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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why, it’s with affirmative action! /s
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.
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.
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.
If a particular group of people (be it gender wise, race wise or whatever) are being treated unequally, it sounds like a
retardedstupid board game to try to point this out without actually using this group’s name.Love the sentiment, but the R word slur contributes to treating a group unequally.
Only if you believe that word is referencing one group of people.
People with mental disabilities have flagged the word as harmful. Trust the victims to know what hurts them.
If the word isn’t being used in reference to people with mental disabilities it’s not the problematic context.
That’s not how it works. I’m sorry you disagree with English, but people are able to be hurt but words not pointed directly at them.
So if someone uses the N word slur for black people to refer to non-black people they dislike, it’s okay?
Well, it never was used as a term for “people that are disliked.” Regardless, it depends on intent and context, more often than the alternative, probably not… but etymologically speaking, it should (and needs to) change as a purposeful and intentional way to de-power the current general understanding of the word.
Society as a whole cannot collectively agree on nuance. That’s the problem with a lot of this. Words that started off neutral became harmful over time due to context and etymology. The N word didn’t originally have a racial connotation. It gained one over time and was assigned through racism.
Well, it never was used as a term for “people that are disliked.”
Bullshit. You’ve never heard kids online use it an an insult toward anyone regardless of race? Or Pewdiepie using it as a general insult? It absolutely happens.
Regardless, you don’t get to decide if an insult is offensive to a particular group. You can certainly keep using it after knowing it is, but you’ll be an asshole for doing so.
If you are using a word to refer to a person as belonging to any group with the intent to label that person as lesser or some kind of failure state of being then you are by extention calling anyone being part of that group as being something people wouldn’t want to be. You are implying members of the group are inferior.
Examples :
Calling someone “gay” in a way to mean “uncool”. You are implying that a person should never want to be gay. That being gay - is bad. Inferior to being straight.
“You ____ like a girl!” Your underlying premise is that being female is a failure state. You should be angry at being compared to something who lesser than you. This could apply to looks, ability, mannerisms etc. Hence it implies being a woman is a failure state as opposed to being a man.
Calling someone “the R-slur” when you mean something like “asinine”, “idiotic”, “mean” or “silly” you are implying those groups are failure states of being who those behaviours can be appended to as an expectation. That is a slur This sentiment is the same if you were to change the word you used but the specific history of this specific word as a slur is based on it’s once widespread use in context of being a synonym for “stupid” . Now it is less widespread but as the comic that spurred this conversation shows- it is still being used in the context of being a failure state. Intent makes the slur. If people didn’t use the word to refer to people in a way that was supposed to make them sit up and be indignant they are being compared to a disabled person it never would have become a slur. Since parlance never popularized the other use of the word as a verb “to stop or hinder” and the use of this one as a slur is still active it is far too early to attempt to “reclaim” this one.
You can argue “well a new word will just gain slur status!” and the answer is no. The problem stops when you realize the underlying problem is intent the lesson is understood and society stops creating new slurs by implying inferiority through context. English is vast. Use a word without the connotation of belonging to a specific group and you stop the underlying problem.
LMAO, ok so I don’t need a lecture. We’re not talking about using “gay” as a pejorative. That’s not the same word that’s being discussed here. Nor are we talking about using femininity as a negative state.
The “R” word originally meant “to slow” or to hold back progress. That’s what it meant before the medical community misappropriated the term for individuals with intellectual disabilities. At some point after that, the word changed into an informal pejorative and then became taboo. At this point, there’s very viable uses of the word that correlate with politics and perspectives that are counter-progressive.
You appearantly do need the lecture because you are not listening. There are plenty of words you can use without using one that, misappropriated or not, was and still is used to describe the disability community and is now primarily linked to that understanding.
Your statement of “well words are fine if they aren’t used at the people who they are meant for” is inherently incorrect, hence the examples each is an example of using the word in a disrespectful or phobic context. What you are proposing is using a word linked through current pejorative use to the disability community to be expanded to not just be used in the context of “stupid” but to now mean essentially “facist” because… Why? You particularly like the word?
That’s not better.
I think you have it backwards - calling someone a slur doesn’t make the negative association, society as a whole has already decided those traits are negative, and as a result, we use them as slurs. Stopping people from using hurtful words does not fix the problem, I think it lets some people self-righteously think they’re helping, but it doesn’t really do anything.
We’ve seen that happen with using “gay” as an insult - society has shifted over the years, so that being gay is no longer seen as a bad thing (at least not so much so as it was in the 90s, we still have some room for improvement…) therefore it has lost its power as an insult. Somebody calls me gay today, I don’t really care - it’s inaccurate, but it doesn’t hurt me any. And because it doesn’t hurt me, they’re not going to use it as an insult, because that’s what they’re going for, and it’s not effective.
But certain classes of people will always be looked down on, so those traits will always be used as insults. If society makes it unacceptable to use those words, assholes will continue to use them when they think they can get away with it, or find new words. Think of how many words there are for “mentally deficient”. Many of those words were the clinical term for specific disabilities until they fell out of favor after being used as insults. Stupid is one, as is idiot, moron… The only real difference is recency.
We’ve seen that happen with using “gay” as an insult - society has shifted over the years, so that being gay is no longer seen as a bad thing
I don’t remember that “just happening”… I remember prominent members of the homosexual community deciding to reclaim the word “gay”, and then working to bring the more neutral connotations into the mainstream - and that effort is still ongoing.
The people targeted by the slur had to have the resources and ability to change public perception before that could happen, and it took a considerable, concerted effort. It did not just “shift”, and that process is not equally available to every target of a slur.
Slurs have a couple of different ways of coming about. Calling someone “gay” in the context of being uncool or unmanly was one whete the attitude shifted but consider that because of underlying attitude of homophobia became more appearant to the average listener in the attempt to use it in context of a slur. Once something reflects the small mindedness of the speaker more than insults the listener it does lose it’s power.
Now consider something you said about the disability community :
But certain classes of people will always be looked down on, so those traits will always be used as insults
There is a very large body of disability advocacy that is involved in fighting for a social attitude where this is not the case. In fact it hasn’t always been the case. Our concept of “normal” is historically more recent than you would think and people with mental disabilities in the English world were not really considered a distinct class. You are taking for granted that the disability community will be considered inferior by the wider population because you cannot imagine a state otherwise. That is ableism my friend and it doesn’t change unless you look it in the face and recognize it for what it is.
A fundamental thing lacking in your understanding of slurs is your insistance that their existence is a full negative for the community that they are levied against. It is more useful to look at the designation of slurs almost more as a form of technology those communities use both as a form of self advocacy to spread awareness of underlying prejudices and to identify individuals and groups who hold them particular opposition or threat. They aren’t just about “getting upset” or giving people an avenue to press buttons.
Consider the “N-slur” in light of it being a technology. Those who use it are either :
-
Identifying themselves as a member of the ‘in’ group and using it as a means of solidarity.
-
Identifying themselves as an individual that believes they have “the right” to use the slur companionably thus often identifying themselves as a problem who at best doesn’t quite understand the assignment or at worst believes they can make unilateral decisions as part of a group to which they do not belong presenting a threat
-
Identifying themselves as a legitimate threat by using the word with the full weight of it’s oppressive and derogatory context.
This is legitimately words as weapons of war. A technique hit upon by modern civil rights movements as a means of fighting back. The meeting place of sociology and etymology where people started looking at words beyond strict meaning. What you are attempting to do is disarm a community making use of this but in reality you are identifying yourself using this tech as the second form of threat. The one that treats advocacy as a lost cause because the idea of implicit inferiority is so ingrained you can’t see the paternalism.
-
Yea this is a slippery slope though, you can play this game with every word and easily turn it into a discussion in bad faith. English, not being my mother tongue, when I think of the word “retarded”, I automatically think of the word as related to describing foolish and stupid actions. But I do also know, on a higher level, that it actually is a medical term. So I am not against this correction (I would for instance be more careful at not be using the anologous word in my language in such a sentence).
Retarded is an outdated medical term, we use terminology such as intellectual disability these days because of the stigma behind the R word.
Retarded is an outdated medical term
Latin would like a word with you on that.
The etymology of the word is irrelevant in this context, only how it’s currently being used in English.
though I’m disappointed that you believe the history of language is irrelevant, I’m happy you feel that way!
in the original comment, they used it in a way to describe a board game, not against a person or people.
so no issue, right?
Agreed, in its core the problem lies in people’s inclination to be ableist. Whether or not making people conscious of usage of ableist terminology in sentences is helpful to this problem, I am not really sure. But I am also not against it.
deleted by creator
In typical usage, retard (pronounced /ˈɹiː.tɑːɹd/, REE-tard) is an ableist slur for someone who is considered stupid, slow to understand, or ineffective in some way as a comparison to stereotypical traits perceived in those with intellectual disability. The adjective retarded is used in the same way, for something or someone considered very foolish or stupid. The word is sometimes censored and referred to as the euphemistic “r‑word” or “r‑slur” Retard was previously used as a medical term.
Yea, and from the same wiki article:
The word retard dates as far back as 1426. It stems from the Latin verb retardare, meaning “to hinder” or “make slow”.
Much like today’s socially acceptable terms idiot and moron, which are also defined as some sort of mental disability, when the term retard is being used in its pejorative form, it is usually not being directed at people with intellectual disabilities. Instead, people use the term when teasing their friends or as a general insult.
Removed by mod
No, we’re speaking English. Do you know the definition of etymology?
Do you understand semantic shift?
this is either the perfect comment that uses the word “ignoramus”, or the worst insult.
I’m still not sure if you actually meant to do it or not.
I chose it for its Latin-ness, if that’s what you’re asking.
I use the term as a general insult towards people who seem hellbent on never learning from their mistakes. Like when people keep voting for politicians who openly advocating for violence against those same people, or when people keep getting in car accidents because they think everyone else is the problem (Oh the irony though).
Would never use it towards someone medically incapable of learning from their mistakes, that’s just cruel and not their fault.
In typical usage
so you agree it is a multifaceted word that requires contextual definition in order to be used properly.
The noun retard is recorded from 1788 in the sense “retardation, delay;” from 1970 in the offensive meaning “retarded person,” originally American English, with accent on first syllable. Other words used for “one who is mentally retarded” include retardate (1956, from Latin retardatus), and U.S. newspapers 1950s-60s often used retardee (1950).
https://www.etymonline.com/word/retarded
It’s unfair to judge a word that has over 500 years of use on the last 70 years of history.
It’s unfair to judge a word that has over 500 years of use on the last 70 years of history.
A bridge that has stood for 500 years can be considered unusable today due to recent developments.
The word clearly isn’t having the effect you say you want. The solution isn’t to bemoan the poor treatment of the word - the solution is to change the word you use.
You have many options - be creative!
more analogies that have no other purpose but to oversimplify and confuse the topic. I can’t fault you though, if this is the best way you can understand language. you tried your best after all.
if the intent of the speaker is misunderstood by the listener it’s the listeners fault for misinterpreting and failing to understand contextual intonation.
simply put, the speaker speaks and the listener listens. intent is conveyed through our words and their meaning. if the listener misinterprets the meaning based on context given, it’s the listeners fault.
have you observed that when listening to the speech of someone who is classically educated that their vocabulary seems to be endlessly descriptive and their intent often lost on the uneducated masses? that those with higher education are often ostracized or mocked because they are perceived as “thinking they’re better”.
that’s because the uneducated masses fail to understand the meaning of the words they speak. the peasants fail to understand the nobility of the spoken word. they simply use common to communicate with their simpleminded friends and neighbors.
I’m sure at this point you have clearly understood my intent of this comment.
if not, read a book.
On the contrary, a skilled orator adjusts the message to suit the audience, and a skilled craftsman chooses the tool best suited to the task.
However, your intent here seems to be primarily to offend, rather than to convince or persuade, as evidenced by both your word choice and the direction of your statements - this is your choice of course, and I will similarly choose to ignore it!
Previously? It’s in my medical paper.
It has fallen into disfavor due to its constant misuse as a pejorative. Might want to update the paper.
Why are you telling me, I’m not the one calling patients the R word 😭
So it’s in your medical record. Depending on how old it is, that was very unprofessional of whoever wrote it.
Retard was previously used as a medical term.
As was idiot, cretin, moron, and imbecile, which suffered similar misuse.
ok I suppose stupid does not necessarily isolate a group of people as it is a general adjective, otherwise we are a bit out of luck because it is also very hard to describe something strongly unpleasent without using such adjectives
Most of the time, whenever I see folks using the slur, I feel the word “asinine” would work just as well.
Other words that normally fit are: ludicrous, brainless, or downright silly.
sounds like a good one thanks
But sometimes you want to convey the backwardness, or that something is a product of a past that should be let go… is it still a slur if you’re not using it as a slur? Kind of like cracker, if you’re using it to refer to a white person it’s a slur, but nobody is going to stop you from calling a saltine or a cheese-it a cracker because that’s what they are… Or do we have to call them mass produced unleavened bread products?
Antiquated or barbaric (amongst others, language is diverse) are words that may express what you’re feeling. Of course, words have multiple meanings and those meanings change over time. Moron was used to describe a deficient intellectual capacity in a medical sense as well, however while an insult, it hasn’t adopted the slur title (maybe it has in some circles idfk). FR clothing is an example where the word is using the same definition as the insult, but describing a physical property instead of an abstract one.
At the end of the day, I usually try to avoid language and actions that are hurtful. With that being said, you can’t satisfy everyone, thus everyone has their own decisions on what values they wish to uphold.
deleted by creator
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?
Removed by mod
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?
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.
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.
Mottes aren’t actually baileys
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.
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
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
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.
Good thing I didn’t say Russia then. I said I wanted to see the Kremlin in its current state crash and burn, and I stand by that.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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?
ah tumblr
All lives matter~
A /s would go a long way.
I thought the ~ would suffice
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
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 😄
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.
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.
Again, you’re arguing against ghosts here. I’m not against protests or people campaigning to get their rights. I’m pointing out that optics matter a lot in social movements, and it’s their responsibility to adapt optics fit for the society they’re in. If people can’t understand or accept your optics then your movement is not going to get any support.
I don’t think you understand the basic fact that no civil rights movement in any democratic society has ever achieved results without the support of the public. Do you seriously think people rioting and being offensive is all it takes to achieve any results? Hell no. The public is THE greatest pressure any movement can apply towards the government, and that pressure is what enacts change.
You seem to think very highly of BLM, but the reality is that it’s not a successful movement. It fizzled out and didn’t achieve anything substantial. The movement, like you, is stubbornly resistant to adapting and changing. This rigidity caused it to fall behind and stagnate as it was never able to overcome the criticisms against it. There’s a reason why BLM’s support has completely tanked since it’s peak during the pandemic.
According to Pew, the movement went from having 67% support (31% oppose) in 2020 to 51% support (46% oppose) in 2023. That’s less than what it was back in 2017 (55% support, 34% oppose). If the trend continued since then, and it likely did, then that means the majority of people now oppose the movement. This isn’t just a white people thing, this decline in support is true for all demographics. Yet the majority of Americans consistently support racial justice and equality. This discrepancy means that the movement is not aligned with the public even though the public supports the community and cause, and that entirely falls on the optics of the movement.
If BLM refuses to adapt, it will continue fade into history like it is now and it will replaced by a new movement that is willing to evolve and optimize optics.
Also, the link you posted is invalid so I can’t see it.
The problems in the organization itself are what led to it losing support. There were a number of characters within the organization that took advantage of several situations in order to enrich themselves. That is completely separate from the concept. Which is still valid.
P.S. I fixed the link
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, which is a step beyond the inferiority actual racists usually ascribe to their ‘target’) when said to someone.
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.
(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.
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.
Black Lives Also Matter would have been much better
Better, but still not optimal, since the whole thing is 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.
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.
Ah, good old ‘punching down’ hierarchical oppression. That always worked out well historically 😌
Wasn’t expecting a Yu Yu Hakusho analogy on punching sexism but I am here for it
if your stupid
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.
Yup “Equalists” are just the same as all lives matter folks completely missing the point and trying to poison the well.
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 gap doesn’t just remain in that scenario, you actually increase the gap making it even worse.
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.
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.
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.
“So you are a (rule) bender! You traitor, I devoted my life to you!”
(attacks the blood bender since that’s a great idea)
He had a point but he kinda fucked it up in the third panel.
Tbh I think the term is kind of unfortunate exactly because of this confusion and rebuttal. We would spend less time discussing this if it was actually called egalitarianism or whatever, I feel. People use the “fem” in feminism to make the movement seem unequal. I think the term is just kind of unnecessarily confusing and egalitarianism would be less ambiguous.
But I don’t really care that much, the ideas behind are obviously more important than the word we use - but words are also important.
People use the “fem” in feminism to make the movement seem unequal.
Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men, like shelters for abused men, helping men with legal fees to retain access to children or similar causes?
Or does it (obviously) go towards bettering women’s lives (which is the obvious stated purpose of feminism)?
There isn’t much wrong with establishing necessary things for women. Pretending those organizations are going to spend their efforts on male specific gender egalitarian issues is unrealistic.
On top of that, there are multiple incentives to help women and girls go into male dominated fields. This is good. I have yet to see incentives to help men and boys go into female dominated fields. There has been a feminist social change on how male nurses and such are seen, which is a good thing, but, organisations as such are not out there setting up drives to get more boys and men in those industries.
Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men
Yes.
One of the big ones that has been in active discussion is toxic masculinity (the social expectation that men act a certain way and more importantly that men not act a certain way), which has detrimental effects on boys and men, who in many cases grow up emotionally stunted and unable to cope with their emotions in a productive, safe, and healthy way. These feminist organizations are big on how to raise boys, how to talk to men about emotions, and other topics that relate to the mental and emotional health of boys and men.
In a related push, a big portion of pushing openness in certain spaces also has the effect of becoming more welcoming for certain men. Trying to make veteran spaces, science/technology/engineering spaces, sports/fitness/athletic spaces, business networking spaces, and other traditionally male-dominated spaces more open to women is often about opening things up to a lot more men, as well, especially men who don’t fit the stereotypes of those spaces.
For example, sometimes a gym that is intimidating to women can also be intimidating to lots of men. Recognizing and addressing the factors that drive away women also have the intended purpose of reducing barriers that we know affect men, as well.
I’m fully, unabashedly feminist. I’m also a straight cis man who fits a lot of male stereotypes (playing and watching sports, lifting weights, a career path through multiple male dominated professions), who recognizes that society leaves behind a lot of men who don’t fit this mold, and I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children), actively parent my son in a way that I hope will help him grow up to be a good man living a good life with fulfilling relationships with those around him, etc.
There’s no separating feminism from broader societal gender roles and expectations. And the things I do for my daughter are closely overlapping with the things that I do for my son.
The problem with your long and heartfelt reply is that it cuts in half the point I am making. I am posing the hypothetical question of if the funds go to assist in aliviting problems that are exclusively suffered by men, not if the efforts and funds of the feminist organisations have knock of effects in making men’s lives better, which, yeah they do via making a more gender dispersed society, and decreasing stressors in environments.
Do the money that feminist organizations go towards problems that affect men, like shelters for abused men, helping men with legal fees to retain access to children or similar causes?
These are scenarios that exclusively benefit men. My statement is that I do not believe such transfer of resources to enable things to be better exclusively to assist men do not happen, and nor is it expected to be that way; and framing feminist organisations as not being biased towards helping women as their central objective is misrepresentative.
and because this topic is constantly a powder keg; yes, those organisations are doing good , necessary work that I approve of.
I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children)
that’s great, you are doing commendable work and the orgaisations you work with are doing great work.
These are scenarios that exclusively benefit men.
Yes, and I’m saying there are prominent feminist voices advocating for specific approaches and helping boys navigate the world, with only incidental benefits to women (who avoid being abused by those men). They’re publishing books, running workshops, providing online resources for these specific things.
Feminist organizations dedicated to protecting women’s reproductive rights are also distributing condoms that go on penises, even for men fucking other men.
Maybe they are motivated by the “knock on” effects on women, but it’s very clear that feminist organizations and advocates are doing things to address problems that only affect men and boys.
I am posing the hypothetical question
I’m talking about actual things we’re doing, not just hypotheticals.
I’m mainly arguing against a narrow view where addressing problems is thought in terms of the demographic identity of the recipient of that help. Organizations try to tackle problems, and trying to gender code the problems and solutions I think is counterproductive.
trying to gender code the problems and solutions I think is counterproductive.
Then why are we gender coding the name of the movement?
Are you asking feminists to stop helping men or something? I’m describing how feminist groups and organizations help men. The organizations they work for usually don’t have gendered names, and even when they do, they tend to take on specific causes regardless of gender, because those causes are themselves important for elevating women’s status towards equality.
The ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, co-founded and operated by prominent feminist Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did some big work in the 70’s, and their goal was to elevate women by fighting for gender equality, including (and perhaps especially) when men were the victims of discrimination. Craig v. Boren was probably the most famous example of their work on that front, where the Supreme Court struck down a higher drinking age for men in Oklahoma.
So it seems to me that you’re pivoting away from “but why don’t they help men” argument to fussing about the way they name themselves. The name is the name. I’m a feminist, I volunteer for feminist organizations, for important causes for women, in a way that often helps men directly.
So it seems to me that you’re pivoting away from “but why don’t they help men” argument to fussing about the way they name themselves
Just to point out I’ve only commented once in the thread above, I’m not the same person you were originally replying to.
Are you asking feminists to stop helping men or something?
No, of course not. I’m just pointing out how the name of the movement ‘feminism’ is gender coded, which is ironic considering your earlier statement about not gender coding solutions and stuff
The truth is our reality is shaped by narratives and, while calling it egalitarianism may be accurate in a vacuum, ignoring historical injustices makes us less self aware and resilient as a society. Something external forces can and have already capitalized on.
Sure, but its exactly because words are important that its called feminism. When you’re talking about “egalitarianism” the goal is so vague that everyone can be on it. That’s why you have names like “feminism”, because that movement is focused on how we live in a patriarchal society and how women have been historically treated unjustly under it. Or “black lives matter”, which, although I’m sure would also agree that “all lives matter”, are focused on why historically, black lives specifically haven’t as much. Same thing for trans rights.
When you combine that all into one, all the nuance of the different groups gets lost and the average becomes “yeah but human rights are so much better than 50 years ago” to shut down discussion.
Movements have to adapt to the societies they’re in. The term feminism made sense 100 years ago because women barely had rights. However, it makes way less today because there’s way more equality going on. Sure, you can point to something like Afghanistan today where the sense would make sense, and you would be right. However, the same is less true in a place like Sweden or America where gendered issues are less one sided than they used to be and the issues are more nuanced. You can’t use outdated standards and expect not to receive criticism for it. Optics do matter, and if they don’t accurately reflect the landscape then they’ll end up doing more harm than good.
I completely agree with what you’re saying. However, on the other hand, “black lives matter” and “feminism” are equally exposed to the “all lives matter” and “equality” rebuttals from people that want to shut them down.
I think some progress could be made if those championing equality made a concerted effort to gain ownership of the “all lives matter” and “equality” slogans/campaigns, and then used that ownership to point out the problems (all lives matter, and black lives are currently being stepped on, etc.)
I feel like instead of changing the name, we should stop justifying it on “equality”. The purpose of the movement is to stop a form of oppression. The name of the movement clearly takes the side of the oppressed, recognizing the oppression. Saying that the movement is for “equality” backpedals the recognition that an oppression exists and the discussion shifts to another point of derailment like “but arent men and women naturally different in some ways? is equality actually appropriate? what is equality?”
The productive feminist discussions are in debating the oppressions that exist and how to change them, not getting tangled in teological discussions about “nature” and “equality”.
The problem with that is that people who use egalitarianism or all lives matter don’t actually want equality, they want oppressed people to shut up
Wish I had more than one upvote to give. Movements and groups name themselves after their targeted focus, yet you never see someone going up to the teacher’s union rep and saying “but shouldn’t you also care about the other jobs?”
Say what you will about PETA (I’m sure I could say a lot), but you never see someone criticising them for their “narrow minded focus solely on the welfare of animals, without regard for the ethical treatment of humans, plants and fungi”
You’ll never catch someone criticising a homeless shelter for not doing enough to shine light on the prevalence of gun violence.
So why does anyone treat these bad-faith criticisms as anything more or less than attempts to silence the already-marginalised groups for which these movements are advocating?
yet you never see someone going up to the teacher’s union rep and saying “but shouldn’t you also care about the other jobs?”
For ducks sakes that’s literally how unions are SUPPOSED TO WORK. No wonder the US worker’s rights are so weak if that’s what you think, and based off your comment you’re on the side of the workers!
Here in Finland when one union goes on strike for a cause other unions join in! Airline union going on strike? Guess what, so I’d the railway, buses, logistics, grocery workers, and so on, with more joining in if it’s for a really good reason, even teacher unions.
What you’re effectively saying is, “We’re specifically not focused on equality, only on where women have it worse than men.” And that’s fine, but then don’t also say, “If you support equality you support feminism,” because both of those things can’t be true at the same time. “We want to achieve equality between the sexes and for the most part women are disadvantaged, so we will focus on the inequality that is impacting women until they are at least on the same level where inequality is impacting men,” would be more appropriate in my opinion, but certainly isn’t going to be a winning slogan.
That’s illegal in the US. Thanks to the Taft Hartley Act
If the rich face no consequences for breaking laws that help each other, but the poor do, then that is not justice.
It is up to the people to decide if they would then rather live quietly with injustice or fight loudly for their rights, regardless of supposed legality or consequences.
Agreed. I’m just telling you the root cause. We know that the brute squad will be unleashed if we try to do such tactics.
You have just perfectly stated my point: a teacher’s union rep CLEARLY cares about other workers, but that’s not the POINT of a Teacher’s Union. I’m saying that you don’t see anyone complaining that there’s a union to protect those specific labourers, because such a complaint would be patently ridiculous. It is similarly ridiculous to assume that a Feminist opposes the rights of non-women just because their movement is focused on women. That is my point.
And my point is that it’s self defeating to call yourself a feminist if you’re egalitarian unless there’s a reason for it. Otherwise, just call yourself egalitarian to show you’re about equality to the general population, therefore you can recruit others to the cause more easily.
My wife doesn’t call herself a “teacher’s unionist” if asked, she just calls herself a unionist, because the rights of all workers supercedes those of only teachers. Unless talking specifically to other teachers, parent students, etc, she champions the rights of unions themselves, and supports and encourages people to join a union, and union.
The issue with many feminist groups is that they insist on being feminists first and foremost rather than egalitarians. This is what has lead in part to the existence of TERFs - by hyper focusing on women’s rights instead of just agreeing “yeah, and I’m also an egalitarian”, you open the door to exclusionary groups. Because while egalitarianism is open to all who are inclusive, feminism is not by definition of focus.
It’s not the only group afflicted by this, and it’s part of the reason why the right wing has managed to gain so much power over the years - because while they all might be different flavors of hate and contempt, they are at least united globally behind hate and contempt.
Meanwhile we have those who rally behind compassion and equality arguing we shouldn’t all be considered compassionate and pro equality because there’s “specializations” and that uniting under one banner weakens the cause somehow 🙄
Or the org “No one should shoot anyone in the back”, every so often making a statement to gangsters, but having to spend most of its time pursuing cops.
Makes sense why the phrase is instead “ACAB”.
the goal is so vague that everyone can be on it.
Could you elaborate on why that is a bad thing? I’m sort of confused why you wouldn’t want everyone to be in on it. To be clear, I don’t think we really need to change the goal, I just think the wording is unfortunate.
But again, I think we honestly shouldn’t focus on this small disagreement of the words, as long as we agree on the idea itself. We may not agree on feminism or egalitarianism as words, but I think we both agree on the much more important ideas behind it.
It may also be that I’m coming at this discussion from a Danish perspective, which is very different from an American perspective (I’m assuming you’re american, sorry if that’s not correct). We usually use a word like “ligestilling” which translates as “equality” rather than use a term like feminism.
Every. Single. Time.
Y’all really don’t get why subdividing makes movements weaker.
Here, I’ll give you an easy way to see the flaw I your argument. Apply it to this flag:
According to your logic, this flag shouldn’t be used, because it’s more vague than just the lesbian or trans flag for example.
Yet, the reason this flag is used is because unity is more powerful than division. All those groups are more powerful in fighting for their rights together than they are separate.
And that’s the flaw behind modern feminism - the issues feminism was created to tackle have been greatly delt with. While some certainly do still exist, they are now also caused by things other than a patriarchy, such as oligarchy. And thus tackling the issues that affect women too in modern times needs the involvement of other groups as well, such as unions and even anarchists, to effectively combat.
In such, movements and groups like these would more be much more effective in modern society reforming under an umbrella one such as egalitarianism, much like the LGBTQ+ ones have.
Multiple causes together are more powerful than a single ones divided. Continuing this insistence is literally missing the forest for the trees.
Actually, I don’t really like the progress flag and think it contributes to division. The original rainbow flag is perfect: sexuality and gender expression are a broad spectrum, the stripes don’t represent individual groups, the whole rainbow represents all groups.
The progress flag adds symbols for specific groups which were already included in the rainbow. Once you start singling groups out piecemeal, you enter an endless spiral of having to individually acknowledge every group, and there’s always another subdivision being left out.
I also like the reclamation of the word “queer” and think it’s a far more unifying label than LGBTQIA+, for the same reason.
It’s fine to have focused actions, but unified movements are better.
I agree on the flag for the same reason - it’s more divided in my opinion than the original rainbow flag. But I used it since it’s the current “official” flag.
But it also somewhat illustrates my point as well - that the divisions weaken things more than a simpler unification.
I’m glad “queer” is being used more for the same reason you listed.
Its the “LGBTQ+ movement” not the “everyone movement” because it’s calling out how queer people have been historically marginalized and persecuted and not everyone. Cisgender, heterosexual people are the norm, that’s why this subcommunity exists. It just so happens that there are a lot of subgroups within this small community that share very similar idealogies and so it becomes (more or less) one bigger movement.
Moreover, the flag you sent came to be to specifically to call out all the different groups in the umbrella movement, to not let them get drowned out by the vagueness of the combined movement.
All these groups are fighting for different but not necessarily opposing things. Fighting simply for a “better life for all”, while noble, is really naive. You need to get specific about the things you want to tackle.
It’s not like these groups fight alone, you can be a feminist, anti-fascist, queer person of color and support multiple things you believe in.
Fighting simply for a “better life for all”, while noble, is really naive. You need to get specific about the things you want to tackle.
Egalitarianism isn’t just “better life for all” without a plan, just like Feminism isn’t “Equality for Women” without a plan.
Uniting under the banner of Egalitarianism as a group, rather than stating you’re not that but are instead a feminist, would be like saying “I’m not in the LGBTQ+ movement, I’m a Trans Rights activist”.
Everytime people like you insist (even if coming from a place with good intentions) we shouldn’t consider ourselves egalitarian, you weaken all groups that would benefit from standing united under it. There’s a reason right wing propaganda networks constantly argue against the term “Egalitarian” and try to keep groups like Feminists isolated from others - because it would hurt them if it actually gained in popularity.
There are indeed many people who would not qualify as egalitarian. Libertarians, Republicans, Musk - all of them hate it, because “equality for all” is in fact not as broad as you would hope, unfortunately.
I dont see how they were arguing for subdivisions. There are in fact many problems to solve, and we should unite to solve them. But if we are talking about a specific problem, we should use specific language. This shouldnt prevent us from seeing that there are common roots to all these problems.
Because they are arguing against the “egalitarian” label rather than supporting both it and feminism.
Today’s specific problems tend to be rooted in a more broader affecting cause. The Waltons and Sacklers for example are not all men, but women too. The issue that affects women the most today are no longer about simply just the patriarchy but instead of the wealthy versus the rest.
After all, the right wing usually doesn’t have issues with abortion itself - only with abortion of minorities and the poor. Of the others, not of themselves.
I think feminism is a perfectly appropriate word choice for the movement. The focus is on the fact that women are discriminated against, and that is a very specific scope of problems that need to be addressed. Calling it egalitarianism kinda loses the point and draws focus away from the actual problem. I.e. the movement is about solving problems, not about a hypothetical utopic end state. You could argue about what that utopia should look like forever, but the movement has already identified concrete issues that need to be addressed.
Anyone who nitpicks the word choice like in the comic is just not sympathetic to the issue and causing a distraction.
So you don’t think inclusive language is important?
