literally just title. If a society exists where there is a huge disparity in terms of social status and distribution of power, regardless of what gender has greater control, we should be opposed to that power dynamic. Like just swapping genders would literally just place men in exactly the same position that women are in now.
Feminism applies to everybody (and by extension men), period. It’s about equality. Feminists fight way harder for men’s issues than I’ve ever seen a supposed men’s rights “activist” fight.
this. dismantling the patriarchy (or in this case the matriarchy) would improve everyone's lives, except for some psychos tbh.
Are there any matriarchal societies though?
The few "matriarchal" societies I've read about in anthropology usually turn out to just be egalitarian societies, but dubbed "matriarchal" because they are so from our patriarchal viewpoint
I don't know how someone could disagree with this without believing some truly wild essentialist nonsense.
Edit: oh no, is this a bit where you edit the post to make all the commenters look bad?If not, don't steal my idea.
Ha, making a Chapotista look bad, you can't make rock bottom look worse!
Reading about the sexual pathologies of German fascists is wild. If you took some of their journals and updated the phrasing, it would fit right in on 4chan or the MRA subreddit. One of the core drives in fascist thought is domination over the female form. There's an (un) surprising lack of understanding of communism in fascist thought that manifests as communism being described essentially "whiney women" and nothing more. There's an obsession with silencing "mouthy communist slurs" through violence.
It's no wonder gamergate led to the emboldening of American fascism, it gave a whole generation of idiot boys a "mouthy woman" to start that fall into becoming a nazi.
Hotter take: using the word "feminism" as a catch-all for gender equality issues is dumb as fuck since it's an explicitly gendered word.
Not that much of a hot take. Gender egalitarianism or something similar would be so much better from a "marketing" point of view towards men. Conversely, having some self-described feminists doing some misandry always sticks out quite badly; not that it is common, but holy shit there are some very fucking weird people claiming that label, and these people are very vocal about their beliefs, thus giving a very bad name to feminism. Like as an example, there was a march against sexual violence, and literally cis hetero white men were forbidden to attend. I fail to see how the fuck do you advocate for political change in a country, and alienate like 40% of the population outright. Another time was a feminist I met on Tinder, literally said outright all men were trash, like yea, I don't enjoy getting insulted for things outside of my control. Feminism has to go through a rebranding of some kind, cos some optics are absolutely horrible with these people stealing an otherwise noble label.
I get how you feel. I think it's worth noting though that if the march on sexual violence was targeted towards women who suffered from it, that might be a good reason to ban men.
That said, I am not discounting the completely valid fact that many many men also go through sexual violence. At that point, any march that bans men like that should specify that it's trying to create a safe space for women who are traumatized or are uncomfortable around men. Perhaps name it as such, and a march with as general purpose as you described could represent all across the gender spectrum
I found it again. Or I think so, because that shit has happened several times apparently, and I don't remember which one hit r/france. The article says the march was anti-austerity, so yes, I think I am justified in saying barring men from participating is not only a bad look, but also pretty fucking stupid from a tactical point of view.
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/montreal/201504/07/01-4859001-une-manifestation-feministe-anti-austerite-interdite-aux-hommes.php
I just hope one day these will stop, but liberalism sips into everything, so I won't get my hopes up. :/
if the march on sexual violence was targeted towards women who suffered from it, that might be a good reason to ban men.
That's two levels of bad reasons though, with serious consequences. First it's applying a gender to sexual violence, either pretending that men being violated doesn't happen or worse, just doesn't matter because men don't have, like, bodily sanctity or something, or that women are only worth protecting because of reproductive capacity (which is the even more regressive definition of rape, which is sex without consent of the woman's father or community, regardless of her consent). We can say this is false all we want, but it's strongly reinforced with actions like physical and organizational exclusion. That can't be counteracted rhetorically.
The other issue is that the perpetrator-victim relationship is being applied to completely other people, including other victims. That's so fucking cruel, like, maybe some white person was victimized, and now they're legitimately traumatized by being around minorities or whatever, but taking that out on other victims just can't be part of it. The aspect of the trauma where they are taking that out on other suffering people is not something to be reinforced. Like you have men and women who are all survivors of sexual violence, they can have solidarity with each other, against abusers, not against each other. It's fine if someone is literally in a crisis situation, people should do anything necessary to look after that person's well being, but an activist march or therapy group or political action is not that situation.
The shit people have to deal with as victims of sexual violence is just fucked, and it's wild how it can be compounded by the actual structures that are supposed to be addressing it
And that's all before you get to the above poster's points about marketability, basically this stuff makes it really easy for conservatives to paint feminism not as a liberatory force for all, which it is, but as a rolling counterattack revenge project or whatever. The people who aren't strongly ideologically aligned are going to listen to feedback like "no, fuck off you can't join us"
... I don't think this is controversial enough to be a struggle session.
An unfair hierarchy is an unfair hierarchy.
i mean duh.
Even in our current society, Feminism supports men in the the few ways that men are repressed IE "boys don't cry", never showing feelings, always expected to be strong, supports non-gender/sexual-normality
No, I am absolutely not blaming feminism as a cause for the rise of MRA stuff, what I am saying is that it is used nowadays as a strawman by the alt right, regardless of truth. They'll pick actual misandrists as examples of your average feminist, and tell others : "look, they wanna take your benis". And it works.
Again, if you have a better solution without ditching the term or whatever, then I am all ears. I find it somewhat unsurprising the term has been picked up by the shitheads, but regardless of names or whatever, the underlying issues absolutely remain for both men and women, and I sometimes wish feminism would have far better optics. Try as a man, to call yourself a feminist (which is my case), and see other men's reactions, they will generally be mixed in some circles such as work or family.
Lol, fair enough
I'm not mad or anything btw, i just found it funny
Yep i get it being a joke, i'm sorry that i came across as adding to the dogpile, the lighthearted tone i intended didn't come through in text
For clarity i pretty much completely agree with you and am aware that even with the "unironically" at the front, "kill all men" is still a non-serious venting thing
Yeah why does this have 34 upbears? Has anyone here done any research whatsoever on actual matriarchal societies?
Someone else said that matriarchal societies are usually mislabeled because we're so patriarchal that the small number of chill, more or less equal societies appear "matriarchal".
But I don't know what the point of the post is, because by that definition there aren't any matriarchal societies anywhere near our level of gender imbalance. The whole post is giving me slight "if the Jews actually had a cabal, theeeeeoretically" energy
I mean maybe it's just an attempt to bait out an essentialist poster or a female-drone-pilot liberal, or something.
At my first job I was on a team of 4 people. I was the only guy, the boss was a woman. I found out they all had a slack channel together and would sometimes go out for drinks without me. I get it, sometimes you just want to hang out with just the girls or just the guys. I wasn't exactly hurt by it but it did make me feel alienated a bit. I knew I'd have a harder time moving up the ladder because of it. Definitely gave me a different perspective on sexism in general and it helped me grow my empathy for what far more women than men have to deal with in the workplace.
feminism has female in the name so its about girls ackshually men in this society would still NOT have cooties
would it then be called "masculism"?
doesn't sound as good tbh, hits the ear wrongIt would probably be a different position (because the material conditions that allow a matriarchy would be different) but yes, it would be bad and we would have to stop it.
