If ButtBidet says yes, the justification that follows would be on the basis of the patriarchy existing and putting men in a privileged position... which seems to be wandering right back into lib bio-essentialism territory.
Really I was just trying to laconically poke at the notion that "men deserve hate" without having any specific answer in mind. I figured that if the question amounts to "Is your own statement true?", and the question could not be answered with either a simple yes or a simple no, that it would become apparent that something was wrong with the statement itself.
If ButtBidet says yes, the justification that follows would be on the basis of the patriarchy existing and putting men in a privileged position... which seems to be wandering right back into lib bio-essentialism territory.
What.
No, the patriarchy existing is not bio-essentialism! Neither is white supremacy existing race realism! What the fuck! These are social systems that justify themselves through such pseudoscience but in reality are 100% social and thus can be overthrown.
No, the patriarchy existing is not bio-essentialism
I wasn't intending to claim that — the patriarchy can and should be overthrown. The patriarchy harms people of all genders.
I was thinking of a particular line of reasoning following from it to justify men deserving hate (for instance, "men deserve hate on account of being men, because they are in a system where they are privileged") might be though.
I guess you're right that a better line of reasoning could follow, e.g. men, exploiting this position of privilege and thus inflicting harm, deserve hate as a result.
I want to explicitly preface this comment to state that lib bio-essentialism isn't the solution. I just need some theory to know what is the answer.
That said, what kind of response do you expect ButtBidet to give? If ButtBidet says no, you effectively get:
If ButtBidet says yes, the justification that follows would be on the basis of the patriarchy existing and putting men in a privileged position... which seems to be wandering right back into lib bio-essentialism territory.
Really I was just trying to laconically poke at the notion that "men deserve hate" without having any specific answer in mind. I figured that if the question amounts to "Is your own statement true?", and the question could not be answered with either a simple yes or a simple no, that it would become apparent that something was wrong with the statement itself.
What.
No, the patriarchy existing is not bio-essentialism! Neither is white supremacy existing race realism! What the fuck! These are social systems that justify themselves through such pseudoscience but in reality are 100% social and thus can be overthrown.
I wasn't intending to claim that — the patriarchy can and should be overthrown. The patriarchy harms people of all genders.
I was thinking of a particular line of reasoning following from it to justify men deserving hate (for instance, "men deserve hate on account of being men, because they are in a system where they are privileged") might be though.
I guess you're right that a better line of reasoning could follow, e.g. men, exploiting this position of privilege and thus inflicting harm, deserve hate as a result.
I understand