Final Edit: I have decided to take a break from here for undecided time. I might come back when sure of myself. Limited activity at main instance.

Edit: I am replying, so please refer to them to get an idea of my worldview.

Context: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/650259 and these removed comments of mine, before Forte temp banned me

a screenshot of my comments

Show

Before I start off, I want to tell that it is true that I am a cis het male human that holds monogamist views with the mildest of traditional takes. It is also true that despite never having had a real mother or a girlfriend in my life, I never became an incel. My mindset at the core is unapologetically survivalist, independent and masculine. I have also been chivalrous with women, and have been inclusive of the non binary communities. Some people will try to portray this as me never getting female love in life and all kinds of assumption based crap, which I can counter with years of selfless privacy community work.

I want to know what is so misogynistic about:

  • a woman having multiple boyfriends and being a social player, which is very common today in the dating scene
  • traditional views like monogamy instead of promiscuity are better
  • social code being different for men and women
  • women often dating for free food
  • Western feminism not being a true representation of feminism, and how much it currently harms mainly men, and creating polarisation between both sexes
  • psychology of dominance and submission in relationships factoring into the stability of any long term relationships, including marriage

Is it not deceitful to deny these patterns exist, and to just call someone misogynistic and shut down the conversation? Or have I misunderstood what Lemmygrad means for these kinds of conversations?

When did this place become so lib, that people were straight up told to "change your ways before you end up ruining a poor girl’s life", or how "using 'male' and 'female' to refer to men and women as if they're animals" is a terminology that radical feminists would otherwise get excused for? What are these assumed ideas I have that are so batshit crazy, compared to the kinds of values that hardcore masculinity gurus, Tate fans, incels/femcels hold? And what is the defined threshold expected for this place to accommodate people?

I hope I do not see a "404:site_ban" before I get to engage and get answers on this, and have a decent conversation. I am not threatening. I merely want a dialogue.

  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    ·
    1 year ago

    Before I start off, I want to tell that it is true that I am a cis het male human that holds monogamist views with the mildest of traditional takes.

    This would mostly be fine if you held them for yourself but it's immediately clear from your writing that you don't hold them only for yourself but you hold those positions as normative and when you communicate you impose that position on the world. I like monogamy for myself. What I don't do is say that monogamy is inherently better, or that it is better for society, or that it ought to be the norm because it leads to better outcomes. This is important for you to understand because it underlies a lot of the criticism you are receiving. You're allowed to believe things about yourself. It's when you apply these beliefs to others that you run into problems.

    My mindset at the core is unapologetically survivalist, independent and masculine

    Having masculinity at your core is a red flag. I've been a cis man my whole life and I don't feel the need to establish masculinity as part of my core mindset. I don't even think masculinity is a real thing, I think it's a social construct that has a history, that is to say, it's a trope or a meme. Fish don't have a core mindset of fishyness. But for historical reasons men and women have concepts of what it means to manly and womanly. But when you look globally, you can see there are similarities and difference between these cultures on what they consider manly and womanly. And when you look at the similarities, they are usually the similarities that go along with reinforcing structures of oppression and the rest is just accidental historical window dressing.

    I have also been chivalrous with women, and have been inclusive of the non binary communities.

    This does not make you not misogynistic, just like having a black friend doesn't make you not racist. Also, the idea that being chivalrous is somehow not misogynistic is completely mistaken. Chivalry is literally derived from the word for knight, and we can pretty clearly see how the entire of medieval European society was misogynistic and how the knights, warriors with power, title, and sometimes even land, would be part and parcel of the oppression of women. Being chivalrous is not respecting women but rather having deep-seated oppressive beliefs about women and then respecting your own false beliefs more than actually respecting women.

    I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like monogamy instead of promiscuity are better

    Monogamy is found throughout the animal world, as is polygamy. Neither is better or worse. The belief that one is generally better or worse is problematic. Believing it for yourself, whether you personally prefer your relationship to be one way or another, is not problematic. Believing everyone in the world is playing in your ethical framework is the problem. Believing monogamy is better than polygamy is generally regarded as misogynistic because isolating women into the private home on pain of losing their livelihood is a form of oppression. It's traditional because traditionally women have been oppressed in society, not being allowed medical treatment without their husband's approval, not being allowed a bank account, not being allowed to own property, not being allowed to socialize without male supervision, not being allowed to vote, not being allowed to live alone, not being allowed to have woman roommates. Etc. Monogamy, traditionally, is misogynistic.

    I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like social code being different for men and women

    This is factually true and there is nothing misogynistic about this observation. Your problem arises when you see this and say "a ha! here is evidence that men and women are metaphysically different and that their social roles are good and proper". When non-misogynists see these social code differences, they say "it is what is because of history and in the future maybe it will change". When people with liberatory politics see these differences, they say "let us find the causes for these differences and let us change society so that these differences may be erased".

    I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like women often dating for free food

    This isn't a traditional view. This is a false belief. No one has ever dated me for free food. No one I know has I ever dated anyone for free food. No one I know has ever talked about their friends dating someone for free food. From my experience of media, the only people who ever make this claim are misogynist men and the women who take advantage of them. The number of women who take advantage of them is statistically tiny in the grand scheme of things. Your actions and beliefs should not be influenced by the existence of this tiny portion of women. Further, you should examine the reason that the small number of women who do engage in those behaviors do so. What you'll find is systemic misogynistic oppression.

    I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like Western feminism not being a true representation of feminism, and how much it currently harms mainly men, and creating polarisation between both sexes

    Also not a traditional view. This is a full on reactionary view. Feminism does not harm men. Feminism does not create polarization between the sexes. The polarization between men and women is quite literally the history of class society for millennia. Just go look at history and find for me a time when men and women did not relate in a polarized power dynamic. Men owned women. Men owned multiple women. Men took the labor from women and sold it. Men **** women and sold their children. These things were protected by law. They were practiced in all class societies. They always subordinated women to men. Feminism seeks to fix this and there is simply no comparison between feminism's effect on men and the historical and contemporary oppression of women. The fact that you don't understand this is itself a representation of social misogyny manifesting through you. You are replicating misogyny even if you don't understand it.

    I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views psychology of dominance and submission in relationships factoring into the stability of any long term relationships, including marriage

    You don't see what's so misogynistic about believing that men must dominate women to establish a long-term relationship? Really? Come on now. Just write it down on paper. You believe that in order for a long-term relationship between a man and a women to be stable, the man must psychologically and physically dominate the woman and the woman must submit to the man. That in and of itself is quite misogynistic, but I bet you can do worse. Try to explain why this is true and you'll see that you believe that the woman will leave the man because the woman is not interested in the long-term relationship but the man is. You can just reconcile that right away and say that the woman must be dominated against her interest to satisfy the interest of the man and leave it there. But I'm sure if you keep going you'll come up with more and more repulsive statements that even you should be able to understand as misogynistic.

    What are these assumed ideas I have that are so batshit crazy, compared to the kinds of values that hardcore masculinity gurus, Tate fans, incels/femcels hold? And what is the defined threshold expected for this place to accommodate people?

    You are being told what the problem is. The threshold is that you accept the criticism and put in the effort to understand how your beliefs harm people and are part of a larger system of oppression. If you don't put in that effort, you don't belong here.

    • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We should also recommend some reading materials for OP on the historical subjugation of women, and how OP's ideas are shaped by a deeply ingrained misogynist worldview.

      I def recommend Gerda Lerner - the creation of the patriarchy, and Silvia Federici - Caliban and the witch, but those are both long. Also sex at dawn, for the feminist norms that took up most of human history.

    • TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmygrad.ml
      hexagon
      ·
      1 year ago

      monogamy

      but it’s immediately clear from your writing that you don’t hold them only for yourself but you hold those positions as normative and when you communicate you impose that position on the world.

      Explain to me why is polygamy healthier for either of the sexes. In case of women, abusively having sex means personal issues and inability to spiritually bond with future partners, as the "threshold" for satisfaction becomes higher with every partner. In case of men, it simply means an incredible lack of emotion and an internalised hatred towards self and women (extreme conservative views from medieval era play a large role in shaping this idea).

      I don’t even think masculinity is a real thing, I think it’s a social construct that has a history, that is to say, it’s a trope or a meme. [...] And when you look at the similarities, they are usually the similarities that go along with reinforcing structures of oppression and the rest is just accidental historical window dressing.

      Window dressing has been an incredible problem contributing to the worldview shaping. And by calling masculinity a social construct, that allows for everything to be called a social construct, throwing the basis of society's survival and existence to date out of the window. I do not think this is wise, and in that capacity I disagree. Conservatives act like its still the fucking 18th century, and the other end of the spectrum likes to act that sex is a cheap act and just a venting outlet for other issues, so it is both justified, and in line with the oversexualisation of mass media, so its "normal".

      This does not make you not misogynistic, just like having a black friend doesn’t make you not racist. Also, the idea that being chivalrous is somehow not misogynistic is completely mistaken. Chivalry is literally derived from the word for knight, and we can pretty clearly see how the entire of medieval European society was misogynistic

      I did not mean to use it as an escape jail card. But I think it is rare enough that I can use that phrasing legitimately. Chivalry can be interpreted as misogynistic, because of binary gender norms playing into the equation, but I do not think being respectful and courteous is the same as that. Good and nice men exist, and most of them become toxic either because of extreme conservatism (what I try to avoid) or fuckboys/fuckgirls rewarding the wrong behaviours in society.

      Monogamy is found throughout the animal world, as is polygamy. Neither is better or worse. The belief that one is generally better or worse is problematic.

      We are not animals with nothing else to do than chew on grass/meat and breed like rabbits. Humans have more than just intuition and intelligence. Humans have intellect that distinguishes them from animals. This is not pedanticism.

      https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-at-any-age/201304/the-long-term-psychological-effects-of-having-multiple-sex

      I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like women often dating for free food

      This isn’t a traditional view. This is a false belief. No one has ever dated me for free food. No one I know has I ever dated anyone for free food. No one I know has ever talked about their friends dating someone for free food

      I strongly disagree. Freeloading exists significantly. I have no idea what to say if you think this does not exist. Women do it for two reasons – food, and being able to share selfies from lavish hotels on Instagram/Snapchat for social media validation.

      I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views like Western feminism not being a true representation of feminism, and how much it currently harms mainly men, and creating polarisation between both sexes

      Also not a traditional view. This is a full on reactionary view. Feminism does not harm men. Feminism does not create polarization between the sexes. The polarization between men and women is quite literally the history of class society for millennia.

      I want you to watch what goes on in this debate on Jubilee. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOUGNGWmN0k (note: no side likes Derrick, the yellow jacket incel, feel free to ignore that idiot)

      Feminism, atleast on Western side of the movement, actively seeks to not just harbor, but has also been harming men. Plenty cases of false shaming men in public and in gyms, actively misinterpreting and targeting MRA, and other issues exist.

      I saw the boyslockerroom/girlslockerroom case last year in India, on Twitter, during the 3 days that it happened. The girls who faked Snapchat chats on boys allegedly discussing women in a nasty manner, caused one boy to commit suicide one day after feminists started screaming on Twitter, and how women's police commission must take action on the boy. The girl who fabricated it for social views is free, active on social media and doing whatever she wants. Men's lives get destroyed in a snap upon accusations these days.

      I want to know what is so misogynistic about traditional views psychology of dominance and submission in relationships factoring into the stability of any long term relationships, including marriage

      You don’t see what’s so misogynistic about believing that men must dominate women to establish a long-term relationship? Really?

      I know what you are saying, and this is why I mentioned it, knowing an obvious response will come to it, and I have no problems saying that what you are saying is correct. But this has a lot to do with biochemistry. Ever seen women who gym and eat a lot of meat, or take testosterone? Ask them or read their testimonies of how they start thinking and acting aggressively. Testosterone causes anyone to be aggressive, which is why men have fought wars, done the physically stressful jobs and acted dominant in relationships and in society. Women being the nurturing caretaker is not some idea that was born out of "toxic mindset", but rather the simple fact that we are biologically designed in a way that woman is more sensitive, physically vulnerable and due to lack of testosterone, not as aggressive, the way a man is.

      I do not think self critique is necessarily part of being a communist, but it is a mark of being a true leftist, which is why I put myself up here for perhaps what might be one of the most controversial posts on here.

      • CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do not think self critique is necessarily part of being a communist, but it is a mark of being a true leftist, which is why I put myself up here for perhaps what might be one of the most controversial posts on here.

        Self-criticism also requires that one be open to criticism and willing to change their mind, not validate it by arguing against every point made.