Gotta love that even the very emotional “men have feelings and need support too” post ends with “treat them as wretched because they are wretched.” Absolutely fucking tonedeaf to bring that type of negativity and derogatory generalization about men to this context. Big “not all men, but…” energy
Now you’re reading it incorrectly: it is “treat [wretched people] as wretched because [wretched people] are wretched”, not "treat [men] as wretched because [men] are wretched "
Quote me a single part of that third post that is explicitly gender neutral rather than explicitly about men, without adding your own interpretation in brackets.
don’t treat them as wretched just because they are men
Why would gender-neutral language be appropriate for this venue? It’s a discussion of how men are treated, and people who parrot “men are scum” will automatically say “yeah but what about the bad men? are we just supposed to feel bad for them?”. It’s written for an audience that is not specifically you.
Gender neutral language would not be appropriate for this venue, but it would be required for the “it’s about wretched people, not wretched men” interpretation in the comment I was replying to
It’s written incorrectly. “Only some men are sad. Don’t treat all men as though they’re sad.” How insightful and almost converse of the point, which is, “Gender doesn’t determine sensitivity or need.”
It’s less that the statement is false. But more that the statement is being made at all.
It’s like writing a post about how people are too quick to dismiss women as being overemotional, and someone commenting on it by saying
I’m not saying you have to be nice to or defend hysterical women, but don’t treat them as crazy just because they are women. Treat them as crazy because they are crazy.
It’s just bringing up a stereotype that acts as an excuse to deny men empathy, in the same way as mine does to dismiss women.
I don’t disagree with the general message of “Judge people for who they are”, but the way it’s written is tone death at best.
Maybe the circle they’re in is just pretty misandrist so it needs saying. But it just seems unnecessary to me.
I can totally understand your point.
While trying to argue against it, i find myself agreeing even more to it.
Only one remark: As you say, the message is in any case not really appropriate for the preceding texts.
However, i still think the statement can be interpreted in a constructive view and i try to give the benefit of doubt.
This is a post talking about mother’s and father’s dead children and their imbalance of support, yet the third slide boils it down to “saying all men are disgusting pigs hurts my feelings.”
And you get downvoted for pointing it out. Yet this problem will be blamed on men (“the patriarchy”) by Lemmy without any sense of irony or self-awareness.
Gotta love that even the very emotional “men have feelings and need support too” post ends with “treat them as wretched because they are wretched.” Absolutely fucking tonedeaf to bring that type of negativity and derogatory generalization about men to this context. Big “not all men, but…” energy
Now you’re reading it incorrectly: it is “treat [wretched people] as wretched because [wretched people] are wretched”, not "treat [men] as wretched because [men] are wretched "
Quote me a single part of that third post that is explicitly gender neutral rather than explicitly about men, without adding your own interpretation in brackets.
Why would gender-neutral language be appropriate for this venue? It’s a discussion of how men are treated, and people who parrot “men are scum” will automatically say “yeah but what about the bad men? are we just supposed to feel bad for them?”. It’s written for an audience that is not specifically you.
Gender neutral language would not be appropriate for this venue, but it would be required for the “it’s about wretched people, not wretched men” interpretation in the comment I was replying to
Except that’s literally what I quoted.
It’s written incorrectly. “Only some men are sad. Don’t treat all men as though they’re sad.” How insightful and almost converse of the point, which is, “Gender doesn’t determine sensitivity or need.”
I don’t read it that way. For me they argue that you should take a different view on wretched people and not blame their personality on their gender.
It’s less that the statement is false. But more that the statement is being made at all.
It’s like writing a post about how people are too quick to dismiss women as being overemotional, and someone commenting on it by saying
It’s just bringing up a stereotype that acts as an excuse to deny men empathy, in the same way as mine does to dismiss women.
I don’t disagree with the general message of “Judge people for who they are”, but the way it’s written is tone death at best.
Maybe the circle they’re in is just pretty misandrist so it needs saying. But it just seems unnecessary to me.
I can totally understand your point. While trying to argue against it, i find myself agreeing even more to it.
Only one remark: As you say, the message is in any case not really appropriate for the preceding texts. However, i still think the statement can be interpreted in a constructive view and i try to give the benefit of doubt.
That’s right. Judge someone not by the length of their dick , but by the content of their character.
But why even bring up wretched people at all.
Because they want to feel victimized and are using dead children to do so.
This is a post talking about mother’s and father’s dead children and their imbalance of support, yet the third slide boils it down to “saying all men are disgusting pigs hurts my feelings.”
Disgusting.
And you get downvoted for pointing it out. Yet this problem will be blamed on men (“the patriarchy”) by Lemmy without any sense of irony or self-awareness.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator