For how much you hate her, you are as hell haven’t leveled a single actual point against her other than generic shit talking. Surely you can actually point to specific issues, no?
There’s a large portion of the left that just absolutely loathes the idea that someone might not perfectly fall in line, and thus brands everyone who they disagree with as some right wing psyop
I’m drawing a compromise with the argument that she makes content that dogwhistles right wing talking points.
Compromise is only valuable when the positions the compromise seeks to find ground between are both equally honest positions. And calling her “right wing dogwhistle content” is anything but. It’s just a dishonest excuse to discredit her for not perfectly riding the approved narrative. And just to add onto it, the guy who posted the video was immediately banned for it. Compromise isn’t the goal it seems. It’s to throw out and discredit dissent.
Leftism isnt an obligation, no, but we are on solarpunk
No, we’re on lemmy.ca. Just because the mod is on solar punk, it doesn’t mean that the community is. And lemmy.ca makes no claims of being a leftist instance, just a Canadian one.
This is a tough piece, one that I share without fully endorsing. It lays out the problems that women experience with some men, like that men are not getting college degrees at the same rate as women or the lack of emotional modelling provided to boys and young men:...
It’s like the “have you tried restarting your computer” of dating. It’s the most basic possible piece of advice. To that end, most people have heard it tons of times, especially if they’re in the market for dating advice. It’s not bad advice, just not anything special.
I’m sure there’s people out there that this is genuinely great advice for, but at least from my perspective, it just reads like an extremely long way to say almost nothing. “be out there and be confident” is like the most basic possible dating advice, ever, and is really only useful if you’re completely off track on things. And to some extent, I feel like the article did itself a disservice by making it entirely gender neutral, because like it or not, society still tends to be highly gendered, and the problems people face in dating tend to be different along gendered lines.
The problem here isn’t that they have unattainable standards, it’s that a lot of men aren’t putting in effort to meet those basic standards, for whatever reason.
Are men obligated to meet those standards if they have no interest in doing so? Men don’t just exist for the sake of giving women someone to date, after all. And while the article was (I hesitate to say intentionally) vague about specifics, one thing it mentioned multiple times was holding a college degree. It’s hardly what I’d call “basic standards”, considering it takes a huge amount of time, and a fair deal of money to achieve. Of all the men I’ve talked with, myself included, that “standard” doesn’t seem to be prevalent, with the closest thing being “I guess it would be cool”.
At what point does the principle of “if everywhere you go smells like shit” start applying to these women who date but seem to never find a man that meet their standards? It only seems reasonable if nobody meets the standards, that the standards may be a major part of the issue.
And I don’t mean to say that women should just settle for men they don’t like, but “just stay single” is always an option, one men are told repeatedly whenever they struggle with relationships.
Or women could just lower their standards if they don’t think anyone is good enough for them. That’s basically what men have been told for ages, that women don’t need to go about changing themselves to meet the standards of men. Surely the same operates in reverse, no? If women don’t like their prospects, they can either lower their bar or stay single since men don’t need to change themselves to please women?
I would hesitate to draw conclusions from something like that. Both me and a lot of the other men I know just flat out skipped basically every assignment like that if it didn’t give enough points to be worth the effort, from middle school up through college.
Beyond that, it just seems like a shitty assignment as a whole. Because either a) it’s done under an assumption that their day as the opposite sex would be spontaneous, and thus would have very few relevant differences from their normal days (and we can easily guess those differences) or b) it’s done under an assumption of having always been the opposite sex, in which case it would just be an exercise in the butterfly effect, since huge amounts of things would be different, to the point that any generic hypothetical day would work.
All this is to say, it’s a prime assignment for skipping
Ultimately it seems like a complicated issue that isn’t going to be fixed with one simple solution
Now this I agree with wholeheartedly. My primary issue with the article is that it takes a grievance mindset rather than a problem solving one. It just reads like the women’s equivalent of some incel rant, in the sense that it externalizes the issue such that it’s always someone else’s responsibility to do something about, which doesn’t help solve anything.
I worry folks are downvoting because they take the title as an endorsement of anti-feminism. This is an explicit statement that this sub is in no way anti-feminist. Read the sidebar.
I mean it makes sense. Feminism has become quite the loaded term as of recent, and young people are going to be a lot more distanced from the earlier wages of feminism.
Not really, no. People aren’t working off some master database of language that pushes updates out universally. They’re working from their own understanding based on their own life experiences. Someone born in 1973 will have a very different socialization and bundle of personal experiences than someone born in 2002.
Not even getting into substantive issues, the people who loudly proclaim their feminism online are usually total fucking jackasses since honest people see little need to hide behind the concept of “feminism”, as if it’s a shield against criticism.
Overall, a more substantive survey would just be better. Or really anything beyond “self ID with a broad and contentious label”.
Articles like this suck. They contribute absolutely nothing to discussion by just saying “well, other people also have problems too”, without even attempting to suggest any direction where a solution is.
Ahh, yes. The only possible reason I could want to make progress is because it’s edgy. How about you go somewhere else if you’re only interested in dismissing everything out of hand
Tradwife stereotypes are making male loneliness worse (www.salon.com)
An apology to men, and response to Shoeonhead. - Thought Slime (yt.artemislena.eu)
Canonical YouTube link
NYT Opinion | Why Aren’t More People Marrying? Ask Women What Dating Is Like. (Gift Link) (www.nytimes.com)
This is a tough piece, one that I share without fully endorsing. It lays out the problems that women experience with some men, like that men are not getting college degrees at the same rate as women or the lack of emotional modelling provided to boys and young men:...
Benevolent sexism: a feminist comic explains how it holds women back (www.theguardian.com)
How to Get a Girlfriend, Boyfriend, or Themfriend (www.bishuk.com)
Opinion | Why Aren’t More People Getting Married? Ask Women What Dating Is Like. (www.nytimes.com)
Harping on people to get married from up in the ivory tower fails to engage with reality of life in the dating trenches.
2010s Pop Feminism: A Painful Look Back (yt.artemislena.eu)
Poll finds that fewer Gen Z boys identify as Feminists than Millenials-- and the same % as Gen X. (www.mensjournal.com)
I worry folks are downvoting because they take the title as an endorsement of anti-feminism. This is an explicit statement that this sub is in no way anti-feminist. Read the sidebar.
deleted_by_author
When it comes to gender stuff, sometimes there aren’t simple solutions, and we have to be okay with that. (medium.com)