this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
65 points (88.2% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

2115 readers
1 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It always comes from the "nice guys" type. But it is also commonly said on TV that women love douchebags and therefore love being abused. In an episode of Family Guy, Quagmire or Brian tells Stewie that women enjoy being abused, so mistreating them will get them a girlfriend. This idea is obviously wrong and damaging. It perpetuates the idea that women are weak and need to be mistreated in order to be loved, when in reality the opposite is true. Women should be respected and treated with kindness, not abused in any way. This insanity about women should never be tolerated, no matter the context. Not only does this hurt women emotionally, it always leads to physical violence. It contributes to a dangerous cycle of abuse, as women may start to believe that this kind of treatment is normal and acceptable. Abuse of any kind is never okay and it is important to be aware of the damaging effects it can have on people. This shit is exemplified by the case of Brock Turner, who was convicted of sexual assault and served only three months in prison. His lenient sentence was seen by many as evidence that society does not take sexual assault seriously, and that it is somehow acceptable to harm and take advantage of women.

My opinion (I have no doubt I am right about this) is that sexism is the foundation of fascism...

My brother who considers himself a leftist and defines his views as socialist. "Nice guys finish last" and "women love bad boys" are a couple of ridiculous things he often says. Despite the fact that my brother is pretty “popular” with women, he doesn't understand that the women he dates are almost always drug addicts or alcoholics. He dates them through Tinder. It's basically the same thing incels do, judging all women based on this sex app called Tinder.

We should never measure a man's success based on how many women he slept with. It always makes the men treat women like sexual objects or a trophy to put on a display. Fundamentally, they become an instrument to accomplish a goal. (I'm saying we should not "virgin shame" i know it's tempting but try not to do it)

The idea that women only love "alpha males" is complete bullshit and ultimately hurts them. In doing so, it reinforces the dominant-submissive dichotomy. As in, the strong should rule the weak. Observe in the picture I posted that this shitty person compares women to children because of their perceived shared weakness...while asserting that men are stronger than them both...

"""There is nothing worse in my book than a man who betrays the trust of those weaker than himself, be they children or women.""""

Having comedians like Louis C.K doesn't help much either with jokes like "men fuck things up, women are fucked up”. What does that even mean you little shit??? Men are the ones who shoot up schools and throw acid at people when they're rejected. Can't they both fuck things up and also be fucked in the head at the same time? These “jokes” are casually accepted by most people... I am aware that most communists do not think that way, but based on the example of my brother, I am skeptical.

Also, this shithead in the picture says..””many women are understandably attracted to good looks in a man, and willing to overlook some pretty obvious character flaws if the man is, and perceived to be by other women, physically attractive””

It’s like they all think women are 14 year old tweens...They are all naive, according to them.

This is why I am not surprised when a lot of these men end up being child molesters...

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Prologue7642@lemmygrad.ml 20 points 1 year ago

Unfortunately, misogyny is extremely prevalent in popular media. And not just in media. I myself always only considered women as my equal and as human beings (it is terrible that this is something that needs to be said…). But even so, I always find that there is some deep-rooted misogynistic concept that I picked up and have to educate myself out of.

[–] lil_tank@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

There is a form of romanticising both the "alpha male" archetype and even abusive relationships to some extent, which enables abusers and participate in getting them into relationships.

But dominant capitalist patriarchal culture is the problem, not women

[–] SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In The Will to Change, bell hooks speaks to the ways women (in the general) often uphold and reaffirm patriarchy and patriarchal standards.

She cites examples akin to what is stated in the quora post, but analyzed through a systemic, materialist lens rather than the myopic misogynistic shit posted here.

Far be it from me as a man to tell women what they ought to be doing, but I feel prof. hooks when she deconstructs the ways women can claim to desire vulnerability and emotional openness in men, but due to internalized patriarchy wind up shutting men down for being too emotional or too open - she claims she did this to one of her partners when he finally started opening up. I've had it done to me, for sure.

[–] lil_tank@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Interesting book, I'll try to remember it!

[–] someuser123@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago

I agree with what you said. As soon as I read your comment, I immediately thought of the movie and book 50 shades of grey.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My opinion (I have no doubt I am right about this) is that sexism is the foundation of fascism…

I think you're partially right. I think strict inviolable hierarchy is the foundation of fascism. Sexism (the hierarchical ordering of man over woman) is one form, but there are others: white over non-white, straight over non-straight, christian over non-christian, able-bodied over disabled. I admittedly haven't put a whole lot of thought into it specifically, so sexism may be uniquely positioned, but perhaps not.

Another aspect of sexism (and indeed fascism) is lack of (or overriding of) empathy. Empathy is a natural human emotion that (nearly) everyone experiences, and to different degrees. In my opinion, with a healthy amount of empathy, you can't be sexist, because there's no way you can not feel the other sex as equal to yours in every meaningful way. If you have enough empathy, there is no way you can force an artificial hierarchy onto people, or take it further and deprive them of liberties based on artificial distinctions. I think empathy is largely seen as negative or at least not worth much in the culture I see: it's seen as a "weak" emotion that stands in the way of all the Good Things like exploitative profiteering and warmongering. The phrase "be a man" is often synonymous with "ignore your weak emotions"; that is, stop whining about all the innocent people that will die (ignore your empathy) and be a man and drop the bomb. Similarly, stringing women along as sexual partners while giving them the illusion that there may be more, talking shit about them behind their backs and to their faces, and otherwise not treating them as equals can only happen if you're lacking sufficient empathy.

[–] juchebot88@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would actually argue that the foundation of fascism is purely economic -- economic crisis brought on by the problems inherent in the capitalist mode of production (overproduction and the falling rate of profit), one sector of the ruling class seizes power in order to restart the economy, and to gain power builds a mass movement among the workers. But that's in a way neither here nor there, because the things you've described are indeed features of fascism.

I will say, however, that I am somewhat suspicious of the concept of empathy, mainly because the word seems to refer to a specific feeling, and feelings come and go. Some years ago I worked with a guy who was (to put it charitably) a total asshole. We all knew it was because there were deep problems in his life, so we cut him some slack. But there were days when, if I'd suddenly heard he'd been arrested for drug possession and was facing jail time -- in a US prison, no less -- my first reaction would probably have been "motherfucker deserved it, hope he gets roughed up." Naturally, I'd try to suppress that feeling, or at least not express it openly, but I'd be lying if I said mustering empathy for him wasn't extremely difficult sometimes.

More reliable, I think, is to know intellectually and to continually remind oneself that humanity is very precious -- "the most precious thing in the material universe," according to Kim Jong-Il. To hate, really hate, any one of its manifestations is thus a kind of crime, for which one should always accuse onself and do penance. My father, who was a kind of radical Christian, once told me that to rejoice over the death of anybody, even one's worst enemy, is morally equivalent to murder; one could, he thought, be glad that justice was done, and be happy that the dead man would no longer be harming anyone, but one's overriding sense should be one of sorrow that human nature had become in that person so twisted and defiled. As a religious communist myself, I try to carry that mindset into my day-to-day life, and not to go around fist-pumping whenever somebody particularly vile, say an Azov fighter, gets wiped out in a Russian airstrike. "There but for the grace of God go I," and in a different set of circumstances that same person might have been an upstanding communist and servant of his community -- perhaps even a Hero of Labor or a martyr for the People. That to me is the main moral difference between communism and fascism (or various strands of ultra-leftism); we will use violence when we have to, to defend ourselves and those weaker than us, but we don't celebrate or aetheticize it.

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I would actually argue that the foundation of fascism is purely economic

Yes, I do agree with that. I guess when I said foundation, that was the wrong word. I think hierarchy is the form it takes on or that protects it, and even if it's essential it's not necessarily foundational.

More reliable, I think, is to know intellectually and to continually remind oneself that humanity is very precious

Yes I also agree here. For me, empathy is an easy shortcut to what I know intellectually. I feel empathy for a fellow human and that shortcuts the need to remind myself intellectually that I should respect their humanity. But you make a good point that even for a person that makes it difficult to have empathy for, or for whom you find yourself struggling to have empathy, being able to resort to the intellectual approach is definitely beneficial. I will say, though, the specific context I mentioned empathy was: with regards to sexism (or racism, for example). I think there, you hopefully won't have to resort to intellecutalizing, because even if there's an individual of the opposite sex you don't feel empathy for, hopefully there are some you do or, short of that, you are able to feel empathy for the abstract notion of a human who is not fundamentally different than you in what matters most: being human.

Thank you for giving me reason to revisit this and give it more thought.

[–] big_spoon@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

well...i'd like to interject. as a former PUA enthusiast (try not to throw stones at me yet) and someone that you can call "beta male", "AFC" or whatever PUA lingo referring to a male without luck with women, i can understand the reason for young males to be so sexist...i mean, before turning into a marxist, based on the teachings of the PUA scammers about NLP and pseudo-evolutionary stuff, i also thought that women were stupid and emotional creatures that love and pleasure men that hurt them, meanwhile, i was forced to learn "hacks" to get a little love and female attention, with questionable results, with the expected sexism that arises when you fail and you're still sexually frustrated and starving for love and sex. but i learnt that...i'm a stupid and emotional creature too! what makes me better than women? it's a hard pill to swallow thinking about women as equal when you're sexually frustrated and the society tells you that you're a loser if "you can't get pussy"

[–] someuser123@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You were never a beta male. The beta concept only serves to make the alpha male concept exist. The point is to make the guy who thinks he's an alpha (they're just losers who eventually joined a gym) look good in contrast. I'm going to tell you a secret: people like Joe Rogan are far from confident, but rather extremely insecure. It's all bullshit. They're not assertive, confident, or good leaders. The confidence they display is similar to that of a narcissist. In the end, it's all just a show, a performance.

These people push down others by calling them “beta”(they mostly use the insult cuck nowadays I think) to make them look superior without changing anything about themselves. Their position remains the same, they are not better than others, but they usually just go to the gym so they appear superior. The use of steroids is also a manifestation of their insecurity.

[–] juchebot88@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If there is an "alpha" person of any gender, it's someone who literally works themself to death for the people. (My personal hero, General Kim Jong-Il. Still miss him).

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The whole "PUA" thing is fascinating in a fucked up way. The lies they tell about women, and the bullshit they tell you will get you laid all only serves to make you pretty much guaranteed to never get laid, and if you did, it would be in spite of all the PUA stuff, not because of it.

Like all good con artists, they create a problem, then sell you the solution. Society doesn't actually really give a shit if someone "can't get pussy." It's only insecure, sexually frustrated manchildren who care about that. So naturally, these con artists target that exact group and tell them things that prey on their insecurities, while also offering the solution, that they alone can teach you how to "control and dominate women" or whatever. Of course, this stuff only makes you incapable of viewing women as people, which in turn makes it impossible to actually have a genuine relationship, so the fledgling PUA strikes out, then goes back to their "guru" for more advice, leading to an endless cycle. And it isn't until someone realises that the whole thing is bullshit that they can actually step away from it.

[–] big_spoon@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"makes it impossible to actually have a genuine relationship" well...that's true, most of "legendary" PUAs ended pretty fucked up: mystery ended with a mental breakdown, deangelo (or style, i don't remember) ended with sexual abuse charges, and most of them ripoff each other

[–] DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I meant for the young men whose minds they pollute with their toxicity. You can't have a relationship with someone if you don't respect them as a person. So no surprise all of these guys are major fuck ups in one way or another. Unless they are outright sociopaths, I can't see a PUA doing anything other than breaking down mentally, or ending up in prison.

[–] Jelamzer@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago
[–] juchebot88@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The point about always dating drug addicts and alcoholics is spot on. I myself go the Ho Chi Minh route with regard to relationships (i.e., happily single), but I've known both men and women who always seem to be seeking out abusive or unhealthy relationships, and they're always deeply troubled people. You can't judge "what women (or men) want" based on that kind of sample size.

[–] darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

The patriarchy is omnipresent. It fucks with our heads as girls, lies to us, gas-lights us, normalizes (even romanticizes) abuse, sends conflicting messages to us and then men are "shocked-pikachu-face" when some amount of women are messed up by this and accept or perpetuate the cycle of abuse by seeking out or continually falling into the clutches of manipulative men who are good at identifying and seeking out vulnerable women. (And yes there are women out there who do the same to men but they are a minority of a minority compared to the men who do the same because, shocker, patriarchy enables male abuse and provides victims)

Women don't know what they want they say. Well have we as a whole had a choice historically? Or have we been married off to our rapists? To men our fathers choose for land, wealth, influence, or a few chickens and a cow? When have women been in charge of setting the agenda for ourselves across culture? Never in modern history, never in the last 500 years in the west and western influenced cultures. Instead what we want has been told to us, drilled into us, blasted into us. Both blatantly and subconsciously through cultural indoctrination. We have been distorted by this. All of humanity, our sexuality, our relationships are distorted by this and getting out of it is a gradual process. It was not erected in a lifetime and it will take more than a lifetime to entirely tear down.

load more comments
view more: next ›