spaduf @ spaduf @slrpnk.net

Posts

382

Comments

607

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Big fan of this show. Went in with minimal expectations and found my new favorite show. Hope it doesn't go the way of lost

Have you checked out !lemmybewholesome@lemmy.world

Many people who have a problem with the name feminism are nonbinary people, who want equality but have been excluded from the movement by enbyphobic women, AKA TERFs.

I assert that the quantity of nbs who hold this opinion is so small as to be negligable and that ceding a major right wing talking point for gender equity for nbs (a group in which I, and the majority of my social circle are a part of) is mostly just ceding a right wing talking point.

Put another way, the idea that "feminism" is an insufficient term is tantamount to "all lives matter".

Well this is a debate about prescriptivism vs descriptivism, right?

No I don't think so.

You're arguing we should stick to the "intended" meaning. But at what point does denying the evolution of language to become more transphobic deny the genuine harms suffered by trans people?

I'm arguing that your particular claimed usage of feminism as a transphobic term (that is, the general inclusion of NBs as a class for whom feminism benefits is tantamount to gendering them female) simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. This is distinct from the issue of women's spaces explicitly including NBs feels like misgendering (which is valid).

The premise of this community is fundamentally dependent on the idea that being a beneficiary of feminism MUST be entirely seperate from being gendered female.

It's not that there must be a class that suffers, it's that there is.

Throwing out feminism because it does not essentialise trans and NB rights feels like very poor praxis. From the perspective of one individual assessing the views of another, I don't disagree with your metric, but I disagree with your application of the ideas to the broader movement. Particularly in so far as it grants to right wingers that feminism is a sexist term.

The debate around terminology for spaces intended for women (and the tendency for folks to make nebulous assertions about the inclusion of NBs) seems to me to be an entirely separate issue.

Fundamentally, I see what you're saying but I'd like to push back on the idea that the term "feminism" needs rethinking at this point in time.

I'd even go so far as to say the parent comment where a rejection of the term feminism is portrayed as tantamount to "all lives matter" is more correct than the idea that "feminism" is a poor term because it feels like misgendering. This is a space centered around the idea that feminism is good for men because feminism is not a term that should leave you feeling gendered in it's primary usage.

You're being downvoted, but even though most wouldn't express it explicitly, men consistently demonstrate a very similar danger response to other men as women.

Swing and a miss, mate. Many people who have a problem with the name feminism are nonbinary people, who want equality but have been excluded from the movement by enbyphobic women, AKA TERFs.

I'm not sure the mere existence of TERFs has led to any significant movement to rename feminism among the NB community.

Terrorist attacks are not more likely to be committed by somebody you know intimately than anybody else.

My opinion is yes. That existing subscriber base goes a long way towards jumpstarting an active community

Love this guy. Also a big fan of his song cancer

I think these are some good points particularly as they reflect on the idea of 'redefining' Masculinity. While i would argue our current conception of Masculinity is much more deeply rooted (certainly much much older) than neoliberalism, Masculinity is similarly dependent on the idea of competition as the primary means of expression. This is why i believe it is somewhat missing the point to try to define a positive Masculinity. If you've got a group of people who've existed since birth in an intrinsically competitive environment, it is not enough to say the new ideal is not competitive. When the cultural notions of the group are already set in place, a supposedly less competitive ideal will result in almost no actual social change. Deconstructing the competitive instincts of Masculinity should be the primary project.

I'm gonna link this in the sidebar.

But it's also clearly partisan with just enough play to avoid a boycott. Everything the authoritarian president does to initiate the war has a very direct analogue in actions taken by Trump and his administration.

but you see them commit war crime after war crime

Ib keep seeing people saying this and i think it misses one of the major points of the movie. We're not supposed to look at this and go "they are bad because they committed war crime". We are supposed to look at this and go "of course they're committing war crimes, who's gonna stop them". This movie is very interested in the idea of what happens during war when a hegemonic US can't play world police.

Also bombing civilians?

I'm also watching the open book project.

If it just had epub support it'd be perfect

So I'm not necessarily advocating for a world without individual gender expression. The key difference here is external vs internal pressures.

I actually think that we're all better off without normative gender roles. To that end, I think that any attempt to define an alternative masculinity leaves you with something that is just as restrictive.