Text
(chugs the tea)
Truly I am always too fringe for being the most "not all men" feminist.
You say "all men are x", but they aren't? Ever? That's naturally a massive and useless generalization, functional only for hyperbolic venting. Are overgeneralizations about people ever infallible? So it's not true. So it is not all men.
Unless it is? Unless you genuinely believe all men are literally x. If so, what's the fucking point? Give up on feminism, all men are x, no women will ever be x, it's essential to the gender.
I will grant that when you see "not all men" in a discussion it isn't going anywhere, but it isn't the primary reason why the discussion isn't going anywhere. The discussion was doomed from the start when the premise was a ridiculous overgeneralization such as "all men are x."
#truly a feminist tentpole erected when annoying assholes butted into someone's personal vent that was never supposed to be theory#and then people had to defend the vent as if it were theory because the assholes surely can't have a single correct rebuttal in their reply#not all anyone is anything. if you have to exclude outliers from your set to maintain it's universal truth. it's not univerally true.#if you read the tags you deserve the true tea. debate in a group chat bc someone brought up man v bear. still bugs me bc i care#i hate feminine fear. i was assumed to be a man bc i didn't perform feminine fear correctly. i know where it ends.#fear against [group] isn't productive. it's racism logic. i don't respect it. if you survived a traumatic elevator drop sure take the stair#but I'm not going to respect that fear decision as praxis. if the elevator is fine I'm using it I'm not shutting down all elevators with yo
1 note
·
View note
Last Seen Blogs
