this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
53 points (100.0% liked)

Feminism

1862 readers
1 users here now

Feminism, women's rights, bodily autonomy, and other issues of this nature. Trans and sex worker inclusive.

See also this community's sister subs LGBTQ+, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC

Also check out our sister community on lemmy:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DessertStorms@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I guess that’s my personal view coming through. I hate labels and prefer to use broader terms.

You're literally doing the opposite of broadening, you're narrowing the term men down to those who you consider "are" and those who "aren't".

Now you not wanting to be considered or referred to as a man because you don't identify as a man is perfectly valid, but absolutely not the same as not wanting to be categorised as a man because "not all men". I'm not here to break down which of those you're doing, because honestly it doesn't matter to the point at hand - you not wanting to categorise yourself as a man for whatever reason, doesn't change the fact that the people you are talking about are men. If anything, they are probably those who claim to be the manliest men of them all.

Either way, you are drawing a line in the sand:

Hannah Gadsby not all men

So again - the people you are talking about, those who mansplain, and talk down to or over women, and threaten, and harass, and rape, as well as all of those who laugh along with the rape jokes, or even just sit there quietly and never protest, are not "others", they are not "pretend men", they are not "monsters" or any other category it's easier to have them in - they are men. Refusing to acknowledge this is wilfully ignoring the problem and enabling it to continue.

[–] confusedpuppy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Can you specify where I distinctly put men in to two groups? Where I stated who is and is not a man? Otherwise I am having difficult time understanding where your conclusions are coming from.

I feel like my words are being misrepresented but I do not know what I am doing wrong in this situation to understand if I should defend or change myself.

I do not know what line I am drawing in the sand when I was talking about a type of person, especially one I've had too much experience dealing with personally.

There are many types of people and people are not as simple as an on/off switch.

[–] Ava@beehaw.org 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not the person who you're discussing things with already, but to chime in in case it's useful.

It’s quite clear to me that these types of “men” just want women to be slaves or corpses.

When I read this, it reads to me as "these types of so-called men" or "these types of self-defined 'true men'" which may or may not be your intention.

I think there's a divide here on the perception of your phrasing, perhaps?

[–] confusedpuppy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I can see where that can be ambiguous. My intention was not to be divisive. That is definitely something I can keep in mind for the next time.

Thank you for pointing that out.