In their despair at Donald Trump’s victory, liberal pundits are concluding that the masses, especially the working class, are irredeemably terrible. That’s apolitical nonsense.
Misandry was probably a bad word to use. I'm not smart enough to explain it eloquently, but I think they're trying to say that the liberal, "working class white male voters are the devil himself! Man, fuck poor white dudes," rhetoric is partially a self-fulfilling prophecy. These are exactly the statements that manosphere dipshits like Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Andrew Tate, et al point to when they say that men are being oppressed.
We aren't oppressed because we're men, of course. We're in a shit situation because we're fucking poor. But that disconnect between rhetoric ("The man on the TV said I'm a demon and this is my fault?) and material conditions ("But I'm poor as shit! I have to use food banks regularly!") makes a lot of dudes vulnerable to toxic messaging that puts blame in all the wrong places.
IDK, it's complicated, and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it or explaining my feelings. It's like an ouroboros of rhetoric where liberals and conservatives are feeding each other with their own shit, to the detriment of everybody who isn't rich.
tbh there's a growing problem in leftist spaces where it isn't clear where straight cishet white men fit in to it. Yes it makes sense to have certain spaces more geared towards, and to an extent exclusive towards women, people of color, queer people, and any combination there of, but it's also necessary to have something for one of the most politically powerful groups in in society. In general actual leftists are better about being open to anyone, but liberals and liberals pretending to be anti-capitalist can get very suffering-olympics about it.
What, did you miss the part of her campaign where Kamala Harris said she wants to end the patriarchy by literally killing all men? Clearly misandry in the democratic party is a real and serious issue.
Seriously though, what the hell did the author mean by this?!
Article unironically uses the term "misandry" lmao
Misandry was probably a bad word to use. I'm not smart enough to explain it eloquently, but I think they're trying to say that the liberal, "working class white male voters are the devil himself! Man, fuck poor white dudes," rhetoric is partially a self-fulfilling prophecy. These are exactly the statements that manosphere dipshits like Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Andrew Tate, et al point to when they say that men are being oppressed.
We aren't oppressed because we're men, of course. We're in a shit situation because we're fucking poor. But that disconnect between rhetoric ("The man on the TV said I'm a demon and this is my fault?) and material conditions ("But I'm poor as shit! I have to use food banks regularly!") makes a lot of dudes vulnerable to toxic messaging that puts blame in all the wrong places.
IDK, it's complicated, and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it or explaining my feelings. It's like an ouroboros of rhetoric where liberals and conservatives are feeding each other with their own shit, to the detriment of everybody who isn't rich.
tbh there's a growing problem in leftist spaces where it isn't clear where straight cishet white men fit in to it. Yes it makes sense to have certain spaces more geared towards, and to an extent exclusive towards women, people of color, queer people, and any combination there of, but it's also necessary to have something for one of the most politically powerful groups in in society. In general actual leftists are better about being open to anyone, but liberals and liberals pretending to be anti-capitalist can get very suffering-olympics about it.
What, did you miss the part of her campaign where Kamala Harris said she wants to end the patriarchy by literally killing all men? Clearly misandry in the democratic party is a real and serious issue.
Seriously though, what the hell did the author mean by this?!
Uhhh