762
You have a lovely home
(thelemmy.club)
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 27 May 2026
762 points (95.2% liked)
People Twitter
9997 readers
1491 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
God, this shit pisses me off so fucking much because it's this bullshit-ass pop-philosophy that liberals have settled into that pushes away young men and perpetuates the patriarchal bullshit in the world. "tHeY'rE jUsT pUnChInG uP" NOBODY SHOULD BE PUNCHING ANYBODY. The problem is the fucking system, not who is doing the punching. Libs get so wrapped up in anything but the system that they make the problem worse. Like the popularization of the term "mansplaining". Oh neat, so now the problem women face about being seen as competent is about men. Because, of course, feminism didn't come about to improve the treatment of women, but to point out who the bad people are. The would you rather for women about running across a bear or a random man is about how man worse than bear, not that women feel so egregiously unsafe in their daily lives. Libs are so far up their own ass, they'd rather create another fucking problem than actually engage in being part of the solution. Libs will see one problem and be like "but what if it could be two problem?" Libs see women get mistreated for no reason then go "men should suffer, too", then pat themselves on the back because now everyone hates everyone, no matter the gender[bullshit-ass heart emojis].
Fuck the patriarchy.
They have to play men and women against each other. Or else they would have to explain how systemic patriarchy manages to self-replicate despite worsening the lives of nearly all of the people (of all genders) who suffer under it. And the answer to that is: capitalism. Which is not an acceptable answer for the donor class.
To start with..... Have you ever even met anyone in real life that spoke this way? I feel like people on lemmy are so quick to see a post from an unknown random on the internet and speak about it as if it's an epidemic.
I think the critique is aimed at a functional aspect of the system. You seem to acknowledge the patriarchy, which is a critique of a hierarchical system that is largely controlled by and benefits men. I don't see how agitating against mansplaining is anything but critical towards people talking over or diminishing the voices of women.
How do you change a system without being critical about aspects of the system that require change?
The man vs bear is definitely an allegory about how women feel unsafe due to the discrepancy of power between the sexes, in both physical and societal power.
I think the point is to highlight the discrepancy between the experiences of men and women. For example the man vs bear scenario isn't claiming that men too should be more afraid to run across a random woman than a bear. It's a way to highlight their perspective, the point is we should live in a society where women do not have to feel like they could become prey to unjust violence from a random man.
You and I seem to have the same opinion about this.
Feminism has basically been co opted into a kind of psuedo liberal, privileged, socially acceptable because it calls itself feminism, form of misandry.
Like this OP image person would be the same person who would likely call a straight dude gay, as an insult, because he declined a second date with her.
Its wild because... like... these people are ostensibly 'liberal', they'll tell you they are, but they're actually not.
They believe in the concept of equal rights and opportunity, universally, for all... to the same the same extent that conservatives believe in Democracy or States Rights.
They don't actually believe in them.
They believe in them as rheotically useful dialects to speak about things from... but they don't actually believe in the actual principles.
Like we've gotten to the point in politics and society where everyone is so thoroughly full of shit, that we have an illiberal center, roughly, that then just pantomimes different flavors of rhetorical style... and then on the extreme ends you have people that actually believe in any principles beyond 'Im awesome and my team rocks'.
We are so fucking cooked lol, the owners have divided and conquered our minds extremely thoroughly.
Has it? Or is this just what people opposed to actual feminism claim feminism is all about?
There is a feminist subgroup here on lemmy and it does not look anything like this post.
There are many people who call themselves feminists who fit the description I gave.
Lemmy is not the entire world.
If those people aren't real feminists to you, then you and I agree.
But the word has become multifarious and muddled, leading to mass confusion and needless hostility.
"Many people" who behave like this and call themselves feminist does not mean "Feminism has basically been co opted".
My point is that there are groups of political actors that either fabricate or boost the few examples of this type of behaviour to radicalize young and impressionable men into right winged behaviour/spaces.
So can making a post claiming that this is predominant behaviour, or that this is something that should redefine feminism.
Can you name a single famous or culturally significant misandrist that a non terminally online individual would know? Because I could name quite a few famous and culturally significant/powerful men who are actively misogynist on a daily basis.
No actually that is basically what co-opting is or means.
Who said this was 'predominant' behavior, of all feminists?
Not me.
Who claimed that the definition I gave was of what I consider real feminism?
I specifically set it apart, gave it a new conceptual descriptive name, as well as definition.
Nobody at any point said that misogyny is not a prevalent problem as well, with very prominent proponents.
I'm not gonna be talking to you anymore, because you're apparently not capable of engaging in this discussion in good faith, you're either consciously or unconsciously putting a crap ton of words into my mouth that I did not say.
To successfully take over or assimilate something you typically require more representation than the opposition. You claiming that feminism has been co-opted implies that there are a large number of people behaving this way.
I'm guessing you don't have an answer for this?
I cannot think of a joke - except for puns - that do not have a victim.
Men in general / the husband is the victim of the punch line here. Or maybe pharmacists?
Much like dramatic narrative, from Shakespeare to Ted Lasso, all rising tension is resolved by a winner and loser.
I think you completely missed the point. "Nobody should be punching anybody" isn't about jokes, but discrimination. The answer to discrimination against women isn't to add discrimination against men. I'm pointing out that feminism is about liberation from discrimination rather than redirecting it to the "right group". The system should be the focus, not the people.
Also, it's not all victim this, winner that. It's not pie. Everyone can win, everyone can lose. Again, it's the system that's the problem, not the people.
I'm speaking dramaturgically. There's no literal Romeo and Juliet getting hurt, but in the story they both die.
That's what is meant by "punching."
Every rising action is met by a falling action. In a comedy format the tension rises to a punch line, where the punching happens, the fall is the release of laughter, and then resetting for the next joke.
You either don't hear enough jokes or you have a bad sense of humour. Either way this is just objectively wrong
it's not just jokes (again, excepting word play) - all narrative forms adhere to this. The concept of all stories is essentially based on conflict, where a platform is established, corrupted and reset.
"Punching down" means making jokes at the expense of vulnerable people. But all jokes have a punch line of some description- so it is impossible to be both a joke and have no resolution.
Some surreal humor relies on subverting this form somewhat, but the tension is usually released in other ways (i.e. a "straightman" or "fish out of water", commenting on it or else a structural change like cutting to a different scene)
There's no punching done in this joke, no winner or loser. It's just observational humor. The pharmacist draws a mistaken conclusion from his observation.
it's "winner" and "loser" not winner and loser.
If Cinderella, Cinderella is the loser to the step sisters, the winner to the prince's affection, the loser to time constraints, the winner to the final slipper fit.
It's a method of discussing rising and falling action in Aristotlean poetics w/r/t narrative mores.
Well it's a pretty inane method then
I mean it's how our brains are wired after roughly 10,000 years of oral storytelling tradition, and you can draw a direct line of storytelling methodology in most cultures back about 4000 years. These methods are what constructed the odyssey, the Iliad, the aeneid, the plays of Aesceleus, Euripedes, Sophecles, Aristophanes... all the way up to modern comic books, superhero movies and telenovellas.