Which is ironic as these discursive movements seem to hold their cornerstone in women believing that they understand and hold adequate insight into the minds and lives of men-as-a-class. This is nothing short of pitting the middle-class against the middle-class while Occupy dies slowly in it’s sleep. When the cross-hairs were aimed at the 1% it took them little time to manufacture a new outrage (via their owned media outlets and the desire for clickbait) from which they are separate and protected from harm. Sorry, but I don’t care nearly as much about people saying mean things when we have a wealth gap that goes unspoken and unaddressed for three decades.
It would be nice if those fighting this fight would even acknowledge that women’s experiences aren’t universal and that there exists a certain line across which one goes from trying to help to making things worse by sanctioning equally awful behavior in the name of “social justice”.
Frankly, this just feels like infighting. Keep the plebs squabbling over the scraps while the rulers do whatever they want whenever they want to whomever they want.
[quote=“CrowingOne, post:1, topic:18352”]
Which is ironic as these discursive movements seem to hold their cornerstone in women believing that they understand and hold adequate insight into the minds and lives of men-as-a-class.[/quote]
No, this is about women asserting the right to define a space for themselves in areas in which they are consistently marginalized and their voices excluded, even in cases in which there are apparently sympathetic men. Sympathy and empathy do not equate to experience and identity.
Show me where in this article, in particular, the author asserts she understands the male experience? She does not state or imply that. She is discussing her own and other women’s inability to have their voices heard.
Feels incredible generic, as if you didn’t read the original. Brianna specifically discusses the variety of opinion by her own friends, and cites the opinions of women involved in the game podcasts.
See, my comment isn’t limited at all to the article. I’d really appreciate it if you’d comment on the aspect of this which is splitting and re-directing ire from the ruling class to the middle-class vs. middle-class. We can disagree on subjectivity all we want, but I can’t ignore the fact that we’re more interested in who gets the bigger part of the table scraps rather than a movement and ideology that seeks to better everyone economically and politically. It’s easy to point out how our society is unjust, it’s another to raise oneself above and expand that worldview to understand that there’s a breaking point of wealth inequality which is just completely unaddressed in favor of “men vs. women” which helps no one aside from those who keep pulling more and more profit at the expense of everyone.
This is seriously like campaigning for the rights of children in a labor camp. Sure we might make their backbreaking labor a little easier, but we’re all still doing backbreaking labor. Better to address the real underlying concerns of wealth, economics and safety net rather than put all one’s eggs in the basket of making middle-class women feel better about themselves. It isn’t an either/or, either. We’re putting on blinders and only addressing the emotional side while the part which governs having food on the table and a job to support one’s family are seen as “helping men”. This is, literally, a movement which desires us to engage with an emotionally subjective evil while we forget about how our system destroys lives and actually kills people via topsided economics and a complete unwillingness to break the same systems which cause the ills across the board.
It’s a strawman for the purposes of this discussion which distracts from the very real day-to-day issues.
I’m not about to get involved in open-ended political philosophical discussions in a thread about videogames journalism. You may have valid points, but this ain’t the forum.
Of course, if the discussion isn’t headed into an area where you can win easily, it seems like you aren’t interested. This is exactly the issue: that there’s no discourse other than the emotional discourse. These people give zero cares about anything other than self-promotion.
Justice, indeed. Does it not occur to you that this isn’t simplistic nor is it easy? That this whole issue is part of something larger that can’t be dismissed by a casual insult? That we aren’t going to “fix” this by looking at a tiny sliver of culture which certainly isn’t a monolith? That maybe these issues are part of a bigger discussion and exist as a larger problem which affects all of us and not just a simple identity politic?
BB readers generally have larger points of view than this. It’s reductive, subjective and rather simplistic. We could name so many groups (including ones comprised of white men) who are pushed down in our society, yet the only group anyone wants to talk about are middle-class women. This is an issue regardless of one’s beliefs assuming there’s an actual desire for equality and fairness.
I suggest you consider that not every discussion thread can be turned to a discussion that you want to engage in, no matter how far afield it is from the primary topic. That’s what Usenet is/was for, and other places. Ciao.
I’m just glad to know that you aren’t interested in actually discussing things, just making proclamations and then walking away. I’d suggest you consider that not engaging and discussing in good faith is one of the largest issues with this whole topic.
I missed something. You started a new thread — I didn’t spot that and thought that this was part of the forum for the article that started it.
In fact, I’m not interested in spending my days arguing with someone I don’t know who throws flaming strawmen into the crowd in a new thread. You’re asking me to devote my time to engage you on a topic in which I’m not interested and I have work to do.
That’s an awfully big ask, person I don’t know, in a thread I didn’t create. Bye.
