seen this post elsewhere? click for explanation
This post got banned from !memes@lemmy.world for reason “Troll Posting” which is Very Disrespectful in my opinion. 😕
I mean this meme with full respect and love to my fellow community members and I was proud of the discussion and support it was creating.
EDIT: POST RESTORED YAY. (Thank you to the mods it turned out to be a misunderstanding.)
Important clarification/FAQ
I am not calling to coddle or excuse the behavior of bigoted men in any way!
I am calling to be kind and understanding to young men (often ages 10-20) who are very manipulable and succeptible to the massive anti feminist propaganda machine. Hope this clarifies that very important distinction. :)
Very good comments that express key points:
- Detailed summary of the situation if you're wondering what's going on
- The rhetorical value of the bear hypothetical and what this means for you
- One example of why the long-term rhetorical value of the hypothetical is poor, in the context of intersectionality
- What does disenfranchisement mean in this context?
- The importance of not asking women to tone down their expressions of fear and frustration
- "But why can't they just say it nicely?"
- The importance of participation in kindness toward young men, specifically outside the context of people speaking their experiences
How does the man/bear discussion disenfranchise and antagonize young men?
On top of not being a creeper, you also need to bathe regularly to get a chance at a date.
Does the fact that you have to bathe regularly antagonize and disenfranchise young men?
I would argue the man/bear thought experiment gives young men a useful look inside the average womans life that they wouldn't have had otherwise.
I don't read this as the discussion disenfranchising young men, rather just stating that the broader disenfranchisement of the working class has its effect of making many men vulnerable to far right rhetoric of a day where many white cis-het men did not have to try, like at all (at least, that's the rhetoric).
I read this as saying that we need to counter these societal issues on multiple fronts; not pandering to right-wing men, while also not letting the far right rhetoric take hold of younger men. Offering a good alternative which actually helps them (leftism) instead.
Exactly this. ^^^ Excellent expression of my position, thanks homie :)
I see, I may have misinterpreted it.
One of these things (bathing) is a trait you can have, and change. The other (maleness) is one that you cannot (reasonably, for most people) change.
It's easy enough to be told "I don't want to interact with you because you smell" - I can change that with just a bit of effort. It sucks to hear "I'd rather interact with a bear, because you're a male." That's something I have no control over. You're telling me that a fundamental aspect of my existence means that I'm a threat to you, and that I can't be trusted around.
Quite simply, replace "man" with "black person" and try the whole experiment again, you'll probably see how gross the argument is.
Your feelings are valid, but so are women's. If 1 out of every 6 of my friends got shot by a black person, then I would rather be in the woods with the bear instead of a black person. Now, does that justify treating black people badly and avoiding them, no. You can have a feeling and understand why it is bad and racist and not act on it. Do women avoid men, no. Feelings are not the same as actions. You can be afraid of what might happen while going out on a first date with a man.
The outcome man/bear thought experiment never said that all men are bad/rapists.
Can you change it, yes. But it is harder (societal changes).