it about me at every turn, to the point that you're constantly making shit up about me. So now that I think about it, you're worse than condescending. You're an asshole who responds to disagreement with insults and then you have the gall to accuse me of doing what you've been doing the whole time. Big narcissist energy, bud.
Feel free to keep wasting your time disparaging me, since you seem to be enjoying it so much, but I'm done with this sad excuse for a conversation.
No, I said that the women who claim it is all men's fault were using reductive reasoning. I then said your generalization about them was utilizing similar reductive reasoning.
You said misogyny was different because it was internalized. My rebuttal was that misanthropy is also internalized.
I said people who share that that particular belief often intentionally misinterpret things. But that's not exactly rare for people to believe in things that suit their interest.
Those I meant, but that was after you had your little fit.
You made it about you when you kept using anecdotal evidence...... I'm not making this about you, you just keep interpreting it that way. Even though you claim these aren't your beliefs, you keep saying I'm making things personal when I'm criticizing the belief.
Projection
You have a penchant for taking things wildly out of context and making the whole conversation about you.
It's enough for me to know that the one who brought that rhetoric into a portion of my friend group, an acquaintance of mine (I won't call her a friend) actually does mean it, or at least says she does.
The fact that she got one of the kindest people I ever met to parrot that same misandrist rhetoric hurts.
It shifted me away from self-indentifying as feminist. Nowadays, I say I'm pro-gender-equality, and embrace the values of classic feminism if someone asks.
Right, but isn't making a judgment call on feminism in general, based on a single anecdotal experience a bit dramatic?
I have tons of personal experience with racism, I don't automatically associate all white people with the actions of a few radicals.
I think that's really damaging to the social fabric of progressive politics. I don't think that anyone who actually studies feminism holds real ill will to all men, it's just not cohesive with the ideas of mutual support feminism was founded upon.
Corrupting the social understanding of feminism has been the long term goal of conservative politics for decades. I don't think there are many people who hold true to this ideology, I just think the ones who do are having their voices amplified by conservative media. And I think the point of this amplification is to interrupt class consciousness among young men, and to make them more sensitive to this messaging.
I'm not claiming everyone who has a reaction to the problematic generalization of political language is a woman hating conservative. I just think they're unwittingly amplifying a conservative campaign aimed against protecting women's rights.
The anecdotal experiences with her (it's not often I have the luxury of a candid discussion with the type of person who says these things) made me view all the other cases of feminists generalizing about men in another light, and all the cases where someone pointing this out would be told that "No, actually you are the problem because...".
Define "real ill will". Does it actually matter what they want if they are doing real harm? Misandry has become increasingly more common in the past decade, both online and irl, and in my experience, speaking up against it paints a huge target on your back.
This right here is part of the problem.
I'm trying to discuss a serious issue that is harming men, and after three paragraphs of downplaying it as not being a problem, you turn it around and write that the real problem is me bringing it up. That's fucked up.
Is that opinions not lacking a bit of nuance though? As I've said, I've experienced racial violence from white men, this doesn't mean that all white men are racist, and it doesn't mean that all racist people are violent.
I think that is dependent on your definition of "real harm", but as far as ill will I was originally thinking of people who actually blame every single man for all of life's difficulties.
How exactly do we define misandry, and how do we know it's increasingly more common? Could it just be more amplified because there is a political motivation for doing so? The people who tend to "speak up against it" are people like Jordan Peterson and Tate who profit from radicalizing young men.
Right, but we haven't established that it's actually happening with anything besides anecdotal evidence. So far my theory is just as valid as yours, except my theory has suspects with clear motive.
I'm not trying to be dismissive, but I just haven't been presented any evidence not supplied by personal experience, so my rebuttals are going to seem personal. I'd much rather you present evidence from a third party so we may avoid this situation.