“Leads to” is way too strong. Hierarchy, capitalism, provider expectations all those play a huge role that on their own would be sufficient to cause the issue, if those were gone then the misandrists could just be ignored. What misandrists do have a rather large part in though is hindering that the problem gets addressed by people who otherwise do oppose hierarchy, capitalism, and normative gender expectations.
Yeah, I think I have my threads crossed. I started by asking who was the toxic feminist equivalent of Tate. To show that there isn’t a toxic feminism industry. Just a group of very annoyed individuals.
The toxic male industry makes the situation a LOT worse. Money pushes ideals.
"Equivalence’ of does not mean “same-same”, here, female aggression patterns are quite different than male ones. Bold “accept me as dominant, I’m telling you don’t show up or else” vs. plausible-deniability “oh someone must have forgotten to invite you”, “We didn’t think you want to come”. Apologies to any gals out there reliving high-school trauma right now.
To breach a broader topic: The very fact that a sentence like “all masculinity is toxic” can even be defended. When it’s defended, then generally as “Well we define “masculine” not as what men do but as whatever is toxic in society” – and then conveniently sweeping under the rug that that is not how “masculinity” is understood in any other context. As said: Plausible deniability. Motte and bailey: You can say a misandrist thing, have it understood as misandrist by your fellow misandrists, then, when called out, say “no you don’t actually understand do you even feminism read theory you’re a misogynist for misconstruing me”.
The worst thing one can do? Explain it openly. That does not just attack the concrete thing itself, but the very tactic of plausible deniability. It’s, admittedly, the nuclear option but sometimes plain necessary.
He never said he supported Tate.
He also never said misandry should be countered with misogyny.
He pointed out that misandry is the other side of the same coin as misogyny, maybe so that you can see the issue with OPs gender war slop.
His position has been consistently that both are bad.
Don’t straw man him.
But you don’t see how the misandry leads to the loneliness epidemic?
“Leads to” is way too strong. Hierarchy, capitalism, provider expectations all those play a huge role that on their own would be sufficient to cause the issue, if those were gone then the misandrists could just be ignored. What misandrists do have a rather large part in though is hindering that the problem gets addressed by people who otherwise do oppose hierarchy, capitalism, and normative gender expectations.
I don’t understand how that relates to what I just said.
Yeah, I think I have my threads crossed. I started by asking who was the toxic feminist equivalent of Tate. To show that there isn’t a toxic feminism industry. Just a group of very annoyed individuals.
The toxic male industry makes the situation a LOT worse. Money pushes ideals.
Andrea Dworkin.
"Equivalence’ of does not mean “same-same”, here, female aggression patterns are quite different than male ones. Bold “accept me as dominant, I’m telling you don’t show up or else” vs. plausible-deniability “oh someone must have forgotten to invite you”, “We didn’t think you want to come”. Apologies to any gals out there reliving high-school trauma right now.
To breach a broader topic: The very fact that a sentence like “all masculinity is toxic” can even be defended. When it’s defended, then generally as “Well we define “masculine” not as what men do but as whatever is toxic in society” – and then conveniently sweeping under the rug that that is not how “masculinity” is understood in any other context. As said: Plausible deniability. Motte and bailey: You can say a misandrist thing, have it understood as misandrist by your fellow misandrists, then, when called out, say “no you don’t actually understand do you even feminism read theory you’re a misogynist for misconstruing me”.
The worst thing one can do? Explain it openly. That does not just attack the concrete thing itself, but the very tactic of plausible deniability. It’s, admittedly, the nuclear option but sometimes plain necessary.
Cue “No this isn’t happening”.