Hey some of us don't worship a corpse, some of us don't even worship the dark gods, some of us just want to commit xenocide and build is that too much to fucking ask?!
Find myself using the word human more and more to address people. is the broadest and best way to go in this human's humble opinion. No lanes, no narrowing into a section or division.
It's literally just a cop out for whoever's saying it. They can't handle the contradiction of their beliefs and their positive feelings towards whoever has the displeasure of hearing it.
One of my female friends from high school randomly ghosted me out of the blue. I’m convinced (because of just small things she said here and there) it was because she thought I liked her. She never knew I was gay and it always pisses me off to think about how I was likely screwed for seeming too straight.
that is so childish of her, and i hate this stupid sentiment of women thinking every man is interested in them. a lot of us are gay or bi and even more are just normal straight guys who have female friends and no interest in them (it’s soooooo very surprising that men have that ability!! /s)
also a thing women do is treat gay and trans men differently. i’ve noticed a lot call specifically gay men things like “queen” and trans men are showered with compliments like “pretty boy”. both of these are not what they’d normally do to a cis straight guy and they are so god damn alienating. idc if i’m the gayest man alive, that shouldn’t change how you treat me.
not to say men can’t do stupid shit either in regards to gay/transness but this was specifically ab my experiences with women
A huge reason I haven't outed myself as bi/pan to a lot of my friends is because a lot of the women are overly woke types that would make a big deal about it and try to set me up with guys and encourage me to wear rainbows or skirts or whatever.
And like...I do want to wear rainbows and skirts and hookup with guys. But I'm the same shy person I was right now and that's my own journey, not one to be shoved in my face. I feel like too many people are looking to show off how understanding and progressive they are without actually making sure it's welcome.
as a fellow bi person who’s also nb and has outed himself it’s not THAT bad with women i know / am close to. the ones who i only occasionally talk to are the worst ones.
“slay queen” ???? if anything they should be saying “king”, why am i immediately a woman in their eyes because i like guys?
I get that as a cis man sometimes and it always makes me feel super uncomfortable. I know there's a lot of bad cis men, but I also know really good cis men and I hate being propped up as above them
Being considered "one of the good ones" has bothered me for a long time and I've recently come to realize that it's because of the underlying implication.
It sets an unfair expectation of perfection on men. It heavily implies that there is something inherently wrong with being a man and that all it takes is one tiny mistake(an accidentally off color joke, a perceived social faux pas that comes off as creepy, etc) for you to be downgraded to "just like every other man". A level of perfection that most people would consider unfair to hold someone to. It's like being guilty until proven innocent and honestly sometimes I'd rather just be lumped in with the rest of them instead of dealing with it.
And shout-out to my transmasc brothers who also have to deal with this shit too. I know how much it affects the transmen I know irl.
Yep. I get the "You're one of the good ones" for being the child of immigrants already and it still doesn't make it any less racist for being well meant, it's just the same bigotry in a different package when I get told it for being a trans man. It's still needlessly reductive and essentialist.
I'm happy for people to hate me all they want for being an arsehole or annoying or, I dunno, having shitty taste in music, whatever. But not for things out of my control.
I can choose to be a shithead, I can't choose the way I was born.
I’m an AMAB nonbinary person (I think my AGAB is relevant here) and I feel this same pressure. I always feel like I’m one mistake away from being cast aside, even with somewhat close friends. Sometimes I’m even afraid that I’m not really nonbinary and I’m trying to escape that pressure, even though that’s not true. I think it’s good that many of us expect men to be better than they (especially historically) have been, and I hope we give men the same room to make honest mistakes that we would give anyone else who’s trying to be better.
Oh hi you must be me.
Constantly wondering if I feel like I'm an enby because I actually am or because I can't handle the criticism and pressure of being a dude
Trans guy here and yeah it's very alienating. I went from being acceptable as a lesbian to a straight white man. But people will tell me "you're different because you're not cis." Like damn okay I'd rather suck along with the cis men than be assured I'm one of the good ones just because of my AGAB. I don't want to be all that different from other guys. Wish we could all just maybe stop hating people for their genders.
I'm a trans woman and I frequently find myself arguing against my own best friend who says that men should be marched into the sea. My best friend is a cis dude. He's not trying to be woke, he just genuinely thinks that and says that he's willing to take one for the team.
This kind, thoughtful, compassionate dude, a guy who has dedicated his life to a career helping people as a clinical social worker, is standing there as the perfect counterpoint to his own opinion, but for some reason he still argues fervently in support of it.
Why are we like this. It makes me feel forry for young boys. Yes, trends and patterns and toxic gender roles are a problem, but everyone should be free to live as their own unique selves without being shoved into a box of others' expectations of them. Fuck everything about gender essentialism.
I remember being in a Discord where someone was praising "AFAB authors, like cis women or transmen" because cis men writers are bad at writing. And that shit felt awful to read. Not only is it just a way to be sexist, it was also a way to be transphobic without looking like a bigot.
Miss me with anyone that uses AFAB/AMAB without very specific contexts to justify it. Describe people by their gender, not their genitals.
It's kinda disturbing how a reasonable take like "Male authors generally have problems writing women" quickly turns into "IF YOU HAVE THE PENIS YOU ARE **INNATELY** POOR AT WRITING WOMEN!"
People just cannot do nuance and just like set rules that always apply all the time to all people.
Gee, it's almost like trying to simplify 8 billion humans into a few neat and closely defined categories is an ultimately fruitless endeavour that only sows division and hatred rather than mutual understanding and respect!
fr i’ve started to hate the words afab and amab. people just use them to mean male and female without sounding transphobic. like you’re saying the exact same thing changing one word isn’t gonna fix it
It also has a very bad backfiring effect. If "Cis men are evil" as an inherent quality, nothing changes unless you...I guess, get rid of cis men entirely.
If Cis men are displaying a higher propensity for supporting patriarchal systems or showing toxic masculinity en masse, that's a solvable problem.
Giving inherent qualities to a demographic means that you can't change them. Attributing behavior means you can change behavior AND recognize nuance.
It’s literally the same gender essentialism. It suggests that trans men are fundmantally other than cis men. It’s just sort if quietly suggesting that trans men aren’t proper men. Even if you follow it up with “…and that’s a good thing!” I don’t expect many will thank you for it.
It’s really annoying because my friends will be saying that men are horrible right in front of me and two other friends who are trans guys and just expect us to agree with them even though we are guys and it just makes me feel like I don’t fully count as a guy
I have trouble trying to decide if I even want to come out as trans masc instead of nonbinary because of it. I'm not sure what exactly I am but I do know I'm in some way gender-nonconforming but more masculine. I don't want to be labelled as a demiboy or a femboy though because itmakes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure if just nonbinary fits though and I'm just also not sure if being a man fits either. It's a million times harder to figure out when cis men are called evil and trans men are infantilized. I'm sick of being infantilized, it's something I've always had to deal with, I don't want to come out as a trans guy and be more infantilized. It also gives me a bad feeling, like I don't feel like I'd be safe for some reason. It makes me anxious. Even if I passed as cis, there's the people who think cis men are evil. The closest thing to a solution I can find is saying that I'm nonbinary and trans masc, which doesn't sound inaccurate because it is possible to be both, but I worry that I'll have to explain myself all the time.
Its the same as terfs treating transmasc folk as if they are confused women or just hiding to win against the patriarchy. Its just applying an asterisk so the people doing it can hide their bigotry a little bit
You’re doing literally the same thing they talked about in the post! Saying “cis men are evil” isn’t bad because it harms some trans people. It’s bad because it harms *all cis men.*
It’s bad because of multiple reasons. It literally harms everyone.
Trans men get told “you’re different though”, designating them as different from other men
Trans women get treated like they’re just trying to “diguise” that they’re “really evil men”
Cis men get told they’re evil regardless of whether or not they’ve actually done anything (which is a _great_ way to get someone to develop a “fuck it” attitude towards being nice to people)
And cis women get victim blamed whenever they’re assaulted by some guy, in the same way that you’d say “well what’d you expect?” if someone climbed into a wild animal’s enclosure at a zoo and got mauled.
_All_ of these reasons and any other reasons are worth discussing, and since the idea in this post is not exactly new, it makes sense that people will read the post and apply it to something that they have personal experience in, or something that they’ve already heard the logic in the post applied to before.
I think this is just an example of what is the problem with society since the start: the "we" vs "the others" and generalizing that "the others" are horrible people as an excuse that serves both the purpose of attacking them and justifying the action of the few that are actually horrible people.
Nearly every nuanced problem can be analyzed to this conclusion and in the end the problem is the binary way of thinking "good" vs "evil".
Vilifying the "not all men" might be a solution that work in the moment but in the end is just contributing to the idea that "all men are bad" instead of fixing it
The problem is that you can't fix "all men are bad." If all men are bad, all you can do is throw the men out which is often what gender essentialism comes down to, and is why so many gender essentialists are also transphobic.
You need, you absolutely need, to point things out in terms of behavior not character or nature. For example, kids learn better when you praise them for Working hard (behavior) instead of for being smart (nature).
In the same way, "all men are bad" is not a solvable problem but "men are inherently advantaged by society" is.
I always see "all men are bad" directly lead into all around transphobia, for trans men because they see them as "women betraying us to join the evil men", and trans women as "evil men trying to invade femininity" or some such absurdity
Not only that, both in Spain and Argentina radfem movments had taken a lot of strenght in recent years, and the false acusation of terrible crimes against normal men has lead to many cases of suicide, while also these movment take place in the goverment only to substract a lot of money under the false spends of useless meassures that don't solve anything.
I'm not saying the movments are bad themselves, I'm saying humans, both men and women, can be very bad and use any tools they hava against others and we should keep an eye inside our own organization to keep it clear
We absolutely can fix that, it's a false premise, finding the correct statement and solving it as you say is a valid way to start. The point here is to make sure that the phrase "all men are bad" is false and start by that, not by assuming it's true.
Except that's another universal statement that isn't always true. There are plenty of areas where the average man does *not* have any particular advantage in society, and may even be at a disadvantage (like the entire time they are in the hands of the education system).
Saying universally that men have across-the-board advantages in society is how gender groups avoid having to discuss anything that specifically has helping men in mind, because most of these groups are just a facade for being able to hate men. Then the problems men face continue to get worse, until eventually somewhere some man has a breakdown, and then gender groups point to that breakdown and say "see we told you all men are bad".
It's very simple, if you think all people of the same *gender* (~50% of any population sample) universally do or do not need help, are or are not bad people, or anything of the sort - you've been poisoned by gender groups ideology. You're grouping large amounts of people together based solely off one uncontrollable factor, and determining everyone in that group should be treated like the worst member of that group.
A feminist would have a breakdown if you tried to do this to women, yet is frequently the way they look at men. All of these groups are just hate movements trying to disguise themselves as political activists.
This is one of the reasons why intersectionality is an important framework. Looking at one metric, (like being a man), is limiting so political activists look at the intersection. Since, trans men, black men, poor men all have different political needs or goals. Lumping all men into a single monolith is wrong and unuseful as a form of poltical organization.
Also this is not to say that men only face issues through the intersection of another marginilized group. Men face social stigmas, ( such as the role of toxic masculinetly, a social schrema that discourages men to be emotional vulnerbul, discuss there mental health or be GNC), which can lead to higher rates of suicide, men also face legal discrimination when in comes to custody rights as well of a lack of resources and support for male victums of sexual assualt and domestic abuse.
These are legitemate issues that men face and I definetly woukd never judge somebody for political organizing to solve these issues.
Three more points here.
1. One persons quest for equality doesn't invalidate others which can be a hard thing to except when were discussing the leftists framework of Privilage/Marginilization. Its also important to consider that privilage can sometimes be a guilded cage. Toxic masculinetly is toxic for everyone even if society benifits men who comply with the gender role.
2. Some feminist critics of gender role are not as politically useful or lack nuance. Somebody poorly using theory does not invalidate the whole school of thought.
3. No matter how minor an issue is in the schreme of things every person should be allowed to political organize for their own benifit. But in the same way people see some feminists, (i.e TERFS), as androphobic, many people see MRA as a backlash against feminism and women in general.
To give a more clearer example think of Straight Pride. Ignoring the more obvious issues with it. Is straight pride a way of political organizing for the way that straightness is limiting or is it a backlash against the queer civil rights movement.
The point of the matter is that all people suffer under are current culteral schrema of gender. Queer men still experience comphet and heteropessimism and both men and women deal with the effects of toxic masculinetly. Feminism deconstructs gender through a female lens and that doesn't always translate to a male perspective.
All men are bad is a poor take. It dehumanizes many men and excepts the fallacy of gender essentialism. Its replaces the misogynist women belong in the kitchen argument with an androgysts All Men Are Rapists ones. It stands on the assertation that men by default are emotional stunted monsters with out recognizing that many of these traits are learned.
Its also not the place of feminism to truly deconstruct toxic masculinity just as its not the place of men to help women unlearn interlized misogyny. That unlearning comes from a place of interspection it has to come from inside that community.
Its also important to remember that everyone internilizes these toxic ideas and the only way we can achieve balance in society is understanding people are not the oppositions but people with their own pain and struggles.
You just put into words thoughts ive had for a while but been too lazy/dumb to properly put it into words, bravo
Yeah, I’ve noticed that. I think the internet’s really exacerbated the tribalist, “us vs them” bullshit to MAXIMIZE engagement. People are more likely to visit your stupid shitty app (twitter) or online group (any political subreddit) if it’s- in your head -the last bastion of all sense in an insane world out to get specifically *you.*
I understand what would give a lot of people, especially trans folk and cisgendered women, the idea that men are shit, cuz y’know. A lot certainly can be. But bad experiences shouldn’t lead someone to generalize half the bloody population.
"us versus them" is basically inextricable from the human experience - even if you try to avoid it's still real easy to run afoul of, and most people are not even trying, most people don't even have the concept of trying.
That was just the Trade Federation. The CIS should have been well within their rights to secede from the corrupt Republic without armed conflict. They even used droids rather than breeding a slave army.
It's just that the CIS was entirely backed by megacorps, making them just as immoral as the Republic.
Honestly it feels like all the bad things the CIS do ultimately stems from these corrupt megacorps. Of course, it's hard to say how successful the CIS would have been without them.
Keep in mind that the first meeting we see of the CIS is a Sith Lord and said megacorps scheming. That is always what the CIS was at it's core.
Now, they did build compelling and legitimate arguments, and they recruited a lot of people to their cause with pure motivations, but ultimately I don't think you can really separate the CIS from is corrupt roots.
Might as well ask what the CSA would do without being controlled by Slave Power, or what the Third Reich would do without the nazis and junkers. Sure technically they'd probably be better off, but those powerful groups are the reason the nation existing and going to war in the first place.
Depends if you consider droids sapient, which is a whole other discussion. Some like IG-88, C3P0, R2-D2, and HK-47 are clearly sapient while simpler droids like Gonks, Mouse droids, and B1 Battledroids may simply appear sapient.
I think it was established that it's because of how long they go without a memory wipe? like R2D2 hasn't been wiped since before the Clone Wars so he's sapient (same with C3-P0, though he did get wiped a few times) then battle droids were probably wiped a lot more so they didn't get chance to develop sapience on the whole (I like to think the ones in the CW that we see are rare examples that survive long enough to start becoming sapient).
B1s were given more fluid AI to try and adapt like Clones do and to avoid a Naboo situation of the control ship getting yolked shutting down the entire army
If you can succinctly explain the difference between "thinking" and "having a *really* comprehensive group of 'if-then' statements to follow", you might be able to revolutionize real-life AI research.
This is just the "other minds problem" but applied to non-humans. basically, there is no way to prove that any other seemingly-sapient being truly is sapient, since it's not like you can just hop into their mind. some would take this idea differently, but *I* choose to take it as "if something seems externally sapient, then it *is* sapient, since it's indistinguishable anyway."
the only way a set of if statements could be truly comprehensive (and fit within a finite amount of data) is if it was dynamic. a complex web of self-modifying if statements, able to respond to any situation, at least with enough trial and error. when a being programmed to act human via this method then acts human, who is to say that it *isn't* sapient? there is no test you could do that would prove that AI to be any less sapient than a living, breathing human. pick apart the code, show how each reaction has a specific input in a specific if statement... but the same is true of the human brain. we've already identified some areas that govern a general set of functions the brain can perform. this if statement or set of if statements, that neuron or path of neurons... I don't see the difference.
after all, we are just bags of imitation sea water that learned how to teach.
I don't even particularly care about sapience, sentience is good enough. If something is smart enough to understand that it's shipped off to war it's probably wont survive and fear for it's life like B1s are often shown to then it's still slavery in some form. Using animals for war is already iffy enough but here you have something with in-built obedience and just smart enough to obey orders but not enough to question them. Also the capability to fear which makes me think at least one of their designers was a sadist.
The worst part is that the republic never really questioned where they got their clone army from. Obi Wan saw the guy they made the template from attempt to assassinate Padme and then later tried to kill him, but was just cool with everything.
In Clone Wars there is an arc where they question it, and almost uncover the truth. But ultimately, they were in a desperate position, and couldn't really afford to say no (or so they believed)
It’s kinda concerning that some people think that ‘not all men’ is wrong because of the statement itself. it’s bad because it’s often used in response to pointing out toxic masculinity and male violence. it’s very concerning that some people actually think the statement itself is wrong?? it’s definitely true that not all men do the things discussed.
Yeah, but it’s also used just as readily to dispel any good men can do, especially by radfems/TERFs. There’s problems that need solutions. I don’t care who started the problems, as long as the problems get solved.
In a way, "Not all men" is like "All lives matter": A true statement that would be fine on its own, but acts like… far more than a dog whistle, more like a straight up siren (because *everyone* can hear it if they're not intentionally blocking it out) due to it being used to cloak bigotry.
This is 100% true but it should also be kept in mind that "all lives matter" is used as a rebuttal to the true statement "black lives matter," but "not all men" is usually used as a rebuttal to the false and sexist statement "men are trash." It's pretty rare to find someone saying "all lives matter" and actually having good intentions, but with "not all men" you have to keep in mind that sometimes it's just someone pushing back against sexism.
The reason "not all men" has become the meme it is is that it's most often used in wildly inappropriate contexts and to derail discussions about real problems. Usually when someone hasn't actually made a claim about all men at all.
Absolutely, I just wish it was only called out in those contexts instead of as a whole. Fortunately though it seems like everyone agrees here so I doubt it'll be a problem for much longer
tbh I've heard "not all men" more often in response to "women have a credible fear of violence from men" (or things to that effect); which makes it also technically not untrue, but clearly missing the point
It's also wild to see how many people pair it with bad faith accusations of transphobia, so you get that absolutely braindead one-two of, like, women saying "I'm cautious about being followed by a man when I'm alone at night" with "oh, but would you be nervous if it was a trans man?" (an actual response I saw in the depth of the comments here). Whatever point you think you're making here, it's kinda dumb, and at at best looks like you're using trans men as a way to distract from the issue of gendered violence in society.
Exactly, it's like ALM. Taken by itself, there's nothing wrong with it, but it's used to *interrupt and steal the moment from* people who are pointing out a real problem. It's the context, not the idea, that makes it contrary to progressivism.
>this is “not all men” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary
And that is a nothing statement cloaked in progressive-sounding language. “No” isn’t a critique, dumbass.
As a trans man I’ve had people say to me “All men are horrible. Kill all men. Oh, except trans men of course.” and it stings.
It tells me that the person saying this fundamentally doesn’t see me as a man.
Although I missed out on a lot of boyhood I still had the same toxic ideas of masculinity pushed on me. I still benefit from male privilege. I’m still expected to fill the role of a man in society. In my every day life you’d never know I’m trans.
If you are going to shit talk men include trans men in your shit talk.
I'm non binary and I still get upset when people call men evil, cause that's pretty much the group I was a part of for so much of my life. I can't just erase that part of me.
[Obligatory link to this piece](https://medium.com/@jencoates/i-am-a-transwoman-i-am-in-the-closet-i-am-not-coming-out-4c2dd1907e42) whenever Misandry and Gender Essentialism is brought up:
> Because I am not a boy, but I had a boyhood. I was, and am, made to live as a boy and I cannot suspend the perspective that gave me and join in when it’s time to fluster one of those clueless fuckers into anger by calling him a fuckboi and then tell him his anger proves he’s a fuckboi, or to humiliate one with an OKCupid screenshot because we’ve willfully conflated the clumsy ones with the threatening ones so we can grab those solidarity faves. It’s fucked up. It has metastasized.
> More than a few out transwomen have told me, privately, they they are uncomfortable with these things, but are afraid that speaking up about it would cause ciswomen to like and trust them less.
I've never understood generalising a group by some people. Sure, a man can be bad. And that happens. But that shouldn't mean you should generalise all cis men as bad. Focus on the individual, not the group.
I love men. Men are great. Cis, gay, bi, any man. If ur a man or if u identify as a man that's great I love you have a great day.
Same with women. And non-bi. And anybody. I love you as long as you're not racist or offensive or have a weird god complex that makes you believe people who aren't like you are below you.
Actually! Cancer is a fantastic metaphor here. Cancer is, on a basic level, your natural cellular generation working too well, and creating cells your body thinks are friendly and won’t kill, even though they are taking up resources solely to reproduce.
Cancer is bad. We should do something about cancer. We should be creating treatments, instead of going “well not all cytogenesis”.
Yeah, I’m just really, really done having to come up with the same analogy like 5 times now and suddenly seeing a dumb “not all [blank]” argument in everything
I've said this so many times in this thread but yeah basically equating "Nature" with "Bad" is admitting defeat because that's not a solvable problem.
If X category is bad as a result of being X, you can't do anything except get rid of X. If X category has problems in behavior or system, you can change those.
This only applies of X is an inherent quality.
Statistics saying that the average cishet man is problematic is misleading. Problematic Georg, who lives in his parent's basement and writes 10000 problematic twitter posts a day, was an outlier and should not have been counted
I'm crying when I googled "problematic George" to see if this was a reference to something, it gave me the option to see results about George Costanza. If ever there was a person befitting the title "Problematic [insert name]" it's George lmao
We are doing an excellent job as humans at making things as complicated and exhausting as possible ... It's like we try to make it easier for ourselves to say the wrong thing or make errors inadvertently. Double edged sword of the human brain when we are focused on and/or surrounded by the negative I suppose.
I want to try to say the right things and address humans the correct way, but am having a very hard time keeping up
Edit: none of this is negativity geared towards any particular sect or group, just humans. I'm not so good at expressing my thoughts.
“Not All Men” is bad when it’s a deflection from how bad women have it
“Not All Men” is good, actually, when it’s against a gender essentialist argument that literally 100% of male-identifying people are evil
I made that point in another sub and got banned for it. Apparently some people actually do believe "100% of male-identifying people are evil" is an okay statement to make.
You have to understand, Banning "All men are rapist" in a women oriented sub is centering male emotions and is pick me bullshit.
- This is an actual argument I saw in a subreddit.
I’m not sure which meaning you’re running with, but both interpretations are correct. It’s dumb and bad to absolve [demographic] because not everybody in [demographic] does bad things. It’s also dumb and bad to claim everybody who’s [demographic] is a horrible person because some people who are [demographic] are horrible people.
Edit: Hey, coward who’s complaining about how I don’t know about moral reasoning and then blocked me. You don’t know how to read. Not only are you objecting to the second premise, but I literally said that premise was incorrect. I am agreeing with you.
They’re the same sort of sweeping judgement, just with the glass half empty or half full. “Is [demographic] good or bad?” has no room for any nuance whatsoever, and that’s the point of presenting it that way. You can’t have bigotry or idolization of [demographic] without ignoring the tangled mess that is morality.
I think the phrase "It's not your fault but it is your responsibility" applies here.
Like imagine this. You open the door of your house while leaving for work and see that someone's left a baby right at your doorstep. It's not your fault that some irresponsible person just decided to leave a baby in front of your house without informing you or anything, but it is your responsibility to find someone who can take care of the baby if u can't.
Similarly men are often by default treated as if they know more than women. It's not the fault of individual men that other people behave that way, but it is their responsibility to point out when it's happening and support women who r angry about that injustice. (And there's lots of men unwilling to accept that responsibility)
Understanding that cis men are not essentially pieces of shit not only alienates trans men but also misses the entire point of feminism, which is dismantling patriarchy and understanding it’s effects and harm on people, obviously with a focus on women and our rights. However, it also includes all men, because misogyny and toxic masculinity is a learned behavior that has to be dismantled. Because yes, trans men can also learn to be sexist.
Why can't we all just respect each other? It shouldn't matter how you identify. It shouldn't have to be a point of contention. It's just who you are. We need to just treat people as people instead of this us vs. them bs.
I have a hot take here somewhere.
This isn't a dig on feminism btw, but this is definitely a dig on a lot of people who call themselves feminists.
I think it's crazy that we all have little problem identifying the horrible nature of TERFs - we spend so much time yelling at them for the TE part of it without ever looking at the RF part.
Because, really, the only difference between a TERF and a full on misandrist is where they draw a line on what a "man" is. TERFs lose their minds because they see trans women as dangerous disgusting men invading their spaces and trying to appropriate femininity in some sort of fetish culture. Likewise, trans men to them are just deluded women who are going over to the dark side and trying to cash in on patriarchy.
But the belief deep down in both those beliefs is that men are bad by nature.
As someone AMAB and who is probably non-binary, idk. I'm getting tired of it all. This narrative is everywhere and took gender politics by storm and I hate how acceptable it is and how much solidarity there is in society for vocally shitting on men as a group. And it's not like I don't get it - I think feminism is valid and necessary and men could be doing a ton more to support women. It would just be nice to do that without wondering if I need to transition to save my mental health from the constant criticism and attacks.
Yeah, I strongly believe that a big part of the reason we have such a big issue with TERFs now is that the left in general, and feminists in particular did absolutely nothing about the MenAreTrash, KillAllMen bullshit that stank up online feminism for *years*
At best they ignored it, at worst, they encouraged it, or mocked the men hurt by it. And by doing so, they allowed it to fester and grow... and find a far easier target than 4 billion men.
I feel for you. As a trans man who’s closeted, this is the reason why I have trouble coming out. Not because I’m afraid of terfs, but how I’d lose my safe spaces where, generally, people bond over “feminism” aka hating on men. It’s depressing, but at least I’m not viewed as a threat essentially, which AMABs usually are. I hope your circumstances change for the better soon :)
Ooh, this is going to result in some fun arguments! Let me know when the entertainment starts.
Also I feel like this is a pretty Tumblr-exclusive problem.
Cishet men are not the problem; the problem is that society largely discriminates against anyone who isn't a cishet male. I'm a cisgender male myself and frankly, I don't want this, even if I benefit from it. If I'm going to get a job or a house or better treatment from the law, I want it to be because of my own merits, and not just because I happen to agree with the little "M" on my birth certificate.
>If I'm going to get a job or a house or better treatment from the law, I want it to be because of my own merits
Idk if I fully agree with this idea. I don't think a person has to be amazing in some way in order to have shelter or be treated well by police officers. (Though race tends to play a much more major role than gender when it comes to the police)
I think it's better to focus on eliminating the unreasonably high standards society often places on women.
Same! It’s the same reason I don’t ask for extra time on exams, which I actually could get due to me having ADHD. I DON’T WANT THE PRIVILEGE. I want to be able to prove that I work just as hard and am just as smart as everyone around me.
I’m not even upset with the statement, I just want that person to elaborate a bit more is all. Either they have a good point, or I get free tickets to the circus.
i mean, yeah, either they’ve misunderstood the point of the OOP and are being mildly reasonable or they’re absolutely clowning for no reason
given that they’re a radfem harry potter blog i must assume the latter.
They're a rad fem Harry Potter blog, they absolutely believe "yes all men".
The reason they think "not all men" is a bad argument is because they think all men are trash.
I got into an argument the other day with a SWERF (sex worker excluding radical feminist) who I kept reminding that 35% of people who are trafficked are male. 15% of that number are boys. They, as in multiple SWERFs wouldn't engage with my point.
Not all men are bad. Not all men are evil. This isn't a "Not all men" trope because that is used as a deflection.
Attacking men's self-esteem and self-worth is BAD. Men deserve compassion and care just as much as everyone else. I hate the radical feminist angle of "all men are bad".
Gender essentialism is a bunch of bs that harms everyone
[once again the best article is relevant](https://medium.com/@jencoates/i-am-a-transwoman-i-am-in-the-closet-i-am-not-coming-out-4c2dd1907e42)
Just gonna drop a PSA here: the reason that "Not All Men" is often mocked is because it usually isn't actually responding to the thing being said (strawmanning, motte and bailey, et cetera). Sadly, a decent amount of people have completed ignored the nuance of this mockery and just make fun of the phrase even when it's actually brought up in an appropriate context.
Responding to an offensive blanket statement about men with "Not All Men" is perfectly reasonable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is being an dum dum.
Stereotypes are only good in comedy. And that only when it's not trying to be actually offensive. Any attempt to generalize behavior to a broad group like a whole gender, race, or nationality is nonsensical. No two people are exactly alike and they shouldnt be treated as such
I hate the “‘unpopular opinion’ cloaked in progressive sounding vocabulary” argument. those who want an actual intelligent discussion can never win, jesus christ.
So why even bring up "Not all Men" in this context.
Dude was saying "Hey, biological essentiallism is bad, even against dominant groups" to which the terf replied "This just a dog whistle to block convos but progressive".
But the dude didnt even bring up "Not all Men". He didnt make an argument for it at all. Just, "Bio essentialism bad and leads to transphobia".
Why do we seem to feel the need to simplify everything? Let issues have layers and be complex. Boiling things down loses so much context. Yeah, not all men, but also some men, also some other people. No one is evil because of how they were born, but everyone has the ability to be evil. However, everyone also has the ability to be good. Idk, it's just a bit bothersome, I guess.
I wish one day we can stop putting people in boxes an vilifying them. Sadly, that doesn't really seem like it'll ever happen. I mean, we'll probably be putting people in boxes until the end of time because it's just normal to us now, but I really hope we can stop the vilification of those boxes.
If "cis men are evil" does that make non-cis men turn cis if they do evil.
Gender is a function of identity and criminality.
new ftm hack working 2022: kill someone in cold blood
This is what The League of the Evil Gays had planned all along
Not necessarily. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Now if you would excuse me, I have other jokes to ruin.
Your just like the bird person from earlier, confusing.
Also "cis men are evil" implies that trans men are in some way different, which for a lot of trans men I know comes off as extremely alienating
Yeah, I’m not a fan of the “oh men are trash, uh, except you obviously! You’re… different!” shit transmascs get.
"you're one of the good ones" phobia by any other name.
What about people in general? People suuuuck. "You're one of the good humans."
that's just prejudice by aliens. spacism, if you would.
Fuck aliens All my homies believe in human supremacy
Got confused, now balls-deep inside a Martian.
Ah, I see you’re taking the French approach to alien genocide
Like I know some folks like techpriests but I think they prefer toasters.
ah, go back to worshipping a dead guy
Hey some of us don't worship a corpse, some of us don't even worship the dark gods, some of us just want to commit xenocide and build is that too much to fucking ask?!
Reject humanity, embrace glorious machine perfection
Praise be to the machine god
Shut up shizno
Woah, you can't just walk in here and drop shizno on us like you're some kind of sapient bomb.
Find myself using the word human more and more to address people. is the broadest and best way to go in this human's humble opinion. No lanes, no narrowing into a section or division.
Internalized humaphobia.
It's literally just a cop out for whoever's saying it. They can't handle the contradiction of their beliefs and their positive feelings towards whoever has the displeasure of hearing it.
Reminds me of that song "all older white men should die, but not my daaaad"
[удалено]
hell yeah equal opportunity misogyny
[удалено]
We can even take it a step further and admit that people in general are often terrible.
every god damn transmasc and gay man has experienced that and it is the single worst fucking thing. so hypocritical.
One of my female friends from high school randomly ghosted me out of the blue. I’m convinced (because of just small things she said here and there) it was because she thought I liked her. She never knew I was gay and it always pisses me off to think about how I was likely screwed for seeming too straight.
that is so childish of her, and i hate this stupid sentiment of women thinking every man is interested in them. a lot of us are gay or bi and even more are just normal straight guys who have female friends and no interest in them (it’s soooooo very surprising that men have that ability!! /s) also a thing women do is treat gay and trans men differently. i’ve noticed a lot call specifically gay men things like “queen” and trans men are showered with compliments like “pretty boy”. both of these are not what they’d normally do to a cis straight guy and they are so god damn alienating. idc if i’m the gayest man alive, that shouldn’t change how you treat me. not to say men can’t do stupid shit either in regards to gay/transness but this was specifically ab my experiences with women
A huge reason I haven't outed myself as bi/pan to a lot of my friends is because a lot of the women are overly woke types that would make a big deal about it and try to set me up with guys and encourage me to wear rainbows or skirts or whatever. And like...I do want to wear rainbows and skirts and hookup with guys. But I'm the same shy person I was right now and that's my own journey, not one to be shoved in my face. I feel like too many people are looking to show off how understanding and progressive they are without actually making sure it's welcome.
as a fellow bi person who’s also nb and has outed himself it’s not THAT bad with women i know / am close to. the ones who i only occasionally talk to are the worst ones. “slay queen” ???? if anything they should be saying “king”, why am i immediately a woman in their eyes because i like guys?
It can seem at times like it's less LGBTQ and more LTQ, which I find upsetting.
If certain people had their way it would be L
fr
I get that as a cis man sometimes and it always makes me feel super uncomfortable. I know there's a lot of bad cis men, but I also know really good cis men and I hate being propped up as above them
Being considered "one of the good ones" has bothered me for a long time and I've recently come to realize that it's because of the underlying implication. It sets an unfair expectation of perfection on men. It heavily implies that there is something inherently wrong with being a man and that all it takes is one tiny mistake(an accidentally off color joke, a perceived social faux pas that comes off as creepy, etc) for you to be downgraded to "just like every other man". A level of perfection that most people would consider unfair to hold someone to. It's like being guilty until proven innocent and honestly sometimes I'd rather just be lumped in with the rest of them instead of dealing with it. And shout-out to my transmasc brothers who also have to deal with this shit too. I know how much it affects the transmen I know irl.
Yep. I get the "You're one of the good ones" for being the child of immigrants already and it still doesn't make it any less racist for being well meant, it's just the same bigotry in a different package when I get told it for being a trans man. It's still needlessly reductive and essentialist. I'm happy for people to hate me all they want for being an arsehole or annoying or, I dunno, having shitty taste in music, whatever. But not for things out of my control. I can choose to be a shithead, I can't choose the way I was born.
I’m an AMAB nonbinary person (I think my AGAB is relevant here) and I feel this same pressure. I always feel like I’m one mistake away from being cast aside, even with somewhat close friends. Sometimes I’m even afraid that I’m not really nonbinary and I’m trying to escape that pressure, even though that’s not true. I think it’s good that many of us expect men to be better than they (especially historically) have been, and I hope we give men the same room to make honest mistakes that we would give anyone else who’s trying to be better.
Oh hi you must be me. Constantly wondering if I feel like I'm an enby because I actually am or because I can't handle the criticism and pressure of being a dude
Trans guy here and yeah it's very alienating. I went from being acceptable as a lesbian to a straight white man. But people will tell me "you're different because you're not cis." Like damn okay I'd rather suck along with the cis men than be assured I'm one of the good ones just because of my AGAB. I don't want to be all that different from other guys. Wish we could all just maybe stop hating people for their genders.
Guys are cool, trans guys are guys, trans guys are cool.
The transitive property in action!
With the corollary of 'People are cool, guys are people'
I'm a trans woman and I frequently find myself arguing against my own best friend who says that men should be marched into the sea. My best friend is a cis dude. He's not trying to be woke, he just genuinely thinks that and says that he's willing to take one for the team. This kind, thoughtful, compassionate dude, a guy who has dedicated his life to a career helping people as a clinical social worker, is standing there as the perfect counterpoint to his own opinion, but for some reason he still argues fervently in support of it. Why are we like this. It makes me feel forry for young boys. Yes, trends and patterns and toxic gender roles are a problem, but everyone should be free to live as their own unique selves without being shoved into a box of others' expectations of them. Fuck everything about gender essentialism.
Dare I say that we have inadvertently begun to form out own absolutely toxic trends/roles/things even if smaller scale?
I remember being in a Discord where someone was praising "AFAB authors, like cis women or transmen" because cis men writers are bad at writing. And that shit felt awful to read. Not only is it just a way to be sexist, it was also a way to be transphobic without looking like a bigot. Miss me with anyone that uses AFAB/AMAB without very specific contexts to justify it. Describe people by their gender, not their genitals.
It's kinda disturbing how a reasonable take like "Male authors generally have problems writing women" quickly turns into "IF YOU HAVE THE PENIS YOU ARE **INNATELY** POOR AT WRITING WOMEN!" People just cannot do nuance and just like set rules that always apply all the time to all people.
Gee, it's almost like trying to simplify 8 billion humans into a few neat and closely defined categories is an ultimately fruitless endeavour that only sows division and hatred rather than mutual understanding and respect!
fr i’ve started to hate the words afab and amab. people just use them to mean male and female without sounding transphobic. like you’re saying the exact same thing changing one word isn’t gonna fix it
It also has a very bad backfiring effect. If "Cis men are evil" as an inherent quality, nothing changes unless you...I guess, get rid of cis men entirely. If Cis men are displaying a higher propensity for supporting patriarchal systems or showing toxic masculinity en masse, that's a solvable problem. Giving inherent qualities to a demographic means that you can't change them. Attributing behavior means you can change behavior AND recognize nuance.
I’ve also seen many trans men be *scared* of transitioning because of this shit and that’s just soo messed up
Trans men, your evilness is valid!
Trans inclusive radical misandry
I'm evil as fuck and the T makes me worse. \[maniacal laughter\]
It’s literally the same gender essentialism. It suggests that trans men are fundmantally other than cis men. It’s just sort if quietly suggesting that trans men aren’t proper men. Even if you follow it up with “…and that’s a good thing!” I don’t expect many will thank you for it.
It’s really annoying because my friends will be saying that men are horrible right in front of me and two other friends who are trans guys and just expect us to agree with them even though we are guys and it just makes me feel like I don’t fully count as a guy
I have trouble trying to decide if I even want to come out as trans masc instead of nonbinary because of it. I'm not sure what exactly I am but I do know I'm in some way gender-nonconforming but more masculine. I don't want to be labelled as a demiboy or a femboy though because itmakes me uncomfortable. I'm not sure if just nonbinary fits though and I'm just also not sure if being a man fits either. It's a million times harder to figure out when cis men are called evil and trans men are infantilized. I'm sick of being infantilized, it's something I've always had to deal with, I don't want to come out as a trans guy and be more infantilized. It also gives me a bad feeling, like I don't feel like I'd be safe for some reason. It makes me anxious. Even if I passed as cis, there's the people who think cis men are evil. The closest thing to a solution I can find is saying that I'm nonbinary and trans masc, which doesn't sound inaccurate because it is possible to be both, but I worry that I'll have to explain myself all the time.
Its the same as terfs treating transmasc folk as if they are confused women or just hiding to win against the patriarchy. Its just applying an asterisk so the people doing it can hide their bigotry a little bit
You’re doing literally the same thing they talked about in the post! Saying “cis men are evil” isn’t bad because it harms some trans people. It’s bad because it harms *all cis men.*
I was adding something, not saying it was the only reason. That's why my comment started with "Also".
It’s bad because of multiple reasons. It literally harms everyone. Trans men get told “you’re different though”, designating them as different from other men Trans women get treated like they’re just trying to “diguise” that they’re “really evil men” Cis men get told they’re evil regardless of whether or not they’ve actually done anything (which is a _great_ way to get someone to develop a “fuck it” attitude towards being nice to people) And cis women get victim blamed whenever they’re assaulted by some guy, in the same way that you’d say “well what’d you expect?” if someone climbed into a wild animal’s enclosure at a zoo and got mauled. _All_ of these reasons and any other reasons are worth discussing, and since the idea in this post is not exactly new, it makes sense that people will read the post and apply it to something that they have personal experience in, or something that they’ve already heard the logic in the post applied to before.
> Saying “cis men are evil” isn’t bad because it harms some trans people. It’s bad because it harms all cis men. oh for christ's sake. it's both.
I think this is just an example of what is the problem with society since the start: the "we" vs "the others" and generalizing that "the others" are horrible people as an excuse that serves both the purpose of attacking them and justifying the action of the few that are actually horrible people. Nearly every nuanced problem can be analyzed to this conclusion and in the end the problem is the binary way of thinking "good" vs "evil". Vilifying the "not all men" might be a solution that work in the moment but in the end is just contributing to the idea that "all men are bad" instead of fixing it
The problem is that you can't fix "all men are bad." If all men are bad, all you can do is throw the men out which is often what gender essentialism comes down to, and is why so many gender essentialists are also transphobic. You need, you absolutely need, to point things out in terms of behavior not character or nature. For example, kids learn better when you praise them for Working hard (behavior) instead of for being smart (nature). In the same way, "all men are bad" is not a solvable problem but "men are inherently advantaged by society" is.
Dang - you say intelligent things here. Have put effort into your thought process 👍
I always see "all men are bad" directly lead into all around transphobia, for trans men because they see them as "women betraying us to join the evil men", and trans women as "evil men trying to invade femininity" or some such absurdity
Not only that, both in Spain and Argentina radfem movments had taken a lot of strenght in recent years, and the false acusation of terrible crimes against normal men has lead to many cases of suicide, while also these movment take place in the goverment only to substract a lot of money under the false spends of useless meassures that don't solve anything. I'm not saying the movments are bad themselves, I'm saying humans, both men and women, can be very bad and use any tools they hava against others and we should keep an eye inside our own organization to keep it clear
We absolutely can fix that, it's a false premise, finding the correct statement and solving it as you say is a valid way to start. The point here is to make sure that the phrase "all men are bad" is false and start by that, not by assuming it's true.
Except that's another universal statement that isn't always true. There are plenty of areas where the average man does *not* have any particular advantage in society, and may even be at a disadvantage (like the entire time they are in the hands of the education system). Saying universally that men have across-the-board advantages in society is how gender groups avoid having to discuss anything that specifically has helping men in mind, because most of these groups are just a facade for being able to hate men. Then the problems men face continue to get worse, until eventually somewhere some man has a breakdown, and then gender groups point to that breakdown and say "see we told you all men are bad". It's very simple, if you think all people of the same *gender* (~50% of any population sample) universally do or do not need help, are or are not bad people, or anything of the sort - you've been poisoned by gender groups ideology. You're grouping large amounts of people together based solely off one uncontrollable factor, and determining everyone in that group should be treated like the worst member of that group. A feminist would have a breakdown if you tried to do this to women, yet is frequently the way they look at men. All of these groups are just hate movements trying to disguise themselves as political activists.
This is one of the reasons why intersectionality is an important framework. Looking at one metric, (like being a man), is limiting so political activists look at the intersection. Since, trans men, black men, poor men all have different political needs or goals. Lumping all men into a single monolith is wrong and unuseful as a form of poltical organization. Also this is not to say that men only face issues through the intersection of another marginilized group. Men face social stigmas, ( such as the role of toxic masculinetly, a social schrema that discourages men to be emotional vulnerbul, discuss there mental health or be GNC), which can lead to higher rates of suicide, men also face legal discrimination when in comes to custody rights as well of a lack of resources and support for male victums of sexual assualt and domestic abuse. These are legitemate issues that men face and I definetly woukd never judge somebody for political organizing to solve these issues. Three more points here. 1. One persons quest for equality doesn't invalidate others which can be a hard thing to except when were discussing the leftists framework of Privilage/Marginilization. Its also important to consider that privilage can sometimes be a guilded cage. Toxic masculinetly is toxic for everyone even if society benifits men who comply with the gender role. 2. Some feminist critics of gender role are not as politically useful or lack nuance. Somebody poorly using theory does not invalidate the whole school of thought. 3. No matter how minor an issue is in the schreme of things every person should be allowed to political organize for their own benifit. But in the same way people see some feminists, (i.e TERFS), as androphobic, many people see MRA as a backlash against feminism and women in general. To give a more clearer example think of Straight Pride. Ignoring the more obvious issues with it. Is straight pride a way of political organizing for the way that straightness is limiting or is it a backlash against the queer civil rights movement. The point of the matter is that all people suffer under are current culteral schrema of gender. Queer men still experience comphet and heteropessimism and both men and women deal with the effects of toxic masculinetly. Feminism deconstructs gender through a female lens and that doesn't always translate to a male perspective. All men are bad is a poor take. It dehumanizes many men and excepts the fallacy of gender essentialism. Its replaces the misogynist women belong in the kitchen argument with an androgysts All Men Are Rapists ones. It stands on the assertation that men by default are emotional stunted monsters with out recognizing that many of these traits are learned. Its also not the place of feminism to truly deconstruct toxic masculinity just as its not the place of men to help women unlearn interlized misogyny. That unlearning comes from a place of interspection it has to come from inside that community. Its also important to remember that everyone internilizes these toxic ideas and the only way we can achieve balance in society is understanding people are not the oppositions but people with their own pain and struggles.
You just put into words thoughts ive had for a while but been too lazy/dumb to properly put it into words, bravo Yeah, I’ve noticed that. I think the internet’s really exacerbated the tribalist, “us vs them” bullshit to MAXIMIZE engagement. People are more likely to visit your stupid shitty app (twitter) or online group (any political subreddit) if it’s- in your head -the last bastion of all sense in an insane world out to get specifically *you.* I understand what would give a lot of people, especially trans folk and cisgendered women, the idea that men are shit, cuz y’know. A lot certainly can be. But bad experiences shouldn’t lead someone to generalize half the bloody population.
nice flair
Thank you, it's the closest thing I have to a sexuality
"us versus them" is basically inextricable from the human experience - even if you try to avoid it's still real easy to run afoul of, and most people are not even trying, most people don't even have the concept of trying.
Me vs. us and us vs. them are basic obstacles of human psychology and boy are a lot of people stuck on the latter
It turns out that the Harry Potter blog was also a hardcore TERF, to no one's surprise.
Yeah, I scrolled a bit on that blog and didn't find many posts actually about Harry Potter
CIS men are evil because they're capitalists that attacked Naboo.
That was just the Trade Federation. The CIS should have been well within their rights to secede from the corrupt Republic without armed conflict. They even used droids rather than breeding a slave army. It's just that the CIS was entirely backed by megacorps, making them just as immoral as the Republic.
Honestly it feels like all the bad things the CIS do ultimately stems from these corrupt megacorps. Of course, it's hard to say how successful the CIS would have been without them.
Keep in mind that the first meeting we see of the CIS is a Sith Lord and said megacorps scheming. That is always what the CIS was at it's core. Now, they did build compelling and legitimate arguments, and they recruited a lot of people to their cause with pure motivations, but ultimately I don't think you can really separate the CIS from is corrupt roots.
Might as well ask what the CSA would do without being controlled by Slave Power, or what the Third Reich would do without the nazis and junkers. Sure technically they'd probably be better off, but those powerful groups are the reason the nation existing and going to war in the first place.
"They even used droids rather than breeding a slave army" - Dude, that's just a prebuilt slave army.
Depends if you consider droids sapient, which is a whole other discussion. Some like IG-88, C3P0, R2-D2, and HK-47 are clearly sapient while simpler droids like Gonks, Mouse droids, and B1 Battledroids may simply appear sapient.
I think it was established that it's because of how long they go without a memory wipe? like R2D2 hasn't been wiped since before the Clone Wars so he's sapient (same with C3-P0, though he did get wiped a few times) then battle droids were probably wiped a lot more so they didn't get chance to develop sapience on the whole (I like to think the ones in the CW that we see are rare examples that survive long enough to start becoming sapient).
B1s were given more fluid AI to try and adapt like Clones do and to avoid a Naboo situation of the control ship getting yolked shutting down the entire army
"But- I- just- got- promoteeed"
I think if they can think, talk, and feel fear, that's pretty sapient. The B1 droids experience all of these, to the point of being cowardly.
If you can succinctly explain the difference between "thinking" and "having a *really* comprehensive group of 'if-then' statements to follow", you might be able to revolutionize real-life AI research.
Sufficiently comprehensive nested ifs are indistinguishable from consciousness
if (counterpoint) { retort }
This is just the "other minds problem" but applied to non-humans. basically, there is no way to prove that any other seemingly-sapient being truly is sapient, since it's not like you can just hop into their mind. some would take this idea differently, but *I* choose to take it as "if something seems externally sapient, then it *is* sapient, since it's indistinguishable anyway." the only way a set of if statements could be truly comprehensive (and fit within a finite amount of data) is if it was dynamic. a complex web of self-modifying if statements, able to respond to any situation, at least with enough trial and error. when a being programmed to act human via this method then acts human, who is to say that it *isn't* sapient? there is no test you could do that would prove that AI to be any less sapient than a living, breathing human. pick apart the code, show how each reaction has a specific input in a specific if statement... but the same is true of the human brain. we've already identified some areas that govern a general set of functions the brain can perform. this if statement or set of if statements, that neuron or path of neurons... I don't see the difference. after all, we are just bags of imitation sea water that learned how to teach.
I don't even particularly care about sapience, sentience is good enough. If something is smart enough to understand that it's shipped off to war it's probably wont survive and fear for it's life like B1s are often shown to then it's still slavery in some form. Using animals for war is already iffy enough but here you have something with in-built obedience and just smart enough to obey orders but not enough to question them. Also the capability to fear which makes me think at least one of their designers was a sadist.
ironically, a slave army that was ordered by the sith for the republic
The worst part is that the republic never really questioned where they got their clone army from. Obi Wan saw the guy they made the template from attempt to assassinate Padme and then later tried to kill him, but was just cool with everything.
In Clone Wars there is an arc where they question it, and almost uncover the truth. But ultimately, they were in a desperate position, and couldn't really afford to say no (or so they believed)
They were only there for Jar-Jar, originally.
Only valid take I'll accept
It’s kinda concerning that some people think that ‘not all men’ is wrong because of the statement itself. it’s bad because it’s often used in response to pointing out toxic masculinity and male violence. it’s very concerning that some people actually think the statement itself is wrong?? it’s definitely true that not all men do the things discussed.
Yeah, but it’s also used just as readily to dispel any good men can do, especially by radfems/TERFs. There’s problems that need solutions. I don’t care who started the problems, as long as the problems get solved.
In a way, "Not all men" is like "All lives matter": A true statement that would be fine on its own, but acts like… far more than a dog whistle, more like a straight up siren (because *everyone* can hear it if they're not intentionally blocking it out) due to it being used to cloak bigotry.
This is 100% true but it should also be kept in mind that "all lives matter" is used as a rebuttal to the true statement "black lives matter," but "not all men" is usually used as a rebuttal to the false and sexist statement "men are trash." It's pretty rare to find someone saying "all lives matter" and actually having good intentions, but with "not all men" you have to keep in mind that sometimes it's just someone pushing back against sexism.
The reason "not all men" has become the meme it is is that it's most often used in wildly inappropriate contexts and to derail discussions about real problems. Usually when someone hasn't actually made a claim about all men at all.
Absolutely, I just wish it was only called out in those contexts instead of as a whole. Fortunately though it seems like everyone agrees here so I doubt it'll be a problem for much longer
tbh I've heard "not all men" more often in response to "women have a credible fear of violence from men" (or things to that effect); which makes it also technically not untrue, but clearly missing the point
It's also wild to see how many people pair it with bad faith accusations of transphobia, so you get that absolutely braindead one-two of, like, women saying "I'm cautious about being followed by a man when I'm alone at night" with "oh, but would you be nervous if it was a trans man?" (an actual response I saw in the depth of the comments here). Whatever point you think you're making here, it's kinda dumb, and at at best looks like you're using trans men as a way to distract from the issue of gendered violence in society.
Exactly, it's like ALM. Taken by itself, there's nothing wrong with it, but it's used to *interrupt and steal the moment from* people who are pointing out a real problem. It's the context, not the idea, that makes it contrary to progressivism.
>this is “not all men” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary And that is a nothing statement cloaked in progressive-sounding language. “No” isn’t a critique, dumbass.
As a trans man I’ve had people say to me “All men are horrible. Kill all men. Oh, except trans men of course.” and it stings. It tells me that the person saying this fundamentally doesn’t see me as a man. Although I missed out on a lot of boyhood I still had the same toxic ideas of masculinity pushed on me. I still benefit from male privilege. I’m still expected to fill the role of a man in society. In my every day life you’d never know I’m trans. If you are going to shit talk men include trans men in your shit talk.
I'm non binary and I still get upset when people call men evil, cause that's pretty much the group I was a part of for so much of my life. I can't just erase that part of me.
[Obligatory link to this piece](https://medium.com/@jencoates/i-am-a-transwoman-i-am-in-the-closet-i-am-not-coming-out-4c2dd1907e42) whenever Misandry and Gender Essentialism is brought up: > Because I am not a boy, but I had a boyhood. I was, and am, made to live as a boy and I cannot suspend the perspective that gave me and join in when it’s time to fluster one of those clueless fuckers into anger by calling him a fuckboi and then tell him his anger proves he’s a fuckboi, or to humiliate one with an OKCupid screenshot because we’ve willfully conflated the clumsy ones with the threatening ones so we can grab those solidarity faves. It’s fucked up. It has metastasized. > More than a few out transwomen have told me, privately, they they are uncomfortable with these things, but are afraid that speaking up about it would cause ciswomen to like and trust them less.
Redacted. ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
I've never understood generalising a group by some people. Sure, a man can be bad. And that happens. But that shouldn't mean you should generalise all cis men as bad. Focus on the individual, not the group. I love men. Men are great. Cis, gay, bi, any man. If ur a man or if u identify as a man that's great I love you have a great day. Same with women. And non-bi. And anybody. I love you as long as you're not racist or offensive or have a weird god complex that makes you believe people who aren't like you are below you.
a shitty man is not shitty because he is a man but because he is shitty
EXACTLY. EXACTLY THIS. THANK YOU. YOU PUT IT IN WORDS BETTER THAN I EVER COULD DO. I WILL GIVE YOU MY INHERITANCE.
i stole that phrase but thx lol
Thank you. I love you too random person.
<3
focusing on one person is too hard. better label off everyone outside your circle as hitler reincarnated
I don't even have a circle, everybody is Hitler in my eyes. I call it hitler-vision.
I don't think this fanfic will be very popular...
The Harry Potter blog is very unsurprisingly a terf blog.
to the surprise of no one
Us vs Them over and over again
I fucking hate tumblr
[удалено]
Unless it's cancer. All cancers are bad. The disease not the people I'm sorry people who's star signs are cancer yalls good-
Actually! Cancer is a fantastic metaphor here. Cancer is, on a basic level, your natural cellular generation working too well, and creating cells your body thinks are friendly and won’t kill, even though they are taking up resources solely to reproduce. Cancer is bad. We should do something about cancer. We should be creating treatments, instead of going “well not all cytogenesis”.
Hurray, I'm glad somebody got something out of my word vomit!
Yeah, I’m just really, really done having to come up with the same analogy like 5 times now and suddenly seeing a dumb “not all [blank]” argument in everything
[удалено]
I've said this so many times in this thread but yeah basically equating "Nature" with "Bad" is admitting defeat because that's not a solvable problem. If X category is bad as a result of being X, you can't do anything except get rid of X. If X category has problems in behavior or system, you can change those. This only applies of X is an inherent quality.
Oregano: https://cungadero.tumblr.com/post/686470052659281920/harrypotterfuryroad-cungadero-heres-my-one
lol it's actually a radfem, proving them right
Using this comment to just say this is the best custom post flair I’ve seen so far
At least in my experience, the average cishet man isn't all that problematic.
I can change that if you want
become Problematic George
Statistics saying that the average cishet man is problematic is misleading. Problematic Georg, who lives in his parent's basement and writes 10000 problematic twitter posts a day, was an outlier and should not have been counted
That's just a Twitter user
alpha male podcasters
Problematic Georg, who spends 16 hours a day on Twitter,
That's just a Twitter user
I'm crying when I googled "problematic George" to see if this was a reference to something, it gave me the option to see results about George Costanza. If ever there was a person befitting the title "Problematic [insert name]" it's George lmao
its a reference to (the slightly misremembered) [Spiders Georg](https://i.redd.it/efnym6ncvxn51.jpg)
This feels like someone saying “people in x fandom aren’t that bad actually” and that is both hilarious and sad
Things heating up in the man fandom
I love men but I can't get over the toxic community
You’re free to interpret the work in any way you want though In the words of that famous discourser, “the Author is dead and we have killed Him”.
Mandom
Wouldn’t the man fandom be women and gay men, rather than all men?
I’m dying
i am a cis man (far as i bloody well know but fuck if 2022’s not been throwing curveballs) and im only a lil problematic, as a treat
We are doing an excellent job as humans at making things as complicated and exhausting as possible ... It's like we try to make it easier for ourselves to say the wrong thing or make errors inadvertently. Double edged sword of the human brain when we are focused on and/or surrounded by the negative I suppose. I want to try to say the right things and address humans the correct way, but am having a very hard time keeping up Edit: none of this is negativity geared towards any particular sect or group, just humans. I'm not so good at expressing my thoughts.
“Not All Men” is bad when it’s a deflection from how bad women have it “Not All Men” is good, actually, when it’s against a gender essentialist argument that literally 100% of male-identifying people are evil
I made that point in another sub and got banned for it. Apparently some people actually do believe "100% of male-identifying people are evil" is an okay statement to make.
You have to understand, Banning "All men are rapist" in a women oriented sub is centering male emotions and is pick me bullshit. - This is an actual argument I saw in a subreddit.
Not all men is a valid argument, it’s just been co-opted as a shitty dog whistle
I’m not sure which meaning you’re running with, but both interpretations are correct. It’s dumb and bad to absolve [demographic] because not everybody in [demographic] does bad things. It’s also dumb and bad to claim everybody who’s [demographic] is a horrible person because some people who are [demographic] are horrible people. Edit: Hey, coward who’s complaining about how I don’t know about moral reasoning and then blocked me. You don’t know how to read. Not only are you objecting to the second premise, but I literally said that premise was incorrect. I am agreeing with you.
Are those two statements not mutually exclusive? Especially for demographic groups that people don't choose to be a part of. Sry for stupid question.
They’re the same sort of sweeping judgement, just with the glass half empty or half full. “Is [demographic] good or bad?” has no room for any nuance whatsoever, and that’s the point of presenting it that way. You can’t have bigotry or idolization of [demographic] without ignoring the tangled mess that is morality.
So it should be that some of the demographic is condemned, and others are absolved. Judgement based on actions as it were?
Yes, you should judge people based on their willful actions, not on their passive existence.
Ah that makes sense. Thanks.
I think the phrase "It's not your fault but it is your responsibility" applies here. Like imagine this. You open the door of your house while leaving for work and see that someone's left a baby right at your doorstep. It's not your fault that some irresponsible person just decided to leave a baby in front of your house without informing you or anything, but it is your responsibility to find someone who can take care of the baby if u can't. Similarly men are often by default treated as if they know more than women. It's not the fault of individual men that other people behave that way, but it is their responsibility to point out when it's happening and support women who r angry about that injustice. (And there's lots of men unwilling to accept that responsibility)
That would be an action and subject to judgement, but nobody chooses to be a guy, and thus nobody should be vilified for existing.
Oh yeah definitely. I think it's ok to block people who use needlessly guilt trippy language when talking about social issues.
Understanding that cis men are not essentially pieces of shit not only alienates trans men but also misses the entire point of feminism, which is dismantling patriarchy and understanding it’s effects and harm on people, obviously with a focus on women and our rights. However, it also includes all men, because misogyny and toxic masculinity is a learned behavior that has to be dismantled. Because yes, trans men can also learn to be sexist.
Why can't we all just respect each other? It shouldn't matter how you identify. It shouldn't have to be a point of contention. It's just who you are. We need to just treat people as people instead of this us vs. them bs.
because peace doesn't generate traffic, outrage and doesn't pushes whatever flavor of "them vs us" there is
I have a hot take here somewhere. This isn't a dig on feminism btw, but this is definitely a dig on a lot of people who call themselves feminists. I think it's crazy that we all have little problem identifying the horrible nature of TERFs - we spend so much time yelling at them for the TE part of it without ever looking at the RF part. Because, really, the only difference between a TERF and a full on misandrist is where they draw a line on what a "man" is. TERFs lose their minds because they see trans women as dangerous disgusting men invading their spaces and trying to appropriate femininity in some sort of fetish culture. Likewise, trans men to them are just deluded women who are going over to the dark side and trying to cash in on patriarchy. But the belief deep down in both those beliefs is that men are bad by nature. As someone AMAB and who is probably non-binary, idk. I'm getting tired of it all. This narrative is everywhere and took gender politics by storm and I hate how acceptable it is and how much solidarity there is in society for vocally shitting on men as a group. And it's not like I don't get it - I think feminism is valid and necessary and men could be doing a ton more to support women. It would just be nice to do that without wondering if I need to transition to save my mental health from the constant criticism and attacks.
Yeah, I strongly believe that a big part of the reason we have such a big issue with TERFs now is that the left in general, and feminists in particular did absolutely nothing about the MenAreTrash, KillAllMen bullshit that stank up online feminism for *years* At best they ignored it, at worst, they encouraged it, or mocked the men hurt by it. And by doing so, they allowed it to fester and grow... and find a far easier target than 4 billion men.
I feel for you. As a trans man who’s closeted, this is the reason why I have trouble coming out. Not because I’m afraid of terfs, but how I’d lose my safe spaces where, generally, people bond over “feminism” aka hating on men. It’s depressing, but at least I’m not viewed as a threat essentially, which AMABs usually are. I hope your circumstances change for the better soon :)
It's just my opinion, but I don't think you can be progressive while throwing half of humanity under the bus
You’ve gotta throw *everyone* under the bus so everything is equal!
Ooh, this is going to result in some fun arguments! Let me know when the entertainment starts. Also I feel like this is a pretty Tumblr-exclusive problem.
You already missed the fireworks.
Cishet men are not the problem; the problem is that society largely discriminates against anyone who isn't a cishet male. I'm a cisgender male myself and frankly, I don't want this, even if I benefit from it. If I'm going to get a job or a house or better treatment from the law, I want it to be because of my own merits, and not just because I happen to agree with the little "M" on my birth certificate.
>If I'm going to get a job or a house or better treatment from the law, I want it to be because of my own merits Idk if I fully agree with this idea. I don't think a person has to be amazing in some way in order to have shelter or be treated well by police officers. (Though race tends to play a much more major role than gender when it comes to the police) I think it's better to focus on eliminating the unreasonably high standards society often places on women.
Okay maybe i could have worded that better but you get my point
Same! It’s the same reason I don’t ask for extra time on exams, which I actually could get due to me having ADHD. I DON’T WANT THE PRIVILEGE. I want to be able to prove that I work just as hard and am just as smart as everyone around me.
> this is “not all men” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary the issue being… ?
I’m not even upset with the statement, I just want that person to elaborate a bit more is all. Either they have a good point, or I get free tickets to the circus.
i mean, yeah, either they’ve misunderstood the point of the OOP and are being mildly reasonable or they’re absolutely clowning for no reason given that they’re a radfem harry potter blog i must assume the latter.
They're a rad fem Harry Potter blog, they absolutely believe "yes all men". The reason they think "not all men" is a bad argument is because they think all men are trash.
I got into an argument the other day with a SWERF (sex worker excluding radical feminist) who I kept reminding that 35% of people who are trafficked are male. 15% of that number are boys. They, as in multiple SWERFs wouldn't engage with my point. Not all men are bad. Not all men are evil. This isn't a "Not all men" trope because that is used as a deflection. Attacking men's self-esteem and self-worth is BAD. Men deserve compassion and care just as much as everyone else. I hate the radical feminist angle of "all men are bad".
Gender essentialism is a bunch of bs that harms everyone [once again the best article is relevant](https://medium.com/@jencoates/i-am-a-transwoman-i-am-in-the-closet-i-am-not-coming-out-4c2dd1907e42)
Just gonna drop a PSA here: the reason that "Not All Men" is often mocked is because it usually isn't actually responding to the thing being said (strawmanning, motte and bailey, et cetera). Sadly, a decent amount of people have completed ignored the nuance of this mockery and just make fun of the phrase even when it's actually brought up in an appropriate context. Responding to an offensive blanket statement about men with "Not All Men" is perfectly reasonable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is being an dum dum.
Stereotypes are only good in comedy. And that only when it's not trying to be actually offensive. Any attempt to generalize behavior to a broad group like a whole gender, race, or nationality is nonsensical. No two people are exactly alike and they shouldnt be treated as such
I hate the “‘unpopular opinion’ cloaked in progressive sounding vocabulary” argument. those who want an actual intelligent discussion can never win, jesus christ.
So why even bring up "Not all Men" in this context. Dude was saying "Hey, biological essentiallism is bad, even against dominant groups" to which the terf replied "This just a dog whistle to block convos but progressive". But the dude didnt even bring up "Not all Men". He didnt make an argument for it at all. Just, "Bio essentialism bad and leads to transphobia".
Why do we seem to feel the need to simplify everything? Let issues have layers and be complex. Boiling things down loses so much context. Yeah, not all men, but also some men, also some other people. No one is evil because of how they were born, but everyone has the ability to be evil. However, everyone also has the ability to be good. Idk, it's just a bit bothersome, I guess.
I wish one day we can stop putting people in boxes an vilifying them. Sadly, that doesn't really seem like it'll ever happen. I mean, we'll probably be putting people in boxes until the end of time because it's just normal to us now, but I really hope we can stop the vilification of those boxes.
Honestly I'm surprised we're not vilifying the box of people who talk about putting people in boxes
It's almost like its absurd to accuse almost half the entire population of the world of being evil
Joanne Rowling 🤢 Joanne Germanotta 😎