MrStonedOne wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2024 8:15 pm
Misandry within Feminism is a men's issue. in fact its one of the most important ones given how much power and sway the Capital-F Feminist viewpoint on gender issues has in liberal political circles and even office culture.
At the European Central Bank the number of male mid level managers who applied for a promotion and got it in 2022-2023 was 5%, the number of female mid level managers who applied for for a promotion and got it was 14%.
Until 2010 common sexual assault studies would only ask about actions preformed by men. (ie, all the questions used male pronouns)
These are forms of misandry within Feminism. The same misandry that you are implying is less important then divorced men bitter about the legal system letting their ex wife run rampant over their finance health, (which as the founder of the Seattle Mens Rights Association, and somebody who personally met with many leaders of the mens rights movement, I can authoritatively tell you is the primary form of misogyny in the mens rights movement).
Your argument is problematic because history is constant. it has already happened, it can never change. You are casting the sins of the father onto the son to explain to him why a form of bigotry towards him can never be addressed with the same rigor as a similar form of bigotry towards his sister (so to speak). I said it in my timeout message best. "it would have cost you nothing to not dismiss mens issues with bullshit historical arguments".
You misinterpret my point, bigotries are not equivalent, based on the circumstances of the world and stuff, they have different impacts, if an ethnic minority is bigoted towards an ethnic majority, it's less likely to result into a genocide, because, it's harder logistically.
In the same way my point is that :
Misoginy in MRA group seeks to attack feminism, you're a prime example of it, you love to attribute all ills that happen to men as a result of academic feminism, wherehas misandry in feminist and women's rights group and women in general is more so directed at what men have been than what men are.
I think misoginistic MRAs are more likely to try to reverse societal good, like the ability to vote for women, or abortion rights, than feminist are to revert societal good for men like, idfk ???
I'm not saying these people don't exist, there is some "feminists" that will vehemently fight changes in what rape is to exclude men and such, i'm just saying that i think it's a less prevalent, and therefor dangerous, kind of hate.
(I already had this conversation with someone else and i think an example that's fitting is, palestinian antisemetism vs israeli dehumanization of palestinians, both are bad, but currently one side is bombing the other, their bigotry becomes a lot more important to be fought to me in that case)
What is the harm in allowing the general conversation on sexual abuse to shift in the direction of gender neutral so that our brothers and enbies in arms can feel comfortable acknowledging their abuse?
There's none, no one has argued that, conversation about sexual assault shouldn't be gendered to begin with, glad we agree.
How can you honestly say that? You do understand that the point Yew was trying to make, was that because of the stats they were posting, the above should not happen, that because its only men who do it, there is no need to examine the gendering of the prep. Like thats what you were defending.
Yew was doing two things wrong, they were using arrest/conviction stats to make an argument what demographics commit a crime, which because of the number of humans involved in making arrests and convictions happen, are influenced by any culture zeitgeist misconceptions about who commits that crime, not reality. Because they did this to a protected demographic (gender), this became unintentional bigotry. and secondly, they were making the argument that because of those stats, it is ok to only ever portray that group as the one committing a type of crime. Because they did this to a protected demographic (gender), this became intentional bigotry. It doesn't matter that this latter argument falls flat in the context of the meme that sparked the discussion, it was still made.
You started a conversation about how men are according to you represented overwhelmingly because of stereotypes as predators, someone shows stats to tell you "well maybe there's a reason since it seems like most perpetrators are men".
That has nothing to do with talking about SA, you can't start a conversation about how men are overrepresented doing something then complain they're making the narrative gendered by showing you stuff that shows that it's less so overrepresentation and just, representation.
If you're doing an official talk on SA and such yes using gender neutral language for victims and perpetrators would be optimal, but random people on the internet aren't to be held up to that standard, especially for a referential meme template that is heavily based on portraying specific characters.
What is the harm in allowing people to use a (still relevant and in use in some spaces of the internet i might add) definition of autist that doesn't paint them with brush of the most visible minority?
You can use the word 1ncel for yourself, in an attempt to reclaim it, that's fine,
and yet, when I do, in a conversation with somebody else, you butt in to argue im using the word wrong. (or did you forget, this is what got you that last time out you appealed) You know, for somebody that used to rag on me for being a language prescriptivist, you do seem to want to enforce a definition onto somebody else.
1ncel as a shorthand for lonely men irregardless of misogyny/bitterness/insecurity is still commonly in use, hell its still the prevailing definition on 4chan, or at least /soc/. Its never going away. You claim its ok if somebody wants to reclaim it, but then try to enforce the more harmful definition when they do, frustrating any attempt to reclaim it.
No, i correct you when you come in and say "YOUR DEFINITION IS WROOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG", when people hear or type the word 1ncel in most cases they mean a specific thing, a vague idea that's shared. Some people like you then come in and say "Erm actually 1ncel = Autist ???" of course i'm going to come in and call you stupid for that,
You dislike when people use 1ncel for mysoginistic lonely men because in your mind your definition is the one true definition and if you use the word in another way you must hate ALL lonely men.
And you do that all while trying to force people to use your definition which you picked arbitrarly.
"im not backing down on this, treating incel as having any other definition than short for involuntary celibate will be treated by me harshly"
When a slur is reclaimed it's used primarly by the group it was targeted at, aka, lonely mysoginistic men, the thing is that they already have reclaimed it cus they're very happy to use it for themselves, and then you come in, and go "No, actually, communities that call themselves 1ncels are actually the product of misandry and i should rehabilitate that word because back in my days, it wasn't used by those mysoginistic men, and they actually got it from the people calling them this as an insult".
I use the word 1ncel for a specific kind of people, ones who have 0 problem with elliot rogder, if you think that makes me bigoted because you saw some people on twitter of IRL use that word to describe men they thought were creepy, so be it.
If you want to reclaim that word so be it, but it's not going to pretend your definition is pristine and better, because by trying to rehabilitate it, you're also allowing bigoted people who use it as a label for themselves and their ingroup to be viewed in a more positive light, and that's an outcome i don't like either.
Again to me it's like if you were trying to reclaim gender critical, the term has been rotten by bigots, use it for the bigots who self identify as such, until they jump to the next term.
Reclaiming it only brings it legitimacy.
The truth currently is that the vast majority of people who self identify using that word know that it carries a negative connotation and they don't care, just like some transphobes use the word gender critical.
How can you say its fine to try and reclaim the word then here the next paragraph imply its bad that they continue to use the word knowing its connotations?
Reclaiming a word is fine, reclaiming that word, is a bad idea.
You can try to reclaim the word 1ncel, but you cannot force people to use the definition you use.
If i say, as the top dog on interpreting rule 11, the other definition counts as de-facto sexism against men by creating a linguistic link between lonely/insecure men and toxic behaviors by people who happen to be male, they may not have to use my definition, but they can't keep continuing to use theirs. if that means they have to stop using the word in my discord because they can't bring themselves to use the older and less problematic definition, so be it. We call that a "skill issue".[/quote]
The people who we are talking about when using the word incel majoritarly use it for themselves too, people who use that word didn't make that link.
I'm not calling you a mysoginistic entitled man, i'm saying that's what you look like by trying to "clean" 1ncel of it's negative connotations. I personally don't think of you as an 1ncel, but the way you go about treating that word is raising red flags for some people, and i think that's fair.
Oh yes, the defensiveness argument!
"Why would you get defensive at people trying to cast gay/trans people as groomers unless you were secretly a groome-" oh whoops, wrong argument.
When MAPs (pedophiles) tried to use LGBT has a label they got backlash, where is the backlash for 1ncels using 1ncels.
"Why would you get defensive at people trying to cast black men as rapist unless you were secretly a rapis-" oh whoops, wrong argument.
When have rapists self identified as black to form communities centered around rape ?
"Why would you get defensive at bathroom bills designed to protect women from predators unless you're one-" oh whoops, wrong argument.
The difference between seld iding as trans and as an 1ncel is that trans people are not a community centered around rape worship or misoginy, it would take me not 10 minutes to find swath of post from incels that do this though.
The term has been rotten, the only people using it to describe themselves are either mysoginistic cunts, or people who think they can salvage it, like you.
"Why would you get defensive at a word that refers to all lonely men being corrupted by people making assumptions (fueled by gendered stereotypes) about why they are lonely which are treated as valid based on a tiny percent who receive a disproportionate amount of attention because of how vile their actions/words are" ah, there we go. surely it will logically make sense to assume guilt from defensiveness *this* time.
Why would you not get defensive when you are told the word overwhelmingly used by bigots to describe themselves should be detached from that bigotry because it draws a bad link between lonely and mysoginistic"
Did you know that in the US in the 50s, the common popular culture zeitgeist was that the word homosexual referred to a man who prayed specifically on young boys? Police departments were publishing televised PSAs telling parents to warn their sons to be on the watch for homosexuals. Fueled by harmful stereotypes about gay men (that itself, was morphed from stereotypes of men).
Did pedophiles self ID as homosexuals, were almost all the homosexuals you were able to talk to pedophiles ?
The truth currently is that the vast majority of people who self identify using that word know that it carries a negative connotation and they don't care
I suppose it's a fucking good thing gay men of the past didn't care about bigoted warped definitions that take a word about a general group, and shift it to only refer to the worse of that group.
[quote
I suppose you would oppose a (irl meat-space) privately ran forum in the 1960 deciding to block/ban/censor people using the bigoted definition of homosexual because it might make them look like a
nazi pedophile. Right?[/quote]
You missed the point.
But yes, in fictional media, portraying men and women as both victims and aggressors of SA is maybe a good, doesn't mean you should force someone to adapt their story around it, we go back to the topic of diversity in media, and that's a complicated topic.
(Made more complicated when attempts to bring it up as a discussion get derailed by people pointing to prep stats to imply the discussion shouldn't happen. So your attempt to cast this as something you agree with falls short when in practice you defend (and participate in) attempts to shut down such discussions)
If the stats are true explaining why using them as a justification [...] is important
The stats where used the because the stat made sense, memes aren't made by a small production of people they're made by diverse groups of people who do not give a fuck about diversity in media or whatever, of course they don't, if anything it's an indicator of what people think of men, but saying "Hey maybe people think of men that way because men do commit those crimes more than women" isn't wrong.
And yeah it's probably skewed towards men because those crimes are taken more seriously when men commit it, but i don't think you go to 90% of perps being men without some initial overrepresentation of men in these crimes.
because if i say that 1ncel in common internet speech refers to a very specific kind of people who loaths their preferred dating pool for not choosing them, you're going to look at me in the eyes via your screen and go "You're being bigoted right now".
Because you are. This caricature is invented out of stereotypes about men and male sexuality. It isn't real. The vast majority of autists do not.
Source ? Where are those non mysoginistic men who call themselves 1ncels ? (and don't tell me, ahah i am talking about the celibate men in general, because that's not what the discussion is, it's about who chooses to use that word for themselves)
If you can prove that the majority of people who call themselves incels are not mysoginistic, i'll happily concede that point.
Most social issues people are exposed to.
-snip-
And you can use the stats about Violent crimes in men to talk about how "Aggresivity = masculinity" leads to a society in which men resort to violence more often than women.
-snip-
But i could easily make the same kind of argument about how a societal expectation of men as the providers in a relationship lead to alimony being paid towards exwives even in some cases where they're vastly richer.
The societal expectation of men as the providers isn't what causes alimony to be paid unfairly, the empathy gap in how people, including you and i, view fairness in respect to men and women, is what causes judges to be more empathetic to the woman's financial situation than the man's.
A study of babies not even a year old showed that parents responded more slowly to the cries of boys than girls. Whats worse, *other* parents did the same thing despite not knowing the gender of the child.
This is getting long, my gist is that your words of supposed acceptance of mens advocacy flys in the face of your repeated attempts frustrate any attempt to free men from the shadow of their stereotypes.
Women are more present in nursing jobs, are women therefor made for those jobs ? No they were socialized to care about others more which leads to such thing, there is also societal expectation of nurses to be women.
Men are prevalent in perpetrators of SA, are they therefor made to rape ? No, they were socialized to pursue women and expect affection in response to specific types of behavior, this kind of thinking is reinforced by our current dating culture and pick up artists. There is also a societal expectation of men to rape more often than women.
Both of those statements acknowledge issues with how we socialize kids, we expect things out of them we drill stuff into their mind, like you can't wear pink etc, and i think those things are bad, the difference between you and me is that you do not acknowledge difference in behavior based on gender.
I do not like those differences, at all, and i wish they didn't exist either, but you are out there implying that if you think they exist, you're a bigot.
People don't act the same towards men and women, people don't act the same as men and women. Both are true, because of the empathy gap, because of societal expectation. But where do you think the empathy gap comes from, if not how we socializing children. Or rather, why do we socialize children in different ways based on their gender ?
It's the same issue really.
You say its fine to address representation of CSA and have conversations, but you defend somebody for trying to shutdown such a conversation with biased stats.
Men are represented as perpertrators in cases of CSA more often then women, that is true. You claim this is unfair representation based on stereotypes, sure.
If you ask random people on the internet to describe a situation of CSA, most of them will describe an adult man grooming a female child.
This would happen because in their mind that's the mental image of those situations, those mental image come predominantly from stats.
You cannot just dismiss all stats without explaining why they might be biased, which you didn't do with soreyew.
There is societal good to be had when you talk about about perpetrators and victims in a gender neutral way, because it allows people to think of themselves as any of those two roles, which is beneficial.
But if you can "Men are portrayed as X because of stereotypes" and someone pulls stats showing you that men do predominantly do this, the answer isn't
?timeout apply @Ostensibly Yew Object 1h using fbi crime stats to excuse and justify how depictions of people being criminal tend to show them as certain demographics isn't tolerated on this discord
The answer is
A) those stats might be biased : explain your logic
B) I know X does commit those crimes more, but this prevents some groups of identifying with their history of SA.
Especially when you got omega telling you "Hey it's actually those people self identifying as the pedophiles here not other people drawing them as such".
You love to detach yourself from context when you describe what you do cus the context makes you look like a fucking sicko.
You say its ok for men to address stereotypes that cast them as the worse of their kind but laugh off the concept of men finding the bear vs man debate offensive and problematic.
Women feel unsafe around men, if you shutdown these kinds of conversations you try to bury that fact. I think that's dumb.
You say its fine to reclaim 1ncel but then butt into conversations that are using it in the reclaimed matter to claim its invalid to do so, so which is it?
No, i butt in when you tell people their definition is wrong and yours is the only acceptable one from now on.
Even in this appeal you contradict yourself in this matter, telling me if i want to change the meaning of 1ncel i should reclaim it then in the next paragraph cast men who use dispite the negative connotations in a negative light.
You know what i think you're right, i should have never said you should reclaim it, because there's nothing to reclaim. That word is knee deep into "That's what i call me and my friends in our forum where we say awful things about women" territory.
You have unconscious biases against men. Its why consciously you are like "yes i support that" but then when you actually see it in action you find a way to frustrate and detract from it.
We, all, have biases, against every conceivable group,
You have biases against men women trans cis hetero gay black white asian, whatever, and so do i. What's important is acknowledging them and rethinking the things you think are acquired to try and eliminate biases.
I have expressed, many times, expressed that i think rape definitions should try and fit men victims more often, that who gets to keep the kids should be an impartial decision and the mother shouldn't be the default answer, that fighting for men's mental health, and everyone's mental health by promoting people talking about their suicidal ideation or mental anguish.
But, because i disagree with you on some things and some topics, i must be a bigot, you've decided that in my mind, i hate men more than you, and that deserve being removed from polcon, a channel in which i talk to, mostly men.
Your basis for this is :
Me disagreeing with how you mute people for bringing up stats,
Me disagreeing with you about how you mute people talking about the man vs bear thing (Hour bans for a passing "Eh", by the way)
Me disagreeing with you on the Forum Filter for 1ncel, And the discord timeout for 1ncel.
Me disagreeing with you on how important it is to fight different types of bigotry depending on environemental factors, and how it makes them more or less dangerous.
Me disagreeing with you on the existence of difference in behavior between men and women originating from our socialization.
You in your infinite wisdom, removed me from a channel because you thought i was biased against men, when in reality your own biases towards yourself as a person motivated the ban in the first place.
This is ultimatly a ban that only exists because you disagree with me, and you're the host. Anyone other discord user would have had to have a third party examine the conversation and deem if it was worthy of banning, but you as the host have the privilege of judging bans in which you are involved. This unsurprisingly leading to issues with how you ban people who argue against you.
You have decided to guess the content of my soul and what you guessed, you disliked. That is all.
