fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3969 ]

[ SECRET POST #3969 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3969 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

[Vampire Princess Miyu]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

[Disgaea/Soul Nomad]

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #568.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

ex. Twitter threads where people jump in with "but not ALL men!!" because the title of an article was like "face it, guys; all of us are trash but here is how we can do better by women"

I guess education systems world wide failed them if no one knows about hyperbole or metonymy. Your feelings got in the way of you actually seeing how you can help improve the world, how ironic. Now if a statement is like "all men are rapists", that won't fly, because that's a serious statement to claim.

"but what if we said the same thing about a minority group?" you mean what if you said the same thing as a group that doesn't have the institutional power? I don't have to explain further, do I?

The amount of performatively bad interpretation of things like that on the Internet is fucking exhausting, and so much of it isn't even remotely in good faith to begin with.

and the medium makes it just totally unrewarding and useless to try to address it, too.

Oh - yep, that's another thing. Too many people know the "liberal" lingo so they can use it to get people's guards down and still be shit.

the power + predice thing was made by a white woman lol and often ignores the intrapersonal and intersection of privilege. yeah, on average, white people in american society have more power than minorities, but if it’s a shitty thing to do, it’s a shitty thing to do regardless of oppression points.

At the same time, there are all kinds of ways in which the context of privilege and power is a necessary element in understanding and analyzing numerous different situations. Ignoring that institutional and ingrained and structural power is just as silly as pretending that oppressed people can't do anything wrong. And probably, honestly, more harmful.

I mean, really, what is the point that you're trying to make with this post?

the power + predice thing was made by a white woman lol and often ignores the intrapersonal and intersection of privilege.

I know most white women are, well, not the best at working toward a real equal society over keeping the power their whiteness gives them, but if they've started something helpful, what's your point in bringing that up.

Like white women and black men are disadvantaged and advantaged in different ways in US society, and that's assuming they're straight / cis / able-bodied, but that doesn't make some of their advantages go away.

I have privileges myself, like being cis, and if a trans person was to express frustration with cis people, I'd get over it because I understand hyperbole and I also understand that many cis people make it hard as hell for them to exist. They're allowed to be mad.

As long as no one's being threatened, I really do not care about hyperbole like that toward people in power.

Edited 2017-11-16 02:40 (UTC)

Most of them? That seems a bit...untrue.

I dunno, any title that says "all guys are trash" is kind of begging to be derailed. It's stupid and that kind of language isn't helpful. I say this as a gay woman. I'm not sure why you're bringing institutional power into this, it's either okay to negatively generalize an enormous group of people or it isn't, and I'm leaning toward it isn't.

I know what you mean, and while I do believe men need to be able to express themselves and their emotions, and fight against the bad things they've had engrained in them, I'm at the point now where I honestly sometimes do think all men are trash, and any of them who complain about it deserve the label even more.

It's not venting anymore. Not really. Women are getting fucking fed up. The more that's revealed, the more power abused, the more rapes and looking the other way about sexism, sexual abuse, institutionalized power, and every other fucking evil thing that men have going on (and other men would rather criticize women about than face or fix), well, I'm sorry, but they have a problem.

And we have a problem too, that boils down to one fucking word a lot of the time. MEN

Every single "hurt feeling" we have to passify or bend over backwards about while rapists are excuses right and left just convince me more. Men Are Shit. Not from birth, and not all of them: but enough to write off any man until he proves he's NOT like that.

Oh yes, the ones who say all the right things can't be trusted either.

My answer is: yes, all men, until they prove otherwise. That's just how I feel these days.

Okay, well, you are wrong and you have a problem. *shrug* Seriously. It's not just "hurt feelings", it's downright illogical to call all men rapists. Sexual assault is a massive problem that needs to be addressed; that will not happen by shrieking about how all men are evil and have to prove themselves otherwise. I also wonder if you're half as concerned about female rapists and sexual predators, when we talk about sexual assault, or if they are exempted from representing their entire gender.

"all guys are trash" is not the same statement as "all guys are rapists"

And, I mean, this is a distinction that morieris actually specifically draws in their post

If women committed more than the tiniest of fractions of sexual assault compared to men, yes, I'd give it equal time.

I believe all victims deserve equal time, and all abusers should be stopped, but claiming there's an equal balance of male and female predators...damn, you're just reaching.

By all means, let's focus equally on the completely equal problem that women cause for society. Let's also talk about murder, shall we?

====

All Homicide Types by Gender, 1976-2005. From Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement, 7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Dept of Justice.

Eldercide: Male 85.2%, Female 14.8%
Felony murder: Male 93.2%, Female 6.8%
Sex related murder: Male 93.6%, Female 6.4%
Gang related murder: Male 98.3%, Female 1.7%
Drug related murder: Male 95.5%, Female 4.5%
Workplace murders: Male 91.3%, Female 8.7%
Argument murders: Male 85.6%, Female 14.4%
Gun homicide: Male 91.3%, Female 8.7%
Multiple victims: Male 93.5%, Female 6.5%
Child murder: of those children killed by someone other than their parent, 81% were killed by men.

NAYRT

Good lord, those are some dramatically huge differences in numbers there. Wow. I knew there was a difference, but I didn't really realize just how drastic it truly was.

What people mean by "all guys are trash" is, I think, generally clear. It is a shorthand, colloquial question for the idea that societal structures and patriarchy influence experience and behavior in general in a way that has immediate, pervasive, and nearly inescapable effects on everyone living in society, in a way that is particularly toxic for men. And I think that underlying idea is correct, and more to the point, not the kind of negative generalization that we should find objectionable.

So the relevant question, I think, is two-fold. First, is "all guys are trash" a fair way to gloss that idea? Second, is "all guys are trash" a rhetorically useful way to gloss that idea? I think the answer to the first question is yes - it's at least reasonable - because the reality is that those structural factors we're talking about do effect behavior and perception in real and tangible ways that are more or less universal. The second question, I have less of a good read on. I can see the argument that "all guys are trash" doesn't do a good job at capturing the underlying ideological argument. On the other hand, I'm not sure that there *is* a rhetorically good way to approach these issues. And it's not like the underlying ideological case is some kind of secret that no one is aware of.

So tl;dr I guess I just think that dismissing it as nothing more than an unfounded negative generalization is a misreading of the phrase.

I don't understand anymore how men seem to be under the impression that it's just evil feminists who are attacking them, that there is no problem at all, that men are innocent and good. I don't think there's a way to open their eyes at this point that yes, men are a big problem. A lot of them, in systemic, abusive, killer, rapist ways: and the ones who look the other way, try to deflect the issue onto the evils of womanhood, or think it's all a big joke and women are too sensitive ....they are active enablers.

I'm starting to think education systems failed because no one on this site uses metonymy correctly.

Totum pro parte

See and for me that sort of... negative grouping thing is a huge pet peeve. I think it's an incredibly harmful way of speaking about people and trying to spread ideas. When I was big into the social activism scene years ago, we would never have used language like that because it's so fucking damaging. I seriously don't know how the fuck we went from "shit guys we can't use words like crazy because that hurts people" to "white ladies are a walking dumpster fire let's talk about that" in ten fucking years.

When you talk about "men" (or "white people" or any other huge group) you're also talking about minorities. When you say things like your example, you're saying the gay black guy struggling with an eating disorder is also trash. You're saying migrant farm-worker wage-slaves are trash. And so on. You're saying the woman who lives in constant pain with crippling medical debt is garbage just because she's white.

You can't turn around and hide behind "it's just hyperbole!" No it's fucking not. It's not just hyperbole when literally every system of our society is built around pretending these people don't exist. It's not hyperbole to the millions of disenfranchised and hurting people you just said were worthless garbage, just because they ticked some other checkbox on your list of people it's okay to talk shit about.

So, first, the post that we're talking about doesn't contain the word "worthless". Two, I think the argument is broadly true that - setting aside the specific word "garbage" or "trash" - men qua men have those qualities and are affected by patriarchy in those ways, regardless of any other way in which they are oppressed. I certainly don't think that means that they should all be dismissed and are worthless as human beings, and I certainly don't think that's what people mean to say with that.

So I mean let's be specific here about what we're talking about, which it seems to me is this: does the "garbage"/"trash" language carry an unavoidable implication of worthlessness? Or is it a reasonable form of hyperbole to say "trash" and mean "deeply flawed"?

Let’s look at it this another way: how does language like this help dismantle the partiarchy or whatever long term? And what impact does this have on more serious conversations down the line?

Trash is literally stuff that has no worth. That's what that word means. So yeah, when you call someone trash you're saying they're worthless. You're saying that person is equivalent to a thing that needs to be thrown away.

I think that's an innately harmful sentiment, even if the intentions behind it are good.

I don't have a problem with people talking about men or white people or Americans or whatever other privileged group as if they're a monolith. It's kind of inevitable, and mostly good, because it challenges minorities within that privileged group to examine their own thoughts and behaviors.

I do have a problem with language that assumes someone is automatically bad just because they fit into whatever privileged group. I don't think it's okay to call people names or insult them for things they can't change about themselves. And I definitely don't think it's okay to use language that reinforces negative self-worth. (Especially since the first and most important battle we fight in activism is convincing minority people that they DO have worth and their voices and lives have value.)

This is well said.

I mean, I have times where I honestly feel like the only non-sexist straight man I've ever had any acquaintance with is my father (and that's because he's literally the biggest and most well-read feminist I've ever met). And I get angry - like really fucking pissed off - and want to make generalizations about straight men. Like one of the anons above says, sometimes it genuinely feels deserved.

But then I think about how incensed I am by the left's tendency to generalize about white women and white feminists (of which I am both), and I use that to remind myself that it's probably every bit as annoying to straight men when I generalize about them in negative ways. So I really try not to.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3969 ]

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves

Re: Pet Peeves