575
‘Andrew Tate is a symptom, not the problem’: why young men are turning against feminism
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
575 points (93.9% liked)
News
23627 readers
2536 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The same could be said about "communism" and "socialism". The words have been turned dirty, such that people shy away from what is objectively a good thing when done honestly and to the letter of the principle.
Kind of like Critical Race Theory. If properly understood and applied, people would benefit from the knowledge and empathy.
Pretty much exactly the same, except CRT got knocked down before it even had established itself as a positive thing.
It was already established. It's just a theoretical framework in various social studies. It was deliberately bastardized by the right as they were seeking something to hate. It wasn't even in the public consciousness, just something academics used and that get taught in some higher ed classes. It's a very useful framework but it's not something that you'd actually teach a kid.
It was an academic term for a relatively short period, it was never established in common language - not in the same way that socialism and communism were.
Yes, unsurprisingly, a term that's been around for 20 or 30 years is less pervasive than a couple that have been around for over 100.
I bought the actual book because it was on sale and because I thought it would be hilarious to put out on my coffee table for when my conservative dad came to visit my house. I also figured I'd try to read it, because I should be informed about what it is so that I can argue for it, right?
Holy shit, it's a lot of dense legal theory. I knew it was graduate material, but the book is a collection some of the most complex ideas, studies, and legal theory that I've ever read. I'm not going to lie that I won't even make it a third of the way through it.
Anyone who argues that CRT is being taught in elementary schools and is being used to brainwash children hasn't seen how high-level the material actually is and has no idea what they're talking about.
In reality, the material is not that controversial. What I have read of it has been quite unbiased.
We need to stop teaching the children nuclear physics.
I know very little about CRT beyond some very general idea so idk if there's a point to call it that specifically, but the naming choice is so bad that the first time I read it I assumed it's some nazi thing and had 0 doubt about it.
Funnily, Capitalism could work too but I don't expect billionaires to be honest or have any principles apart from hoarding for themselves.
I mean you could also say that Capitalism is a dirty word in some circles. And yet, it addresses many of the aspects of trade, which are needed through all societal systems.
Trade existed before capitalism.
You're proposing Mercantilism or Feudalism as alternatives?
Whatever works best for the degrowth with need because of climate change. A circular or planned economy.
give it 50 years and the arms race of language will have its own sub arms race
you'll coin a politically charged term, someone will coin an antonym, the original will shift to change the subject, the antonym will change to match the new, someone will point out the process and both sides will deny its happening
Double plus ungood.
So much strife comes from bickering over the definitions of words.
It would be helpful if people knew the definitions and context of words. Maybe some type of education could help.
Every one of these words was boogeymanned as a deliberate political move
Granted, Lemmy is a relatively safe place to do it, but bold move, walking out into public and describing Communism as "objectively good".
It is a wonderfully good idea. Except for one tiny, insignificant variable. Humans. Humans ruin it every time.
Communism is a very decent idea. It's the transition to it that always tends to be spoiled by incumbant powers. Writers of Communist theory recognised this somewhat, and their solution was to have a violent revolution that would hopefully come end with the new system they devised. Now, however, the word is basically lost - there are/have been too many "Communist" countries that don't really operate in that manner, with too many people that have suffered under that name.
Socialism doesn't have quite the same level of stigma, but still a good deal. However, when you think about it, a significant portion of any government is "Socialist" - we pay taxes, our taxes fund roads, schools and various other social services. Socialism, or more specifically socialist policy, is that which benefits society as a whole rather than any specific group. When you see it like that, it's hard to paint it as a bad thing, not without being completely selfish that you or your group aren't getting an exclusive benefit.
People refuse to look at things with their core and correct definitions. They always bring their baggage along. Or, they twist it into their own framing for their own point of view.
It’s such a bummer.
I would say lemmygrad is the only safe place to do this
My remedy to the poisoning of those words is to refer to then as "economic democracy," and just state communist/socialist policy without the buzz words.
Depends, I was chatting with someone without using any charged terminology, then he blurted out "but that's socialism!!"
Those who aren't ignorant about actual socialist policies that can feasibly and easily be implemented in a modern society and yet still loathe them truly bewilder me. And I'm not talking about rich folks or power brokers, just normal, working class people. The indoctrination over the last century has been quite effective.
Yeah I was a little bit speechless with that, it was one of those situations where all the right things to say came much later.
To be fair, the term "feminist" was highjacked by the radical feminist movement. They very much do not believe in equality, their motto is "kill all men"
I think it's easy to see why that would turn people away. Hence why I describe myself as an equalizer, not a feminist.
Edit: my statement was very reasonable and I'm willing to engage in discussion about what I have witnessed. If you think I'm pushing an agenda or trying to convince others of anything, feel free to check my post history. However, if you accuse me of pushing an agenda or lying or anything else, you are engaging in false faith and will be blocked. I have a long history of supporting women's rights, as evidenced by several posts I have made. But I will not stand for being accused of being a right winger.
I think again that was one that was actually hijacked by the right wing. There is far more fearmongering about hardcore feminists than there are hardcore feminists.
While your second statement is true, there are still far too many extremists. I find it very difficult to believe that all the hatred I viewed from feminists on Tumblr and r/FemaleDatingStrategy and many other sources(like my ex who fell into that stuff) were right wingers. Just like one incel is too many(and you don't hear people claiming incels don't exist), one person calling for the death or enslavement of half the planet is too many.
Fwiw, I haven't met a single real person who espouses the viewpoint you described. I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying that until evidence is presented otherwise I doubt there are as many as you think there are.
Assuming you are male, it makes sense that you wouldn't have met many, as they presumably take steps to avoid interacting with men. The only person like that I've talked to IRL would be one of my exes, and her friend group. She went off the rails after we broke up.
This is most likely an effect of recency bias for you which is unfortunate.
Somebody’s mad they can’t get laid whenever they want.
do you think it makes sense to distinguish between the kind of radical feminism you're talking about, and the dry academic stuff that's also called radical feminism by the people who are engaged in it at least?
it's tricky, i can't deny there aren't spaces which are predominantly women where a bunch of unfair or negative stuff about men is said.
thing is, radical, which in math is another term for getting the 'root' of something, like a square root, and also means like 'fundamental' does have more than one meaning. when you use it, that's one use of the word which makes sense, another which is the one i first learned and the places i go to use to describe themselves is rather dry academic, philosophical, and artsy (artsy in the way which is confusing as heck to me) and they are also radical.
so often i am confused because it's not as though when you use the word you're making anything up. other commenters will likely treat you like you invented that use of the word, people always police language. it'd be way nicer if we could understand each other better i really think you and i and the commenters which probably gave you a downvote all have way more in common than not.
TBH I've never heard of any other type of radical feminism, I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying radical feminists were the original feminists?
no i don't think they were "the original", where i see it now, they are in academic institutions (like the philosophy dept at my school, a few in women's studies) and publications (here's one from radical philosophy, she wrote for the london review of books which i really like and i thought the title was interesting, i thought it was a good piece that i'll have to revisit at some point.
you'll note there isn't really any provocative language. you mentioned female dating strategy, that's not a pleasant place to be. i browsed it a bit then noped out when all the acronyms started to come out, i checked the sidebar and thought yeah this is not a place which wants me...
Radical feminism is 4th or 5th wave feminism.
So much misinformation.
comments like this are what's hijacking it.
Fuckin lmao, you are so full of shit. You know damn well you've seen so many Tumblr posts, tshirts, and other bullshit that says the same things. "Kill all men" "All men are evil" "Low value men"
I guarantee you've seen all of that, it's not at all uncommon. You choose to ignore it because you don't like it. But that's not how the world works. Other people, surprise surprise, don't want to be associated with a movement calling for their death.
Enjoy your narrative, but welcome to the real world
i did see the low value men used; tbh i see men are trash more but that might be because of the places i stick around online
I haven't. And now I believe you even less and think you are intentionally spreading rumors or lies because you have an agenda.
Communism kind-of smeared itself. Everywhere where communism has been tried on a national scale, it has become authoritarianism.
Maybe it would be a good thing if done to the letter of the principle, but just like Libertarianism or Anarchism, it seems to be incompatible with human nature, at least so far.
But, socialism isn't even a foreign idea. A lot of US institutions are socialist. The mail delivery is done by an arm of the government. Streets are paved by the government. Firefighters are government employees. The water delivered to your house is almost certainly by a government-run entity. People retiring without having saved enough are taken care of by the government. There's medicare and medicaid.
A full capitalist system would have nothing done by the government that could be done by a business. No FDA, Pinkertons instead of Police, most army functions handed over to private contractors, every road privately owned and maintained, etc.
I agree with just about everything you've said. Communism has had too many failures that have affected too many people, the word is tainted.
To grossly oversimplify it, capitalism is the way of business and trade, while socialism is the way of society and governance. The two things are separate, but the issue we have is that businesses are dictating policy to governments in their exclusive interest, rather than the other way around with governments focusing on the overall good of society.