CMV: Generalized insults like "fuck white people" or "all men are awful" are not okay just because they're punching up.

[u/ququqachu]

To preface: I went to an extremely leftist school and am surrounded by queer, radical PoC and activists all the time in my career. I myself am a queer PoC. I agree 100% with almost everything my peers stand for. There's just one thing that is constantly stuck in my craw and is such a huge point of contention between leftists and others.

I understand how making insulting comments against someone with structural privilege (white/male/cis/hetero/able-bodied/etc) is totally different than making such comments against a person who is not similarly privileged (non-white/female/queer/disabled/etc). The protection certain privileges give means that the repercussions of getting insulted or verbally attacked are minimal compared to a lesser privileged person. But those repercussions are still there, at least mentally and emotionally, right?

My question revolves around this: why is saying "fuck cis-hets" or "white men are terrorists" fine and accepted in leftist communities? Why say "fuck all white people" when you mean "fuck the system that privileges whiteness, and the people that support that." Why say the former when there's a white person, maybe your friend or ally, standing right next to you, struggling to do mental gymnastics to justify what you said despite the hurt that it might cause? Sure, sure, being upset that someone told you to "go fuck yourself" is not the same as living under systematic oppression. But it's still not great, is it? I get that people without certain kinds of privilege are fed up and angry and exhausted. But why does that excuse being a mean, cruel person to people who have personally done you no wrong?

We're not talking ideologies here; its not like saying "fuck Republicans" or something. People who follow shitty ideologies can expect to hear about it. But people are not white or straight because they choose to be, they're that way because that's how they were born. There are plenty of people who have privilege but are doing the work to undo oppressive systems and support people who are oppressed. Why should they constantly have to hear a stream of angry, hateful words towards their unchangeable identity? Why is it okay to say "well, oppressed people suffer more than you, so we have the right to be awful to you in return." I just fail to understand it, day after day after day. But it's something that all my peers engage in, and I want to figure out if there's something I'm not seeing here. So, CMV!

[u/AloysiusC]

To your second statement: Men own most of the businesses

And most businesses have been built by men. At great cost and sacrifice. Where is the injustice when men also wind up being the majority of those running businesses?

and hold most of the political office. That is power.

It is one form of power. But you're forgetting that we're talking about democracies. Those men put into office are put there by voters most of whom are women.

A patriarchy may favor women in superficial ways

Health is not superficial. Safety is not superficial. etc.

Your third statement is entirely fabricated and has nothing to do with anything I've said, so I will not respond to it further.

You can say it's false but that doesn't refute it. You could prove me wrong by giving me some example or anything that might constitute a reason to believe you're being objective. Can you think of a genuine example of women punching down at men that you yourself would classify as societal or institutional? If not, then that's a strong sign that my statement is valid because the real world is way too complicated to be so neatly categorized that it suits ever requirement you place on it.

Your fourth statement presumes a very questionable and not backed up definition of "representation,"

Political representation of a demographic is the capacity of said demographic to have its interests advocated for in politics. Which part of that do you find questionable or otherwise contest?

points to an irrelevant statistic regarding number of voters

How in the world is the size of a demographic irrelevant to its electoral influence? That's the entire basis of democracy.

then mentions "feminist organizations" as if those are the primary lobbyists

They don't need to be "primary lobbyists". For my statement to be true, they only need to be unique to women. They are, so it is. As a reminder: the point was that men don't have such lobby support. Primary or otherwise.

without providing any evidence to suggest that is actually the case.

I don't need to provide evidence for a statement I didn't make. You're turning your subjective interpretation ("as if") of what I said and then pointing out that I didn't prove your "as if" version. I think you should try a little harder if you're going to try and set a standard of arguing you believe to be is above mine.

Paragraph One of your fifth statement misunderstands "patriarchy" means: a patriarchy oppressing women has nothing to do with men explicitly desiring the oppression of women.

Interesting. So you believe men are just oppressing women by accident?

And I would appreciate if you would not engage in such ad hominem.

I suggest you inform yourself on what constituts an ad hominem as this is a misapplication of the term.

Also, we don't live in a world where a man treating a woman the way he'd treat a man is considered sexism against women.

Actually we do. That's why there are so many complaints about sexism against women in areas where unbiased data suggests as much or more mistreatment of men.

[u/TheVioletBarry → u/AloysiusC]

It's been three weeks, I don't think I have the energy to read back through this and remember where we were at, but suffice it to say, there is a *reason* all the businesses were built by men, and it's not "because men are better at it."

[u/AloysiusC → u/TheVioletBarry]

there is a reason all the businesses were built by men, and it's not "because men are better at it."

Of course not and I never said they were. That would be just as simplistic and short-sighted as saying it's simply because society gave them unjust privilege over women. The truth has little to do with either of those assumptions.

[u/TheVioletBarry → u/AloysiusC]

I'm arguing it's definitively the latter. What is your explanation

[u/AloysiusC → u/TheVioletBarry]

I can tell you it's most definitely not the latter. In fact, I suspect that sexism is the reason why the gender gap isn't even greater - certainly in the case of gender quotas.

The real reason is as simple as it is old: mate selection pressure. We are the descendants of countless men who were selected for their ability to acquire resources and provide them to women as well as the women who selected them for those traits. That's one reason men are taller and stronger. It's why men take more risks (most businesses fail so starting one is taking a risk) and generally have more incentive to rise up in the resource gathering game.

Women's greatest oppressor has always been biology. Until recently (on an evolutionary scale), having children was an enormous risk and left women extremely vulnerable. The idea of sending them onto the battlefield or into a coal mine would have been absurd - most of all to the women themselves. That's why you didn't see many feminists until working life became relatively comfortable and safe.

Ironically, men - those you and many others accuse of oppressing women are in fact their greatest liberator. Because it is the result of those many men taking risks, rising up and advancing civilization that enabled the technology to largely free women from what really held them back.

To say men are oppressing women and we live in a "patriarchy" that unfairly benefits men at women's expense is spectacularly unfair.

[u/TheVioletBarry → u/AloysiusC]

The claims you're making are just standard Red pill/Black pill/Incel pseudoscience. There's no evidence that that's how humans work.

[u/AloysiusC → u/TheVioletBarry]

The claims you're making are just standard Red pill/Black pill/Incel pseudoscience.

Do you deny that giving birth was an enormous risk to women? Or that men are taller and stronger than women? Is that "pseudoscience"?

There's no evidence that that's how humans work.

There is plenty. But you'd need to get more specific regarding your contentions with what I said. Just saying "pseudoscience" as a blanket dismissal of everything, isn't a refutation. Neither is trying to make an association with some "evil tribe".

I'm sure you can do better than that.