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

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.

Dude, you're a gamer gate shill, having championed one of the stupidest conspiracy theories of the anti-feminist web you don't get to nerd rage another using YouTube comments as your only source and play the mastermind when called on your use of an essentialist dogwhistle. You don't have a point, much less a plan beyond refusing to say, "oops, I might be wrong."

NAYRT

The reason that it's relevant whether it's "essential" or merely "characteristic" is that it impacts whether or not the behaviors and social attitudes can be changed. If it's just characteristic, then we can change it. Whereas if it's essential (either socially or biologically), then it can't be changed. So it actually turns out to be a crucial and really meaningful distinction if you're talking about the idea that "male violence and all the evil and crimes that come with it are a unique phenomenon and comes from the way men the world over are socialized."

And I think the fact that you've overlooked that distinction, in turn, goes to the problem that people have with the way that you talk about feminism. Because you always talk about that like feminists think that violence is unalterable - you say it's socially essential instead of biologically essential, but still, your understanding of the feminist argument really seems to be that these things can't be changed. When the point is that it is still just one of a number of nearly infinite ways in which society could be arranged. The point is that the socialization of men, the choices of men, the actions of men, and the societal impacts of those things are all alterable.

So, the idea that male violence and toxic masculinity are the outcome of social structures and socialization - yes, that's a mainstream idea in feminism. But the conclusion that these things are unchangeable is absolutely not a mainstream idea. And you really seem to keep acting like it is. You keep talking like "toxic masculinity" means that masculinity is unalterable and can't be non-toxic. And this is not the case. And you really keep on insisting and insisting and insisting that it is, and it's not.

Yes. Laurie Penny--who's been kind of a big deal in feminist post-#metoo op-eds--has had multiple columns this year arguing that her life as a polyamorous woman who does casual sex would be a lot easier if more men got over our hangups and bought into consent culture. Saturday's column by Arwa Mahdawi argues that if queer-positive burlesque clubs can do consent culture, so can the office Christmas party. Even if you go back all the way to 1970s radical feminism, people like Dworkin emphasized that male violence is a political construct and not something essential to men, although one argument there is that ending sexual violence would mean giving up as masculinity as we currently understand it (Stoltenberg). But I'm mostly of the opinion that a large number of the young people claiming to be "radical feminists" are--in the kindest interpretation--cherry picking bits and pieces of radical feminist theory in the service of an ironic misogyny.

Generally though, using Twitter and YouTube conversations as evidence for anything beyond the case that people on Twitter and YouTube are frequently horrible is a big WTF. Viral tags are often filled with rants and shitposts, if not blatant trolling. But I've been a deep curmudgeon on the idea that people shouldn't use Twitter as a source.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4374 ]

Re: No one is here

Re: No one is here

Re: No one is here

Re: No one is here

Re: No one is here

Re: No one is here

Re: No one is here

Re: No one is here

Re: No one is here

Re: No one is here

Re: No one is here

Re: No one is here