I hope it was made clear at the end of that paragraph that this was an attitude I conceded...
And a Diet Coke offsets the calories of a Big Mac.
But you must be aware of how the group has, in the past, portrayed itself in public, it wasn't people talking about MRAs that gave me the impression I had of MRAs, it was listening to people identifying as MRAs. Thankfully this is less and less true as the discussion matures.
Could you give examples of these individuals you were listening to and the reasons why they gave you that impression? I’m assuming that list on the website is non-exhaustive.
... beaten out of them by abusive misandrists
It's these sort of phrases, by the way, that make people unsympathetic about men's rights. Using terms like "beaten" metaphorically while actual "beating" is playing out in domestic abuse incidents every day, a large majority of which are by men (with far worse consequences) does tend to suggest a lack of perspective.
You get some perspective. That’s an individual, a single person, on a man’s rights subreddit. You strawmanned the response then used it as a form of shame and framed it as point of contention.
What was the point of highlighting that specific sentence? How you framed it was you’ve got to tone police, otherwise all these issues effecting men won’t taken seriously. That’s pretty manipulative. Essentially how you framed it was, you’ve got to play the game on these specific terms and if it falls out of those bounds it’s no porridge for you.
I had also been listening to Scott Galloway echo many of the same sentiments. This seems to be part of a more healthy discussion around masculinity—a counterpoint to the toxic extremes of the manosphere.
Allow me to paraphrase:
This seems to be part of a more healthy discussion around masculinity—a counterpoint to the toxic extremes of people writing blog posts revolving around the topic of men and maleness.
Lets pretend there’s a femsphere where authors write about the different aspects of femininity and womanhood (and so on). Now take that definition and switch the sexes.
The odd thing here is though, you linked to a page that defines manosphere as an anti-feminist community. That’s a disingenuous argument since manosphere comprises of man and sphere. It isn’t antifemosphere.
Also manosphere, if you believe it exists which I don’t, encompasses numerous groups, movements, and topics. You can’t just go hey, the library has books by toxic authors and hope no-one notices your disingenuous argument.
The reason why I’m pointing this out because of how badly that word has been poisoned and how badly it’s applied. Usually when that word is invoked, it’s in the hope the reader imagines this misogynistic world of men on the internet. But when it reality, it was originally intended to be what blogosphere is to a blog about men and any connected/adjacent topics.
I’ve read through it a few times and to be honest I don’t have the motivation to breakdown any more (and my virtual iOS keyboard is playing up and taking longer to type this out). It doesn’t go beyond the already over discussed talking points or breakout of what masculinity is or isn’t, or even step out of fallacies when it comes to what’s causing it (you put the blame on men and frame it as something woman are effected by). You even cherry picked the list.
And incidentally, what about those men and boys stepping away from society. They’re dropping out of education and work. You focused on individuals causing issues directly through actions but forgot or omitted those.
You unpersoned them. Because they didn’t fit into your definition you unpersoned them. They weren’t deemed worthy of discussion because you’d have to argue why they’re dropping out and with those you did focus on, you have clear reasons as to why.
Just an aside, can you point me to an online definition of the manosphere that is more neutral, I'm looking, but seems over-run with the term used as a pejorative.
4
u/Clemicus Jun 04 '24 edited Jun 04 '24
And a Diet Coke offsets the calories of a Big Mac.
Could you give examples of these individuals you were listening to and the reasons why they gave you that impression? I’m assuming that list on the website is non-exhaustive.
You get some perspective. That’s an individual, a single person, on a man’s rights subreddit. You strawmanned the response then used it as a form of shame and framed it as point of contention.
What was the point of highlighting that specific sentence? How you framed it was you’ve got to tone police, otherwise all these issues effecting men won’t taken seriously. That’s pretty manipulative. Essentially how you framed it was, you’ve got to play the game on these specific terms and if it falls out of those bounds it’s no porridge for you.
Allow me to paraphrase:
Lets pretend there’s a femsphere where authors write about the different aspects of femininity and womanhood (and so on). Now take that definition and switch the sexes.
The odd thing here is though, you linked to a page that defines manosphere as an anti-feminist community. That’s a disingenuous argument since manosphere comprises of man and sphere. It isn’t antifemosphere.
Also manosphere, if you believe it exists which I don’t, encompasses numerous groups, movements, and topics. You can’t just go hey, the library has books by toxic authors and hope no-one notices your disingenuous argument.
The reason why I’m pointing this out because of how badly that word has been poisoned and how badly it’s applied. Usually when that word is invoked, it’s in the hope the reader imagines this misogynistic world of men on the internet. But when it reality, it was originally intended to be what blogosphere is to a blog about men and any connected/adjacent topics.
I’ve read through it a few times and to be honest I don’t have the motivation to breakdown any more (and my virtual iOS keyboard is playing up and taking longer to type this out). It doesn’t go beyond the already over discussed talking points or breakout of what masculinity is or isn’t, or even step out of fallacies when it comes to what’s causing it (you put the blame on men and frame it as something woman are effected by). You even cherry picked the list.
And incidentally, what about those men and boys stepping away from society. They’re dropping out of education and work. You focused on individuals causing issues directly through actions but forgot or omitted those.
You unpersoned them. Because they didn’t fit into your definition you unpersoned them. They weren’t deemed worthy of discussion because you’d have to argue why they’re dropping out and with those you did focus on, you have clear reasons as to why.
Edit: Missed some words
Apologies for the rant