you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ThiccDropkickGay 12 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Tbh after feminist women spent years telling us that nobody was more qualified than them to speak about male behaviour and men's issues, it's funny to see a bit of the reverse.

But that's just my cynical asshole side coming out. This is bad

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think it’s a perfect storm of social justice dogma not just or exclusively feminism, and there are different strains of feminism. At this point I don’t adhere to any of them and don’t want to outsource my thinking to any ideology, but I do agree with a lot of points and goals.

Anyway, just keep in mind that there are a lot of people thinking this about gay people as a result of gender ideology and I think we need to think and talk about why that is. Of course supporting gay rights now doesn’t mean we can’t talk about whether we would or should have done things differently before and how the gay rights movement led to this (not that I think it was inevitable). We do need to talk about how and why the T got added, by whom, and why we went along with it and didn’t question it (for those of us who didn’t question it).

So “funny” isn’t the word I would use but it’s a point worth making, and it’s not totally wrong. Sigh.

[–]usehername 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I... don’t want to outsource my thinking to any ideology

This is the perfect description of ideologues. I'll be using this.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Glad it resonated. I try to keep myself grounded in the real world and thinking about practical solutions and consequences. I aim to develop practical rules for myself that are a general starting point but are subject to change if the right circumstances present themselves (which now that I think about it is how the common law system we have in America works). I don’t want to be swindled by charlatans and I don’t want to get caught in the web of reactionaries of any kind either. Activists play an important role in keeping issues in the public consciousness but to implement policies that have to balance the interests of greater society and a number of people with varying amounts of political power, it’s dangerous to just let an activist/ideologue implement their vision whole-cloth. It’s simply not in their nature to be thinking about everyone else’s interests.

I’m also reminded of the “Just So” children’s stories and their like. They give plausible stories and explanations for how things developed and why they are the way they are. But they’re all made up. Just because something sounds right doesn’t make it right or accurate and while it feels good to have simple explanations and solutions for complex and stressful problems. I feel like ideologies are prone to this.

For example, when radfems say that men prefer no body hair because their preferences are pedophilic in nature. Like nah fam, as a lesbian I don’t like body hair on women (or men). I’m just very tactile and sensitive to texture (in both good and bad ways) and it’s not visually appealing on women or men. But pedophilic? Christ.