akouso

[akouso]

Unfortunately, the ones who could most use this kind of reminder are the ones least likely to listen to it. Still, it’s a good reminder nonetheless.

Quick reminder that being a misandrist isn’t “cute” or “dismantling the patriarchy”. It is disgusting and y’all are just as bad as misogynysts.

[akouso]

I sure wish such a sentiment was more prevalent within any ideology and movement who tries to better society. The idea of having to either blindly condemn or support a side, the idea of having to support or be against one thing means automatic support/condemnation against the supposed opposition.

being against misogyny does not mean supporting misandry

[akouso]

The thing is that nonbinary isnt a gender in and of itself. So there really isnt much contradiction here  nor much controversy other than for the people who genuinely believe that nonbinary means being some strange otherwordly third option. There are two genders as there are two sexes but being nonbinary for example doesnt erase either for you as an individual. You will always primarily be the sex you were born as biologically, that you cannot change,  your gender can be more aligned with the men/women kind of spectrum but some seem to have the idea that varying levels of masculinity and femininity also means a new gender, which it absolutely doesnt.

People who say that bi means 2+ really don’t think because by that definition lesbians and gay men can’t be attracted to nonbinary people because that would be 2+ genders (thus bi by their definition). Which is exactly why there are people now saying “I’m attracted to men and nonbinary men so I’m bi and that’s valid!” Which is so many layers of stupid. Like let’s not destroy the definition of bi bc some of u can’t fathom gay, straight, and lesbian ppl dating nonbinary people. Words don’t exist in a void and the 2+ thing is a new idea and it’s stupid.

[akouso]

Because maybe she like many other girls and women dont think that representation in and of itself, and especially the one-dimensional type, is a healthy change to promote within media. Maybe they actually want characters that represent more abstract things primarily, characters that are well written and dont have personalities and choices revolving simply around their sex, much like how in real life most people dont live according to some kind of sexbased gospel.

It’s far from sad to hear, it’s very uplifting in fact that people realize that just throwing in token characters or writing women in accordence with some kind of flipped archetype is not appealing to anyone.

Write good characters and good stories by writing things out first that have nothing to do with sex, race, gender, sexuality and skin color and so on.

If you can make a character appealing just by actions and choices alone then gender and sex has such a minor impact on the final product, rather than doing the reverse and hinging the success of something based on its appeal to a gender or sex.

Anyone got any female friends who complain about feminism? Last night my normally liberal friend made a comment about how she hates women characters in movies “who act like they don’t need a man and they can do everything on their own.”

It’s the saddest thing to hear from a woman and I can’t stop thinking about it.

How can she, as a woman, be offended by a woman’s empowerment and lack of co-dependence?? What a twisted POV. Shows how far we still have to go to challenge conventional gender roles 😢

[akouso]

That’s fairly true, and also the fact that women as a whole are not oppressed, neither are men. People are oppressed by governments in certain countries, but it’s not one entire gender oppressing another whole gender, thats not the way it works nor how it ever worked.

women’s existence is not defined by their oppression.

[akouso]

I think this person would ironically enough find that the very people who she claims would make her lose her uhm, lady privileges, dont even believe in such things to begin with.

The most vocal groups among modern feminists don’t have that kind of balanced look on things that both men and women either have exclusive privileges both or even share some depending on the circumstance.

I remember when I was sixteen and I debated my classmate on feminism and she went “yea so I’m not a feminist because I don’t want to lose my lady privileges like not paying for a date etc” ok xd

[akouso]

It’s because this kind of feminism and these kind of people demonize men based on the fact that theyre born as such, and do this weird mix of infantilizing and deifying to women based on the fact that theyre born as such.

I think the dissonance you experience is because of the fact that you perhaps view this from an individualistic perspective rather than that of a collectivist, especially one that would be so ideological as to divide the world into good and bad based on sex.

To these people, their sexism is entirely justified as long as its disguised as progressive and as either liberating or empowering for women, because they believe women to be one homogenous group and the same for men.

I think we both know better than to attribute inherent moral traits and impending actions based on nothing but the sex someone is born as.

Okay usually I don't post stuff like this but what is with the crazy reverse sexism I've been seeing on my dash this morning? Like instead of just empowering and encouraging women, these posts are being hateful towards men and portraying them as monsters. I saw one that gave all sorts of safety and self-defense tips for women, and then for men basically said "don't hurt ppl". Like ??????

Yes, I'm a girl, but to me this just seems hurtful. And girls do need to feel empowered and equal, but feminism also shouldn't be built on hate for men, right?

[akouso]

Oh dear, the absolute hilarious irony of radical feminism using the concept of “Maybe people can learn the same things and draw different conclusions” when not just radical but highly ideological feminists in general seem to absolutely despise the idea of learning about something and not coming to the same conclusion as them. This goes double if it happens to be a woman like for example Cassie Jaye.

The self awareness can’t be that far off the mark now though I reckon...hopefully not at least.

You need to actually listen to women with actual degrees in women's studies when they tell you your hot take is just a hot mess.

I’ve heard plenty of women with women’s studies degrees say that they identify with radical feminism. Maybe people can learn the same things and draw different conclusions. Just a thought.

[akouso]

Sweet yeti of the serengeti, the world does not and has never existed purely in the binary of oppressor vs oppressed, and holy shit, racism and all these other discriminatory behaviours are not a problem or a responsibility solely put on one kind of individual by virtue of their race, skin color or gender.

If you wanna see true change in the world for the better then be a good example and set a good standard for others. Solving discrimination with more discrimination is not a good example for anyone.

oppressed people don’t have a responsibility to coddle, educate, or tolerate their oppressors

dominant people are responsible for educating themselves and their peers.

as in lgbtq+ ppl are not responsible for straight and cis ignorance.

as in Black and BIPOC are not responsible for white ignorance.

as in women are not responsible for men.

as in racism is a white people problem and homophobia is a straight people problem and sexism is a men’s problem

as in as a white person I have a responsibility to educate myself on race and engage those around me about it.

as in as a queer person I don’t have a responsibility to engage with homophobia/transphobia/queerphobia.

minorities already have to experience our oppression. we aren’t responsible for teaching you about it. especially not for free.

take responsibility. engage. educate.

[akouso]

I think it’s very presumptous to say that not only are these systems inherently racist or built to be racist, but that theyre being upheld by racists and sexists and that it somehow particularly comes back to analyzing specifically white people and men.

In much the same way i dont believe that competitive olympic sports are racist even if disproportionately many black participants end up being overrepresented in certain areas, or even in some other institutions like basketball where I wouldnt say it’s specifically designed to keep white people out just that because of the variables at the extreme ends of the normal distribution of height in relation to race and skin color, black people end up with a higher representation. That and cultural reasons of course but even so, the disparity isnt explained with racism as the beginning and end.

I think it’s far more effective to analyze partly with a class-perspective.

The disparities are usually better explained when viewed as an economic factor rather than one of skin color and race.

It’s why when you see certain policies or any kind of consequence of any institution or system target minorities, it’s usually to cut corners somewhere and in relation to money. To fix many of the glaring problems wouldnt take as much fidgeting in the system as many people against these changes would have it seem to be. That and of course the obvious red herring of “so we should give minorities special treatment just because they cant reach the same results with the same standards?”.

Then when you point out that something like subsidies targetting poorer neighborhoods and individuals actually would favor white people either as well or more since there are more white people in poverty in the states for example, there’s still this pushback against such changes which more often than not can simply be explained with; Someone or some people do not wish to lose influence and money.

Someones status in the capitalist hierarchy is usually a better indicator than focusing on that persons race and skin color as the determining factor for their life.

Just a reminder that the origin of "white people can't experience racism/men can't experience sexism" is a sociology book posted in the 70s, which the author has since stated regrets about publishing as they believe their work was completely taken out of context and abused.

[akouso]

Because humans as a social animal enjoys the comfort of a clear black and white duality in the world where you can treat people one way or another simply by looking at a fairly easily identifiable trait, sometimes things that arent easily identifiable.

Whatever the reason is, it comes back to tribalism.

The fact that we will take any minimal kind of difference, not just skin color, as justification for discrimination.

I really can’t understand racism. Why would you treat people differently just because of their color? They’re humans, not crayons.

[akouso]

Now that’s an exaggeration if there ever was one.

The idea that cops anywhere in the world as a whole literally face zero consequences to their actions when it comes to murdering innocent civilians regardless of skin color is simply false.

Not that that discredits any and all claims that in many cases they have, but all the time all day everyday forever? Hardly.

[akouso]

Oppression is something done entirely out of choice and with full consciousness of those choices.

By virtue of its very definition it cannot be done passively simply by people existing the way they were born with attributes they never chose.

No one really deserves anything especially if the label of oppressor is thrown around like that.

I’m glad to see that both the authleft and authright can at least agree in that they see genocide in one form or another as entirely justified. Middle ground is important after all.

Cishet men have ALWAYS been our oppressors or, at the very least, a source of constant annoyance.

The bare minimum we deserve is compensation in whatever way we choose.

Fuck equality. I want cishet men to be OBLITERATED from the universe.

[akouso]

One could always wonder what the correct context would be for titles or statements as ridiculous as that one. It’s especially hard to pity sociologists if they ever come from some kind of ideological standpoint.

That being said, I dont think they couldve anticipated how things would turn out because of it, which is why its so important to be careful with any kind of publishing in science (sociology as a science hangs on by a thread as it is)

Just a reminder that the origin of "white people can't experience racism/men can't experience sexism" is a sociology book posted in the 70s, which the author has since stated regrets about publishing as they believe their work was completely taken out of context and abused.

[akouso]

I think the people who use this word also have it wrong a lot of the time and somehow think it’s supposed to be used like that. To somehow label someone as inherently evil because of their supposed “privilege”. It’s also a flawed mindset to think of the world only divided up into the privileged vs the oppressed, thats not how it works nor how its ever worked.

Perhaps a new or different word can be used to better describe the actual concept of privilege.

In your example it would be more fair to say, for example, “white privilege” in relation to say racism would essentially mean that in todays western society, it will be very difficult for other white people to treat other white people from a racial perspective the same way they would someone who isnt white or at least isnt perceived to be.

At the same time, in opposition to this, you can have many types of privilege and still be at the very top of certain statistics that will not favor your group, like how men are at the top of suicide rates and work place deaths etc.

So to just begin and end the whole discussion with “you got X privilege” then maybe we should find some nuance where we still acknowledge. Okay, person A who is a man or perceived to be a man, will be treated differently at times by other men, possibly better at times. However Person A who is a man will also be treated worse in many regards for their gender by other men and or women or even by society as a whole. There is much more nuance here than to just say “You’re privileged so you’re excempt from this kind of treatment”.

This is especially important when we talk about “privilege” attributes that we never chose. Privilege in the classic sense is either given or earned, not just packed in with some kind of birth trait.

What I think it means to be privileged.

People are afraid of being called or seen as privileged. It feels like an attack to them. Like they're being accused of a crime they didn't commit. That's probably what leads them to fight back. But this is evident of a poor understanding of the word privilege.

Isn't being privileged supposed to be a good thing? Why would you hate being told that you are? Isn't it supposed to make you feel better about everything? Yet if I tell a man he has male privilege, he'll accuse me of hating men.

The issue here is this. People don't realize that privilege does not mean they have no hardships, no problems in life. It doesn't dismiss any of their difficult experiences. It only gives them an advantage. Because their hardships are not due to biological factors that put them in oppressive social structures that they cannot control.

Privilege keeps you from having to face the struggle of not being a cis het white male. The colour of your skin, your gender, your caste, religion all contribute to whether you're privileged or not. And the privileged can choose not to care about any of these things.

So it isn't an attack when someone's privilege is pointed out. I'm sitting on a mountain of it myself. And none of us are necessarily contributing to an oppressive system. But noticing that we have an unfair advantage, acknowledging it and trying to level the playing field is upto us to do.

So we can sit around and watch while the oppressed fight for their rights. Or we can lend a hand. Not speak for them, but give them the space to speak for themselves. And acknowlege their experiences.

[akouso]

It’s far from “asshole” behaviour to protest the unwarranted generalization coming from bitter ideologues.

Domestic abuse is one of those things where the statistics support the idea of it being fairly split between either gender (especially prominent in homosexual women relationships apparently). So it doesnt make much sense to tie that topic into some strange justification for generalization.

It’s also a myth that we don’t chastise boys and men for something so serious as abuse and rape, we absolutely do.

Your final example is the exact opposite of the discussion though since you’re excluding one small minority in a selection that isnt binary (like men and women) vs excluding an entire side in a binary sense.

I am so tired of this "Not All Men!!!!" bullshit.

Today in class we were discussing domestic abuse. We saw a video on it which was basically about how we chastise boys for all pointless things like wearing pink and crying but never chastise them if they abuse women or rape.

And after it, some asshole was like "I'm so sick of being portrayed as evil gender!"

Like bitch. Did you even watch the video? Go to hell.

It's like if I say I don't like plum pie and somebody responds with "bUt NoT aLl PiEs aRe pLuM pIeS!!!"

[akouso]

There’s some substance to this. However I think it’s also important to simply not label any and all homophobia displayed regardless of sexuality, as either just homophobia or internalized homophobia. That is to say, someone who is LGBT being homophobic isn’t excluded from being called a homophobe, displaying homophobia or having their behaviour classified as homophobic, and likewise, isn’t by default included as “interalized”.

I mean, yes, I would say that the very definition of something being internalized has to do with your specific label tied to that so it doesn’t make much sense to accuse someone heterosexual for having internalized homophobia. However i also believe we dont excuse and or try to differentiate homophobia spouted by heterosexual vs homophobia spouted by LGBT people as inherently internalized.

It could also be a bit much to ask of LGBT people to NOT blame any and all cases of perceived homophobia as some kind of inherent origin within heterosexuality and heterosexual people.

If someone is displaying discriminatory behaviour, it’s the behaviour that needs calling out and not the person, and especially not trying to tie the behaviour to some kind of inherent attribute of that persons character.

I have surprisingly seen this false idea being spread a couple of times over the few recent days on social media so I want to clarify : internalised homophobia is not something perpetuated by straight ppl. The “internalised” part means that it comes from gay and bi ppl themselves, it comes from external homophobic bias that they have internalised. I thought everyone understood this basic concept but apparently not ? So yes, here is the most simple and clear explanation there is for y’all who didn’t know. Please don’t say that your uncle or grandmother has “internalised homophobia” when you make it clear that they’re just straight and homophobic. The nuance makes all the difference. ✨