Imperializt Russia wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:But you can't handle "Men are oppressed too?"
You're ignoring context of those objections.
"Men are oppressed too." = "Black lives matter."
Does that help you?
Some men are absolutely underprivileged compared to other men, and it is not a case of "all men hold superior stature to all women". Indeed, an intersectional reading would state that a young, working-class male is disadvantaged compared to a young, middle-class male, and similarly to other working-class women (the class component of intersectionality), and in other areas are privileged above some working-class women in some way. "Positive" discrimination where women are favoured over men, but as sexualised objects (arguments are made that women in the service industry are subject to this, and this invalidates the "favour" the women receive, because it's not useful and not respectful) is not the same thing as "male privilege" where, say, a male colleague is more likely to be listened to, respected, treated like they know what their job even is than a female colleague on the basis that the person is simply a male.
"Men are oppressed" in patriarchy, indeed. Being seen as either unsuitable or less capable childrearers in custody cases, for example. As with the "positive discrimination" point above, women are awarded custody more often, and mothers spared longer jail sentences, because the male-led society sees childrearing as women's work and thus the woman must be able to tend to the child because that is her expected sociological role. This isn't "privilege", because in order to receive this "favour", her status as a person is devalued to "babymaker".
But in oppression of men obviously, it's subsets of men, not "men" as a monolithic group. It's not "women" as a monolithic group either. But it is many subsets of women, in a society led by men, many of whom are in an age bracket that literally predates "feminism" and inherits a disdain of the emergence of "feminism" from their parents and learned values - which is passed down to their children - and in some cases, to our generation, Ostro.
Men are oppressed. But it's not "black lives matter". They're not oppressed for being men.
It's more like "all lives matter". Yes, they do. Whites are dime-a-dozen, blacks don't have social value to many arms of authority, and get treated like such.
Women have little social value to many arms of authority. Men are dime-a-dozen. We are expendable, not disposable.
"Positive" discrimination where women are favoured over men, but as sexualised objects (arguments are made that women in the service industry are subject to this, and this invalidates the "favour" the women receive, because it's not useful and not respectful) is not the same thing as "male privilege" where, say, a male colleague is more likely to be listened to, respected, treated like they know what their job even is than a female colleague on the basis that the person is simply a male.
This is a gynocentric view of the situation. It can be viewed from an androcentric one which likewise minimizes the benefit men receive and only counts the benefits women receive, for instance, "A male colleague is more likely to be listened to isn't the same as the privileges women get because it places an unfair burden of responsibilities on men that leads them to have worse work-life balance than women, and as such is not helpful in mental or physical health terms. Women being seen as worse at this stuff doesn't count, because they still end up with work-life balance, and that's what counts."
It isn't privilege because his value as a person is reduced to "utility" and doesn't take account of his wellbeing, only his utility.
"Men are oppressed" in patriarchy, indeed. Being seen as either unsuitable or less capable childrearers in custody cases, for example. As with the "positive discrimination" point above, women are awarded custody more often, and mothers spared longer jail sentences, because the male-led society sees childrearing as women's work and thus the woman must be able to tend to the child because that is her expected sociological role. This isn't "privilege", because in order to receive this "favour", her status as a person is devalued to "babymaker".
Herein lies the contradiction, and the reliance on the purely gynocentric viewpoint leads to it. You've argued previously it doesn't count because it's not useful or helpful, but apparently if it's against men and not useful or helpful to men, it still ends up discrimination against women.
Further, the feminist framework of understanding all sexism as misogyny and misandristic effects as a consequence of it does not hold up to scrutiny when we investigate the various issues feminists have influenced, for instance, womens sexual liberation V mens sexual liberation, acceptable hobbies and pasttimes, and on the issue of domestic violence
Misogyny being eliminated does not seem to have a noticeable impact on misandry, similar to if Black people just up and decided to constantly shut down any other anti-racist organizations on the grounds that "all racism is against blackness" and worked only to assist black people, to the detriment of asians, hispanics, jews, etc.
When feminists do it, they do it to men.
Women sexual liberation and campaigns on slut shaming (See studies on prevalence of attitudes) does not seem to have impacted people viewing men as lesser for not having sex. Similarly, prior to feminist involvement, domestic violence against both sexes was ignored. After their involvement, after their campaigning and framing of the issue, male victims got arrested for reporting their abusers more often than they got help. You can't attribute that to pre-existing sexism when the only movement to impact the topic has been the feminist movement, unless you concede that anti-male sexism is still infecting the movement and they refuse to get rid of it because they've convinced themselves it doesn't exist.
Another thing.
Society sees childrearing as womens work in large part to the feminist campaigns arond the same period which cast men as superfluous to the family unit, and beyond that, outright dangerous. (This was their basis for NOW refusing presumed shared custody and shilling for preference for mothers when they request it.)
That misandry and misogyny CAN find counterparts in misogyny/misandry doesn't mean they all ARE.
A person can decide that men need to go to war because they're expendable and any man who doesn't is a coward.
A person can decide that women can't go to war because they're too weak and emotional.
The central feminist mistake and conceit is that in all cases, in all persons and times and places, the first is secretly the second, and only measures to combat second are needed, and the first will disappear by feminist magic. There is no basis to believe this.
Sometimes somebody just hates Asians. The way you frame these issues also has directly misandrist effects.
It's the result of the selfish, practically debunked, and gynocentric belief that all sexism is caused by misogyny. That effectively cedes women the right to decide what issues are more important, and they naturally skew toward talking about things that impact womens lives or irritate women, putting mens problems, even if they are far more severe, at the bottom of the list, because it doesn't actually impact women that much so they don't rank it as important to them.
It's one of the mechanisms by which feminism is hostile to men, their lives, and their attempts to organize. By framing mens suffering as the right of women to decide what priority it takes, in the social and political context of empathy for men and their problems being highly discouraged.
We'll get started with those then.
As a follow up, if you want to justify this view of yours that it's all secretly misogyny,
Can you name a single issue where this framework has been applied by the feminist movement, and actually worked?
I.E, can you show me a single plane of yours that doesn't fucking crash whenever we build it to your specifications?
(Means you're wrong, bro.)
If you want a smoking gun example, since you readily concede the justice system sentences men to longer because of sexism, here you go:
(The UK judges bench handbook contains feminist justifications for this, as of the 2000's)
The failure of feminism is its insistence that sexism be experienced the same by both men and women in order to count.
Note racism against Asians, for instance, is often couched in positive rhetoric.
You go "The sexism against males you're discussing doesn't count, because my dogmatic ideology insists only the kind of sexism women experience is real sexism."
Your argument is akin to a black movement hitting the roof and shutting down anti-asian racist organizations and going
"But everyone calls you super disciplined and clever, so you aren't victims of racism."
It's reliant on self-absorbed and self-centered womens view being accepted as the only view.
"We're reduced to babymakers"
"We're reduced to utilities."
"We're seen as weak and not counted as strong."
"We're made to present strength and mocked for being weak.
The gynocentric viewpoint is one that dismisses and belittles mens experience of sexism and the type of sexism men experience as being equal and valid, and is an inherently a supremacist and anti-male ideology as a result.
Further, the gynocentric viewpoint leads to a number of bungles for womens advocacy, since it focuses their efforts on male perpetration rather than helping women.
(See lack of help for women victims of women in many situations.)
This is because, say it with me, the type of sexism those women experience is not the same type of sexism women victims of men experience, and the feminist refusal to accept that there exists more between heaven and hell than are dreamt of in their limited philosophy is fucking up society. Lesbians are not assisted on these topics by Feminists and their gynocentric impulses and refusal to countenance other types of sexism as existing.
Congrats IR.
You successfully described PART of sexism.
Whats your justification for saying its the only part that counts and all other types are secretly all about it?
There isn't one. Just dogmatism. Dogmatism reliant on ignoring all the fuck ups that happen from it being treated as the panacea.
I'm genuinely sick and fucking tired of the same nonsense being pushed by your type of gynocentrist. Come up with an actual rebuttal.
The "It's all secretly misogyny" type of feminism is not merely misandrist, as I note, it's also homophobic, and impacts lesbians disproportionately and denies them proper coverage or equal protections.
"That's not sex, men don't experience sex, cos they don't have vaginas."
-Feminist logic
Add an Ism on the end and it's a pretty good actual summary of the worldview, with the same flaw built in, stemming from the same lack of thinking about mens experiences.
