• @CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I never called Bob at the hardware store ruling class 🙃 but the ruling class is patriarchal and composed of men.

    Okay… So previously in our discussion you dismissed systemic misandry, because “it’s not a power structure”.

    If Bob isn’t considered apart of the ruling class, then the oppression of Bob, and other men by the ruling class IS a power structure, and fits your definition of systemic misandry.

    And by all means you don’t have to engage with me. The only thing I’m really expecting you to teach me is the biases in your rhetoric, so no pressure.

    • @LadyAutumn
      link
      11 year ago

      You still aren’t understanding what a power structure is.

      • @CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Nah like… I get what you’re saying, you just don’t seem to want to acknowledge the obvious bias and contradictions.

        Basically from what you’re saying is the ONLY way you’d acknowledge systemic misandry is if women were in charge… But the fucking gender of the person imposing themselves is irrelevant to the status of victimization. Misandry is about persecution of men, not about who’s persecuting, and when you see systemic instances of misandry, how do you not acknowledge that? How do you just ignore your own biases?

        • @LadyAutumn
          link
          11 year ago

          There are no systemic instances of misandry, because the ruling class is not discriminated against in any way and they are men. Men suffer, but not from an institution that commits acts of violence and discrimination against men as a class. Last 3 words are key there.