You must log in or # to comment.
I do understand that sometimes in groups not all their members’ issues are addressed equally. But everytime a group split, it does get smaller and will be less able to have an impact. Lately, all the groups are pointing fingers to each other without noticing that the it is not ‘us’ vs ‘them’. If you see who is in power, who isn’t making the changes for us humans and where the money is flowing, that is where you need to look.
And it so happens to be that a LOT of information about those people is in the EPSTEIN files.
Treat each other like humans and bring back accountability for the everyone.
Intersectionality is not ‘splitting’, that’s a very doomer binary way to view it. The only ‘splitting’ here is the white woman turning on her ally and doing the same thing the man was doing in the first panel.
One big movement can be made up of many small movements, intersectionality is recognising how all these small groups operate together and influence each other. For example a gay black persons experiences are different from a black hetero persons and a gay white persons, yet they can also relate to aspects of each other. So when you fight for your allies, you learn their unique issues and visa versa.
Intersectionality is viewing discrimination as a Venn diagram, but it’s the same fight.
Thank you for your explanation. I’ll take it in consideration.
It may be a blend of both. Maybe I am seeing a lot of bad lately. Fighting between men and women. Fighting between basically every group there is.
Time to touch some grass I guess.
I mean, it has been applied as a way to divide, like when Bernie proposed all sorts of policies to help the poor and mainstream media ran with “but what does Bernie do specifically for poor black people?”
That’s not to say there aren’t such specific concerns, but it wasn’t like Hillary was doing any better in that regard. It was solely used as a way to make Bernie look less progressive. So instead we got Trump with the simple and straightforward “make america great again”.
Fighting a war on multiple fronts is a great way to stretch your resources thin and muddy the strategy.
Bernie didn’t lose by focusing on black people, he lost because the entire DNC apparatus worked against him.
Neither of you are wrong.
That was my point, the DNC and their mainstream media buddies said that he didn’t focus enough on issues facing specifically black people. That was one of many attacks they made against him.
stupid comic for liberal types - please understand that you standing up as an autistic black feminist with one leg and a penchant for grapefruits does not result in significant change for society. yes, you exist, the world is full of wealthy evil, lets do something about that instead of talking about ourselves.
Okay rightie, go have a cry.
A call to arms for everyone to unite against the oligarchy.
“Okay rightie”
Ignoring key issues of discrimination of marginalised peoples makes you a rightie, yeah.
Doubly so when you spout AllLivesMatter trash like “we’re all indigenous to Earth” to ignore colonialism.
Ignoring key issues of discrimination of marginalised peoples
This is like saying that someone wanting to end all poverty is ignoring and discriminating against the single poorest person.
Stop acting like these things are zero-sum. It takes no extra effort to speak out against all instances of an injustice, compared to doing so only for certain instances of that injustice.
It takes no extra effort to speak out against all instances of an injustice, compared to doing so only for certain instances of that injustice.
This may be shocking to learn, but different peoples have different issues. A one size fits all approach is not the solution.
You’re equivocating, for no reason, being equally sympathetic to an injustice regardless of the demographics of the victim in any given instance, with treating every case as if it’s identical.
Those are completely unrelated things.
P.S. You ‘may be shocked to learn’ that starting a comment like that just makes you sound like a sanctimonious jerk.
If you ignore that different demographics face different issues and that they are valid in bringing them up, and argue against that, you’re right wing trash as far as I’m concerned. Knowing that makes someone like that think I’m a sanctimonious jerk is only a compliment.
Seems you lack the comprehension that deciding not to over-expose a symptom but rather treat the disease is not the same as ignoring. Unity is better than division (a very right-wing concept, right?).
Seems like you also lack humour.
If you want unity stop ignoring peoples issues. Discrimination doesn’t come from any one factor.
And fuck off with “humour” another typical right wing take - “its just a joke bro”.
You’re doing nothing but baiting and trolling this whole post. Why don’t you take your anger out in a healthy way and go for a jog or something. A worthy block if I ever saw one. Get helpful or get out.
Oh please, defending intersectionality from chuds is not baiting or trolling
Don Quixote, the windmills are over there.
I prefer Cthulhu’s position.
No lives matter, and that’s a fact.
Misanthropic division posting hours
“I hate everyone equally” is a very misanthropic, nihilistic thing to say. The misanthropic division is a neo-nazi group that has really embraced this idea.
Basically with your comment the vibes are off.
Feminism has disenfranchised me tbh. I am fine with their ideals and wishes but not with being called a predator.
You couldn’t torture this confession out of me lmfao
I’ve been in the trenches, I’ve made up my mind so far and I’ve gotten a few too many bad interactions with so called feminists. I’d actually be in the manosphere or a right wing grifter if I wasn’t actually given empathy by people like contra points in my growing years.
interesting lets have a look at what you posted so far
Good ol out of context! I already had this talk so I’ll just skip the formalities. I AM Muslim and if switching one of my labels (man) to one of the others (Muslim) makes the content deletable the original comment should also be deletable.
Well you can’t just switch out labels like that, that is the whole point!
a) critizing “all men” means critizing men as a class. The dominant class in relation to the oppressed class. They’re not talking about you the individual, they’re talking about the class of men.
b) critizing “all muslims” is very much critizing every muslim as an individual. Muslims aren’t a societal class, but a huge group of people that have nothing in common other than them claiming to be part of the same religion.
The difference is that a class is in relation to another class, you can’t have “men” without “women”. You can’t have “employers” without “employees”. You can’t have “slavers” without “slaves”. You can very much have “muslims” without “christians”. One is talking about societal structure and dynamics, the other about a trait shared by a group of people. One talks about societies perception of the individual (You’ll get treated like a man if people around you think you are one) the other about an individuals self-understanding (You’re a muslim if you say are one).
That’s why one comment is fine and the other is very much deletable.
While you approached this in a way regarding class I am approaching this in regards to identity, one also chooses to be a man and once you mix that in those statements suddenly become personal. I’ve had both being a man and Muslim be used against me and they have both provided me benefits.
The way I see is these statements are also just ways of establishing “men” as the outgroup; encouraging tribalism. So being able to substitute one tribe with another becomes possible.
Nevertheless, I appreciated the well put response. It sadly can’t really compete with my lived-in experiences. I still fight to leave the world better than I found it, just not along the people that have accused me of being a predator (both as part of a group or as an individual).
I must be doing something right as no one has ever called me a predator before.
Predator
Yawn.
As stupid as it was, he did kind of get you there.
The world needs logic to at least discard bad-faith and emotionally-driven accusations. “Accused=Guilty” is fucking dumb.
He didn’t really because I expected such a shitty response. It wasn’t legitimate, so I’m not putting any stock into it.
No one has seriously called me a predator, and it’s telling if others are.
Hey, I’m all for ending the divisiveness when everyone else is.
Anarchists are alt-left and should be treated as such. :)
This isn’t an anarchist comic, it has nothing to do with anarchism.
completely missing and going against the point of the comic just to shit on anarchists
why do basket cases think we’re an easy target
I’m dumb, is the point the guy is wrong or that the white woman is wrong?
The white woman is being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.
And the guy is wrong.
being hypocritical in not applying intersectionality when it doesn’t affect her.
I’m still stupid, can you fix the multiple negatives so I can understand
And the guy is wrong.
ok. thank you.
The white woman is being hypocritical. She expects the guy to understand her particular case. She cannot use the same logic to understand the black women’s case.
The man is trying to paper over the issues that divide men and women, the same way the white woman is papering over the issues that divide white and black women.
thank you
I wouldn’t see it as being right or wrong. Both white folks in the comic would benefit from a broadening of perspective is all.
The white guy doesn’t understand why a unique space is needed for women and gets an explanation.
The white lady doesn’t understand why a unique space is needed for black women and gets an explanation.
Anyone with a cursory understanding of history, particularly modern colonial history, where Europeans and their descendants actively dabbled in propoganda/a worldview that white = human and nonwhite = non/subhuman (culminating in Nazism) would understand this but our education system often avoids these difficult topics. Women were not able to hold credit up until the 70s and so their financial security depending entirely on their husband, depriving them of agency.
Unfortunately we can’t just flip a switch and make this history and its legacy disappear. I don’t blame the people portrayed in this comic. I blame inadequate education.
I understand the comic is pointing out hypocrisy. But I also see it as illustrating how perspective can shift depending on where one stands, especially if one does not already have a clear understanding of what intersectionality is and can intellectualize it. Both the guy and the woman do not seem to be portrayed as evil people, just misguided.
The black woman still sees the same underlying point, and the white woman now feels “left out”. And perhaps she is next. In pops the Muslim woman.
Though this is clearly not the intended result, one must recognize that this is an underlying point of attack, an exploitable weakness. Bitterness can be created to break groups that otherwise have common interests apart, and without the overall coalition there is no power to enact change.
Ultimately, Black feminism is part of a broader feminist goal that is part of a broader humanist goal. We are together, we are aligned.
Yeah I think your last paragraph is vital to this discussion. Black feminism takes nothing from feminism as a whole, while adding quite a bit.
What matters is consistency.
“Why do you have a label that excludes me?” scales up and to a virtually universal group and down to a specialized category with only three members.
It doesn’t really matter if you say that men are right to critique the label “feminism” or if you allow specialization all the way down to “Midwestern small city non-theater trans-male part-African part-Irish demisexual furry feminism”. Just so long as you’re fighting bigotry and applying your principles consistently.
(I much rather spend effort arguing that a man arguing against anti-masculine sexism is a cause worth supporting than bickering over whether or not his cause counts as “feminism”, even though I would casually include him in the label.)
Must have taken a wrong turn, came here for comics.
I think you may feel more at home in Non-Political Comics then. (Tbh I understand, sometimes I have to live over there for a few days. No need to be rude about it though.)
Thanks for the tip!
Most people want equality, justice, freedom and peace for all. I choose to believe that, at least.
It’s a very difficult thing to just fight the entire state of the world, instead it’s a much more achievable (and realistic) thing to fight for what affects your immediate group. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
Except the entire state of the world is what’s responsible for the problems of your immediate group. When you focus on your immediate group you’re not only merely treating a symptom, but you’re also suggesting your problems are somehow more important than another group’s problems.
What’s worse is that people of a specific group will literally say their problems are more important, and then proceed to create a stereotype of another group to blame all those problems on. The struggle then moves away from real problems and then becomes all about defeating some sort of perceived enemy. A process which only achieves dividing us further.
A lot of the world’s problems, both socially and economically, come from the same handful of sources that are continuing to thrive, unchecked, while we fight amongst ourselves. Remove those sources and you will have solved the lion’s share of the problems your group shares, as well as the problems other groups have.
I don’t disagree you, the world at large has broken systems, either by design or neglect.
Now, although I also agree with that fighting only personal causes is treating a symptom and not the root cause, you’re hand waving the very real problem of motivation. People are tribal by nature, and will want to protect themselves and those around them.
As for removing that “handful of sources” at the top? Which sources are those, and how do you fix them?
Reading between the lines here, you’re essentially saying “see these deeply entrenched systems that have been perpetuated for hundreds/thousands of years? Just remove them.” - It’s not that simple by design.
Again, my point was that I do not fault people for putting their efforts into personal causes, not that this was the best way to solve the world’s problems at large.
The issue is turning around and attacking others trying to fight for what they fight for.
Intersectionality requires supporting each other.
Say it louder for the people in the back
Feminism is concerned with oppression of all people. It is almost like chuds shouldn’t comment on things they won’t understand.
I gravitate towards humanism instead of feminism even though I align with his the latter would be defined by many people.
In my younger years many feminists groups I ended up participating it, often from working together on protests or other issues under the progressive banner very violently anti-men.
Many actively thought all men were inherently bad and had no place in shared spaces. I remember walking out when one member whom I had worked along with for years and thought of as a close friend spoke of how she had heard a theory of how Genghis Khan was castrated by his wife and died. She thought this was a fitting end for a man and some others chimed in, in agreement. There was a general sense of othering men as an out group responsible for evil, rather than seeing most men and women as suffering under the system.
I don’t think most people are like this, I’m just illustrating why someone might think differently without being a ‘chud’.
Ah yes, I see trying to pigeon hole feminism because women who are abused don’t trust men.
The two are unrelated because women distrust men without feminism.
In respect to Genghis Khan, he was a mass murder and rapist of epic proportions. Not really a good example if you are trying to paint them as horrible people.
Feminism is an academic study of oppression and people who oppress men are not feminists. They are probably just women trying to cope in a patriarchy that abuses and suppresses them. Angry and upset about a world that steals their bodily autonomy and ignored their cries for help.
This comic is a mischaracterization of feminism. For one feminism studies was a catalyst for African American Women studies. The man in the beggining is definitely a chud and the comic is written from a chud perspective.
I’m going to be honest with you this comment sounds so condescending and patronizing. I’m not trying to pigeonhole feminism into anything. I’m trying to tell you what my specific experiences were with the disclaimer that it is not representative. I’m not from the US either.
Irrespective of who Genghis Khan is, I’ve never supported death penalty, much less torture. It made me uncomfortable to see how much people were willing to accommodate if it was against people who thought were the other. I’ve had a lot of violence visited on me unfortunately and I’m proud of the fact that even for people who abused me I would choose restorative justice rather than torture. Believe me it took a lot of work to get there.
It seems like you missed my whole point which was that based on what is described on paper I would be a feminist but I identify with a broader label because of my individual bad experience with a minority of people who opted to use the term. You don’t need to explain it to as if I’m an idiot?
Overall comes off as having no empathy for my experience or reality while shoehorning me into what appears to be very limited model of who you think I am? Feels kind of sad.
It was condensing as I am replying to and obviously anti-feminist post with a bunch of passive aggressive misogynists. This is normal as Lemmy is stocked full of insecure men.
I will get absolutely frank. You have some obvious issues with women that have nothing to do with this one group.
There is no restorative justice for someone who raped and murdered thousands of people in their lifetime. It is obvious you are ignorant to what he did. That is okay.
Just because you are enlightened enough to want your abuser to get fixed doesn’t mean someone else is. Also, considering we are talking about a historical figure it is kind of silly.
You are not a feminist. Have you studied feminism!? If you had you would recognize several red flags you carry around like a badge of honor. You would also see this cartoon as a mischaracterization and along the lines of micro aggression.
Were you abused by a woman? I could perhaps see where you are coming from if this is the case. Not that you are correct in your thinking, but understandable. The women you described earlier honestly need therapy once they are living in a society that isn’t actively abusing them.
I am glad you can recognize this one group were not your abusers. I am also hopeful that you will one day look at this cartoon and say, that is a bunch of bullshit. What the chud is clearly missing is feminism explores a deep dive into oppression.
Nothing he mentions actually makes any sense in this regard and it is disingenuous. The kind of half baked comment a man would have said back in the 1970’s in the US. 50 years later it is nothing more that anti-feminism rant ignoring the wealth of information research scientists have uncovered about culture.
I get the general defensiveness because of the prevalence of trolls.
There seems to some confusion. I’m not saying the cartoon is right. Just explaining why someone might prefer the term humanist over feminist even if they were not a ‘chud’. Is that so hard to see?
I’m absolutely not saying that someone like Genghis Khan could be rehabilitated. I’m not unaware of what he did and the contentious rehabilitation following Weatherford’s book and how perspectives have changed with later incorporation of historical narratives from China and Mongolia itself.
Let me be absolutely clear, I do not condone taking someone’s life or cutting off their balls as a way to punish in a justice system. We have Geneva convention now. Again I’m curious why is it anti-feminist to say that didn’t Someone is not okay with inhumane punishment. I definitely do not want my own abusers to walk around free but I’m not advocating for them to be tortured using their reproductive organs or killed off.
I never said that anyone else should make peace or be okay with their abusers. You’re filling in some blanks here. Though at least I thought that an idea of justice that is outside personal revenge, but exists as a societal value to rehabilitate or punish justly without violating human rights would be accepted now.
I’m curious as to why you can authoritatively say I’m not aligned with feminism or that I have a laundry list of issues with women from two short pieces of text without knowing anything about me?
I am not sure why the humanist label is being treated as some kind of anti-feminist thing by you or the author of the cartoon. Is it one of those ‘All lives matter’ vs ‘Black lives matter’ situation in the US cultural context? In my cultural context, humanist is a label that is in the same category as atheist or agnostic without any negative connotations.
In fact it was seen as a superset that included feminist ideals and other intersectionalities such as disabilities, race and religion. Which was again why I said I agree with everything feminism says on paper but would like to use a broader term that covers intersectionalities that aren’t included in feminism but are relevant to me and because of my personal experiences with some well intentioned but misguided people wearing that label.
At the end of the day, what I’m getting from your comments is that people like me should not be participating in these discussions or are not welcome here.
Not so much trolls, just the majority of users. Most tech related forums are like this. Such is life.
Preferring humanist over feminist is kind of nonsensical. Feminism roots are in gender inequality and voting rights. Modern feminism (last 40 or so years) is focused on oppression theory and is the evolution of humanism in modern times.
It is like saying I prefer astronomer over astrophysicist. It doesn’t really make sense because they are different things from different times.
I never said it was anti-feminist to say you are against torture leading to murder (this of course did not actually happen in regards to Genghis and castration). In fact, feminism did not exist during the time of Ghenghis Khan nor did humanism.
Whenever examining history from a modern lense we should recognize the way we think and our motivations are significantly different from previous generations let alone several hundred years.
I said you were not a feminist. I am also not a feminist even though I have spent a lot of time at Uni and later on in my personal life studying it. I am what you would call an ally. If I am wrong about you, my apologies.
I am not an authority and yes I definitely filled in the blank. I am very good at guessing motivations, and as I said you showed some red flags right away with you story trying to conflate man-haters with feminism. This is such a common trope it shows your hand so to speak. If this was not your intention I understand.
I am sorry, but I did not mean to imply you said we should forgive abusers. I think a humanist perspective that looks towards rehabilitation and change rather than punishment is a great ideal. One that we are sorely lacking in modern times.
If you are not sure why a comic of a white male “man-splaining” something nonsensical to two women and then in the next panel the women having a conflict over race is offensive then I am not sure we view things as the same way.
As I pointed out it is a gross misrepresentation of modern feminism. Without humanism there wouldn’t have been feminism and without feminism we would not have gotten minority studies that revealed through research institutionalized racism.
This is a direct threat to the ruling class hence the constant lies and propaganda pushback feminism has received. So you if you have an issue with feminism please bring receipts because I am a passionate human being who has studied it for years and I have daughters and grandkids.
My daughters experienced sexual assault and I got to deal with the police and see how the modern system works. The pushback from the Metoo movement is intense with prosecutors, police officers, and judges using their discretion to perpetuate a system of blatant sexism. My cynical side says they are either rapists themselves or enablers.
You are going to get what you want to get. If you don’t feel welcomed to participate that is your decision. I am not a mod and I am not here to welcome anyone on a post that would attract the worst kind of people. I said my two cents and I often find myself getting involved when I should probably just walk away. It is a personal failing of mine.
Firstly I’m so sorry that your children experienced sexual assault. I wish them both justice and healing.
I typed up a long reply with references that I ended up deleting because it didn’t seem appropriate right now.
I have multiple genuine criticisms of feminism that come from actual feminist scholars about its interaction with the class and power structure, embedding of western imperialistic epistemology in it and others. None of it is because I’m opposed to equity or women’s rights. At the end of the day no philosophy is perfect and the actual practitioners are even less so. That is why it makes sense to talk about it and work on it.
I want to ask are you doing okay friend? It seems like you’re not.
I still have made only a singular point, that someone can prefer the label humanist over feminist despite agreeing with everything feminism might say without being a ‘chud’. You have created strawman after strawman through this conversation, accusing me of conflating man haters with feminists, defending the sexual assault and genocide of Genghis Khan, diagnosing me as being ignorant of what humanism or feminism is, of not caring enough to study either, agreeing with white mansplaining, diagnosing me as having a litany of problems with women and being full of red flags and so on. I’ve tried to engage you from a place of good faith, even after the cruel remark of asking if I were sexually assaulted by women and trying to use that to frame me as a woman hater. You’re fighting something that isn’t there.
I left the original comment because I thought it might make you think that there are real people who don’t fit the categories that have become drivers of the culture war. It pays to listen to each other. Instead it seems like my comments have caused you unnecessary distress and I apologize for that.
“Feminism” start like a slur to people who defend women vote, then they take the slur in their movement designation, egualism and humanism are already movements and study metods where they study why humans are patetics and beautiful at same time
Did you have a stroke?
ok xenophobe
Edit: very ironic to be called woke on a post discussing intersectionality btw.
Let’s be clear. Making a joke at someone’s expense? That is an insult. If that insult is predicated on the fact they don’t know your native language as well as you do, that is an insult targeting their culture (or lack of full integration into your own).
Assuming it from a western-centric perspective that the commenter themselves is from somewhere English is a native language: Definitionally, objectively, undeniably, it was xenophobia.
If it was from another non-native English speaker… boohoo I called an asshole a xenophobe on the internet. Shut up, losers.
So, when did xenophobia mean not being able to understand misspelled word salads?
It’s xenophobic to ridicule a non-native speaker and ask them if they had a stroke. You are ridiculing them and making a joke at their expense.
You also have a lot of gall to comment on how other people speak, to be honest. Your mastery of the English language is lacking. Maybe it’s not your first language either?
Sure.
The fuck did I just read?
I can’t dechiper the latter half but it seems like they’re trying to say “feminist” started as a “slur” that was used against men and women who wanted women to be able to vote. Feminists “claimed” the slur so to speak and broadened its meaning to encapsulate more issues?
But again I’m just guessing. English isn’t their first language. Maybe let’s not expect people to have perfect English on fucking Lemmy? lmao
I dont expect perfect English but it changes nothing if I cant decipher what they said.
Sure, but you could have maybe tried to interpret it a little bit and ask them what they mean? Instead you opted to make public spectacle of something that a lot of non-native speakers are self-conscious of.
Or you could just have not engaged. But again. You opted to make fun of someone because either you were being thoughtless/careless, or because you’re an asshole. Not a huge deal, but deserves being commented on.
The fuck did I just read?
Sure, but you could have maybe tried to interpret it a little bit and ask them what they mean? Instead you opted to make public spectacle of something that a lot of non-native speakers are self-conscious of.
Or you could just have not engaged. But again. You opted to make fun of someone because either you were being thoughtless/careless, or because you’re an asshole. Not a huge deal, but deserves being commented on.
This is the language of patetics
deleted by creator
