561
Stay strong my bros🫂
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
561 points (96.2% liked)
[Migrated, see pinned post] Casual Conversation
3363 readers
1 users here now
We moved to [email protected] please look for https://lemm.ee/post/66060114 in your instance search bar
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling.
- Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible.
- Avoid controversial topics (e.g. politics or societal debates).
- Stay calm: Don’t post angry or to vent or complain. We are a place where everyone can forget about their everyday or not so everyday worries for a moment. Venting, complaining, or posting from a place of anger or resentment doesn't fit the atmosphere we try to foster at all. Feel free to post those on [email protected]
- Keep it clean and SFW
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What I'm reading from your writing is that both men and women in power have and continue to contribute to gender norms, which confine and hurt both men and women. If so, why use gendered language at all? There is much research and theory in sociology and specifically feminist studies about the impact of gendered language. I'm sure you broadly agree that "man up" is hurtful gendered language because it implies men should conform to a specific set of subjective behaviour. Why can you not see that a gendered male term for a toxic and harmful system is if not explicitly harmful, certainly implicitly so? Why not use a gender neutral germ like "structural gender roles" or something else which doesn't imply blame? Surely this is not the first time a man has told you he feels offended by your use of this word. Why do you not listen and accept the hurt you cause by your continued use of it instead of just using something less offensive?
Unless, of course, you do intend to imply blame. That men are more to blame. That more men hold power, therefore we should use a gendered word to ensure we are clear who is more to blame.
Some men. A minority of men. You're doing the thing right now. "Men" isn't a homogenous group, yet you're clearly placing them into one. Women aren't a minority group. How would you react if a woman wrote a post here about being raped, and I started discussing matriarchy, and how women, as a group, tend to act. Surely that would be a terrible thing for me to do, yet here you are, doing just that.
You make it clear that this is about attributing blame. You've dedicated multiple paragraphs to blaming men as a group. That's why you won't give up the gendered language. This isn't about helping men at all. It's about blaming them, even though you acknowledge most of them are not responsible. You must see how that foments anger from men, and how you are perpetuating negative stereotypes and animosity by continuing to use such toxic gendered language.
I think it's fine to claim that the majority of positions of power are held by men. I think it's wrong to say that "men" are responsible for bad things. If you're specific about the bad men (or even better, bad people), no problem. If you broadly refer to men when describing toxic behaviour, you're blaming people who don't deserve it. Just like one shouldn't blame "women" or the "matriarchy" for things either. Surely you agree with that?