this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024

0 points (NaN% liked)

Data Is Beautiful

6866 readers

1 users here now

A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz

(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

New gender gap (lemmy.ml)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

381 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

One of the core tenets of fascism is making the “enemy” look weak and strong at the same time

Looking at these three (1) (2) (3) descriptions of fascism, only one of them (2) brings up enemies that are both weak and strong at the same time. But looking at that list, you're showcasing way more of the features of fascism if we're being honest. You clearly don't like how modern society is organized and seem to want to go back to how things used to be (1 and 2), you're very obviously showing social frustration (6), I could argue that you're obsessed with a plot (7) about how all feminists hate men, you're claiming women are physically weak and yet have social/cultural power over you (8), and there're some hints of (12) machismo, specifically the disdain for women.

Masculinity is not fragile or weak. This is nonsensical and cartoonishly evil propaganda invented by females to weaken the diametrically opposite gender.

Masculinity is a social construct. What you think of as "masculine" is shaped by society and the people around you. It's as strong or as weak as you believe it is, and different people can have different beliefs about the same thing. You can find plenty of academic studies or articles talking about this, and they all describe it in a similar way:

To date, identity research has largely focused on understanding how people’s membership in different social categories (e.g., gender, race) shapes their experiences, self-concept, and behavior. I contend that when (i) a social category is high-status and (ii) its corresponding norms are especially rigid—as is often the case with masculinity—people in this category may feel pressured to uphold its norms in order to maintain their status. To the extent that identities are pressured, I argue that they are “fragile”, in turn eliciting compensatory, stereotypical responses (e.g., male aggression) to perceived threats aimed at maintaining status.

Now on to the examples you gave.

Let a feminist tell you about pretty privilege.

Why are you assuming anyone in that video is a feminist?

Men at work being scared of women is a common thing.

This was right after the Me Too movement, a response to the very real crimes perpetrated against women in the workplace. If I remember right, it was all started in response to Harvey Weinstein being accused by over 80 women of various crimes. Similarly, Bill Cosby had over 60 women come forward with stories about him. Just these two guys have over 100 victims and got away with it for decades. The department of labor still estimates that somewhere between 25% to 85% of women have experienced sexual assault in the workplace. False accusations happen, but unreported crimes are way more common.

Why are men told to approach women and get rejected, but never women told by feminists to be “bold” and “brave” and approach and get rejected?

That video literally opens with a woman saying other women need to be proactive when trying to get a date.

Far more feminists use the small hand gesture or reject men based on small height, compared to men lightly teasing women as “flatboards” or whatever else. Easy to search. Here is a body positivity feminist doing it.

Why are you assuming the singular woman talked about in the video is a body-positive feminist? We know literally nothing about her except she sent a message to this random youtuber that was complaining about wearing a condom during sex. The guy got insulted on social media and made a 12 minute video response about how he wasn't hurt by it.

Men are avoiding approaching women and going sexless, thanks to feminism.

What part of this says it's because of feminism? I skipped to the "What's causing the rise in sexless men?" section (because I'm not about to listen to the entire 90 minute podcast) and the expert said it was because of reduced alcohol consumption, being generally more risk averse, and just not wanting to date.

Women and their one sided disregard for mens’ emotional sanctity (as sacred as womens’ physical sanctity) is why locker room talk will always exist. Disregard for the privacy of mens’ emotions has been a problem for thousands of years. And let’s not act like “girl talk” does not exist. Girls always do a lot of talking while the boys are kept out. This is another female privilege clubbed together with its self-inflicted devastation of their mental health, which they cry about later.

Again, the "locker room" talk that you're so desperate to defend is fantasizing about rape. You can have private conversations among men, that's fine and no one is trying to stop that, but you keep specifically bringing up "locker room" talk. Where you objectify women and only consider their physical attractiveness. You even say that women do it and are worse off for it, why do you want "locker room" talk to be respected so much?

And why are so many of the videos you posted from Aba N Preach? Looking at their channel, it seems they post a new video about once every 2 days, and the vast majority of it is just reacting to social media posts and other videos. They seem like a rage-bait content mill. And since you posted over 4 1/2 hours of videos, I feel pretty okay about linking this video explaining the "manosphere", because Aba N Preach seem like they'd fit right in.

[+] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I don't want to debate the finer points of what makes a fascist. Maybe just take a minute and do some self-reflection as to why so many people see the things you write and instantly think "this belongs in the red-pill, right wing section of the internet."

Should I start to assume when someone says they are a feminist, they are NOT a feminist? This line of logic does not fall in very well with the act of consenting. If someone says they are a feminist, they ARE a feminist. No debate. A woman says she is a feminist, she IS one. Counter her points about female privilege and how good it feels.

Nowhere does she say she's a feminist. She's telling a story about being a model in California. Feminism isn't just being a woman. Google "feminist pretty privilege" and the top reddit post you find is way more compelling for what a feminist would say about "pretty privilege" than a random tiktoker your favorite youtubers managed to find.

I am not asking about what someone is saying. Does the preaching get practiced in real world? It is all that matters.

Why are men told to approach women and get rejected, but never women told by feminists to be “bold” and “brave” and approach and get rejected?

You very literally were asking about what people are saying. You asked "why don't women get told to talk to guys?" and the answer is "they do."

Why am I assuming a body positive feminist is a body positive feminist? What is this kind of argumentation? An apple is not an orange, and a banana is not a papaya.

At no point in the video does anyone even claim the woman was a body-positive feminist. Your favorite youtubers start talking about body-positivity as if she was, but she never claimed to be one and we never get to see any kind of evidence that she actually is.

Men are told not to approach. Men are obeying feminist agenda. Young feminists are sad and pissed the dating market is Sahara desert. Men chose to adapt and become risk averse in the same ways women neurobiologically have behaved in all of human history. Laws favour women and ignore men. Feminists favour women and ignore men (not their responsibility). Society favours sympathising with women to earn brownie points with other women. Nobody helps men, so men help themselves.

Maybe watch the podcast.

Again, I watched the part labeled "What is causing the rise in sexless men?" and the expert didn't say anything at all about feminism. The podcast host brings it up briefly as a possibility, but then they move on to another topic. They aren't talking about feminism. You're bringing it up like it's the most natural thing in the world, but to do that you need to make a lot of assumptions that aren't supported by these things you're linking. I'd tell you to watch some of these videos again, but I'm sure you'd just inject your own narrative into them again.

Your argumentation is based on a false premise that I indirectly love rape fantasies and locker room talk.

You're the one that keeps bringing it up. "Locker room talk" has become a euphemism for sexualizing and objectifying women. I asked if you meant private conversations between boys, but the one real world example you brought up of locker room talk was a group chat where a bunch of teens were sharing photos of their classmates. If you want to be talking about private, girl-free conversations, tell me. Otherwise I'll keep assuming you think the kinds of things described in the "locker room bois" story should be normal and acceptable.

Women objectify men in girl locker rooms more than men could ever objectify women in boys locker rooms,

I've never heard of a girls' only chat where they shared fake nude photos of guys in there class, and yet here's a story from last week of your "boys locker room chat" that ends with a someone killing themself.

because objectification of women is very normalised in porn

You'd think this right here would be enough of a reason to understand why the feminism movement exists, but oh well.

Taboo factor is the core tenet of what entices people towards BDSM, gore, zoophilia, pedophilia and other acts of depravity. The more exclusive something is, the more exciting and demanded it secretly is. These locker room talks provide space for taboo discussions more than anything else.

You'd think there'd be a much larger audience for the truly taboo subjects, like cannibalism and cutting your arm off with a rusty pocket knife. The kind of things everyone knows you obviously shouldn't be doing. They definitely exist, but they're a very small group considering how "exciting and demanded" it should be based on your logic.

They are what I consider to be the most balanced, sensible, non-controversial and non-reactionary centrist social commentators on YouTube. That is the consensus.

Where are you getting this consensus from? One of the videos you sent me was literally all about how one of the guys said something controversial on twitter, and all they do is react to other people's content. Even if you use the more relevant definition of reactionary, they seem like they'd be pretty opposed to feminism making any real ground and actually changing the way they life their lives.

They are the reason why Pearl and Fresh&Fit, giant redpillers close to Tate/Sneako, got demonetised.

I'm pretty sure JustPearlyThings got demonetized for her pro-hitler song, not even Fresh&Fit know for sure why they got demonitized but I get the feeling it wasn't because of Aba N Preach. I just don't think the 0.5-2 million views they get per video is enough clout to get a video demonetized.

You are labeling and cancelling them without knowing about them

What does it even meant to cancel them? I'm absolutely labeling them, but do you think I have the power to make them stop producing new content? Or is canceling something just the same as not liking something?