So, instead of focusing on problems women face, in order to be a legitimate movement, we need to focus on men and their problems within the patriarchy? Is that what you’re saying here? Because that’s what it seems like to me.
Look, dude, I have to raise my daughter in a tricky world that constantly tells her that no matter what, she’ll get it wrong. I’m sorry that I’m less concerned with how her being a female in the world impacts men. It would be nice if my daughter didn’t have to navigate this bull shit environment that is in our society (and many others), but she’ll have to and I need to give her the tools to do so. If I tell her that sticking up for herself only hurts others (men) and she just needs to do what she can to get by rather than actively find ways to change this state of affairs, how am I helping her? Equal treatment matters. Of everyone. We have a society which privileges some over others. That’s just the facts on the ground. It’s not just about gender, but about race, sexuality, and class too. It’s a complex set of issues that we all need to fully understand and come to terms with if we expect to have a society that effectively supports individuals.
I think you’re missing the point of feminism, which in general states that women are human beings, and as such, deserve equal treatment under the law and within our society. Period. Many women may disagree on how we achieve that, but that is the core of the issue. If you are on board with that, then you are a feminist too. If you think the status quo is not only okay, but is how things should be, or that we need to go back to a time when “women were women, and men were allowed to be men”, then you are probably not.
I honestly don’t see why we need to live in a world where I have to say sorry for wanting better treatment for myself and my kid. I’m sick of saying sorry to make men feel better about themselves… Would you want to live that way?
That is the theory of what that statement means. The practice is that it is generally a derailing tactic used by a person outside of the immediate issue, telling a marginalized or oppressed person “how it really is”, and how they personally are a person who is not like that, speaking up for all the others who allegedly aren’t like that either.
Meanwhile - their actions betray a sense of entitlement, boundary violations, lack of empathy and unaddressed privilege. See also : mansplaining.
Yah; and having used the term before, I’m sure going to be careful to phrase my intent correctly in the future.
Our personal theories of mind do tend to be co-opted for societally predominant schemas.
I’m not trying to start an argument here, I just don’t understand something. Can someone explain to me the rationale this thread was split off? I totally get why ideological nitpicking should not get to dominate every discussion about every link on the internet. But in this case, r/theredpill and puahate.com are part of the sequence of events we’re all trying to understand. To split them off–to say that they aren’t The Main Thing Under Consideration–does not seem neutral at all. If mental health or gun rights or whatever else we’re saying this is about get to stay in the non-themed discussion, it’s like those as Sensible Explanations are being passed over… while misogyny is being picked out as the pet issue some people insist on making everything about. I really really don’t think that could be the reasoning in the mods’ heads so if somebody could just throw out an alternate explanation here, I won’t try to argue with it. I just cannot think of it for myself.
Okay, so reading the various news reports it seems like the total casualty list is as such:
Three men stabbed in the apartment - Three dead
Three women shot outside the sorority - Five dead, one wounded
One man shot in the deli - Six dead, one wounded
Twelve (or thirteen) shot or hit with car - Six dead, thirteen or fourteen wounded
Killer shoots himself - Seven dead, thirteen or fourteen wounded
The most charitable explanation is that front-page discussions close after five days, and the tricky entanglement of PUAs, MRAs, rape culture, abuse, feminism, gun culture, entitlement, etc. will generate discussion well beyond 5 short days, and the mods wanted to provide a proper home for that ongoing discussion.
I’d have thought after the “woman harassed for expressing views supporting moderate gun control” thread turned into a thread about gun laws that drowned any attempts to talk about sexism, it made sense to split this thread so this issue didn’t take over. This kind of thread system doesn’t support debate on several topics at the same time very well, IMHO. Fortunately this is a good solution for that and any more comments about MRAs on the main thread can be sent here.
Yes, but his perceptions were false. Women weren’t refusing to sleep with him because he was failing to be an alpha male; they were refusing to sleep with him because he was creepy as hell and they judged he was most likely going to turn out to be a rapist or worse.
And the irony is, his actions proved that all those women were right to reject him.
A website popular with the online Pick-up Artist community responded to Elliott Rodger’s murderous Santa Barbara rampage, saying it could have been avoided if Rodger had ‘game,’ like they profess to possess, before concluding that “more people will die” unless society provides men with more “sexual options.”
Roid Rage is a myth - or more accurately there is no real evidence to suggest it’s actually “a thing”. Try to find any papers or studies that describe or study it. Very thin on the ground.
It’s more likely than some men who are attracted to body building are either insecure, view themselves as “alpha males” or are also using other drugs that make the emotional roller coaster of messing with hormones a little bit more volatile.
The current thinking is that men with preexisting issues may be prone to “roid rage”, but it’s just as likely that those men either would’ve been likely to exhibit aggression without steroids, or are doing it because they’re big tough guys now - which was the whole point of body building (for them) in the first place.
He killed two women and four men. His first three victims were men. He stabbed them in their room. This seems a little inconvenient for some news reports though, which is why they keep forgetting to mention the genders, and hoping everyone will just assume they were all women to push the “misogyny kills” agenda. Was he a misogynist? Yes, certainly looks that way, but that’s also just one in a huge shopping list of personality disorders he exhibits throughout his 150+ page manifesto.
No, I’m just responding to the spurious assertion, “Feminism is fighting all of these problems of masculinity.” Feminism helps women, and there’s nothing at all wrong with that. It’s perfectly legitimate. I’m also raising a daughter, and I’m raising a son. I expect feminism to address my daughter’s concerns, and that’s a good thing. I have no illusions about feminism addressing all of my son’s concerns. They’re not problems I expect feminism to address. I just don’t see feminism as a panacea for all the problems of society. Some of them? Sure. All of them? No. Is feminism necessary? Sure. Is feminism sufficient? No. It’s a partial solution to the world’s problems. That doesn’t mean I’m condemning feminism; I just recognize its limited scope. Feminism doesn’t have to be a panacea to be a legitimate movement.
