seen this post elsewhere? click for explanation
This post got banned from !memes@lemmy.world for reason “Troll Posting” which is Very Disrespectful in my opinion. 😕
I mean this meme with full respect and love to my fellow community members and I was proud of the discussion and support it was creating.
EDIT: POST RESTORED YAY. (Thank you to the mods it turned out to be a misunderstanding.)
Important clarification/FAQ: I am not calling to coddle or excuse the behavior of bigoted men in any way!
I am calling to be kind and understanding to young men (often ages 10-20) who are very manipulable and succeptible to the massive anti feminist propaganda machine. Hope this clarifies that very important distinction. :)
click this dropdown for comments that are very helpful and illustrate key points!
- Detailed summary of the situation if you’re wondering what’s going on
- The rhetorical value of the bear hypothetical and what this means for you
- What does disenfranchisement mean in this context?
- The importance of not asking women to tone down their expressions of fear and frustration
- The importance of participation in kindness toward young men, specifically outside the context of people speaking their experiences
Is it forgetting or, looking at the percentages, considering it irrelevant to the overall problems the system has?
How large a percentage of men are oligarchs, and how large a percentage of oligarchs are women? Which one is, in <randomliberalcounttry>, the larger number? Would oligarchy be any better if all oligarchs were women? Now as an anarchist I might be biassed here but given that oligarchy is a system of rule I’d say it’s the actual problem, not the gender distribution that’s a mere nuance. I don’t care whether we’re all ruled by left-handed people, or ones with heterochromatic eyes, their geno- or phenotype doesn’t matter what matters is that they are in power. For more education, consult your friendly neighbourhood anarcho-feminist.
You’re just seeing what sticks at this point.
Oh not just “at this point” I’ve been busy figuring out what sticks with people vs. what doesn’t for at least two decades now. Points that, when prodded, don’t cause resistance, where some leverage can be applied that then may or may not avalanche into reevaluation of other topics which would be foolhardy to address directly. Dancing around the neuroses of the collective to enact my grand political vision of *checks notes* universal psychological health.
That all said yes of course we also have issues with gender roles. It’s just that in terms of who sits at the big power levers that’s not terribly relevant any more, it’s not 1850 any more the dam has long since been breached and as women can inherit fortunes nowadays the gender distribution of oligarchs is bound to level out soon enough.
That’s called trying on opinions like hats. I don’t engage with people who pull that crap. It’s just another flavor of “devil’s advocate” where there is no burden to be consistent or stand by anything. Any pushback you face is met with abandoning the idea as if it was never stated. No thanks.
I’m perfectly consistent in my position, I simply chose to not engage where people’s underwear is twisted because a shouting match has never changed anyone’s mind.
Yes, totally agree, we should all just stick to our initial assumptions and then rationalize them afterwards
That is not what I’m describing and you know it.
You are literally disagreeing with a comment that suggests holding opinions, trying them in public forums, and re-evaluating those ideas if you gain enough evidence to the contrary.
What are you describing if not that?
Here