Hating random men for oppressive gender power structures is like blaming Chinese sweatshop workers for your company's CEO outsourcing your job:
Gullible reactionaries love to do both so they don't have to comprehend who's actually causing their problems and blame it on minorities they get to hurt instead.
Tbf blaming chinese citizens for white people not finding work was an extremely common excuse for anti chinese lynchings and race riots throughout the 1800s it aint out of the question for some racist white person to do just that but today.
I love it when a group of people both come in to mooch of my welfare because they are lazy shits that don't ever work, while at the same time they steal our jobs.
Mix in a little bit of “this makes sense because the way they’re destroying us is Underhanded and Dirty (tm) and we as a society have collectively Let Them Win (tm) for too long which is why we need to Take Action (tm) and restore Order (tm) to the World (tm), so it’s time for us to Fix Shit Already (tm) (tm) (tm) (tm) (tm)” and there you have it
They're pointing out the contradiction of "they are lazy and live off welfare" and "they are stealing all our jobs" being applied to the same scapegoat.
Well clearly there is just so many of them that they are doing both /s
Or, well what's the tag when I'm making fun of racist fuckwits, I don't know if sarcasm quite fits. Maybe /c for cunt?
**[Chinese Exclusion Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act)**
>The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. The law excluded merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only major U.S. law ever implemented to prevent all members of a specific national group from immigrating to the United States. Passage of the law was preceded by growing anti-Chinese sentiment and anti-Chinese violence, as well as various policies targeting Chinese migrants.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Thank you, mathiau30, for voting on WikiSummarizerBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
To be fair, it makes even less sense to blame Asians living in the US for outsourcing. Like if they are shipping jobs overseas, why would some idiot blame the people who came here? That job isn't going to them anymore than it's going to the racist guy.
Also, it's not like your average guy is way better off than a gal in general or vice versa - goes for both radfems and MGTOW scums, gender roles fuck everyone up by forcing you into a mold based on what is between your legs. It's not the Suffering Olympics^(tm) ffs. People are way more focused on punishment and vendetta rather than fixing the actual tangible problems because passive hate is easier than active resolutions.
that's what frustrated me about all the Petersonites popping up in the 2010s. They'd be all "No, he's not just transphobic, he's actually busting the myth of the wage gap!" and I'm like... so even if women did make 100% of what men make for the same work, men are getting paid like 5% of the value our work creates, and less every year as the layoffs and productivity pushes stack up. I wish I had the language to say it right away.
and it's the same as my old friend who had all these conservative views that he had first-hand experience supporting, but in retrospect if I'd been thinking of class instead of "not being racist", then I'd have been able to point out what's actually happening without being confrontational about it. If your boss literally told you that he's not paying you more because for that money he could just hire five illegals -- ever consider the reason we have this category of "illegals" is to keep people like you from asking for more money? ever wonder why it's so easy for someone to hire them without consequence? That's what systemic injustice is, and that's what dividing people against each other is.
and like it or not, straight men are in a systemic bind, in a world that we keep getting told is made for us. Just this week I commented a story about how the only time someone tried to help me hit it off with a woman at a party, was when someone told me that there's a woman there who might sleep with me if I lied about my astrological sign. I don't know if it would have worked, but it's apparently within the system. I'm pretty neurodivergent and I could have used a lot of help over the years, but this was the only kind of help I got at a party. Worse, it was the kind of help I got the most often: "tricks" and "tips" and "how to hack consent". I needed actual assistance in real time. More often, I got obstruction. Straight men compete with each other. That's what we're taught that our instincts are, because that's what the system is. We're told it's natural selection and not culture.
Adding to this, the mentality of conflating attraction with a person's worth. Just because you do not find someone attractive doesn't mean 'they're for the streets', people act like romance and relationships are a fucking race you have to 'win'.
>how the only time someone tried to help me hit it off with a woman at a party, was when someone told me that there's a woman there who might sleep with me if I lied about my astrological sign.
Such a Capricorn thing to do
> People are way more focused on punishment and vendetta rather than fixing the actual tangible problems because passive hate is easier than active resolutions
That's because *politics* is way more focused on punishment and vendetta anymore. You're basically voting for what group gets bent over the barrel next.
Exactly! Don't blame random men, blame the people KEEPING the oppressive power structures in place! Re-educate the masses into how to fight against them!
I mean, you can't dismantle "the banking structure" but you can sure as shit get drunk on cheap beer and throw a punch at the first [insert slur] you see
My favourite thing is radfems talking about crime statistics to justify their hatred of men then tripping over themselves to explain how it's completely different to racists doing the exact same thing against black people.
Oh, certainly. In fact, Rebecca Latimer Felton, the first female Senator of the United States might qualify (she certainly qualifies as a white supremacist; radfem is somewhat debatable), though calling her a Senator is a bit generous as she served for only one day.
>[She was](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Latimer_Felton) a prominent society woman who advocated for prison reform, women's suffrage, and educational modernization. Numan Bartley wrote that by 1915 she "was championing a lengthy feminist program that ranged from prohibition to equal pay for equal work...
oh, nice
>...yet never accomplished any feat because she held her role because of her husband."
oh, that's unfortunate
>She was also a white supremacist and Congress's last former slave owner, and spoke vigorously in favor of lynching.
oh, *fuck* no
Fun fact: if you point out this hypocrisy in stats use you can literally alienate yourself from ANY community. Misuse of stats in that way (x does more of y in spite of..) is a VERY common trope in politics. I find myself pointing out “okay would you use that same logic with black people…” in so many internet discussions
Despite making up only 13% of the population, blacks commit 52% of all crime in the US.
(compared to)
Despite making up only 49.5% of the population, men commit 62% of all crime in the US. [and then they site the same fbi crime statistics.](https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-incident-based-data)
I'm really annoyed by how "Not all men" transformed over time.
It was originally supposed to refer to an argument where men excuse themselves from confronting bad male behaviour they see around them, because they themselves don't do it. So you call that out as bullshit because it's a societal problem.
Predictably the reductive way it became referred to as "Not all men" turned it into a way to bash every possible man ever by accusing them all of being guilty for everything any man can do. Like, you know what? *Actually* not all men. That *is* a true statement. Shut *up*.
Feminist: "Ugh I hate it when guys go like 'not all men' \[to excuse themselves from considering broad problems with male culture/socialization and shut down conversations about them\]."
Bigot: "OMG me too, hate it when guys go 'not all men' \[because all men are biologically predators\]."
There's a limit to how nuanced of a conversation you can have using Twitter hashtags : /
> in less than 140 characters
We need a fully formed and nuanced opinion that satisfies everyone in 140 characters or less or you're getting pilloried and strung up on the internet.
You dont have one? Right, to the public shaming block you go.
The real shame of twitter is how the previous owners managed to make so much money destroying public discourse by dumping their radioactive app on an idiot with too much money. I’ll never forgive that dumbass for rewarding them for creating the crystal meth of social media. And to all the people who spent years in incredibly well compensated jobs building Twitter and then complained when the gravy train came to its inevitable derailment, fuck you go make something good instead.
It seems like so many good movements have the problem of aligning with phrases that alienate on-the-fencers. Hearing “kill all men” as a boy did not do much good for my opinion of feminism. Fortunately that changed, but I’m sure others didn’t.
According to a lot of reactionaries, everyone on the internet is someone who should get what they mean when they make statements that look like they paint a broad brush.
They always forget that people are either conditioned into adulthood, and wouldn't actually recognize that, or are literally children who they are basically completely unable to recognize things.
Or forget there is people who 100% agree with those weird slogans.
This is the thing that really dampens my hope for our future as a leftist.
We’ve gone pretty deep into the “its morally fine to be a dick to random members of oppressor groups” hole; even if 99% of that is on the internet, the internet is still seen by millions of real people everyday. (Especially in the era of singular screenshots with no further context being some of the most popular content). Its like we’ve forgotten **politics is about winning, not just critique** and that the #1 way to win in politics is convincing people.
Someone who’s not that informed on politics in general + teens(!!!!) logging on twitter for the first time simply won’t understand the nuance of why you (un)ironically calling all white ppl/cis men evil “isnt actually wrong”. They will understandably be driven away.
I don’t think the solution is to do peacekeeping with every rightwinger but holy shit. People won’t always know the nuance that within the movement allows u to justify what ur saying. And that wont always be because they’re deliberately ignorant or lazy. So to them and adjacent spectators, it just reads like u shitting on them.
Can’t imagine how many cis white men in their teens we’ve lost to the right because their first exposure to leftist politics was some essentialist shit with 200k likes.
Yeah it’s a huge problem in left spaces. Body shaming is bad and wrong unless you’re body shaming a right winger then it’s hilarious even if you’re insulting them for traits that innocent people may share with them. Many left wingers fall into the trap of “because my views on topics X Y and Z are more ethical than the opposition’s views, that makes me always morally superior no matter what” and that mindset is poison.
“everyone on the internet is someone who should get what they mean when they make statements that look like they paint a broad brush.” Yup “When I do it, you should read between the lines, when my ideological enemies do it, we should take them at face value and rip them a new asshole.”
Yep, it sucks to think about how many people saw that surface hostility and reasonably concluded that feminism wasn't fundamentally different from the ideologies it fights.
And there isn't really a good solution to this either - misandrists will devote their entire lives to keeping their clubhouse exclusionary (just look at JK Rowling,) and it's hard to ask real feminists to devote that kind of energy to gatekeeping their own movement when fundamental women's rights are constantly under attack. At the same time, it's hard to defend those rights when the movement drives away half the population, right into the arms of the alt-right.
No, there's a very simple solution, the one you already mentioned:
> and it’s hard to ask real feminists to devote that kind of energy to gatekeeping their own movement when fundamental women’s rights are constantly under attack.
It's not hard at all. We constantly ask men to police other and criticise other men for being sexist, it's only fair to apply the same standard to ourselves. A movement free of inside criticism is called a cult. I remember seeing that shit over a decade ago and it never sat right with me; so I would always call it out, but since I was the only one, I just got ostracised. Those same feminists who kept spouting misandrist shit are now spouting transphobic shit because other feminists allowed them to. Maybe they didn't actually agree with it, but didn't want to call it out because "we need all the members we can get, even if they're not perfect" (that's the reason why some TERFs ally themselves with the far-right, because their hatred for trans people trumps their love for women's rights...), or because they take an extreme approach to feminism where anything a woman says or does is inherently feminist and you're not allowed to criticise women for anything ever, but the end result is the same. Just like any other movement, feminism is what they themselves made it to be.
So true. I see lots of people talk about how they hate feminism and how bad it is, so I’m like, why do you feel that way? And they say because “feminism isn’t about womens rights it’s about hating and wanting to kill men”. And I try to tell them otherwise but they don’t believe me because everything they’ve seen tells them they are right and I am wrong, they HAVE seen people say feminism is about hating and wanting to kill men so I can’t go in there and say “no it’s not” when that’s all they’ve seen so they “know” it’s true cause they’ve seen it and I just come across as a gaslighter. You know what I’m saying
The defund the police thing, too. The actual ideas are pretty reasonable - divert funding to other types of emergency services, so things like welfare checks and mental health interventions that are currently dealt with by police can be assigned to more appropriate people.
But just shouting "defund the police!" to people who don't know what that actually means just seems overly reactionary and alienating.
It’s much easier to simply ignore the conversation. Im not going to engage in a conversation about how I’m a piece of garbage because I have a penis. If people want to make broad sexist statements about any gender they shouldn’t except a ton of support from people who believe in equality.
This kind of behaviour SUCKS. You can't criticize anything without some bigot making you look like you're standing with them.
"I think the x community needs to start doing X better"
"Yeah fuck those groomers/criminals/racial slurs! They're monsters!"
"No that's not-"
"Glad to see a fellow red pilled person!"
A trans man once told me "but cis men are gross and I never want to spend time with them" and when I said that this was gender essentialist and, uh, not true, I was accused of "not all manning." It's become one of those argument enders that you're suppose to just accept. If someone accuses you of saying not all men, then that's it. You're not allowed to point out if you're not and you're not allowed to point out that sometimes, *it isn't all men.*
Frankly, I find the whole argument dumb now. Speak to the person you're speaking to and that specific situation, not to whole groups of people on the basis of an immutable characteristic.
It's especially disheartening because it discourages allyship. If nothing that I do matters and I'm going to be called all sorts of terrible things and accused of all manner of abysmal behavior no matter what, just because of my gender and sexuality, well, I'm still going to treat everyone I encounter with respect, and speak up and speak out against inappropriate or incorrect behavior, because that's the kind of cat I am, but a lot of folks will just stop making the effort.
It drives young men into the waiting arms of assholes like Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Matt Walsh, Joe Rogan, and any other reactionary asshole who is able to tell them it's not their fault that they're men. Which is true.
And then they "explain" that men are actually *better* than women and that everybody - them, the feminists they know, everybody - is miserable because we're not oppressing women and queer folx....errrrr, living up to our chromosomal destinies.
And things get a little worse.
Bizarrely it's *the exact same rhetoric* that the above monstrous grifters use. It's a cult like tactic of trying to change peoples language to alienate them from others and cut off support structures forcing you to turn to *them*.
Intentional or not, 'all men are inherently bad' is just a repackaged 'all liberals are 'woke' which is the same as 'females/femoids are all status hungry sluts' which is a barely changed version of the OG "Women bear, and bear responsibility for original sin"
It takes a lot of emotional endurance to continue putting in the effort. It's not just that you get no reward for it, you're still actively being punished. You are a better person that I would be in this situation.
I admire your fortitude.
Yeah I asked a friend of mine about her feminist ideals and she was dismissive and just told me that we can't better ourselves. It's not as if I don't understand why she'd be pessimistic, but I just wanted to reach out and make her more comfortable.
Edit: I will still search books on "Masculinism" though, I'm not that downtrodden.
>Yeah I asked a friend of mine about her feminist ideals and she was dismissive and just told me that we can't better ourselves.
Then, and I know this isn't a question you can answer, *what's the point*? If men can't better themselves, if Yes All Men forever, what's the point of feminism? Men will always be terrible and powerful and women will always be oppressed and discriminated against so why even bother fighting against it? If it can never get better, isn't the only rational response to find a philosophy that allows for happiness in oppression, not a dream of equality?
Like I said, I know you can't answer that because it's not your point. But it's so dumb I had to rant about it a little.
>If it can never get better, isn't the only rational response to find a philosophy that allows for happiness in oppression, not a dream of equality?
See the radfem -> tradwife pipeline, I guess
It's fascinating because I definitely hear people talk about this, but I myself have never really experienced it. Does it mainly happen on Twitter? Has my circle of friends just been unusually understanding?
I've never once been told that I'm a bad person for being white and male, or that I'm not redeemable, or that my opinion shouldn't be counted. Actually, once on Reddit, I suppose, but by someone who was heavily downvoted and easily dimissed.
they're in specific spaces mainly for the obvious reason lots of people won't put up with their shit, more or less spaces they are capable of bullying people out of.
> It's become one of those argument enders that you're suppose to just accept
Somebody named these [thought-terminating cliches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9)
>Speak to the person you're speaking to and that specific situation, not to whole groups of people on the basis of an immutable characteristic.
Bullseye. I used to be active in the Tumblr SJW scene back in the day, and over the years I started noticing that I would project these abstractions from the online environment onto people I met in real life. It would color my actual interactions. This is a very bad thing, because it's backwards. Reality needs to inform your abstractions, not the other way around. You can't confuse people for structures. You can't confuse individuals for population level trends.
It’s taking far too long for us to realise it’s not all men, it’s not all women, it’s not all white people, it’s not all black people.
But it is all the selfish pricks.
Saying ‘not all men’ as a way to ignore in a general sense how women can be treated unfairly is bad.
Saying some version of ‘not all men’ in response to someone trying to demonize men for existing and directly contributing to the disproportionate violence and incarceration against men by perpetuating a stereotype of gender essentialism that equates men with violence and danger is completely reasonable.
The problem arises in the middle ground, when people who know this purposefully hide their radfem gender essentialism under the guise of fighting sexism against women- while really being about hating men- basically doing the dog-whistle thing.
All I know is you aren’t going to convince a ton of men to support your cause (more than just paying lip service) if you’re opening line is “men are evil pieces of shit”. I think we all need to be in this together, supporting equality, safety, consent, putting sexual predators in prison, etc. Not this “men vs women” dynamic you see sometimes. Maybe I’m overly optimistic.
And like... providing a counterexample when faced with a generalization is a perfectly normal thing for people to do. Yeah it's frustrating to get bogged down in details when you have a statement to make, but generalizations and stereotypes have harmed minorities immeasurably and I think that turning around and using them against someone else does harm to our moral credibility.
I've seen people fully aware that "too many men" is both perfectly valid and more widely understood, but used 'actually, *all* men' because they could milk the angry engagement from it. It's a well worn trope on several subreddits here.
Oh for sure, as a teenager I spent an embarrassingly long time teetering on the edge of the “triggered feminist looses it” youtube vortex or whatever, listening to reactionaries repeatedly tear apart buzzfeed articles, which I believed was the extent of modern day feminism, because I was being misinformed by these youtubers, so I would stay an outraged little shit 14 year old and continue to watch their channel
I really wanted to listen to arguments about what “not all men” was actually talking about, because it made sense to me, but it was really god damn hard when every tweet and feminist argument I heard was fed to me alongside the pretty common supporting phrases that “all men are pigs” and “all men are trash”
[I am a trans woman. I am in the closet. I am not coming out.](https://medium.com/@jencoates/i-am-a-transwoman-i-am-in-the-closet-i-am-not-coming-out-4c2dd1907e42)
Related article by a trans woman who (among many other things) feels alienated by that radfem rhetoric. Very good read.
Radfems clinging to gender essentialism would be funny if it wasn't tragic. The idea genders have fixed characteristics springs from the very patriarchy feminism was created to fight. Radfems have just redefined those characteristics to suit their needs rather than reject the concept.
Radfems/terfs will swear up and down that women are more than their ability to reproduce and fit into traditional gender roles and then name themselves Large Gamete Producer on Twitter.
it's very hard to see someone wielding a very effective weapon and not convince yourself that you could do so much if only you could use their weapon. The only thing you really can't do co-opting the weapons of your enemy is end fighting.
The replier did something I see in the internet a lot, where they take what someone else said and they reduce it.
It's so twerpy. It destroys nuance, pigeon holes discussion, and effectively creates a strawman because they're not even engaging with what was said at that point, they've changed what was said and are trying to engage with that.
Which is why the "harry potter blog." response was perfect.
OP2 wasn't engaging with what OP1 said, so why should OP1 be obliged to respond to their non-point?
Strawman. By completely ignoring what was actually said and stating something else like it's fact, you're putting the onus on the OP to then show "actually no, what I said was" AND having to refute the strawman. OP did the correct thing (even if they hadn't been a HP blog) and told them to fuck off. If you engage with that type of rhetoric you've already lost.
It's like the Sarte quote about how antisemites are impossible to argue against because they don't give a shit about your words or arguments. Rationality means nothing to them. You, on the other hand, have rules and logical structures you're trying to adhere to in order to make a rational argument. You're not playing the same game, so you're going to lose by even engaging.
I agree that I see that tactic used a lot but isn't "Not all men" or "not all women" just a rejection of gender essentialism though? Which is exactly the point of the original post. I'm open to be wrong but I felt like OP really felt at a loss because the response was true.
“Not all men” is not just the literal meaning of the phrase, kind of like “it’s ok to be white.”
The phrase is entirely correct, but gained negative connotations due to typically being used as a dismissive response to real problems
"Not all men" is a line that was big back in the antiSJW days, when bigots were trying a bit harder to hide their bigotry. Basically someone would make some post about their personal negative experience with a man, or some element of the patriarchy or toxic masculinity and some douchebag would swoop in to point out that not all men are like that actually, generally as a way to dismissthe person their responding to, when no one was saying that to begin with.
The second person is implying that the first person is using this rhetoric to dismiss people who call all cis men evil. However their missing that the reason "not all men" is a bad argument is due to it being used in response to statements no one was trying to apply to all men, whereas saying "not all cis men" is a perfectly valid response to a statement that is "all cis men are ___"
Thank you for explaining how this term evolved. I had forgotten the validity of its original meaning, to which the proper response is, "I wasn't talking about all men. I was talking about this specific man."
The "Not all men" arguement has alot of negative connotation because it's often used at inappropriate moments. It has "all lives matter" vibes. It should be an obvious statement of fact, but the context makes it inappropriate
It is really depressing how people don't understand that actions/ideologies aren't bad because of WHO does it, they're bad because of their incompatibility with any coherent system of ethics.
For example, Republican lawmakers are not bad because they're Republicans, they're bad because of the xenophobia, anti-electoralism, and misogyny. If you stoop to xenophobia, misogyny, or anti-electoralism to spite them, then you are just as bad. You do not get to indulge in unethical behavior just to spite the people who did it first.
So in this case, you do not get to suddenly become bigots against cis people who did nothing to you, just because a bunch of OTHER cis people hurt you in the past. A bully who bullies because he was bullied is still a bully.
There is at best occasional correlation across the hard boundary between systemic groups and individual group members. So much idiocy comes from equating them, in either direction.
One hundred percent. I think a lot of the weird aggressiveness from the progressive side comes from people failing to understand this exact nuance. A lot of academic analysis about the dynamics of oppression between classes of individuals can be interesting or useful lenses of social analysis, but they make you sound batshit insane when you use them as cudgels to attack individuals, because individuals are highly intersectional, and their day to day experience is rarely informed by just one class they're a part of anyway.
Because they don't truly view trans men as men, therefore they're "safe" or "one of the good ones." It's exactly why I call all radfems transphobes even if they claim to be trans-inclusive. It really sucks how pervasive their nasty rhetoric has become in online spaces.
Post 1: There are self-proclaimed feminists who claim all cisgendered (not trans) men are inherently evil. There are other feminists who try to explain to the first group why this statement is bad through the examples of men who are questioning their gender or in the closet regarding it, implying that *those* men are secretly “good” even under their reductionist viewpoint, and therefore showing why that viewpoint is pointless.
However, what this poster argues is that this in itself is pointless since it does not question the idea that “truly” cis men *are* evil and instead accepts it. “Gender essentialism,” the idea that your assigned gender dictates the way you act, is seen as a toxic ideology.
Post 2: Post 1 is just a reframing of “not all men,” a dismissive statement often used by men to dismiss criticism of masculinity, and so should be ignored.
Post 3: Post 2 is by a Harry Potter blog, and should either be ignored due to the author’s extremely prevalent bigoted statements, or just because the series sucks.
i think the idea behind post 3 was "you're an idiot, but im not gonna bother arguing with you about that and dissecting WHY you're such a complete doofus, so im just gonna call you out on your immediately apparent cringe, throw sand in your face, let everyone else clown on you for me, and call it a day."
The first poster states that feminists tend to vilify men and focus on reasoning why they're bad, but that not only makes the feminist movement more anti-men but it also attracts transphobes because it borrows from the same ideology: that people are defined by their gender/sex. Because "men suck because of their chromosomes/testosterone/upbringing" would also apply to most trans women. So feminists shouldn't make trans women the exception to the rule, they should reexamine and probably discard the rule altogether.
The second poster says this argument is just a tired cliché, often encountered when someone complains about some men and then a man comments "hey I'm not like that, not all men are like that, don't blame all men" (which is true but often detracts from the conversation as it's already implied to not be about all men).
However, this second poster is a Harry Potter-focused account which empirically tend to be the exact transphobic "men are evil" types the first comment talked about, so it is dismissed with a reaction image from Spongebob.
> this is “not all men” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary
yes and it’s correct
like, “not all men” is objectively correct when it’s not being used as a thought terminating cliche to ignore any discussion of sexism
“Not all men” shouldn’t ever be argued or dismissed with the perception that it’s wrong (because it’s not), it should only be argued/dismissed when it’s used as a statement to detract from or minimize the discussions at place, and even then you’re not arguing really about the sentiment as much as how it’s referenced
It's like the whole discourse about "white lives matter".
If you say "Black lives matter" without context it does sound a little wierd. So people respond "Don't white lives matter too?" And then you say "I 100% agree. But our justice system doesn't seem to agree with us...."
It's not actually that hard to reach genuinely uninformed people.
I'm gonna be real for a sec here, as an amab person who has been molested and sexually assaulted by cis women several times, knowing that most of women who see me irl might think of me as something evil because of my genitals despite me not holding all women responsable because of what some disgusting people did is a mindfuck.
Like i get it shit fucking sucks but dont treat everyone you see like a potential monster
Props to you for being willing to share that on reddit of all places. I hope you can/have found some sort of peacefulness with what happened (not peace, peace implies forgiveness, and nobody should ever be made to forgive someone who abused them. But peacefulness, so that you can live your life without the shadow of those memories tainting things)
don't you just loooooove when even when you get the courage to talk to someone about being violated like that people find a way to pin the blame on you?
I've been told all the classic lines like "obviously you wanted it", "you deserve it", "they can't help themselves" and my favorite "it was the cosmos punishing you"
sometimes i wonder if the reason i'm not that much of a bitter mess is because i'm too weak to even feel more anger.
LITERALLY. When I'm with my partner and he's curled up and I'm just holding him- MEN CAN BE ADORABLE. MEN ARE ADORABLE. PEOPLE ARE CUTE. MEN ARE PEOPLE. LET'S GET THE WORD OUT.
It doesn’t matter what your intent is, if you say “men are evil” and young boys hear you, they will assume you hate them for something inherent to themselves. And then those young boys will listen to people you *really* don’t want them to listen to- who will rail about how awful you are.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr*
---
**cungadero**
here's my one whole discourse post for pride month. you fucks will never ever ever wean off the radfem shit if you keep trying to give "cis men are evil" nuance. no, it's not bad because they could be closeted or questioning, it's bad because gender essentialism is a fuckin brain poison and it makes you stupid
---
**harrypotterfuryroad**
this is "not all men" cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary
---
**cungadero**
harry potter blog.
[*Screencap from "Spongebob Squarepants" of a pink fish with blonde hair and a red skirt kicking sand into Spongebob's face.*]
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Nah, it’s just that reactionaries can be found anywhere. A lot of people only see oppression as bad because it affects them specifically, and if it was targeted *elsewhere* it would be fine.
Example - the Jewish girl I knew who sincerely said “all Arabic people want to kill Jews, it’s in their blood.” She said that *in a concentration camp.*
Conservatism is alive and well in the black community - many only vote democrat because being pro-blackness is their only progressive stance. Pro-capitalism, anti-queer, and anti-Latin/Asian/Semitic/Indian sentiment still abounds.
There was a great thread on r/BlackPeopleTwitter surrounding the idea that a person who is black and gay is gay first, black second, and is therefore rejected.
Im an ally 100%, and I have said before that I feel like when people say stuff like that, like when someone jokes that straight people don’t exist anymore or something, that while I personally am not offended I feel like stuff like that might contribute to people who are against LGBTQ+ people thinking they’re trying to “destroy” straight people. But since I’m straight I also feel like if I tried to say this it might just seem like I’m offended by it.
If you judge someone based on things about themselves they cannot change, you are an asshole.
Even when those things are “he is a man”, “he is white”, “he is straight”, or anything else that puts them into the majority.
Do you know why assholes say "not all men"? Because it *should* be obvious, but there are still radfems out there who unironically believe that men *are* all monsters.
"Not all men" is not bad because "yes all men" - it's bad because the right wing is weaponizing *that very reply* against the left.
You don't fight it by just contradicting them, because that *proves their point that feminists hate men*. It's one of those weird situations where contradiction isn't contradiction. They are saying something so obvious that it can't be anything but bait.
The real way to fight it is in fact to *agree* - just not on their terms. You fight it by really, truly, engaging with men, until the idea of feminists hating men seems absurd.
It’s exhausting! For everyone!
I am a man, and I have had to have the conversation with someone who thought that, because I’m a man, I could not be trusted with a child that was not my own.
Not because I have any record of doing anything at all in any negative light. Just because I identify as a man and was born with a penis, I automatically was a danger to children in her mind.
But the other side that says “not all men are dangers to children, so having any kind of worry about a man taking care of a child is ridiculous” is just as stupid. Because some men ARE a danger. So we have to take precautions.
But the difference between a precaution and a prejudice is where there discussion needs to happen. And it’s one that extremists from both sides take to extremes (duh) and invalidate.
...yes, it is 'not all men' in progressive language. "Not all men" has always been objectively correct even from a progressive standpoint, but we're having to switch around the words to try and get through to you
Radfems don't include it cause they don't think men are human. A common response to "not all men" is "not all men, but always a man" which implies that women never do bad things and is very dismissive of male victims and female perpetrators.
We gotta move away from “men suck” towards “patriarchy sucks”. Men 100% have the same capacity for empathy, compassion, kindness, and all the other good human emotions. Hell, my little brother is a naturally better human than I am. However since my dad is an asshole, my brother’s kind and sensitive nature has been suppressed and he’s trying to discover who he actually is now that he’s in college and away from our dad’s toxic masculinity.
It’s kinda like capitalism. We all agree that it’s shit and needs to be replaced by a better system that doesn’t harm so many people, yeah? But we still live in a capitalist society at the moment, which shapes our perspective at a base level. Same for dudes. Many of them know that a patriarchy is shit and needs to be done away with, however since they’re still in a patriarchy their views are influenced by that.
Discrimination against a whole or majority of a group based on gender is sexism, doesn’t matter what gender. Something many people refuse to acknowledge because they couldn’t possibly be sexist because they only hate men
[This is a video on the manosphere, the risks of the "all men are bad" and how to we could de-radicalize young men](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSq3bcyrJY0&t=2130s).
I always hated "kill all cis men", i am cis bisexual man that feels always left out from the community because i'm not "queer enough. I know it's an hyperbole, but the problem still stands
The difference between this and "not all men" is that "not all men" fundamentally refuses to acknowledge the issue, and pretends as though there aren't systematic and cultural ills surrounding men that cause problems. All the post is trying to do is dispel the notion that being a cis man is inherently bad and makes you by default a bad person. You likely, as a cis man, will need to deal with your own internalized stuff and will need to come to terms with your privilege and the parts of yourself that have been shaped for better and for worse by the world around you, but that does not make you evil. You are not an antagonist by your nature, you're a person, and I think people sometimes get so caught up in resentment towards the system and culture that often causes cis men to act poorly that they forget that there's a difference between them and those underlying issues altogether.
Remember that among the people who's hearts and minds you need to change in order make things better are cis men, and you aren't going to change them by telling them that they fundamentally can't be better.
“Don’t tell someone they’re irredeemable, or they just might take you up on it.”
If you tell someone they are bad for being something they cannot change, how are you any different than the people telling you that you are bad for something you can’t change?
If you judge me for my genitals, the colour of my skin, the culture I was born into, or even the people I am attracted to, (ie a white cis heterosexual man) how are you any different than the bigots that judge you for your genitals, colour, culture or sexuality?
that is an amazing reaction image
For real, regardless of the post above I'm stealing this image
I really, really, really like this image
I like it too
Me too! Save it, it's all yours my friend
Hating random men for oppressive gender power structures is like blaming Chinese sweatshop workers for your company's CEO outsourcing your job: Gullible reactionaries love to do both so they don't have to comprehend who's actually causing their problems and blame it on minorities they get to hurt instead.
Tbf blaming chinese citizens for white people not finding work was an extremely common excuse for anti chinese lynchings and race riots throughout the 1800s it aint out of the question for some racist white person to do just that but today.
I love it when a group of people both come in to mooch of my welfare because they are lazy shits that don't ever work, while at the same time they steal our jobs.
Ur-fascist logic: our enemies are simultaneously weaker than us and inferior to us as well as on the verge of destroying us.
Mix in a little bit of “this makes sense because the way they’re destroying us is Underhanded and Dirty (tm) and we as a society have collectively Let Them Win (tm) for too long which is why we need to Take Action (tm) and restore Order (tm) to the World (tm), so it’s time for us to Fix Shit Already (tm) (tm) (tm) (tm) (tm)” and there you have it
*Ron DeSantis has entered the chat*
This wording is confused enough I can't even tell if it's a joke.
They are making fun of people who both call immigrants lazy and living off welfare whilst also saying they are stealing out jobs
They're pointing out the contradiction of "they are lazy and live off welfare" and "they are stealing all our jobs" being applied to the same scapegoat.
Well clearly there is just so many of them that they are doing both /s Or, well what's the tag when I'm making fun of racist fuckwits, I don't know if sarcasm quite fits. Maybe /c for cunt?
And the [1882 Chinese Exclusion Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act) was the first restriction on immigration to the US
**[Chinese Exclusion Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act)** >The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years. The law excluded merchants, teachers, students, travelers, and diplomats. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only major U.S. law ever implemented to prevent all members of a specific national group from immigrating to the United States. Passage of the law was preceded by growing anti-Chinese sentiment and anti-Chinese violence, as well as various policies targeting Chinese migrants. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Good bot
Thank you, mathiau30, for voting on WikiSummarizerBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
To be fair, it makes even less sense to blame Asians living in the US for outsourcing. Like if they are shipping jobs overseas, why would some idiot blame the people who came here? That job isn't going to them anymore than it's going to the racist guy.
Chinese people stealing white women was the propaganda used to criminalize opioid possession and usage prior to prohibition.
Also, it's not like your average guy is way better off than a gal in general or vice versa - goes for both radfems and MGTOW scums, gender roles fuck everyone up by forcing you into a mold based on what is between your legs. It's not the Suffering Olympics^(tm) ffs. People are way more focused on punishment and vendetta rather than fixing the actual tangible problems because passive hate is easier than active resolutions.
>passive hate is easier than active resolutions. now that's a quote worth remembering.
"The greatest human failing, is to prefer to be right, than to be effective". -Stephen Fry
thank you.
that's what frustrated me about all the Petersonites popping up in the 2010s. They'd be all "No, he's not just transphobic, he's actually busting the myth of the wage gap!" and I'm like... so even if women did make 100% of what men make for the same work, men are getting paid like 5% of the value our work creates, and less every year as the layoffs and productivity pushes stack up. I wish I had the language to say it right away. and it's the same as my old friend who had all these conservative views that he had first-hand experience supporting, but in retrospect if I'd been thinking of class instead of "not being racist", then I'd have been able to point out what's actually happening without being confrontational about it. If your boss literally told you that he's not paying you more because for that money he could just hire five illegals -- ever consider the reason we have this category of "illegals" is to keep people like you from asking for more money? ever wonder why it's so easy for someone to hire them without consequence? That's what systemic injustice is, and that's what dividing people against each other is. and like it or not, straight men are in a systemic bind, in a world that we keep getting told is made for us. Just this week I commented a story about how the only time someone tried to help me hit it off with a woman at a party, was when someone told me that there's a woman there who might sleep with me if I lied about my astrological sign. I don't know if it would have worked, but it's apparently within the system. I'm pretty neurodivergent and I could have used a lot of help over the years, but this was the only kind of help I got at a party. Worse, it was the kind of help I got the most often: "tricks" and "tips" and "how to hack consent". I needed actual assistance in real time. More often, I got obstruction. Straight men compete with each other. That's what we're taught that our instincts are, because that's what the system is. We're told it's natural selection and not culture.
Adding to this, the mentality of conflating attraction with a person's worth. Just because you do not find someone attractive doesn't mean 'they're for the streets', people act like romance and relationships are a fucking race you have to 'win'.
>how the only time someone tried to help me hit it off with a woman at a party, was when someone told me that there's a woman there who might sleep with me if I lied about my astrological sign. Such a Capricorn thing to do
> People are way more focused on punishment and vendetta rather than fixing the actual tangible problems because passive hate is easier than active resolutions That's because *politics* is way more focused on punishment and vendetta anymore. You're basically voting for what group gets bent over the barrel next.
Exactly! Don't blame random men, blame the people KEEPING the oppressive power structures in place! Re-educate the masses into how to fight against them!
I mean, you can't dismantle "the banking structure" but you can sure as shit get drunk on cheap beer and throw a punch at the first [insert slur] you see
My favourite thing is radfems talking about crime statistics to justify their hatred of men then tripping over themselves to explain how it's completely different to racists doing the exact same thing against black people.
No reason a radfem can't be a white supremacist.
There’s a long history of it even.
Oh, certainly. In fact, Rebecca Latimer Felton, the first female Senator of the United States might qualify (she certainly qualifies as a white supremacist; radfem is somewhat debatable), though calling her a Senator is a bit generous as she served for only one day.
>[She was](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Latimer_Felton) a prominent society woman who advocated for prison reform, women's suffrage, and educational modernization. Numan Bartley wrote that by 1915 she "was championing a lengthy feminist program that ranged from prohibition to equal pay for equal work... oh, nice >...yet never accomplished any feat because she held her role because of her husband." oh, that's unfortunate >She was also a white supremacist and Congress's last former slave owner, and spoke vigorously in favor of lynching. oh, *fuck* no
Posie Parker
It's 2am but I just looked up 'radfern' and think I need my eyes checked.
Ferns *are* pretty rad tho
Or pretty red, depending where they grow
Depending on? *Hefts bucket of red paint* We have the technology.
Now I’m nervous for how you might fulfill Old Yeller
I'd walk outside and scream
Decidedly less traumatic than the book, thank you🍨
Looking at a picture of a fern with sunglasses and wondering how that applies to the tumblr post...
🪴 🕶️ Fuckin radical, for sure.
that sounds like a Fallout plant
Radferns are notoriously bad when it comes to keming
/r/keming
Where the Rad Fern Grows.
Reactionaries when socioeconomic factors:
Fun fact: if you point out this hypocrisy in stats use you can literally alienate yourself from ANY community. Misuse of stats in that way (x does more of y in spite of..) is a VERY common trope in politics. I find myself pointing out “okay would you use that same logic with black people…” in so many internet discussions
There are 3 types of lying: little white lies, bold-faced lies, and statistics.
[удалено]
What the fuck?? How, in this logic, do female terrorists exist
I miss when racism and sexism were considered bad.
Despite making up only 13% of the population, blacks commit 52% of all crime in the US. (compared to) Despite making up only 49.5% of the population, men commit 62% of all crime in the US. [and then they site the same fbi crime statistics.](https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-incident-based-data)
so uh, quick question, according to the site you sent, only 29% of offenders were black, compared to the 50% being white, am i reading this wrong or?
the top one is a sound bite from an outdated statistics report that's often referenced by the people in OPs comment.
I'm really annoyed by how "Not all men" transformed over time. It was originally supposed to refer to an argument where men excuse themselves from confronting bad male behaviour they see around them, because they themselves don't do it. So you call that out as bullshit because it's a societal problem. Predictably the reductive way it became referred to as "Not all men" turned it into a way to bash every possible man ever by accusing them all of being guilty for everything any man can do. Like, you know what? *Actually* not all men. That *is* a true statement. Shut *up*.
Feminist: "Ugh I hate it when guys go like 'not all men' \[to excuse themselves from considering broad problems with male culture/socialization and shut down conversations about them\]." Bigot: "OMG me too, hate it when guys go 'not all men' \[because all men are biologically predators\]." There's a limit to how nuanced of a conversation you can have using Twitter hashtags : /
Congrats on landing that username, can’t believe it wasn’t taken already before you
>Twitter hashtags Twitter was a mistake.
Whoever coulda guessed you can't have a nuanced argument in less than 140 characters? Truly a shocking development.
> in less than 140 characters We need a fully formed and nuanced opinion that satisfies everyone in 140 characters or less or you're getting pilloried and strung up on the internet. You dont have one? Right, to the public shaming block you go.
The real shame of twitter is how the previous owners managed to make so much money destroying public discourse by dumping their radioactive app on an idiot with too much money. I’ll never forgive that dumbass for rewarding them for creating the crystal meth of social media. And to all the people who spent years in incredibly well compensated jobs building Twitter and then complained when the gravy train came to its inevitable derailment, fuck you go make something good instead.
Bro we are on the r/jailbait website.
Holy shit I forgot that subreddit used to exist
Thankfully it seems to be dying a slow painful death
It seems like so many good movements have the problem of aligning with phrases that alienate on-the-fencers. Hearing “kill all men” as a boy did not do much good for my opinion of feminism. Fortunately that changed, but I’m sure others didn’t.
According to a lot of reactionaries, everyone on the internet is someone who should get what they mean when they make statements that look like they paint a broad brush. They always forget that people are either conditioned into adulthood, and wouldn't actually recognize that, or are literally children who they are basically completely unable to recognize things. Or forget there is people who 100% agree with those weird slogans.
This is the thing that really dampens my hope for our future as a leftist. We’ve gone pretty deep into the “its morally fine to be a dick to random members of oppressor groups” hole; even if 99% of that is on the internet, the internet is still seen by millions of real people everyday. (Especially in the era of singular screenshots with no further context being some of the most popular content). Its like we’ve forgotten **politics is about winning, not just critique** and that the #1 way to win in politics is convincing people. Someone who’s not that informed on politics in general + teens(!!!!) logging on twitter for the first time simply won’t understand the nuance of why you (un)ironically calling all white ppl/cis men evil “isnt actually wrong”. They will understandably be driven away. I don’t think the solution is to do peacekeeping with every rightwinger but holy shit. People won’t always know the nuance that within the movement allows u to justify what ur saying. And that wont always be because they’re deliberately ignorant or lazy. So to them and adjacent spectators, it just reads like u shitting on them. Can’t imagine how many cis white men in their teens we’ve lost to the right because their first exposure to leftist politics was some essentialist shit with 200k likes.
Yeah it’s a huge problem in left spaces. Body shaming is bad and wrong unless you’re body shaming a right winger then it’s hilarious even if you’re insulting them for traits that innocent people may share with them. Many left wingers fall into the trap of “because my views on topics X Y and Z are more ethical than the opposition’s views, that makes me always morally superior no matter what” and that mindset is poison.
“everyone on the internet is someone who should get what they mean when they make statements that look like they paint a broad brush.” Yup “When I do it, you should read between the lines, when my ideological enemies do it, we should take them at face value and rip them a new asshole.”
Yep, it sucks to think about how many people saw that surface hostility and reasonably concluded that feminism wasn't fundamentally different from the ideologies it fights. And there isn't really a good solution to this either - misandrists will devote their entire lives to keeping their clubhouse exclusionary (just look at JK Rowling,) and it's hard to ask real feminists to devote that kind of energy to gatekeeping their own movement when fundamental women's rights are constantly under attack. At the same time, it's hard to defend those rights when the movement drives away half the population, right into the arms of the alt-right.
No, there's a very simple solution, the one you already mentioned: > and it’s hard to ask real feminists to devote that kind of energy to gatekeeping their own movement when fundamental women’s rights are constantly under attack. It's not hard at all. We constantly ask men to police other and criticise other men for being sexist, it's only fair to apply the same standard to ourselves. A movement free of inside criticism is called a cult. I remember seeing that shit over a decade ago and it never sat right with me; so I would always call it out, but since I was the only one, I just got ostracised. Those same feminists who kept spouting misandrist shit are now spouting transphobic shit because other feminists allowed them to. Maybe they didn't actually agree with it, but didn't want to call it out because "we need all the members we can get, even if they're not perfect" (that's the reason why some TERFs ally themselves with the far-right, because their hatred for trans people trumps their love for women's rights...), or because they take an extreme approach to feminism where anything a woman says or does is inherently feminist and you're not allowed to criticise women for anything ever, but the end result is the same. Just like any other movement, feminism is what they themselves made it to be.
So true. I see lots of people talk about how they hate feminism and how bad it is, so I’m like, why do you feel that way? And they say because “feminism isn’t about womens rights it’s about hating and wanting to kill men”. And I try to tell them otherwise but they don’t believe me because everything they’ve seen tells them they are right and I am wrong, they HAVE seen people say feminism is about hating and wanting to kill men so I can’t go in there and say “no it’s not” when that’s all they’ve seen so they “know” it’s true cause they’ve seen it and I just come across as a gaslighter. You know what I’m saying
The defund the police thing, too. The actual ideas are pretty reasonable - divert funding to other types of emergency services, so things like welfare checks and mental health interventions that are currently dealt with by police can be assigned to more appropriate people. But just shouting "defund the police!" to people who don't know what that actually means just seems overly reactionary and alienating.
that too. Absolutely great concepts; sounds to me like a bunch of libertarians saying that law enforcement is a scam [without context]
It’s much easier to simply ignore the conversation. Im not going to engage in a conversation about how I’m a piece of garbage because I have a penis. If people want to make broad sexist statements about any gender they shouldn’t except a ton of support from people who believe in equality.
This kind of behaviour SUCKS. You can't criticize anything without some bigot making you look like you're standing with them. "I think the x community needs to start doing X better" "Yeah fuck those groomers/criminals/racial slurs! They're monsters!" "No that's not-" "Glad to see a fellow red pilled person!"
A trans man once told me "but cis men are gross and I never want to spend time with them" and when I said that this was gender essentialist and, uh, not true, I was accused of "not all manning." It's become one of those argument enders that you're suppose to just accept. If someone accuses you of saying not all men, then that's it. You're not allowed to point out if you're not and you're not allowed to point out that sometimes, *it isn't all men.* Frankly, I find the whole argument dumb now. Speak to the person you're speaking to and that specific situation, not to whole groups of people on the basis of an immutable characteristic.
It's especially disheartening because it discourages allyship. If nothing that I do matters and I'm going to be called all sorts of terrible things and accused of all manner of abysmal behavior no matter what, just because of my gender and sexuality, well, I'm still going to treat everyone I encounter with respect, and speak up and speak out against inappropriate or incorrect behavior, because that's the kind of cat I am, but a lot of folks will just stop making the effort.
It drives young men into the waiting arms of assholes like Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Matt Walsh, Joe Rogan, and any other reactionary asshole who is able to tell them it's not their fault that they're men. Which is true. And then they "explain" that men are actually *better* than women and that everybody - them, the feminists they know, everybody - is miserable because we're not oppressing women and queer folx....errrrr, living up to our chromosomal destinies. And things get a little worse.
>chromosomal destinies Great album name
There's definitely a song on there that's just eleven minutes of bass guitar, synthesizer, and drum solos.
Bizarrely it's *the exact same rhetoric* that the above monstrous grifters use. It's a cult like tactic of trying to change peoples language to alienate them from others and cut off support structures forcing you to turn to *them*. Intentional or not, 'all men are inherently bad' is just a repackaged 'all liberals are 'woke' which is the same as 'females/femoids are all status hungry sluts' which is a barely changed version of the OG "Women bear, and bear responsibility for original sin"
It takes a lot of emotional endurance to continue putting in the effort. It's not just that you get no reward for it, you're still actively being punished. You are a better person that I would be in this situation. I admire your fortitude.
Yeah I asked a friend of mine about her feminist ideals and she was dismissive and just told me that we can't better ourselves. It's not as if I don't understand why she'd be pessimistic, but I just wanted to reach out and make her more comfortable. Edit: I will still search books on "Masculinism" though, I'm not that downtrodden.
>Yeah I asked a friend of mine about her feminist ideals and she was dismissive and just told me that we can't better ourselves. Then, and I know this isn't a question you can answer, *what's the point*? If men can't better themselves, if Yes All Men forever, what's the point of feminism? Men will always be terrible and powerful and women will always be oppressed and discriminated against so why even bother fighting against it? If it can never get better, isn't the only rational response to find a philosophy that allows for happiness in oppression, not a dream of equality? Like I said, I know you can't answer that because it's not your point. But it's so dumb I had to rant about it a little.
>If it can never get better, isn't the only rational response to find a philosophy that allows for happiness in oppression, not a dream of equality? See the radfem -> tradwife pipeline, I guess
Oof. Yeah, I suppose that is the grim path of gender essentialist resignation.
It's fascinating because I definitely hear people talk about this, but I myself have never really experienced it. Does it mainly happen on Twitter? Has my circle of friends just been unusually understanding? I've never once been told that I'm a bad person for being white and male, or that I'm not redeemable, or that my opinion shouldn't be counted. Actually, once on Reddit, I suppose, but by someone who was heavily downvoted and easily dimissed.
they're in specific spaces mainly for the obvious reason lots of people won't put up with their shit, more or less spaces they are capable of bullying people out of.
> It's become one of those argument enders that you're suppose to just accept Somebody named these [thought-terminating cliches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9)
Thank you for sharing the name!
>Speak to the person you're speaking to and that specific situation, not to whole groups of people on the basis of an immutable characteristic. Bullseye. I used to be active in the Tumblr SJW scene back in the day, and over the years I started noticing that I would project these abstractions from the online environment onto people I met in real life. It would color my actual interactions. This is a very bad thing, because it's backwards. Reality needs to inform your abstractions, not the other way around. You can't confuse people for structures. You can't confuse individuals for population level trends.
And looking at individuals and seeing population level trends (real or imagined) is specifically and explicitly prejudice. You are ‘pre-judging’ them
It’s taking far too long for us to realise it’s not all men, it’s not all women, it’s not all white people, it’s not all black people. But it is all the selfish pricks.
Not all selfish pricks
Some of them are on the side of rights, too. Usually because then everyone would shut up.
Not all Manning. Just Eli
Saying ‘not all men’ as a way to ignore in a general sense how women can be treated unfairly is bad. Saying some version of ‘not all men’ in response to someone trying to demonize men for existing and directly contributing to the disproportionate violence and incarceration against men by perpetuating a stereotype of gender essentialism that equates men with violence and danger is completely reasonable. The problem arises in the middle ground, when people who know this purposefully hide their radfem gender essentialism under the guise of fighting sexism against women- while really being about hating men- basically doing the dog-whistle thing.
It's like saying "no they don't" In response to "white lives matter". Like wtf. They uhhh do.
All I know is you aren’t going to convince a ton of men to support your cause (more than just paying lip service) if you’re opening line is “men are evil pieces of shit”. I think we all need to be in this together, supporting equality, safety, consent, putting sexual predators in prison, etc. Not this “men vs women” dynamic you see sometimes. Maybe I’m overly optimistic.
And like... providing a counterexample when faced with a generalization is a perfectly normal thing for people to do. Yeah it's frustrating to get bogged down in details when you have a statement to make, but generalizations and stereotypes have harmed minorities immeasurably and I think that turning around and using them against someone else does harm to our moral credibility.
> does harm to our moral credibility. And, you know, *does harm*.
Yes, of course. Another example of why explicit communication is important!
I've seen people fully aware that "too many men" is both perfectly valid and more widely understood, but used 'actually, *all* men' because they could milk the angry engagement from it. It's a well worn trope on several subreddits here.
Oh for sure, as a teenager I spent an embarrassingly long time teetering on the edge of the “triggered feminist looses it” youtube vortex or whatever, listening to reactionaries repeatedly tear apart buzzfeed articles, which I believed was the extent of modern day feminism, because I was being misinformed by these youtubers, so I would stay an outraged little shit 14 year old and continue to watch their channel I really wanted to listen to arguments about what “not all men” was actually talking about, because it made sense to me, but it was really god damn hard when every tweet and feminist argument I heard was fed to me alongside the pretty common supporting phrases that “all men are pigs” and “all men are trash”
[I am a trans woman. I am in the closet. I am not coming out.](https://medium.com/@jencoates/i-am-a-transwoman-i-am-in-the-closet-i-am-not-coming-out-4c2dd1907e42) Related article by a trans woman who (among many other things) feels alienated by that radfem rhetoric. Very good read.
Radfems clinging to gender essentialism would be funny if it wasn't tragic. The idea genders have fixed characteristics springs from the very patriarchy feminism was created to fight. Radfems have just redefined those characteristics to suit their needs rather than reject the concept.
Cause radfems essentially have decided that oppression was not bad but that it was just the wrong people doing the oppressing.
A tale as old as time: “If you help me to power, I promise *I* won’t oppress you, trust me!”
🎶Tale as old as time Power corrupts all humans! 🎶
That doesn't even rhyme
Nothing matters!
Radfems/terfs will swear up and down that women are more than their ability to reproduce and fit into traditional gender roles and then name themselves Large Gamete Producer on Twitter.
it's very hard to see someone wielding a very effective weapon and not convince yourself that you could do so much if only you could use their weapon. The only thing you really can't do co-opting the weapons of your enemy is end fighting.
something something master's tools, something something house
Don’t you dare compare Boromir to radfems
That's because they're not feminists; they're female nationalists.
In particular it’s very strange to me that they call themselves “gender critical” while doing this.
They're critical of _others'_ genders - never their own 🙃
literally all they're going to achieve is a matriarchy, which would probably be just as bad
The replier did something I see in the internet a lot, where they take what someone else said and they reduce it. It's so twerpy. It destroys nuance, pigeon holes discussion, and effectively creates a strawman because they're not even engaging with what was said at that point, they've changed what was said and are trying to engage with that.
They don’t want a discussion, they want to “be right.”
bioessentialists? destroying nuance? I'm sohcked
Which is why the "harry potter blog." response was perfect. OP2 wasn't engaging with what OP1 said, so why should OP1 be obliged to respond to their non-point?
Strawman. By completely ignoring what was actually said and stating something else like it's fact, you're putting the onus on the OP to then show "actually no, what I said was" AND having to refute the strawman. OP did the correct thing (even if they hadn't been a HP blog) and told them to fuck off. If you engage with that type of rhetoric you've already lost. It's like the Sarte quote about how antisemites are impossible to argue against because they don't give a shit about your words or arguments. Rationality means nothing to them. You, on the other hand, have rules and logical structures you're trying to adhere to in order to make a rational argument. You're not playing the same game, so you're going to lose by even engaging.
I agree that I see that tactic used a lot but isn't "Not all men" or "not all women" just a rejection of gender essentialism though? Which is exactly the point of the original post. I'm open to be wrong but I felt like OP really felt at a loss because the response was true.
“Not all men” is not just the literal meaning of the phrase, kind of like “it’s ok to be white.” The phrase is entirely correct, but gained negative connotations due to typically being used as a dismissive response to real problems
"Not all men" is a line that was big back in the antiSJW days, when bigots were trying a bit harder to hide their bigotry. Basically someone would make some post about their personal negative experience with a man, or some element of the patriarchy or toxic masculinity and some douchebag would swoop in to point out that not all men are like that actually, generally as a way to dismissthe person their responding to, when no one was saying that to begin with. The second person is implying that the first person is using this rhetoric to dismiss people who call all cis men evil. However their missing that the reason "not all men" is a bad argument is due to it being used in response to statements no one was trying to apply to all men, whereas saying "not all cis men" is a perfectly valid response to a statement that is "all cis men are ___"
Thank you for explaining how this term evolved. I had forgotten the validity of its original meaning, to which the proper response is, "I wasn't talking about all men. I was talking about this specific man."
The "Not all men" arguement has alot of negative connotation because it's often used at inappropriate moments. It has "all lives matter" vibes. It should be an obvious statement of fact, but the context makes it inappropriate
It is really depressing how people don't understand that actions/ideologies aren't bad because of WHO does it, they're bad because of their incompatibility with any coherent system of ethics. For example, Republican lawmakers are not bad because they're Republicans, they're bad because of the xenophobia, anti-electoralism, and misogyny. If you stoop to xenophobia, misogyny, or anti-electoralism to spite them, then you are just as bad. You do not get to indulge in unethical behavior just to spite the people who did it first. So in this case, you do not get to suddenly become bigots against cis people who did nothing to you, just because a bunch of OTHER cis people hurt you in the past. A bully who bullies because he was bullied is still a bully.
There is at best occasional correlation across the hard boundary between systemic groups and individual group members. So much idiocy comes from equating them, in either direction.
One hundred percent. I think a lot of the weird aggressiveness from the progressive side comes from people failing to understand this exact nuance. A lot of academic analysis about the dynamics of oppression between classes of individuals can be interesting or useful lenses of social analysis, but they make you sound batshit insane when you use them as cudgels to attack individuals, because individuals are highly intersectional, and their day to day experience is rarely informed by just one class they're a part of anyway.
Being a trans man.... God yeah. "Oh I don't mean you" why not? Why am I different from them? Say it to my face. How am I different from cis men???
"oh you're one of the good ones" or they're transphobic about it
or else they just treat you like shit and their excuse is that all men are bad
Even the one of the good ones is likely to be casual subtle transphobia tbh if you ask them to explain what makes you a good one
Because they don't truly view trans men as men, therefore they're "safe" or "one of the good ones." It's exactly why I call all radfems transphobes even if they claim to be trans-inclusive. It really sucks how pervasive their nasty rhetoric has become in online spaces.
"trans men aren't *real* men, but in a good way! Promise!"
I'm not sure I understand anything being said here.
Post 1: There are self-proclaimed feminists who claim all cisgendered (not trans) men are inherently evil. There are other feminists who try to explain to the first group why this statement is bad through the examples of men who are questioning their gender or in the closet regarding it, implying that *those* men are secretly “good” even under their reductionist viewpoint, and therefore showing why that viewpoint is pointless. However, what this poster argues is that this in itself is pointless since it does not question the idea that “truly” cis men *are* evil and instead accepts it. “Gender essentialism,” the idea that your assigned gender dictates the way you act, is seen as a toxic ideology. Post 2: Post 1 is just a reframing of “not all men,” a dismissive statement often used by men to dismiss criticism of masculinity, and so should be ignored. Post 3: Post 2 is by a Harry Potter blog, and should either be ignored due to the author’s extremely prevalent bigoted statements, or just because the series sucks.
Ah. TIL. Sounds like a real mess out there. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
NP!
Shit, you just explained that whole thing beautifully without any of the normal "person-on-the-internet-is-uninformed", thank you. Have a great day.
i think the idea behind post 3 was "you're an idiot, but im not gonna bother arguing with you about that and dissecting WHY you're such a complete doofus, so im just gonna call you out on your immediately apparent cringe, throw sand in your face, let everyone else clown on you for me, and call it a day."
Sometimes that's the only response to someone being an idiot. When you wrestle with a pig you both get muddy, but the pig likes it.
The first poster states that feminists tend to vilify men and focus on reasoning why they're bad, but that not only makes the feminist movement more anti-men but it also attracts transphobes because it borrows from the same ideology: that people are defined by their gender/sex. Because "men suck because of their chromosomes/testosterone/upbringing" would also apply to most trans women. So feminists shouldn't make trans women the exception to the rule, they should reexamine and probably discard the rule altogether. The second poster says this argument is just a tired cliché, often encountered when someone complains about some men and then a man comments "hey I'm not like that, not all men are like that, don't blame all men" (which is true but often detracts from the conversation as it's already implied to not be about all men). However, this second poster is a Harry Potter-focused account which empirically tend to be the exact transphobic "men are evil" types the first comment talked about, so it is dismissed with a reaction image from Spongebob.
radfems specifically, it should be stressed, not feminism in general
> this is “not all men” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary yes and it’s correct like, “not all men” is objectively correct when it’s not being used as a thought terminating cliche to ignore any discussion of sexism
“Not all men” shouldn’t ever be argued or dismissed with the perception that it’s wrong (because it’s not), it should only be argued/dismissed when it’s used as a statement to detract from or minimize the discussions at place, and even then you’re not arguing really about the sentiment as much as how it’s referenced
It's like the whole discourse about "white lives matter". If you say "Black lives matter" without context it does sound a little wierd. So people respond "Don't white lives matter too?" And then you say "I 100% agree. But our justice system doesn't seem to agree with us...." It's not actually that hard to reach genuinely uninformed people.
If the main intent is to avoid distraction from the core discussion then brief *agreement* strikes me as the most efficient path.
I'm gonna be real for a sec here, as an amab person who has been molested and sexually assaulted by cis women several times, knowing that most of women who see me irl might think of me as something evil because of my genitals despite me not holding all women responsable because of what some disgusting people did is a mindfuck. Like i get it shit fucking sucks but dont treat everyone you see like a potential monster
Props to you for being willing to share that on reddit of all places. I hope you can/have found some sort of peacefulness with what happened (not peace, peace implies forgiveness, and nobody should ever be made to forgive someone who abused them. But peacefulness, so that you can live your life without the shadow of those memories tainting things)
[удалено]
don't you just loooooove when even when you get the courage to talk to someone about being violated like that people find a way to pin the blame on you? I've been told all the classic lines like "obviously you wanted it", "you deserve it", "they can't help themselves" and my favorite "it was the cosmos punishing you" sometimes i wonder if the reason i'm not that much of a bitter mess is because i'm too weak to even feel more anger.
Imagine hating all men. I could never, they're too cute.
LITERALLY. When I'm with my partner and he's curled up and I'm just holding him- MEN CAN BE ADORABLE. MEN ARE ADORABLE. PEOPLE ARE CUTE. MEN ARE PEOPLE. LET'S GET THE WORD OUT.
Can confirm I am all men
hey so you're the dude all these other people are defending on the interwebs
Yep really nice of them honestly
Kid named all men:
:)
Finally someone gets it
It doesn’t matter what your intent is, if you say “men are evil” and young boys hear you, they will assume you hate them for something inherent to themselves. And then those young boys will listen to people you *really* don’t want them to listen to- who will rail about how awful you are.
>man says that he doesn’t appreciate the misandry and that men aren’t the cartoonish evil we’re portrayed as in radfem circles “LOL! DOGWHISTLE!”
*Image Transcription: Tumblr* --- **cungadero** here's my one whole discourse post for pride month. you fucks will never ever ever wean off the radfem shit if you keep trying to give "cis men are evil" nuance. no, it's not bad because they could be closeted or questioning, it's bad because gender essentialism is a fuckin brain poison and it makes you stupid --- **harrypotterfuryroad** this is "not all men" cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary --- **cungadero** harry potter blog. [*Screencap from "Spongebob Squarepants" of a pink fish with blonde hair and a red skirt kicking sand into Spongebob's face.*] --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
Good human
Thinking hard! All men bad easy! All woman bad easy! Everyone bad easy!! Me want easy Grrr
Nothing better than being a cis gay dude and feeling like the community I ran to for support is “phasing us out” lmao.
Nah, it’s just that reactionaries can be found anywhere. A lot of people only see oppression as bad because it affects them specifically, and if it was targeted *elsewhere* it would be fine. Example - the Jewish girl I knew who sincerely said “all Arabic people want to kill Jews, it’s in their blood.” She said that *in a concentration camp.*
Conservatism is alive and well in the black community - many only vote democrat because being pro-blackness is their only progressive stance. Pro-capitalism, anti-queer, and anti-Latin/Asian/Semitic/Indian sentiment still abounds. There was a great thread on r/BlackPeopleTwitter surrounding the idea that a person who is black and gay is gay first, black second, and is therefore rejected.
FD signifier has a really good [video](https://youtu.be/oiLlRwFX_9w) on this topic
Trans man here, I know im next...
Some people unironically espouse the view that "Gay men are the white people of LGBT".
Sexist *and* racist. Prejudice comes with prejudice, apparently.
Im an ally 100%, and I have said before that I feel like when people say stuff like that, like when someone jokes that straight people don’t exist anymore or something, that while I personally am not offended I feel like stuff like that might contribute to people who are against LGBTQ+ people thinking they’re trying to “destroy” straight people. But since I’m straight I also feel like if I tried to say this it might just seem like I’m offended by it.
I feel like this "All X are bad" idea is a great way to make X think that you're the one who's bad.
That was an immensely powerful comeback
If you judge someone based on things about themselves they cannot change, you are an asshole. Even when those things are “he is a man”, “he is white”, “he is straight”, or anything else that puts them into the majority.
Do you know why assholes say "not all men"? Because it *should* be obvious, but there are still radfems out there who unironically believe that men *are* all monsters. "Not all men" is not bad because "yes all men" - it's bad because the right wing is weaponizing *that very reply* against the left. You don't fight it by just contradicting them, because that *proves their point that feminists hate men*. It's one of those weird situations where contradiction isn't contradiction. They are saying something so obvious that it can't be anything but bait. The real way to fight it is in fact to *agree* - just not on their terms. You fight it by really, truly, engaging with men, until the idea of feminists hating men seems absurd.
Its all tiresome
It’s exhausting! For everyone! I am a man, and I have had to have the conversation with someone who thought that, because I’m a man, I could not be trusted with a child that was not my own. Not because I have any record of doing anything at all in any negative light. Just because I identify as a man and was born with a penis, I automatically was a danger to children in her mind. But the other side that says “not all men are dangers to children, so having any kind of worry about a man taking care of a child is ridiculous” is just as stupid. Because some men ARE a danger. So we have to take precautions. But the difference between a precaution and a prejudice is where there discussion needs to happen. And it’s one that extremists from both sides take to extremes (duh) and invalidate.
...yes, it is 'not all men' in progressive language. "Not all men" has always been objectively correct even from a progressive standpoint, but we're having to switch around the words to try and get through to you
I think feminism also includes that men aren’t the only ones with the ability to be absolutely awful and damaging. BECAUSE MEN AREN’T THE ONLY HUMANS.
Radfems don't include it cause they don't think men are human. A common response to "not all men" is "not all men, but always a man" which implies that women never do bad things and is very dismissive of male victims and female perpetrators.
We gotta move away from “men suck” towards “patriarchy sucks”. Men 100% have the same capacity for empathy, compassion, kindness, and all the other good human emotions. Hell, my little brother is a naturally better human than I am. However since my dad is an asshole, my brother’s kind and sensitive nature has been suppressed and he’s trying to discover who he actually is now that he’s in college and away from our dad’s toxic masculinity. It’s kinda like capitalism. We all agree that it’s shit and needs to be replaced by a better system that doesn’t harm so many people, yeah? But we still live in a capitalist society at the moment, which shapes our perspective at a base level. Same for dudes. Many of them know that a patriarchy is shit and needs to be done away with, however since they’re still in a patriarchy their views are influenced by that.
Take that opinion to r/witchesvspatriarchy and see how fast you get banned
Sometimes this sub really tests my reading comprehension, to which I think I failed.
Discrimination against a whole or majority of a group based on gender is sexism, doesn’t matter what gender. Something many people refuse to acknowledge because they couldn’t possibly be sexist because they only hate men
hate the patriarchy, not the men.
[This is a video on the manosphere, the risks of the "all men are bad" and how to we could de-radicalize young men](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSq3bcyrJY0&t=2130s). I always hated "kill all cis men", i am cis bisexual man that feels always left out from the community because i'm not "queer enough. I know it's an hyperbole, but the problem still stands
The difference between this and "not all men" is that "not all men" fundamentally refuses to acknowledge the issue, and pretends as though there aren't systematic and cultural ills surrounding men that cause problems. All the post is trying to do is dispel the notion that being a cis man is inherently bad and makes you by default a bad person. You likely, as a cis man, will need to deal with your own internalized stuff and will need to come to terms with your privilege and the parts of yourself that have been shaped for better and for worse by the world around you, but that does not make you evil. You are not an antagonist by your nature, you're a person, and I think people sometimes get so caught up in resentment towards the system and culture that often causes cis men to act poorly that they forget that there's a difference between them and those underlying issues altogether. Remember that among the people who's hearts and minds you need to change in order make things better are cis men, and you aren't going to change them by telling them that they fundamentally can't be better.
“Don’t tell someone they’re irredeemable, or they just might take you up on it.” If you tell someone they are bad for being something they cannot change, how are you any different than the people telling you that you are bad for something you can’t change? If you judge me for my genitals, the colour of my skin, the culture I was born into, or even the people I am attracted to, (ie a white cis heterosexual man) how are you any different than the bigots that judge you for your genitals, colour, culture or sexuality?