“Painting your nails is girly and therefore wrong” only works if we presuppose that being girly is lesser and wrong.
Not really. It’s also a challenge to the status quo, and people don’t like that in general. By that reasoning, cutting your hair short should’ve been seen as “manly, better and right”, but women who did that were initially frowned upon. Because it’s challenging the status quo, and privileged people who see no issue with the current society see that as a threat to it.
Yes and the status quo is “painting your nails is for girls and therefore wrong for boys”.
Women being discouraged from doing things or looking a certain way or having certain personality traits because those things are “manly” or “boyish” is an aspect of misogyny. Men are the ruling class, women are the subservient class and are not allowed to adopt the guise and the attitudes of the ruling class.
So women not being able to do boyish things is misogyny but men not being able to do girlish things is misogyny too? How does that make sense? You realize there are women perpetrating that too, right? At what point does something turn into misandry in your opinion?
Yes, women are subservient. Men cannot act like the subservient, women cannot act like the ruling class. Both are predicated on women being lesser and subservient.
So how do you explain TERFs having an immense hatred for men as a whole and actively insulting and rejecting any biological male trying to escape a situation where they’re clearly not feeling comfortable? Do you genuinely think those people who call for a matriarchy to replace the patriarchy are upset at men “acting subservient”?
TERFs do not rule society. They are not the ruling class. They have not created a system of violence and discrimination that affects all men at all levels of society.
And what does that have to do with my question? You explained the reasoning you think is behind every discrimination against people trying to break societal norms. I brought you an example of discrimination against people trying to break societal norms that definitely doesn’t fit your definition. So that would, in theory, prove that such discrimination is not based on what you think it is (or at least, not entirely). If you still think that type of discrimination against males is misogyny you should refute that part of my argument. I never said TERFs rule society, but if they discriminate against males on the basis of something different than what you said, why is it so unthinkable that the ruling class might think in a similar way?
Just a rando passing by. I wanted to say I really appreciate you breaking this down. This type of head to head debating is what I was really hoping to find on Lemmy.
Misogyny is a system of violence and discrimination against women as a class across all levels of society. Like homophobia against gay people as a class, racism against racial minorities as a class, and so on.
And a power structure is to the benefit of the ruling class. The ruling class is not systematically discriminated against and would not allow any systematic discrimination against them. So there is no systemic discrimination against the ruling class. The ruling class is composed of white heterosexual cisgender men, and there are no power structures against them on.
Not really. It’s also a challenge to the status quo, and people don’t like that in general. By that reasoning, cutting your hair short should’ve been seen as “manly, better and right”, but women who did that were initially frowned upon. Because it’s challenging the status quo, and privileged people who see no issue with the current society see that as a threat to it.
Yes and the status quo is “painting your nails is for girls and therefore wrong for boys”.
Women being discouraged from doing things or looking a certain way or having certain personality traits because those things are “manly” or “boyish” is an aspect of misogyny. Men are the ruling class, women are the subservient class and are not allowed to adopt the guise and the attitudes of the ruling class.
So women not being able to do boyish things is misogyny but men not being able to do girlish things is misogyny too? How does that make sense? You realize there are women perpetrating that too, right? At what point does something turn into misandry in your opinion?
Yes, women are subservient. Men cannot act like the subservient, women cannot act like the ruling class. Both are predicated on women being lesser and subservient.
So how do you explain TERFs having an immense hatred for men as a whole and actively insulting and rejecting any biological male trying to escape a situation where they’re clearly not feeling comfortable? Do you genuinely think those people who call for a matriarchy to replace the patriarchy are upset at men “acting subservient”?
TERFs do not rule society. They are not the ruling class. They have not created a system of violence and discrimination that affects all men at all levels of society.
And what does that have to do with my question? You explained the reasoning you think is behind every discrimination against people trying to break societal norms. I brought you an example of discrimination against people trying to break societal norms that definitely doesn’t fit your definition. So that would, in theory, prove that such discrimination is not based on what you think it is (or at least, not entirely). If you still think that type of discrimination against males is misogyny you should refute that part of my argument. I never said TERFs rule society, but if they discriminate against males on the basis of something different than what you said, why is it so unthinkable that the ruling class might think in a similar way?
Just a rando passing by. I wanted to say I really appreciate you breaking this down. This type of head to head debating is what I was really hoping to find on Lemmy.
Misogyny is a system of violence and discrimination against women as a class across all levels of society. Like homophobia against gay people as a class, racism against racial minorities as a class, and so on.
And a power structure is to the benefit of the ruling class. The ruling class is not systematically discriminated against and would not allow any systematic discrimination against them. So there is no systemic discrimination against the ruling class. The ruling class is composed of white heterosexual cisgender men, and there are no power structures against them on.
deleted by creator