this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
472 points (80.2% liked)
memes
14201 readers
4509 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
LMAO let's not pretend like places such as /FemaleDatingStrategy don't exist. Misogynists and misandrists are two sides of the same coin. If I have no problem saying that misogynists like Andrew Tate are shitheads, then you can admit that man-hating misandrists are also shitheads.
And don't you start telling me "Oh, but woman-hating misogynists are worse" because then the conversation turns in to the "Oppression Olympics" and all people do is focus on arguing about who has it worse instead of focusing on actually fixing anybody's problems. Both misogynists and misandrists are bad, and both should be condemned.
misandry doesn't real
Misogyny and misandry are unfortunately both very real and very bad.
we live in a patriarchy. there is no such thing as misandry.
^ Fixed that for you.
Extremist beliefs such as yours are sadly a big reason why Democrats lost the 2024 election.
You are part of the problem. Do better.
So, no answer then?
Oh, you got your answer. You just didn't like the answer - Probably because the answer acknowledged that men's problems actually exist in this regard, and you don't like that either.
You know what I didn't like? My ex beating the shit out of me, and getting away with it every single time because just because she's a woman.
Yep, that's horrible and illegal. And she got away with it because the US is systematically sexist. The patriarchy sucks for us men too, I'm afraid. It demands us to be strong, unafraid, and impossible to hurt.
Feminism actually addresses this. Tate doesn't.
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".
Tate belongs in a jail cell. Period. He is human garbage who makes the world a worse place to live in.
I believe feminism is important nowadays, especially during the Trump years. The government is literally targeting women's rights. That is unacceptable.
I might disagree with feminists from time to time, but I realize that overall, their hearts are in the right place. I can certainly not say the same about Tate and his ilk.
FDS has nowhere near the same reach as Tate, or other manosphere influencers.
Yes, they are both dicks. But one group has active control of the most powerful government on earth.
Stop. Right there. That's all you need to say.
Cut off that other crap about men "running the most powerful government in the world". I guarantee the average man does not "run the world". I sure as hell don't. Do you? No? Then stop.
No more saying "My side has it worse, so your side doesn't deserve to have your problems addressed", neither gender should have their very real problems ignored.
There are no winners in the "Oppression Olympics", only losers. The first step towards not being a loser is to stop thinking like a loser.
I never fucking said that, liar. We were talking about misogynists and misandrists (this all started with talking about Tate and FDS, remember?) , and I said the former were running the most powerful government in the world.
"Liar"?
How about instead of having an attitude problem with me, we both agree that neither men nor women should be abused and both genders have unique issues that, in a healthy society, would be acknowledged and addressed?
Or are you just here to argue with someone?
You are the one arguing in bad faith by straw-manning me. You entered this thread with a whataboutism. And you have been up and down this thread accusing anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of "Oppression Olympics" or that they don't believe men's issues exist.
^ Translation from Snippy to English: "I'm not here to actually engage in healthy debate: Rather, I'm here to pick fights and "win one for my team". Also, I hereby volunteer to be on TheFudd's block list, because I am incapable of having a civil discussion."
Not cool. Do better.
Was it so hard to address what I actually said?
I mean the simplest explanation is that they did not reply to you, unless you're using multiple accounts, they replied to a different user
It's giving "All Lives Matter"
Oh? Because I've experienced domestic violence at the hands of a woman.
Are you telling me that my life does not matter?
No, but weaponising that fact to shut down discussions about gender issues is a shit thing to do.
Like yeah, that's terrible, and you're choosing to use that to invalidate other people who go through that? Wow.
Wrong - And knock off the pearl-clutching. I'm literally the one who just said that the whole "Oppression Olympics" mentality is toxic and needs to go.
Don't misconstrue my message. This is not a zero-sum game. We can address the issues of both genders at once, and there's nothing "all lives matter-ish" about saying that.
I'm starting to get the idea that you aren't here to speak in good faith. If you're just here because you want to win an internet argument for "your side", go elsewhere for that.
I'm not here in good faith? Bro you entered this thread with a whataboutism, and everyone here agrees that what you went through is horrible and should never happen, but it appears to some of us as though you're operating with the intent of conceptually separating domestic abuse and gender from each other, which is unhelpful because it's usually built in no small part upon gendered dynamics. Jesus fuck
No. You aren't. And your snippy little attitude problem, along with you misconstruing everything I say, is proof of that.
I will take your angry little diatribe as you conceding the argument, and volunteering to be on my block list.
Not cool. Do better.
That’s the reason I hate that saying so much.
It’s just a true statement. All lives DO matter.
But the hateful sub-text of the saying basically poisons compassionate people against what, in a vacuum, is just a basic moral value I hold dear.
I'm vegan, too. But I don't feel constrained that the utterance "All Lives Matter" now has negative connotations when delivered outside the context of universal empathy. People who say "All Lives Matter" are not expressing empathy, and struggle to access theirs. It's disingenuous, they DON'T think that all lives matter.
In an ideal world, BLM would have switched to chanting "All lives matter" without skipping a beat: Deny the assclowns their slogan, simultaneously say "yep we're people, too, part of 'all', get used to it", simultaneously, ally with other groups the US police walks all over, like neurodivergent folks.
In an ideal world black people would be treated with the same respect as everyone else and there wouldn't be a need for BLM to exist in the first place. The reason for focusing on black people instead of everyone is because they aren't treated equally. 'All Lives Matter' is a slogan to avoid acknowledging that black lives also matter.
Are neurodivergent folks treated equally, with equal consideration? "Existing while not being able to respond to BS demands" is a crime that exists in the US. There's a bodycount to back that up, covering the whole spectrum of spectrum disorders.
That out of the way: Why give the enemy a slogan and exclude your allies? What possible gain would that bring about?
Because it was claimed by fascists. That's the only reason it has that meaning. Because it was given up, not claimed by woke folks. Words, slogans, don't have meaning in themselves the meaning only exists in context. "All lives matter" is a fascist slogan because it got chanted by fascists, not because it's fascist in itself. If fascists shout "chocolate pudding is tasty", what does that mean? I have no idea but it surely doesn't bode well for black folks.
You don't have to fucking explain to me that "All lives matter" got appropriated by fascists. I fucking know. I'm complaining about how BLM let it be appropriated, how the wider platform let victory be snatched away from under their fingertips by semiotic illiteracy that made MLK spin in his grave. Man was way ahead of .
If you think BLM let it be appropriated then you don't understand how appropriation works.
There was a brief moment where "all lives matter" had no clear meaning, where the slogan still was up for grabs, where the fascists were still starting to rally while BLM was already in full swing. If, at that juncture, BLM had had the wherewithal to, as I already said, switch to chanting "all lives matter" without skipping a beat the few fascists already using it would have looked like actually supporting BLM. They would've backed off.
Yeah, looknat the SAVE act and whose voting rights will be impacted by that. Women and transpeople, mainly. But they want us to think they are wittle victims because no one wants to be around a fucking bully. Amd they make fun of women's loneliness epidemic no problem - the cat lady rhetoric. So they can stuff it.
Great point.