fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4374 ]

[ SECRET POST #4374 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4374 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Disney/Doctor Who crossover]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Avatar: The Last Airbender]

__________________________________________________

04.

(Markiplier and his friend Wade)

__________________________________________________

05.

[Dumplin' on Netflix]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Daredevil]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Criminal Minds S03E13 "Limelight"]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #626.
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

I don't think you're all that well read about feminism if you think a large number of are biological essentialists. Maybe get some recs outside of your personal echo chamber and Twitter comments.

Fam, my "Echo chamber" includes a fair number of feminists from across the spectrum. I don't block many people. And if you think what I'm describing is "biological essentialism", I don't wanna be mean, but I think I might be better read into feminism than you.

Sure there are a number of feminist of that stripe, They tend to gravitate to the TERF side of things, however.

Mostly, however, this attitude that "Men are responsible for crime, wars and violations to women can be made palatable to feminism as a whole by calling it hegemonic masculinity.

Basically you treat it like biological essentialism, but you don't blame it on biology. You blame it on culture and society. Social essentialism and you attribute it to all men by merit of all men live in societies. All men teach other men to be this way and this way is inherently harmful to all women, and so if men and male influence was removed from society... Well, you see how it goes

If it can be otherwise, then it's not essentialism.

Well, Essentialism was your word, not mine, but I think the "Biological" part is the main point to argue.

Also opinions are split on if it can be otherwise. There is a school of thought that men are not capable of breaking from their socially enforced violent roles.

There is a school of thought, yeah. But if you don't agree with that specific school of thought, and I don't agree with it, and other feminists don't agree with it, then why are we talking about it?

We're not? Are you ok? you seem to be struggling to follow this.

We were talking about the first thing I brought up. The idea that male violence and all the evil and crimes that come with it is a unique phenomenon and comes from the way men the world over are socialised.

Someone called this biological essentialism, and not common in feminism. I arged as an aside that biological essentialism is found in some branches of feminism but clarified it is more traditionally thought of as social rather than biological.

Then you seemed to want to go down the road of arguing the essentialism angle which I agree I don't think fit's, but then I don't hold with much of the theory, but presented an angle that could be used to argue that it is seem by some as essentialism, but, again, let me clarify, essentialism is not my word.

My whole thing that I am talking about is the feminist idea that male violence and all the evil and crimes that come with it is a unique phenomenon and comes from the way men the world over are socialised. You can keep trying to Gotcha me on the "Essentialism" side, but that's really not what I'm arguing.

So, Now, we're all back on the same page, you probably want to make the argument that
This "feminist idea that male violence and all the evil and crimes that come with it is a unique phenomenon and comes from the way men the world over are socialised" is also only one school of thought found in feminism, and that since there are some feminists that don't hold with it, why should I care. That about right?

Well, 1. "The idea that rape should be made legal is only one school of thought in some extremist circles and there are many people who disagree so, let's not talk about them" doesn't really hold up.

2. The idea may be contested by some feminists, but it does seem to be the prevailing theory at the moment. Certainly seems to be the idea behind a LOT of modern feminist ideas these days is found almost exclusively in feminism

I suppose frantic backpedaling from "feminists" to some feminists and "inherent" (biological essentialism) to something that's not is some form of progress.

*Sigh*

So you understand that the word "Feminists" does not actually mean all feminists. Congrats. You're learning. What Feminist, in this context DOES mean is almost exclusivity feminists are saying it. Not that all feminists are saying it - I'd have said "All feminists" If I'd meant all feminists - Just that all the people who are saying it are feminists.

I mean, is your argument a knee jerk #NotAll~~men~~Feminists ?

And as to the other point, "inherent" does not just mean biological essentialism. You're going down this really nitpicky hair-splitty path with this, so before you embarrass yourself, when you go to the dictionary to look it up, pay close attention to the word "Or" in there. And remember this. I'm being sporting here. I chould have just let you go to the dictionary, cherry pick the part where it uses the word essential, and then shown you up latter by pointing out the other uses. Remember this kindness the next time you accuse someone of "frantic backpedaling" because of your failure to understand how words are used.

None of the alternate meanings of inherent help you here. But given that you're backpedaling again to your original position that a whack a doodle proposal is a mainstream feminist idea, your complete failure to support your claims and a failure to present a clear argument in this area that doesn't involve changing your tune and lying about it every other post, claims to be "sporting" are Dunning-Kruger in action.

Inherant - a characteristic attribute

Inherent in this case - "a characteristic attribute of how men are socialised is that they are violent and criminal and abusive."

It's funny that you mention the Dunning-Kruger effect You're the second person to mention it to me in the last half hour or so. You see I ran this exchange past a friend of mine, a feminist in point of fact, and her opinion is that you are a smooth brain and a living proof of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I'm not even making it up. To be totally fair she has clarified that you're probably just in over your head, but still... But for the record I was being facetious in my claim of being sporting.

Backpedaling again.

Let's make this clear, nothing you say here has any credibility having been demonstrably wrong and dishonest about your own claims from comment to comment. Pony up the evidence.

Re: No one is here

(Anonymous) - 2018-12-26 20:14 (UTC) - Expand

Re: No one is here

(Anonymous) - 2018-12-26 20:49 (UTC) - Expand

Re: No one is here

(Anonymous) - 2018-12-26 21:55 (UTC) - Expand

I run in feminist circles and this is like the first time this year I've seen that argument entertained seriously.

What? You have not see the idea that male violence is a unique and socialised phenomenon, and it comes from men enforcing social norms of oppression and violence to be upheld by other men?

I mean, I too have some feminist friends (Typically they tend to be the type of feminist who, if they believe this is a thing will hold the opinion that this socialisation can be broken by speaking with an educating men), and I have seen that regularly. I have also seen in in various feminist articles and papers.

Hell, google "Toxic masculinity" which, Yes, I know was not traditional the idea that men harm women by their male socialisation, but has broadly become a buzzword for that idea.

I mean, if you're not seeing it regularly, either you're not looking too deep into it, or your feminist circles are not that broad, or you are not taking it seriously when it is discussed, or you don't consider the feminist who espouse it as "Real" feminists. Like How TERF's are not really real feminists.

But yeah, It's a pretty popular concept in feminism these days.

You're making a massive leap from the first paragraph, which is a reasonable statement about the realities of gendered violence, to a fringe determinist position, to attributing that fringe position to feminism in general.

So who should I consider more credible here? Dozens of articles describing consent culture as something that is entirely possible for men, and some are already doing it. (By coincidence, writing this in a car listening to Dirty Computer, an critically acclaimed album discussing this.) Or f!s worst troll? Do I continue to engage in the discussion of how men are examining and changing toxic masculinity in our lives or your persecution fantasy?

Did I say feminism in general?

I said common in feminism, which is certainly seems to be, and that this idea is uniquly found in feminism.

But you are calling me this comms worst troll, which tells me that you... hell you don't care about all the troll giants upon who's shoulders I stand, and only really care about beating your opponent, and not engaging honestly to begin with.

Also your incorrect (but commonly misused) use of toxic masculinity tells me I got an ideologue on my hands, so really is there any point in me trying to convince you you're wrong?

Just Saturday I saw a piece about how it's possible to have parties including the opportunity for hookups while respecting consent, by borrowing norms and practices from queer night clubs.

And educate me, in what way an I using "toxic masculinity," a term that originated in discussion of behaviors that contribute to increased male mortality such as lack of independent social networks, reluctance to seek preventive and early health care, and yes, interpersonal violence, incorrectly? Am I really am ideologue for not talking about how I have a primary physician, do the early eating tests, and cultivate friendships?

Or is it just that I don't find your tired anti-feminism (the same BS I here out of 30 years ago) credible.

Yeah, toxic masculinity is traditionally those things.

It not, as the current topic is about, how "Male violence is everywhere and unique and different from women. Men are the violent ones and if they went away women would be safe to walk the street at night"

I tell you to look up toxic masculinity as an example of how that is the current narrative, and you come back with "Yeah, that's toxic masculinity, we're trying to change that" (paraphrased of course") then yeah, I think you're broadening the term far beyond those points you listed there and have moved from "Toxic Masculinity is somthing men do to themselves" and into "Toxic masculinty is what men do to women" which is the current feminist ideologue thinking of the term.

But yeah, I think this disingenuous bullshit you're pulling here is just confirming my gut instincts that there's no point trying to engage someone who is so engaged in the narrative that anyone who has a problem with the utter bullshit parts of feminism is a troll.

Oi, again with you and this "narrative," which is very much in "citation needed" territory, followed by bitching that anyone who is reasonably skeptical of your claim that feminists believe men can't change are ideologues.

It not, as the current topic is about, how "Male violence is everywhere and unique and different from women. Men are the violent ones and if they went away women would be safe to walk the street at night"

In the world as it exists right now, men are largely the ones that instigate violence against women as a result of the social decisions we make about how we socialize and educate men. That set of social attitudes about masculinity is often called "toxic masculinity". One way to illustrate the impact of these behaviors is to imagine a hypothetical world with no men - the difference between how women would live in that world, and how they live in this world, illustrates the size and scale of the problem.

If we want to make the world better, and reduce that violence, the best way to do so is to socialize men better so that they don't do these behaviors. This will reduce violence against women, and also probably make men happier and healthier and make the world a better place. And this is one of the main political objectives of feminism.

Correction, an I really am ideologue for taking about how I take care of my own health?

We are not talking about your health. or My health. Were we talking about that, that would be the picture perfect example of a topic in which the term toxic masculinity belongs. Talking about Toxic masculinity as a means to address why women would be free of violence if men disappeared...

Yeah, no, that's bullshit ideology.

We're talking about what feminism says about toxic masculinity, playing no true Scot when you have neither credibility nor sources isn't going to work.

I see little point in discussing a fringe position as mainstream.

I mean... You want me to cite the feminist zeitgeist? I ... Nibba, just google the words "Toxic Masculinity" read the first... 10 articles and put them into categories of "This article talks about toxic masculinity as what men do to themselves" vs "This article talks about toxic masculinity as what men do to Women"

Re: No one is here

(Anonymous) - 2018-12-26 19:42 (UTC) - Expand

And that's not counting gay discussions about toxic masculinity and internalized homophobia that go back to WWII.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only