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 think the problem is more inherent in how America interprets liberalism. We don't include things like class consciousness into liberal ideology, here it's all about addressing specific systemic inequalities between certain demographics.
When you define liberalism as only fixing these inequalities then of course a large population of men aren't going to involve themselves, they don't reap any benefit, they're not experiencing any systemic abuse.
However, if we accommodate socioeconomic realities of class into the equation, things start making a bit more sense. By protecting the most disadvantaged demographic in your class, you also strengthen your own interests.
I think it's important to keep in mind exactly who people are talking about when they make general criticism about men. If you aren't participating in misogyny, then they really aren't talking about you. They just aren't vocalizing the division in class that separates us all from the reigns of power.
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 than 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.
Edit: typo
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.
[Apologies for the delay in answering, irl busy]
It's more akin to saying that there is a serious problem with racism & authoritarianism in republican ideology, and that I therefore cannot call myself a republican (for the record, I don't agree with US republican ideology in general, but as an example). Your example would be equivalent to "I have experienced misandry from women, therefore all women are misandrists."
It is for similar reasons that I don't relate with the MRA crowd - they bring up a lot of issues affecting men that need to be adressed (the ever-widening gender education gap being an obvious one), but there is also misogynist rhetoric mixed in.
Truthfully, I first encountered all this through /r/redpill back in the day, and as an inquisitive sort, I ended up reading a lot and deep-diving into statistics and studies. JBP in particular drew people in with pretty sharp grains of truth that (atleast at the time) were seldom discussed elsewhere in society, but nowadays twists the context to fit a more specific narrative (he was a lot more tolerable when he stuck to his own fields of expertise).
Anyway, I would note that your hypothesis doesn't detract from what I'm saying. In fact I suspect that the most malicious and enraging actors on both ends of the spectrum are amplified, whether that be to farm clicks, ad revenue, simple rage bait effects or otherwise. Either way, it means that the harm that those malicious actors do is amplified also. What effects does a continuous stream of misandrist messages to boys and young men have on their psyches? People who haven't lived with the misogynism that in the 1900s was widespread in the western world, who don't see the supposed irony behind "men bad" messages? Would it not be a travesty of the ages if a billion young men grew up to think that society thinks they are the scum of the earth, and an enemy to be destroyed?
My conclusion here is that sexism and gender inequality goes both ways - it's not a zero sum game, and attempting to be kinder, more considerate, as well as calling out harmful rhetoric wherever we see it can go a long way to making our world just a smidge more pleasant. These are times of great change, and perhaps now more than ever, kids need compassion, guidance and understanding.
Links to third party sources, examples of misandry etc. Most of these are picked up from searches, but there tends to be stuff just floating around on social media, even here on lemmy (usually milder and a bit less cartoonishly over the top. Some of these are clearly ironic, but that doesn't make it not misandry)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7343362/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Harmange
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2014/03/a-twitter-hashtag-probably-doesnt-prove-feminists-want-to-kill-all-men/359493/
https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/huffpost-editor-says-new-years-resolution-is-to-kill-all-men.html
https://www.salon.com/2013/10/27/fighting_sexism_with_cross_stitch_the_rise_of_misandry_crafts/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4150880/Vlogger-Jenny-McDermott-tells-people-kill-men.html
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt80hj2
https://www.yourtango.com/2021340310/misandry-and-modern-woman-how-hatred-can-heal-lifetime-misogyny
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/30/feminists-treat-men-badly-its-bad-for-feminism/
https://www.2gb.com/kill-all-men-controversial-feminist-booted-from-charity-fundraiser/
But this comes back to the very heart of our discussion. When I give an example that reflects a similar generality as your claim, your rebuttals are to provide a more exacting and nuanced claim.
This is what I was requesting when you hear about "all men". That we be more specific with our criticism, and not lumping all feminist (all white men) with radical misandry (racist).
But is that actually a systemic problem? When there was an education gap in the opposing direction the cause was institutional, school simply did not accept women in certain programs. Are men not being allowed on colleges, or are they simply choosing not to attend?
JBP hasn't made an actual insightful statement in his public career. He just relies on misrepresenting data and rhetoric, and ignoring any rebuttal he can't dissuade. He has no field of expertise, he was a clinical psychologist whom specialized on addiction, and then got massively addicted to benzos. He then blamed his physicians for overprescrbing them, despite the fact that he fully understands the mechanism of addition. He's a fraud, and always has been. Personal responsibility my ass.
You still haven't given an example of actual systemic misandry though? My fear lies with statements like with your claim about the education gap. That's not systemic, it's still everyones personal choice to pursue higher education, men choosing not to is not an example of systemic abuse.
What happens when these groups who say it's a problem go to fix it? Are they going to try and motivate more men to go to school, or they going to take the easy and more traveled route and just limit the amount of women going to school?
Misogyny was not just "women bad", it was women have no rights. A woman could not have a bank account, an education, live by themselves, or really have an opinion not held by their husband.
When you compare the modern claims of misandry, they are nothing like the misogyny of the 20th century.
Lol, but no one really believes that except theennwho have been conned by people like JP or Tate. Young men are being told that their problems exist because women are woke, and are stealing their success from them. In reality the vast majority of everyone's problems are a byproduct of macro economics, and the other underlying symptoms of globalized late stage capitalism.
Yes, but to what degree? You obviously think this is a global epidemic, as you previously quoted "billions of young men". How do you square that hole? America and the rest of the western world may have recently just started to see equality among the sexes, but this is not a reality in most of the world. In the majority of the global population women are still systemically oppressed.
These same countries like India are huge participants in the men's rights movement, and are a large audience for people like Tate and JP. How exactly are these men labeling themselves victims of systemic misandry when women in their country are basically property?
My point is that the amount of people who think they're being victimized doesn't necessarily reflect the amount of actual victimization happening.
Again, this is not systemic abuse. This is a systemic health outcome failure, but this is more akin to not understanding now to treat aspects of a disease than it is a sign that government institution are preventing men from seeking mental healthcare, or only offering mental healthcare to women.
Again.... A single example of one woman hating men, and rightfully being criticized for it. If this is evidence of a greater problem, what do you suppose sub reddits like the black pill/red pill say about the growing problem of misogyny among young men?
I don't think this article really helps your argument?
Again, a person's opinion that's being criticized by a liberal news outlet. Not exactly a call to action, or indicative of a wider belief.
The same, a controversial blogger being highly criticized.
This is actually an article you should probably read. It does a decent job explaining why this minority of feminist choose to partake in their radical version feminism. I don't think I agree with it, but it is informative.
Lol, can't really believe this is on jstor. First of all, the book is written by a men's right activist. Secondly, did you actually read any of it? They were blaming things like Clarence Thomas sexually harassing Anita Ward on feminism.
Again, an anecdotal opinion of a blogger. For every one article like this, I can offer a couple dozen of post from reddit with a lot more hate.
Behind a paywall for me, but based on the summary it seems to be telling people to reject radical feminist who exclude men.
Again, an article criticizing it and detailing how they cancelled her event.
None of these were even close to examples of systemic abuse towards men. Most of them in fact were detailing how the vast majority of society has continued to reject the brand of feminism that you claim is so prevalent.
Again, I'm not claiming that misandry doesn't exist. I'm just claiming that it's not nearly as organized or as widely accepted as misogyny. And I have no real data to suggest that systemic misandry has ever existed at least in America.
There is a cause and effect happening in this equation, and it is not balanced in favour for women. We can both agree historically that misogyny was well established as a systemic problem. In response to this feminism happened, in response to feminism a certain reactionary class of men attempted demonize feminism.
This continues into the age of the Internet, as women continue to obtain a sense of equality, men online become more radical. Places like 4chan and reddit start communities that revolve around dehumanizing women. Feminist in response weaponize misandry, which in turn is utilized to recruit more young men into the men's right movement.
Our modern situation did not happen in a vacuum, nor was the increase in misandry unprovoked. Misogyny is so prevalent online that people like yourself tend to forget it even exist. You froth at the mouth when one woman at the Huffington post makes a tweet saying "kill all" men, but don't blink an eye over the thousands of men posting they should be able to rape any woman.