Yeah, it’s definitely not a bad thing to focus on raising women to the same level in society as men.
The problem is, like with any group, the radicals who use the movement to spread hate and tarnish the reputation of everyone involved. Religion has the same issue.
In this case, it’s the ones who think equality means swapping positions of power so men are the ones who are oppressed. They give the whole movement a bad name and lead to associations like this.
Honestly, the well might be so poisoned at this point that rebranding with an umbrella term might not be a terrible choice, although it’s terrible that it’s not a terrible choice. It shouldn’t be this way, but humans suck.
I disagree about religion, I think the good apples might be the exceptions in any ideology whose core tenants are 1. feelings over thoughts and 2. fear of punishment as basis of morality.
So every Muslim wants to murder the infidels and every Christian wants to bomb abortion clinics?
You’re letting a vocal minority taint your view of an entire demographic.
I didn’t say how bad, exactly, just that they’re almost all a net negative. You know, people who give more to the church than to charity, people who vote for autocrats, people who drill for oil and argue online about climate change. And some of them do indeed bomb abortion clinics and murder infidels, a small minority, but the average evangelical isn’t that far off from that ledge of no return.
The good ones are the ones who set up well regulated mobile soup and bread kitchens to feed the poor. They’re the ones who open shelters and secure the building to take people in during storms. They’re the ones who promote education despite contradictions with their beliefs. Those are few and far between.
Who are you referencing when you reference, “the ones who think equality means swapping positions of power so men are the ones who are oppressed?” I’m curious to see what an example or two of that would look like.
They will just rant about women saying all men are trash or something equally inconsequential i already regret interacting myself.
What they refer to is for example women using accusations of inappropriate behavior to ruin reputations and promotion chances of men to get ahead.
One that also pops up is how divorce is used as a way to strip mine the wealth of men because “the system” will advantage women always.
That’s some talking points you usually see.
I’ve have an example of this that happen recently. It was on a post about Spain (iirc, might have been Italy) making killing women because of their gender a hate crime.
People were arguing that men should receive harsher punishments for killing women because of their gender than women killing men because of their gender.
Which isn’t equality since criminal prosecution should be on a case by case basis. It should be a hate crime to kill anyone because of the way they were born. The fact that women are more often victims just means that more men will be prosecuted than women, but the sentences should be the same.
There’s also the crazies who think that any time a woman has sex with a man, the woman is being raped.
Where are these hoards of feminists committing “reverse sexism” and oppressing men other than a random tumblr or twitter comment? Where is there institutional power and how are men structurally oppressed in a way not obviously connected to the patriarchy?
You make the mistake of conflating “patriarchy” with “men”. Patriarchy both harms, and is upheld, by both men and women - even plenty of would-be feminists.
I never said hoards. All it takes is a vocal minority.
It didn’t take hoards of Muslims to make people associate them with terrorists.
Why, it’s with affirmative action! /s
Such people represent such a minority of a minority that their opinion is entirely irrelevant.
As long as men continue to have a kneejerk reaction to the word feminism, I think it holds educational value in agitation.
Their opinion isn’t irrelevant, though, as shown by the comic. It only takes a vocal minority to taint the public image.
It only took 19 Muslims to make people associate them with terrorists.
Yeah, it’s definitely not a bad thing to focus on raising women to the same level in society as men.
The problem is, Strawman Strawman Strawman
In this case, Strawman Strawman
I don’t think you know what a strawman is.
My argument was the original being discussed; it wasn’t an attempt at refuting anything.
I can’t strawman my own argument.
Counterpoint maybe you should focus on the boys to raise them to be “not stupid” and not to “harm woman”. Ever man has a mother who raised him from a baby take some accountability woman.
What’s fascinating about this argument is that when that radicalism supports patriarchy, whether through the state or religious institutions, it is often unchallenged. At its core, the argument tacitly accepts that institutions get to define right and wrong for us and that we must passively conform.
What do we do when the state or religious institutions are the source of hate and disrepute? Is it “radical” to then challenge them? Because the argument you are making is the same that those who are advantaged by the state or other institutions have been making since time immemorial. The question then becomes, how do we persuade people to start thinking beyond themselves and towards society at large.
The argument youre been making has been employed against those that fought for emancipation, suffragettes, anti segregationalists, MLK Jr, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela etc. When non state sanctioned violence is used then the cause is assumed to be immoral. But even if the approach is nonviolent well then Please temper your language I have a personally beneficial status quo to maintain here with the overall outcome being ongoing injustice for the sake of an often unsustainable peace.
We have not perfected society. No civilization has. There will always be a need for tweaking and tinkering. The least we can do then is listen, so that we don’t simply pass these issues down to our descendants as they have been passed down to us. It’s going to take more than policing language to break that cycle.
These two deserve each other.
It’s a valid point though. A simple change in terminology and messaging is literally all it would take for these types of criticisms to go away.
When cornered though something something excesses of ism.
Trans issues is the big one because the reality is so counterintuitive that even renoun internet celebrity scientists utterly fail to engage with the actual research.
I even feel compelled to stress that yes the science supports the need for unequivocal acceptance of trans people.
People like her would be the reason I’m against the current wave of feminism.
How come? It’s not sexism to want equal rights.
It’s sexism to have gained equal rights, but still believe there isn’t equality. So, “focusing on the inequality of women” translates to “we want special treatment”.
Unfortunately for those kinds of people, equality is a bitch and means nobody is entitled.
When it comes to special treatment and not equality, I’m actually okay with some of it. Like women’s abuse shelters, pregnancy support, workplace harassment prevention, reproductive health care access, and domestic violence protections aren’t really bad in my opinion. Is there one you want to get rid of?
Having them around isn’t a problem. But let’s put something into perspective; an abuse victim from… I think Canada… Tried seeking help, but nobody took him seriously because he was a guy, and he said his wife abused him.
He ended up setting up a shelter for abused men, which was a major uphill battle for him because… Well, men just don’t get abused by women. Women are always the victim.
He eventually ended up committing suicide.
The shelter he set up in Canada still exists, thankfully.
But the problem still exists to this day. Women don’t abuse men. Women don’t rape men. Just look at the statistics! Except the statistics rely on reporting, and the reporting only works if reports are actually taken seriously.
So, do I want womens shelters to disappear? No of course not. Domestic abuse is a very real thing and everyone deserves to be sheltered from that. But the key word here is everyone. No special treatment that makes it almost impossible for male shelters to exist.
So I’m OK with none of it. I wonder how many males will come forward about abuses when society opens up to actually listen. How many young boys inappropriately treated by their female teachers. How many teenage boys that got exploited during a party.
This may certainly help turning young men away from the so-called “manosphere”. Radicalisation helps nobody.
Do you know who is fighting for male sexual abuses to be taken seriously? Feminists.
Haha hahahaha haha haha ha!
Boy aren’t you funny.
Didn’t know I can be a comedic genius by stating simple facts. But here we go.
I feel like this is a good argument for meninism, but it’s not really a good reason to be against feminism. I don’t think you can house women and men together in the same shelter because of trauma from their abuser. If the man can just enter the same shelter that the woman went to to try to get away from him it defeats the purpose of the women’s shelter in the first place.
In other words, instead of being against women wanting special treatment like domestic abuse shelters, wouldn’t it be better to be in support of additional shelters, inclusive of men, instead? Saying women don’t deserve “special treatment” is saying that special treatment should be eliminated, not extended to more genders.
Edit: Like I don’t think true equity should be the goal for cases like domestic abuse, just because it’s a numbers game. Domestic abuse happens a lot more often to women than to men. The goal should be to help anyone who needs it, even it isn’t equal between genders.
Imagine if we had a group that funded shelters for men and women. Nothing says they have to be in the same facilities - women aren’t all lumped into one facility, either, so this shouldn’t be inconceivable. Also, would it not be equality if all abuse victims, both women and men, got the help they need?
Literally noone is against that, feminists included.
I don’t want “meninism”. And I don’t want equity, not before we have equality. And equality only exists as an absolute (no, this doesn’t mean housing everyone in the same facilities. Why woukd you get that impression?)
Where is the narrative that women can’t abuse or rape men rooted? Who says that? Is it generally women who say that? Where does this issue start?
Edit: Downvote all you want, not liking the answer doesn’t invalidate it as the answer. Maybe answer the question.
You want the answer to be some sort of side. But in actuality it’s everyone. Everyone benefits from having an easy scapegoat. It skirts responsibility.
Is that what you tell yourself to deny that being a man doesn’t protect you from the persecution of patriarchy and “masculine” men?
Feminism isn’t just about women.
Toxic masculinity isn’t caused just by men.
Black Lives Matter isn’t just about black lives.
“Believe women” isn’t about blindly believing what women say. “Christian charity” is the least charitable thing in the world.
“Defund the police” and “abolish the police” aren’t about eliminating police forces and letting crime run rampant.
AI is anything but intelligent.
“Global Warming” sounds tame for what’s actually happening: “climate disruption” and “climate catastrophe”. A bunch of countries with “communist” or “democratic” in their names are anything but.Words are stupid. Slogans are lazy. People lie.
Which is why I like the lyrics of ‘Enjoy the Silence’ so much.
The craziest part here is that the primary goal of these movements isn’t to actually achieve their objectives, but to virtue signal. If all it took to get a huge chunk of the population on your side was to change your messaging a bit, then any reasonable movement would jump at such a low hanging fruit of an opportunity to advance their cause… but they don’t. These movements would really rather sacrifice optics and stall their movements than accept some criticism and adapt.
Hmm, this is an interesting line of thought. I’ve always thought these movements are dominated by left leaning people and the left usually understands the importance of inclusive wording. So why do they use such exclusive labels?
Surely many people do try to jump at that low hanging fruit and adopt more inclusive labels. But, I guess it’s not an idea that spreads so easily? These movements must rely on people with strong feelings on specific issues and have to target them with a label they can identify with. I guess the more moderate majority would associate with other terms, but don’t have the motivation to take much action in the name of it.
I suspect that all these slogans originated in more radical far left circles where extremism and purity testing are more rampant. Meaning that the face value meaning of the slogans is the intent. As the slogans became more mainstream, the moderate left tried to damage control by introducing alternate meanings to appeal to the public. However, that hasn’t really worked out because the average person doesn’t care about the extra nuance. They’ll just see the slogan and take the face value meaning as the intention. At face value, a lot of these terms are just bad and people rightfully oppose them. Having someone try to explain to them something along the lines of “ackhsually the slogan doesn’t actually mean what it says” doesn’t sound very convincing. Bad optics is a really a big problem on the left, and the crazy thing is that there’s a good chunk of the left that sees no issue with it.
Mottes aren’t actually baileys
Every single line item in your comment became ammunition for foreign agents to get into our culture over the last 20 years and just escalate the FUCK out of both sides of each idea there.
It was directly from the KGB handbook written over 50 years ago, that if you infiltrate a nation’s culture and just amplify the most radical takes of both sides of every issue, it will create so much chaos and completely destabilize a culture so that people tune out and stop trusting each other or any news story they read. This has the effect of making the population just default to whatever state media they see and stop caring about social issues entirely. It’s been shocking seeing how effectively it’s played out in the US.
I watched it happen, I was on the frontlines, managing a few social sites and moderating a huge subreddit about relationships. It was a creeping infection at first, but eventually it was like Helm’s Deep, but instead of orcs outside, it was astroturfers, crybullies, sea lions, and the entire goddamn ZOO of bad-actors and subversive chuds. For every horrible, shit-mouthed incel ranting about how women need to be put in cages, there was also some delusional, insane “feminist” screaming about how all men are rapists and men should never be left alone with children.
I gave up the fight, reddit banned me for being an involved human, but it continues to this day, getting worse by the day.
I watched it happen because I saw it happening and read the (too few) news reports that pointed out that it was indeed happening.
But it’s like climate change. It seems to go in one ear and out the other for the vast majority of the population.
The fact that our species has a glaring weakness in identifying abstract threats, while at the same time we’re developing tools capable of performing the most abstract possible attacks on our free-will and agency, makes me feel a tad uncomfy about the near term future.
Well as long as you’ve correctly identified the KGB and Russia Russia Russia, your job is done.
You don’t have to be Russia to use KGB handbooks anymore
I hate the Kremlin so much. I hope the whole russia will crumble and disappear.
while the techniques were pioneered and written down by the KGB, I’m not even saying the blame lay on Russia alone. There are a lot of forces adopting this tactic, both foreign and domestic.
Wait 'til you learn about Twitter.
Genocide isn’t the answer either
Oh no, won’t anyone think of the poor Kremlin!!! They can get fucked. I want to see the Kremlin in its current form crash and burn.
You realize the Kremlin isn’t all there is to Russia right? There are people there, ones that aren’t fascist bastards.
What are you even talking about?
The KREMLIN and Russia as a country should be no more. Who talked about a genocide?
No walking it back now. The destruction of a nation frequently leads to the slaughter of it people, look to the Middle East for plenty of examples.
Yes but what to do with imperial russia then? They are killing its own people too already.
They got their chance in the nineties, the west poured billions into russia, helped with tech and so on.
My suggestion is NOT GENOCIDE is that clear enough? How stupid do I have to make it.l before you understand the obliteration of a people and culture are wrong, evil actions?
No, see, we are good persons, and they are bad, so when they do genocide, it’s bad, because they’re bad, but when we do it, it’s good, because we’re good!
So you support the Kremlin because other countries are bad too? Good old whataboutism.
…Y’know what, let’s try and dumb this down a bit, middle school style:
- The post you’re replying to accentuates the words good and bad. Why is that?
- When the post talks about actions, what adjectives are used to describe them? How does that relate to the actors doing them? What is the causal relation implied?
- The action used in the post is genocide - why is that, in particular used as an example? Is the post justifying genocide? What does the example of genocide mean for the causal relation implied?
- What is the opinion of the author on the sentiments expressed in the post?
- Does the post take a stance on real-world political actors? Does the post even mention any? If so, does it justify them, or condemn them?
Yes. Genocide is wrong no matter the targets. If you have a problem with that you are a fascist
i’d dissapoint you, but the thing the prevous commenter listed are not unique to America nor the western world. It’s not the KGB necessarily, it’s just how the manipulations work. You don’t have to read KGB books to apply them
I didn’t even say it was the KGB doing it entirely, just that it was first documented as a “thing” in their manual from decades ago, and we still didn’t do anything to protect our society broadly from it.
I know well that we’ve been under assault from an absolute charcuterie board of forces both foreign and domestic. Twitter alone is like the Ukraine war, in that it re-wrote how we thought modern tactics are going to unfold, people are going to writing manuals about how to do what Musk has done with that platform.
deleted by creator
I honestly don’t know which way this comic is intending to go.
That’s alarming as this is very obviously in favour of feminism.
What is alarming about it?
The alarming part is that the comic was made as simple as possible without treating it’s intended audience as children and it still went over you’re head. But I’ll attempt to explain it for you in adult terms.
The first half of the comic is saying that being a feminist means pushing for egalitarianism with a focus on the unequal treatment of a particular group in the same way that doctors often focus their education on a single area of anatomy. A general practitioner knows about heart health but not nearly as much as a cardiologist does. But no one accuses a cardiologist about being indifferent to your foot health, they just recommend you to a podiatrist because those doctors focused their education on feet.
Some people truly fail to grasp this but even more people either oppose equal treatment between genders, are contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, or treat any criticism of how society treats women as a personal attack against them. That’s the second half of the comic.
Don’t have to be a dick about someone not understanding something. Hope you don’t have kids FFS.
Your lack of reading comprehension is alarming. The comic is pretty direct about what it means.
And yet I don’t get it. Why do you have to be an asshole to people who struggle. Do you bully everyone in your life too or just on the internet?
ah tumblr
All lives matter~
I remember being banned on some subreddit back then for saying that. Apparently it’s racist, lol.
That said, all of these movements on social media are really stupid, and if you interact with a person in real world, it seems that most of the issues disappear, aside from some individuals doing very bad things, but that’s what law is for.
The truth is, capitalists are just trying to divide us, and it’s like most people are really blind, and don’t see that, which is crazy to me.
Well yeah I guess. It’s the same as the point of this comic, disregarding systemic issues for a group with whataboutism of the rest
A /s would go a long way.
I thought the ~ would suffice
Once upon a time I objected to the Black Lives Matter moniker. I didn’t disagree with the message that black people need to be counted more than they were. I have always thought that I counted black people as equals to everyone, so I just subconsciously completed the sentence by adding the word “more” in my head. Thinking to myself “oh, they have a terrible branding issue because everyone who reads the phrase Black Lives Matter will automatically just think they mean Black Lives Matter More”. But ultimately that wasn’t the problem. It wasn’t the phrase that was the issue.
What was the real problem was the inherent racism that had be ingrained into my consciousness by untold years of media and politics that continually make black people out to be lazy selfish useless people who only want a handout. (See Ronald Reagan’s speech about the “welfare queen”. Hint, he wasn’t talking about a white woman.)
In the end the problem I had with the phrase “Black Lives Matter” wasn’t their fault for picking a bad phrase. It was, in fact, me and my own preconceived notions of what a black person is and should be. All based on how society has portrayed them my entire life.
So now I very loudly say “BLACK LIVES MATTER”. And more people need to embrace this instead of trying to logic it out of existence with the pointless platitude “well ackchually all lives matter” like some snivelling little child with an inferiority complex. Because yes all lives should matter but in our fucked up society black lives usually don’t.
It’s the responsibility of the movement to be aware of the cultural connotations of the terms and slogans they choose to advertise themselves with. Movements have to adapt to fit their societies, expecting things to go the other way around is just entitlement and arrogance.
Can you imagine how differently the movement would gone if they simply adjusted the slogan from “Black Lives Matter” to “Black Lives Matter Too”. The fact that something this simple didn’t happen is a failure on the movement itself. Optics matter.
When BLM was a brand-new thing, it was a normal, and very understandable, reaction, for someone who’s hearing it for the first time to say/think something along the lines of:
- Who said they don’t matter? I know I didn’t, why are you saying “black lives matter” to me, as if you’re implying that I don’t believe they do?
- Why specify “black”, aren’t you implying others don’t, then?
It was also badly-named for another reason: the whole foundation of it was in response to police unlawfully killing black citizens. “Black Lives Matter” in no way speaks to anything involving police action. The phrase naturally comes off as an aggressive accusation of deep racism (to the point of believing a certain person’s life is literally worthless) when said to someone.
Can you imagine how differently the movement would gone if they simply adjusted the slogan from “Black Lives Matter” to “Black Lives Matter Too”. The fact that something this simple didn’t happen is a failure on the movement itself.
As a mater of fact I can. If they had used such an inoffensive moniker for their movement it would have been shoved to the back page of every newspaper and barely mentioned in any news program. The conservative assholes would have made fun of the acronyms and there would have been literally no conversation about the topic and no one would have had to come to terms with their own unaddressed racism that had been planted by 100 years of racist American ideology.
You and everyone who has commented with this exact “fix” for the Black Lives Matter movement should search within yourselves and try to determine why it really offends you so much. I saw someone mention the suffragette movement in relation to BLM and the comparison is apt. Suffragettes didn’t have any problem with disrupting the comfort of the people who’s opinion they were trying to alter. They knew very well that you cannot bring change by meekly asking for permission to get equal rights and standing in society. You have to get in their face and tell them YOU MUST BE COUNTED.
BLACK LIVES FUCKING MATTER
Your analysis is simply wrong. Nobody find finds the Black Lives Matter slogan offensive. It’s criticized because it’s it’s too vague, not because it’s provocative. The reason why conservatives latched on to the slogan specifically is precisely because the underlying point is valid and true. Regardless of how you personally see it, there are a lot of people out there who came to different conclusions as to what this slogan means. Many saw it to mean that black lives matter more or that other lives matter less. This different interpretation led a lot of people who would otherwise agree with the core cause to disassociate with the movement. This difference in support is key to any social movement as it defines a movement gaining enough support to achieve real change vs not. Optics matter.
You brought up the point that movements need to be offensive to get anywhere, but that’s not true. Social movements like this don’t need a “shock” factor in their optics. The videos of police brutality and the disproportionate statistics do that for the movement. They’re literally why the movement exists in the first place. The civil rights movement already demonstrates that this strategy is not effective or necessary. The same goes for the suffragette movement actually, and the LGBT movement as well.
This idea that social movements can get anywhere by simply demanding stuff is nonsense. All social movements require the support of the public to achieve anything. The suffragette movement campaigned to gain the favor of men, the civil rights did the same with white people, and so did the LGBT movement with straight people. Without the support of these demographics, their rights would’ve never been voted into place. All these movements were deliberate about their messaging, slogans, and optics. They didn’t try to shock people with their slogans, they wanted to convince people that they deserved their rights and they did so that appealed to everyone.
The videos of police brutality and the disproportionate statistics do that for the movement. They’re literally why the movement exists in the first place.
You are fantastically naive. There have been literally thousands of videos of police brutality towards black people. All of which were 100% unnecessary. Rodney King was beaten almost to death by police officers on video in 1991. And black people had to riot to get any real attention to how completely fucked up our system is because every cop who beat him got off completely scott free. And still 30 years later another black man was murdered on camera in broad daylight by a cop who did not give one shit because he and his cohorts assumed they would see no consequences for what they were doing. And without BLM and the absolute shitstorm of protest that every black person and their allies threw up, he would have been given a free pass too. BLM is the reckoning that white America has to contend with because they continue to support racist ideologies. And, quite frankly, if nothing is done to curb the racist bullshit being enacted against non-whites right now there is an even bigger shitstorm on the horizon.
Also, you should actually read some of the things that suffragettes had to do to get the attention of the public for over a century.. It was not polite or inoffensive.
I mean, the phrase wasn’t good either, hence why you also ended up thinking that.
Black Lives Also Matter would have been much better, as it alludes that there is enough prejudice that society must be reminded, and the acronym is BLAM, which could be used as onomatopoeia invoking gun shots, which directly ties to the causes original protests against the police. It also sounds more of a plea for help than it does an aggressive simple statement - which considering the movement aimed to be peaceful, is the kind of sound you’d want.
The truth is these kinds of things heavily rely on optics, and BLM was a very bad choice of slogan. People forget even the whole Rosa Parks thing was carefully orchestrated for a reason - you need good causes, good figures, and good slogans for rallying support.
BLM is so bad I wonder if the push to use it was some kind of counter psy-op to then push things like All Lives Matter to help discredit it, because I swear I heard the BLAM acronym being used as well in the beginning. I would imagine such authorities would have learned well how to discredit such movements ever since the days and success of the Civil Rights era.
I like Black Lives Matter because on its face it is a “no duh” statement (for most…)
To me, it is pointing out the absurd disconnect between what (almost) everybody believes without question and the actual state of society and policing in particular. There’s something stronger to “we matter” vs “we matter too”, but I’m struggling to put it into words. For some reason, I feel like BLAM or something similar loses some impact.
But that’s just in my head; as far as the success of a movement, you’re probably right. Also, if it was BLAM from the start, maybe I wouldn’t dislike it.
The reason why “we matter” is stronger than “we matter too” is because it doesn’t reference the other and thus is a purely one-sided thing, which can totally be read as “we matter more”.
I’m not sure though if that’s a good thing, depending on what’s the goal.
Any minority movement always has to keep in mind that it’s the majority that decides. Suffragettes did not take voting rights by force. They got voting rights because they managed to find enough allies in the male population that they were given voting rights.
Black slaves didn’t end slavery themselves. They managed to find enough allies that would be willing to fight and die in a civil war to give them their freedom.
And a group consisting of roughly 12% of a country’s population will not take the country by force and change laws by themselves.
“Black lives matter” is an incredibly polarizing statement that causes opposition (as evidenced e.g. by “Blue lives matter”, which totally has the implied “more” attached). It’s comparatively easy to say “No, the life of a black suspect does not matter more than the life of a police officer”, if you already lean in that direction. It’s a good slogan if you want to polarize and divide.
“Black lives matter too” is a statement that’s really hard to disagree with, because of course black lives matter too, unless you are a hard-core white supremacist.
So if the goal is to get the majority on your side and actually cause change, I think “Black lives matter too” would have been the better slogan.
Agree.
But “Black Lives Matter Too” abbreviates to BLMT which kinda sound like a sandwich 😅
BLAM conveys the same meaning but the acronym does double duty.
“Black lives also matter” works just as well, that’s right, no contest there.
And you are right, BLAM sounds way better than both BLM and BLMT.
(as evidenced e.g. by “Blue lives matter”, which totally has the implied “more” attached)
Truth. Also, here is no such thing as “blue lives” because a cop can quit their job, a black person cannot quit being black.
Black Lives Also Matter would have been much better
Better, but still not optimal, since the whole thing about about police brutality, and that slogan says nothing about that. Even with the “also”, in general it comes off as an accusation of racism toward whoever you say it to (especially since it was said mostly to other ‘random’ citizens, not cops).
If I walked up to a random person and said “hey, women’s lives matter”, I should expect to get one or more of these responses:
- Uh, duh? Who said otherwise?
- Why are you saying that to me? Do you think I don’t think they do?
Because those are the implications that kind of phrase carries.
It’s implied in “black lives matter” that all lives matter. They are merely pointing out that their lives are not being treated as they matter when police officers are choking them out for 20 bucks.
All lives matter people: All houses matter!
Others: But that one is on fire… shouldn’t the firefighters work on it first?
All lives matter people: No! All houses matter and that one is mine!!!
Short comparison that kind of gets the point across. I think it was from some comedy show like John Stewart or John Oliver and the like.
Ugh, please be a joke.
Obviously
Sorry, I’ve had some pretty disappointing interactions with Lemmy users these past 2 days. It’s getting hard to tell.
nbd 😄
This is why we should all just agree to go by Yusuke Urameshi style equality.
Man, women, or baby, if your stupid you should get punched in the face. If your not stupid then you wouldn’t be sexist in the first place and would punch the stupid people.
It’s very simple.
if your stupid
Wasn’t expecting a Yu Yu Hakusho analogy on punching sexism but I am here for it
So, eugenics, but only focused on one type of people.
How the fuck is that eugenics? Do you know what that word means?
Ok, fair. They can still reproduce in theory.
But you are doing awful things to people just because they have dumb genes, and you assume they are sexist.
Goddamn, username checks out.
Fucking hell. No. First off, it’s an anime reference. Second, you have it entirely backwards, it’s not saying all stupid people are sexist, it’s saying all sexist people are stupid, stupid.
For instance, I’m not accusing you of being sexist just because you’ve proven yourself to be stupid, but if you had proven yourself to be sexist then I would also 100% know that you’re also stupid.
Edit: That’s also not how intelligence and genes function, stupid, now you’re the one doing a eugenics propaganda.
Genes affect intelligence drasticaly. Rich families all hsve similsr IQ’s, because they top out on theur potential, while it’s less obvious with poor people.
Imagine having all the wealth in the world, but it can’t raise your IQ past a certain point.
So I’m looking into how to, ahem…modify myself (not just geneticaly).
I.Q. Is racist colonial nonsense made up by phrenologists. You’ve eaten a lot of bullshit sandwiches and elitist propaganda. There’s no point in having this conversation if those are the metrics you think are real and take seriously. How fucking childish.
Way to go, stupid.
I’m calling comrade shark fucker.
Ah, good old ‘punching down’ hierarchical oppression. That always worked out well historically 😌
Men and women will never be equal just like any animal in nature
Under that logic, no one is equal. I knew a tall, reedy guy who was a great artist. I’m more average height, a little stocky, and am great at math. Are we equal because we both happen to save similar (quite likely not identical!) genitalia? I went to the same school as a women who was about my height, weighed a little less than me, seemed to have a good handle on math, and had a programming style so similar to mine that I couldn’t tell which of us wrote it unless I actually remembered writing it. Is she more or less equal to me than the guy I knew simply because of the greater difference (again, presumably) between our genitalia?
Tbh, yes, everyone is unequal. Everyone has unequal talents and abilities, everyone has unequal chances and reducing this down only to the gender is deeply lacking in understanding.
And this leads to very weird situations like actresses complaining that it’s discrimination if they only earn a hundred million for a movie because a male actor on the same movie earned two hundred million.
There’s certainly specific gender unfairness, e.g. the distribution of chores and work, but in many cases there’s far bigger discrimination along lines we really don’t care about.
For example, a female capitalist earns as much as thousands or even millions of other women, and yet there’s little tangible shitstorms against class devices compared to the shitstorms raging against gender divides.
So while feminism is certainly important, it sadly is often abused by the wealthy and governing classes to distract from the class conflict that is more and more of an issue.
To put it more pointedly: According to the German Wikipedia, the country with the best female to male gender pay ratio is Burundi. Because if nobody earns anything, everyone earns the same. And while the male and female peasants are fighting each other, the rich get to eat everyone’s share.
So, once again, equity is the goal and pointing out how there are differences on some arbitrary line detracts from that goal. On the other hand, giving everyone equal opportunities and equal access to support regardless of those differences so they can all reach some reasonable standard for quality of life helps to achieve that equity, whereas focusing on the lack of equity for some specific demographic may not.
Have you considered eating shit and dying?
Equality is easy to accomplish. It’s the default state of nature. You have to work overtime to discriminate.
Even if you truly believe that do you really want parents and society and the patriarchy continuing to enforce this shit for more generations?
Even if you believe in innate biological differences (which most people do) I still don’t want the principle steering my daughter into nursing and my son engineering because he’s too fucking lazy to do anything, repeat ad infinitum for every little bit of inherited “wisdom” every had decided they need to pump back into the world constantly.
Yup “Equalists” are just the same as all lives matter folks completely missing the point and trying to poison the well.
If feminists are allowed to be egalitarian but focus on issues which harm women, others (whatever label they have) can be egalitarian with a different focus. But it needs to be real equality, not a deflection, like the person in the comic.
Where it goes wrong is in telling people they can’t focus on specific issues close to their heart, or in telling people that since legal equality has largely been achieved somewhere there’s nothing else to do.
“All lives matter” was an obvious reaction to a slogan which, to all but existing allies, seemed to be excluding something obvious. BLM people saw rampant violence against black people as evidence that society didn’t think black lives mattered. But that’s not something that comes through when it’s distilled to a slogan.
The UK currently has an “end violence against women and girls” campaign even though men are more often victims of violence. There are reasons to focus on violence against women, but there are also reasons to focus on other things… there is room for nuance here.
It’s like saying “I want everyone to be equal” and saying both men and women should be given a 10% pay raise to account for the gender pay gap.
Sure, you raised women’s wages to cover the gap… but now the gap remains because you also increased men’s by the same amount.
The only wage gap we should be focusing on now is the gap between ultra rich capitalists and the worker class.
Anything else we can worry after we take care of that dumpster fire.
It’s not an either or, many feminists champion other issues.
The gap doesn’t just remain in that scenario, you actually increase the gap making it even worse.
That’s false. If you want to make everyone equal, you close the pay gap.
To me, egalitarianism is making sure neither group is treated unfarly, so they should both receive the same pay for the same work, but also the same punishment for the same crime, etc.
“So you are a (rule) bender! You traitor, I devoted my life to you!”
(attacks the blood bender since that’s a great idea)
Ragebait art by someone who wants to seek rage from both sides. Mastered art.
‘Both sides’? No, I assure you only one side would rage over this and if you felt rage, you should work on that.
The only thing the guy said was wrong was that it’s reverse sexism. If he said “so your main concern is improving things for women? That’s not egalitarian unless you believe women have it much worse than men today.” It’s someone misinformed being told he’s an enemy. Ragebait
I mean… reverse sexism it is wrong as well, just like reverse racism. Racism is racism it can come from any side, same thing with sexism, but it does not make the term less right, just inaccurate (and legally invalid but this is not a court and we are no judges).
Women do have it much worse than men today. And I say this as a man, we hold so much privilege compared to any one else it’s not funny.
Not really. There’s many areas that women do have it better. Sociologist have started to label it even. They’re called the lost boys. A generation of boys who for one reason or another have failed to move onto post secondary education. Education in our society is something that increases our chances of success in life. But right now post education is filled with women. They believe the push to get women in schools was successful but nobody put the same effort into the boys. STEM careers and other post secondary streams were advertised to women and the boys were forgotten. Can’t tell me that those boys are not now feeling that pressure with having reduced social and capital mobility as a whole. It’s just one example of how women do not have it “much worse” today then men.
deleted by creator
So then he is misinformed, which many people are. I don’t put someone into the “enemy” box for being misinformed or stubborn, that’s pretty much the default state of most humans.
