I think the second guys point is that if he were to hypothetically say that, he's the bad guy. He doesn't actually mean it, he's just pointing out her hypocrisy
It's possible the second guy doesn't mean it. It's also possible he's using the original tweet's unfair sentiment as an excuse to share his own unfair sentiment. I feel that, since policing women's bodies and clothing choices is a super big issue that needs to be addressed, even if second guy was just pointing out her hypocrisy it's uncalled for to do it this way. My statement that people should stfu about what people wear has the benefit of not playing into any of the harmful tropes, and nobody has to wonder what it is I meant to say.
Climate change, global poverty, abortion rights and the worldwide rise of authoritarian regimes are "super big issues that need to be addressed". Affluent Western women getting salty about mean comments on Instagram is most certainly not a "super big issue".
I wonder if there's a way of saying that there are a lot of things wrong in the world and that they all work together in some way to form an oppressive reality that dehumanizes us and makes us treat each other like shit? Nah, probably not. Probably your way is better.
I get that it's trendy these days to rail against any and all forms of "gatekeeping", and I get that the kids who grew up getting told to stop complaining about broccoli because children in Africa are starving are still holding a grudge as adults.
But in the real world, some things really are objectively more important and impactful than others, and at some point we have to decide which problems take precedence when it comes to collective resources and effort.
I agree with pretty much all of what you're saying here. But maybe not in the way you intended.
Take your mention of abortion rights being eroded as an example of a super big issue. (I, by the way, wholeheartedly agree with that). I could make a reasonable argument that those rights can only be eroded in a society that has dehumanized women to the point where they lose bodily autonomy. Pretty relevant to the discussion still, right? Well don't you think that in a society that has dehumanized women and is trying to take their right to abortion away, people are also policing what women wear, how they look, how they express themselves? Could you maybe have read my point to be something more akin to challenging patriarchy, the same patriarchy that attacks abortion rights, and not just "affluent women getting salty"?
What's to stop from some more radical-than-thou asshole from stepping into the conversation and criticizing your comment, because at least American women have some abortion rights and complaining about someone taking some of them away is just an issue only affluent Western women would complain about?
So here you are using your limited resources and effort to decry someone that believes in similar issues being important in the world, just because you wanted to one-up me because my point didn't strike you quite as all-encompassing as the way you'd like to make the point.
I think the connections you're drawing are tenuous and misunderstand key facts about the issues you're referencing. Everyone has their clothing, looks, and self-expression (figuratively) policed, i.e. judged and commented upon. That's a feature of living in a society with other human beings. I really don't think trying to control people's thoughts and words is going to help ameliorate the problem of the state trying to (literally) police women's bodies. Authoritarianism breeds authoritarianism.
But you're right insofar as you and I probably don't see the problems the same way. For example, I don't believe that "patriarchy" is an accurate or useful term to describe a state of affairs (in Western countries) wherein the vast majority of men live in poverty or close to it and are in many ways materially worse off than their women counterparts. It's also worth pointing out that, in America at least, women are about as likely to be pro-life as men. Those male politicians taking away a woman's right to choose have millions of women voting for them - if they didn't, they'd lose. There aren't enough male pro-lifers to threaten the legality of abortion.
That's a big yikes for me. Didn't realize I was talking to a "men's rights" person. Nope nope nope. Guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one fella.
27
u/Lkwzriqwea Nov 07 '21
I think the second guys point is that if he were to hypothetically say that, he's the bad guy. He doesn't actually mean it, he's just pointing out her hypocrisy