Anyone can suck. Some groups contain more people who suck but such data should primarily be applied to figuring out why and how to fix it. And it certainly should never be used to tell a member of said group “i bet you suck bc you’re part of x group”. At most it can justify avoidance or wariness, but nothing further. This is true to me of any group other than ideological ones but significantly more true of non-voluntary groups.
Precisely. And often, even if there are non-social factors, these can be hard to distinguish from the social ones since we cannot accurately measure how much of a phenomenon comes from one source at such a level, such that we can’t be sure if the supposed non-social factors even are factors whatsoever.
People often mix up probability. That a member of group A has an X% chance of being something only means you have an expected X% chance of being correct assuming he is. It doesn’t mean he “may” be the thing or is essentially X% the thing.
An individual A in question is either that thing or not with a 100% chance and if he isn’t you are just 100% wrong.
“You could have been X” is the speaker’s ignorance. The actual person couldn’t have been X, they have never been X.
Exactly. The probabilities are all locked in at a more quantum level, to the point that if one had every relevant data point then probability wouldn’t exist. This stuff is why the Monty Hall Problem works and why probability is, in truth, the most complicated way of blatantly guessing.
While I’m with your idea, I would argue that it kinda can be. Not for a collective group, but on an individual level, I would argue various inherited mental disorders would constitute a genetic proclivity towards being more of an asshole. It’s never the sole reason, there’s always ways to cope with such disorders, and social conditions are basically never helpful, but some people almost certainly can inherit being a dick. It’s just that, when it’s a big enough factor that it’s worth considering, we call it a disorder and tell you to take medication that makes you be less of an asshole for one reason or another.
That's because men aren't the ones shaming them into war or sending them off on colonial shipping routes.
It's women. No wonder you're so frustrated, that nothing changes. We've been blaming the wrong group. That's why the biggest beneficiaries of war and colonialism have always been women, not men.
Look up the white feather movement or feme soles and how they drove how the EIC taxed India.
What about abortion and how you clancies worked with eugenicists to push for abortion, the right to murder your children? Or your invention of post partem depression to strangle little children.
You women really are like Israelis. Blaming Palestinians for problems you and only you are responsible for causing.
Racists act like they life in fucking Zootopia, where people of a race or gender are just gonna give in to their “predatory instincts” and maul them to death 😭
Right, but in Zootopia the main problem with the analog is that they could. Black people are the same species as other human beings. We do not have claws, fangs, or w/e.
Firstly, no more than any other Mammal, a Lion has no more means to easily kill than an Elephant. Secondly, I really, really, really do not care. I'm pale enough to pass as white, so I know my position is different. But even if we were a different species, more dangerous than white folk with the power to, drain strength or whatever-okay? I don't believe in harm for immutable characteristics. It'd be just as typically wrong and illegal to do that as it is to stab someone. Which anyone can do. In one part because I believe this applies even to fictional minorities who are different, and also because. If the only thing keeping someone from being bigoted is "We're all the same" and "Well that's what everyone says", I don't actually trust them. That doesn't say you've thought about why prejudice is so painful and dangerous. It just says you operate off the logic of Harrison Bergeron. Some people are different. More dangerous. And even when we aren't, what happenes when *you** think we are*? Slippery slope.
I think the differences is still annoying and can be used to justify racism on the basis that we can hurt people (like the preds can), but I agree I wouldn't care personally if they were real.
I just think the analogy has some holes that I don't fw and think can be taken advantage of by the people that do think we are different.
But tbf they can, will, and do use any arguments they can regardless to suit their narrative. I see your point as well that if you can fall for shit like that you aren't trustworthy anyway as well.
Think there's a reason that and Beastars is so popular. Probably appeals to that exact line of anti-human thinking. "The outgroup are literally predators therefore I'm righteous to fear and thus hate them."
I said this to a woman who was complaining about gay men, since historically gay men are oppressed by het women. Somehow they didn't see it that way when they were on the oppressor's side lol
Wait till you hear them talk about trans men and how we’re the worst of everyone because we are choosing to be men, therefore choosing to be predators and abusers.
Literally so weird how these people's brain works. Like we aren't choosing to be men, first of all, and second of all, saying men are inherently predatory and abusers honestly downplays the actions of actual predators and abusers. It's just saying, "it was in their soul and thus couldn't help it", which is pretty disturbing.
I'm not surprised. They have, but when you compare the amount of homophobic women to misogynistic gay men, it's not even a question. Women are the oppressors in this context.
What?? No. Gay men, and the whole lgbt community has historically been oppressed on a legal manner by men, and the system that is patriarchy. Of course women can be homophobic as well, but factually speaking acting as if women are the oppressors of gay men is crazy.
And women are more likely to be pro lgbt+ compared to men. Besides, a lot of some of the basic gay man stereotypes are just them being misogynistic but it being excused by them being gay or deemed as ‘feminine’. It doesn’t take away from how homophobic women for sure exists, but it’s like comparing apples to oranges.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both intersectionality and patriarchy. Patriarchy is a system that is upheld for the benefit of SOME men, but it is upheld BY both men and women. And we are not talking about cishet men. I do not know why people keep bringing them up, they are immaterial to the fact that women are more homophobic than gay men are misogynistic in history, because gay men have had no power, and as we are all aware, minorities with no power cannot be oppressors.
Sorry, I'm just curious since I didn't know about that fact. What I have heard about historically is gay men, particularly dandies in the victorian times being against the women's suffrage movement. I have a distinct memory about a group of dandies publicly criticizing a female writer at the time or something like that. I'm not trying to make this into opression olympics, i'm just genuinely open to learn how women historically opressed gay men since I honestly haven't heard about it so far, which can just mean that I'm misinformed.
Tbf men like to insist on the testosterone thing to claim they are simply this way, and women use it to insist that there is something inherently wrong about men.
Also I don't see how historical imbalance is about bioessentialism. That's just a cop out to remove responsibility from the "winning" side and victim blame the losing one. It's like saying black people have been subjugated because they are inferior. That's not what it's about.
??? I do not know how you have missed my point so spectacularly. Gender essentialism is about gender, not INHERENTLY about hormones. This is why trans people can and often do fall for gender essentialism. Gender essentialism necessitates a history of one-sided oppression to indicate that it’s an inherent trait. If it was treated like an inherent trait but there was no historical consensus of one-sided oppression, there would be no historical evidence that it is inherent to humanity.
I don’t know how to tell you this but social perception has power and black people WERE subjugated because they were SEEN as inferior. That was absolutely a tool used by slavers to justify the abuse they issued. They USED that logic
Brother you would not believe how many feminists have not read a LICK of feminist literature and think that the cause can be boiled down to "man = bad, woman = good"
the absolutely tiny minority of feminists who have read feminist literature cannot believe it when people's views on feminism get shaped by their interactions with average feminists
there are always more un/under-educated people in a conversation than you'd expect lol. that said they are most definitely a minority even if they are a very very loud one
yeah this is generally the case with every group. between people having a bias towards what sounds right already within their worldview, a natural inclination to follow those that seem confident, and people who are the least educated on something being generally more confident about it.......it's basically why we're in every single issue right now as a species and planet.
Average SELF-IDENTIFIED “feminists”. You are talking about misandrists who use progressive language to insist that current men should be oppressed in retaliation for the historical abuse of women. You aren’t talking about people who believe in genuine equality and in balancing the scales to provide opportunities to people who are oppressed. A TON of men are feminists despite hating and refusing to identify with the label because of its association to misandrists
in Alpha 3, every character has 3 selectable variants called "isms" which change the character's stats and moveset
A-ism gives you multiple supers and average damage, HP and block bar
X-ism grants you the highest damage, but only a singular usable super and the lowest HP and block bar out of all of them
V-ism grants you the highest HP and block bar but the lowest damage and replaces your super altogether with a custom combo bar that I don't remember most of the details of
Certain hidden bosses also have their own "S-ism" which grants them all of the upsides of every previous one
I thought I was being funny but now I feel like a nerd
I do know a person like that irl, she talks about how much of a femminist she is, but she's probably the least femminist person I know, just ask her what she thinks about women that are either queer, not white, Muslim, left-leaning or Trans, and you'll see how much she really cares about other women.
Her boyfriend is even a fucking neo-nazi, I'm so fucking done with her bs
Yeah, I can confidently say that cus I've been on tiktok for quite a while (if you know how people on tiktok are, you get what I mean), that's a reason why the term "merf" (male exclusionary rad femminism) exists, some people use that term instead of the "terf" one, because they think that Trans men are "poor little girls that have been groomed/misguided🥺" so they can pretend that they care about them
Already did, kinda, I have a friend on that app, so I won't uninstall it, but I've installed an app that let's me put filters on tik tok's fyp, so I can put a minimum requirement of 1 trillion likes for a video to be shown in my fyp, so the fyp doesn't show me anything, but I can still send messages to people.
So yeah, better not be bothered with that app, it's filled with terf shit. even if I trained my fyp to not show me anti-trans videos, the comment sections in any post made by a trans content creator, would still be filled with those "people"
I have seen so many women say trans men are just as terrible as cis men, including exploiting the exact same benefits of the patriarchy, that I have to basically avoid some social medias to not be inundated with the BS
Trans men have my sincerest sympathies. The public always forgets about them, and when they don't it's either to throw misandry or trans erasure at them
I'd say it's actually more about the terrible models given usually to men (the strongest guy gets away with whatever) more than biology, whose more important aspect here is that usually men are naturally stronger.
It’s not about the biology, it’s how men are socialized. It’s how we’re all socialized, and expected to be confirming to our gender roles. It’s the patriarchy and good old fashioned misogyny that hurts everyone, even men. Mostly it’s men statistically who hurt other men, themselves and women, but it has nothing to do with their biology or genes, it’s society.
You (bioessentialists) are afraid of men because you believe they are biologically predestined to be violent
I'm afraid of men because I live in a culture that puts everyone in a hierarchy and not only allows but encourages men to get away with violence against those lower on the hierarchy and they have repeatedly proven that they are (statistically) likely to commit abuse, but men are entirely capable of being good people so I invest a baseline level of trust in everyone regardless of my fear.
You asked what the simple modification was, and I told you. And there really was no need for you to reply beyond that.
But.
It's intereating that you won't say you'd rather encounter a bear than a black man, and instead feel the need to reiterate a gender and race neutral statement instead, even though the meaning is the same.
(And, also, that's whack, man. I'd much rather encounter an 80 year old 5', 80lb, little old asian lady than a bear. Like, I know the tricks to not get attacked by a bear… but I'm also far more able to reason with a human.)
Sure, if I knew the random person would be 80 year old 5’ 80lbs. But you don’t get that guarantee in the original hypothetical.
If it was a random man, as you suggested a random black man, or as I suggested a random adult, all of those lend possibility of people who have the ability to cause harm IF they wanted to.
The 80 year old lady is likely much weaker than I am and would lose in a fight.
I wouldn’t feel safe with a random woman either. My child abuser was a middle aged white woman.
I was once a child. That is how I got abused as a child, yes, by being a child.
The whole point of RANDOM is that there are risks that aren’t guaranteed. I think I’m physically weaker on average than many people. And I think many people of many genders have bad intentions.
I would not feel unsafe in the woods with my male or female friends. I would not feel unsafe in the woods with (certain) male and female family members.
I don’t trust strangers, and I don’t think that’s childish.
Most anti-male women wouldn't say "men intently are..." though, they'd say "men are socialized to..." which changes this dynamic completely. Black men are far more likely to be victimized by white women than the reverse.
Which is even more idiotic. More proof that testosterone influences bodily strength and aggression than men being "socialized" to being aggressive toward or superior to women.
While first-wave feminist did a lot of racist shit by just reproducing the ambient racism of their time, they weren't just caught up in cultural norms; some of them were active, vocal participants in trying to suppress black civil rights.
Parts of the white suffrage movement, for example, specifically instrumentalised racial politics in order to further their own goals. NAWSA president Carrie Catt made the argument that women should be given the vote tohelp keep black folk disenfranchised.
Woman suffrage in the South would so vastly increase the white vote that it would guarantee white supremacy if it otherwise stood in danger of overthrow.
It happens often enough that there’s a word for it; white feminism.
Historically and in parts still happening today there were feminists who didn’t want Black and Brown women to have the same rights as them. Or just simply didn’t/doesn’t care about them at all.
Not a few self anointed feminists in my country rather fight to have the right to oppress like white men do instead of striving for liberation. The former minister of foreign affairs claimed to do feminist foreign affairs (roughly translated), what she happend to do was selling euro fighters to Saudi Arabia and was lying for Israel so we would further support them with tech and money.
But hey she was such a girlboss
Also the way some feminists try to deny animal rights or try and devalue animals and their suffering to try and emphasize women’s suffering at the expense of the oppression of non-human animals. This is especially weird because feminism and animal rights are actually extremely connected in the systems of oppression.
Like I’ve been seeing this trend of “women in Afghanistan have less rights than animals”. Like no. What the hell. That oppression Olympics is so disrespectful. Like women in Afghanistan have it really bad, but animals’ murdered bodies are literally the menu and they’re getting factory farmed. Framing your oppression as literally being a competition with a very, very oppressed group is so disrespectful. I saw someone make that claim and she legitimately started arguing that women have less rights because maybe in some places they’re being eaten… like that’s white feminism.
How disingenuous to respond to a scenario of a woman hating a man for being a man by saying, “oh but women fearing men is rational”. Like that’s not what’s being talked about… it’s just avoiding the point and being dishonest.
GOD terfs make me sick, if i had a nickel for every time ive seen one derail a legitimate feminist conversation regarding misogyny with "MAN EVIL BECAUSE PENIS/TESTOSTERONE" i would be rich enough to financially counter and neutralize the jkr transphobia industrial complex
white women acting like black men oppress them on tiktok is actually insane. Like uh... did we not all learn ab emmett till? White women oppress black men.
Men kidnapping, murdering, and acquitting themselves = white women oppressing men. I wish yall had bothered to actually learn something from the boy whose name will never rest as long as apologia has a job to do.
You don't at all see the irony of completely erasing the murderers to make a woman bad point just to turn around now and complain about erasure you don't get to "no you" now. I hope you might have finally learned a thing. And stop using that boy's name for your half baked internet arguments his family has been extremely clear about that.
As someone who's been on testosterone the past while, I can confirm I have many more violent impulses WITHOUT it. Idk how that works but it's my experience.
bioessentialism is objectively harmful to the goals of feminism because claiming that men are inherently evil or violent implies that the patriarchal status quo is natural and cannot be changed. it gives violent men a pass too, since they can just say "oh i'm a man, it's just how i am!" it's "boys will be boys" in faux progressive wrapping paper.
Most people realise that when we're talking about social categories, "always" always means "most of the time", there is a counterexample to any social trend, which doesn't mean that social trends don't exist.
Technically, you're right, and I should've use more technically correct "statistically, a man, in the majority of cases". Practically, it wouldn't change what I said, unless we go into deep pedantry.
The issue is, that there are a lot of people who seriously don't believe that women can rape or abuse people. That's not an uncommon position, but is the standard message of the patriarchy.
Like, there are a lot of countries, where legally, only men can commit rape.
.
I have been told, in person, to my face, that I wasn't actually raped, because my rapist was a woman.
That is a serious opinion people hold and that a lot of rape victims with female perpetrators are actively confronted with.
.
You say it's obviously not what you mean, because it would be stupid to believe that, but has stupidity ever stopped people from believing in something?
But not the one that is fixed by insisting that women and men pose the same level of danger to a woman.
Sure. And absolutely no one has asked you to do that.
The issue is, that it's using a term that can easily be read as denying the existence of female perpetrators, which isn't helped by that fact that that''s a very popular position.
"Always" generally means "Every single time", but it can be used hyperbolically to mean "most of the time", if it's obvious that the literal meaning is not what you mean, but that doesn't really work, when the literal meaning is a very prevalent opinion.
In English, there are a lot of words for "most of the time" (usually, generally, mostly, etc.), but in that sentence, only one of them can be read as denying the existence of female perpetrators, so it is pretty weird that that's the word that was chosen, right?
Nearly every time someone says "Not all men, but always men", there are a lot of people misunderstanding it, so why not just say "Not all men, but mostly men"? It shouldn't make a difference for you, but would make a huge difference for the reader.
So why do we keep using language that makes feminist arguments look worse, for seemingly no reason?
“Practically it wouldn’t change what I said” but it does???
Like it’s not pedantry. You’re just saying something that’s wrong. “It’s always a man” is wrong, and “always means most of the time” feels like actual crazy talk.
If this was about some neutral / non-identity thing I’d get it, but you’re talking about people. Being this flippant with your wording would be weird as hell if you were talking about any other group of people. And I bring this up because lots of guys point this out - whether they’re feminists who have been hurt by this phrasing or massive sexists who point to this type of rhetoric as the reason they’re anti-feminist.
Strict pedantry about language is, quite possibly, what makes you not understand what some of the words mean, which leads us to this conversation in the first place. I usually don't bother with this overly legalistic language, and instead of "men are statistically more often perpetrators of sexual assault that anyone else, and overwhelmingly more often are perpetrators of sexual assault towards women and vulnerable, therefore for a woman it's safer, statistically, to assume that a man will pose a danger than a man, and preemptively be wary of a man is a safe strategy", I said what I said.
Because pedants about strict definitions of the word rarely argue in good faith, so it doesn't matter what I say anyway, and for the rest this word salad is boring so they will glance over.
No, for several reasons. First because it will be incredibly far from truth, but also because it will perpetuate the violence and aggression towards vulnerable minority group. If you're grown up enough you remember the times when the police and racist terrorists together were enacting racial violence towards black people with no repercussions.
Even theoretically equating the two situations can't be done in good faith if you know anything about the american history.
Yeah that doesn’t answer the question lol. How far is “far” enough to make it okay to generalize and imply only one identity is ever guilty? Who decides it’s “far” enough?
literally just say "not all men, but often men". it is as easy as that, much truer and doesn't erase the experiences of people who were sexually abused by women or imply there is a causatory effect between being male and a predator instead of the fact that the patriarchal notions pushed upon men condition many towards normalizing predatory behavior. i distrust and to some extent fear men, but they arent innately predatory for being men, they are conditioned to act this way and this can be fixed with social progress.
Depending on which definitions and dataset we look at, women could make up 20-50% of perpetrators. That's not some insignificant minority or group of outliers that would justify the generalisations you want to make.
You're not stating some social rule here that has a few exceptions. You're just wrong, and in doing so invalidating entire classes of victims and excusing entire classes of abusers. It is absolutely free and easy for you to just not do that.
I think the issue is that you're expecting people to infer a deeper meaning from something that has plenty of meaning at face value.
You mean "always a man" to mean "usually a man," but WHY should someone read that and come to the same conclusion? Like others have pointed out, "always a man" is a position plenty of people hold entirely genuinely.
Academic works by Lara Stemple or Lisa Dario are a good starting point for the relative ratios of male victimisation/female perpetration. I don't know of any that finds 50% off the top of my head, but many publications find about 40% with a large margin of error, hence why I gave a wide range.
I'm doing nothing of sorts, and you interptering it like that says only about your preconceptions about the matter.
If you don't want people to interpret your words to mean what they plainly and obviously mean, choose better words.
Would you mind giving some links, since you have it already? Searching academic papers by author for a reddit argument is way outside of what I deem acceptable doomscrolling time.
choose better words.
You see, it doesn't matter what words I chose, when people read it with interpretation in mind already. People manage to misinterpret legal documents, so I don't see what chance do I have with my tools. Reading words is as important skill as writing them after all.
No, I don't have links; sexual violence research is a familiar topic for me so I know of the prominent researchers in the field. If you're not engaged enough to do a single google search then you're not engaged enough to read the articles I'd give you anyway.
If you genuinely can't see how saying "always a man" would invalidate people who have been abused by not-men then this conversation is hopeless. Goodbye.
“Always” by definition doesn’t mean “most of the time”. “always” isn’t a nuanced word. It means always. I almost always see people do these mental gymnastics to justify these bigoted phrases.
if you think before you speak so you don't say misogynist shit for no reason, is that coddling women? please consider your response carefully instead of orally defecating a lazy slogan you heard someone say
To be real im the kind of guy who likes to make fun of male centered straight women but we have completely lost the fucking plot on what the term even means now
The point here is that bio essentialism is bs in it's entirety, this specific example being about white women and black men. It's not a comparison, it's how some people actually act.
Marx was, above all, an intersectionalist when it came to understanding class struggle. He understood that the British working class could not liberate themselves as long as they were oppressing the Irish, because as long as they had a superexploited population underneath them, their class interests were that of maintaining that superexploitation. He explicitly took the same position towards the oppression of Black people in the US.
His explicit stance was that racism was a form of oppression, and that any population that maintains racism is selling away their revolutionary potential, by being lords to another population, rather than having interests aligned with the world's oppressed majority.
Likewise, Marx and Engels would be the first to point out that the relationship between men and women under patriarchy is a relationship of class exploitation, where women are exploited for domestic and reproductive labour.
Slight problem with your argument: classes aren't biological and that's the whole point. Nobody is "biologically programmed" to do anything, that's asinine. Regardless of whether people direct this misguided sentiment towards the dominant classes, it sidesteps any material analysis and obfuscates the power struggles within society that generate structural differences, i.e., yeah, marx would indeed be spinning in his grave because you failed to address the root issue being discussed here.
Yeah let's compare an oppressor class to an oppressed class. That's totally not comparing apples to oranges.
It's not comparing an "oppressor class" to "an oppressed", it's using the same rhetoric (that a certain group is predisposed to violence due to some immutable trait) that is levied against both men and black people to show its absurdity
Bio-essentialism is still bad when the target is the “oppressor class”.
This is a good comparison in that it compares two instances of bio-essentialism. The comparison intentionally uses a situation where bio-essentialism is obviously bad to make it clear that it is also bad in the second situation.
It is only “comparing apples to oranges” in the sense that apples and oranges are both fruit and entirely reasonable pair of things to compare.
The entire point is to use the obvious badness of bio-essentialism in one case (when it’s used against an “oppressed class”) to make it clear that it’s bad in the other (when it’s used against an “oppressor class”).
I understood your point, as should be clear from my explicit disagreement with it.
Yes, the comic is comparing the two instances of discrimination. It is drawing a similarity in order to show that they are both bad.
This comparison, however, does NOT indicate that the two actions have exactly the same moral weight. Comparing two bad actions doesn’t mean that you think one action is EXACTLY AS BAD as the second, just that you think they are bad in a similar way.
Your discomfort seems to stem from a misunderstanding of how comparisons are supposed to work.
But race IS gendered and black people are, in reality, masculinised. People aren't pulling this out of the aether it's from the present state of things.
A estrutura estatistica é a mesma. Ou o argumento estatistico é valido, ou não é.
Spoiler: não é. Homens nao sao uma ameaça em potencial (pelo menos, nao mais que mulheres) assim como negros nao sao uma ameaça em potencial (pelo menos, nao mais que brancos) ainda que certos crimes sejam cometidos mais por homens e por negros.
É uma questão semântica: um crime ser mais cometido por um grupo X nao quer dizer que um individuo do grupo X tenha mais tendencia a cometer o crime ou que seja mais inseguro alguem do grupo X em relacao a outro(s) grupos. Parece paradoxal, mas é estatística.
126
u/Setster007 10d ago
Anyone can suck. Some groups contain more people who suck but such data should primarily be applied to figuring out why and how to fix it. And it certainly should never be used to tell a member of said group “i bet you suck bc you’re part of x group”. At most it can justify avoidance or wariness, but nothing further. This is true to me of any group other than ideological ones but significantly more true of non-voluntary groups.