Fair correction, the point I was mostly trying to make was that I call it woke bigotry because terfs pretend to be feminist, the same way those racist black people in the US pretend to be anti-racist.
Yeah, I guess so. Misandry and misogyny aren’t exact inverses of each other, same as internalized racism isn’t quite the same as say a white man being racist would be.
I disagree with the implication that a minority being bigoted, like misandry, is an internalized version of the “larger bigotry”, if that’s what you meant to say. Some queer spaces are legitimately just hostile to men for no good reason with the same force misogynistic spaces are to women, and there are racial minorities who are legit just racist against white people.
Of course, those are less harmful societally, since they have less power, but on an individual level they’re still just as bad.
Yes it can, in the context of a specific case. In the case of a school club, say, a man (case A) and woman (case B) can be discriminated against with the same force, albiet in different ways within the walls of the club (A or B), because social groups can have different rules than wider society.
In the same way that being white in some countries makes you a minority that is being discriminated against, whereas in others you’re not.
The fact the woman gets discriminated against more outside the club is important, but it doesn’t make the discrimination better or more excusable in the case of the man being discriminated against.
Yeah, I just disagree, I agree it’s different, obviously, but it’s certainly comparable and not understandable.
When does “members of this group of people have wronged me in the past” become “It’s more acceptable to discriminate against people of that group”? Seriously.
I deeply disagree with the idea that bigotry is somehow different when stripped of power. I can extend a bit more tolerance for that sort of behavior, but it’s still just as reprehensible.
I can comprehend it, but calling it understandable and different in the way that you did frames it as somehow less bad. The individual person is not “their oppressors”. That’s the part I disagree with.
I think you’d balk at someone saying that someone being racist was “understandable” because there was a black gang active where they grew up.
It could be (not taking a side on whether it is) a difference in degree rather than kind. The effect would still be markedly different in many cases (being excluded from a bathroom is annoying, being excluded from nearly every bathroom is a different matter entirely), but that doesn’t mean the intent isn’t similar.
Fair correction, the point I was mostly trying to make was that I call it woke bigotry because terfs pretend to be feminist, the same way those racist black people in the US pretend to be anti-racist.
Yeah, I guess so. Misandry and misogyny aren’t exact inverses of each other, same as internalized racism isn’t quite the same as say a white man being racist would be.
I disagree with the implication that a minority being bigoted, like misandry, is an internalized version of the “larger bigotry”, if that’s what you meant to say. Some queer spaces are legitimately just hostile to men for no good reason with the same force misogynistic spaces are to women, and there are racial minorities who are legit just racist against white people.
Of course, those are less harmful societally, since they have less power, but on an individual level they’re still just as bad.
It literally can’t be with the same force because those minorities are not in positions of power the way that the larger majority is.
Yes it can, in the context of a specific case. In the case of a school club, say, a man (case A) and woman (case B) can be discriminated against with the same force, albiet in different ways within the walls of the club (A or B), because social groups can have different rules than wider society.
In the same way that being white in some countries makes you a minority that is being discriminated against, whereas in others you’re not.
The fact the woman gets discriminated against more outside the club is important, but it doesn’t make the discrimination better or more excusable in the case of the man being discriminated against.
Do you get what I mean?
I didn’t say it was excusable, I said it was different and understandable.
Do you get what I mean?
Yeah, I just disagree, I agree it’s different, obviously, but it’s certainly comparable and not understandable.
When does “members of this group of people have wronged me in the past” become “It’s more acceptable to discriminate against people of that group”? Seriously.
I deeply disagree with the idea that bigotry is somehow different when stripped of power. I can extend a bit more tolerance for that sort of behavior, but it’s still just as reprehensible.
You don’t find it understandable why people from an oppressed group might harbor ill feelings toward their oppressors?
I’m not saying agree with or find it acceptable - you can’t even wrap your head around why?
I can comprehend it, but calling it understandable and different in the way that you did frames it as somehow less bad. The individual person is not “their oppressors”. That’s the part I disagree with.
I think you’d balk at someone saying that someone being racist was “understandable” because there was a black gang active where they grew up.
It could be (not taking a side on whether it is) a difference in degree rather than kind. The effect would still be markedly different in many cases (being excluded from a bathroom is annoying, being excluded from nearly every bathroom is a different matter entirely), but that doesn’t mean the intent isn’t similar.
I think the intent is different between the two. It makes much more sense for an oppressed group to hate their oppressors.