221
The sad truth is that anti-feminist backlash helped propel Trump to victory
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
221 points (94.4% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3207 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm going to say something that I fear will not go over well, but I think it would be said. The left has some culpability here. Not in who they chose, but in how they approach the problem.
One of the things that draws me to the left is that people are all supposed to be people. No one is beyond redemption, and much of the worst aspects of people are due to changeable circumstances and not some genetic defect.
Criminals probably do crime because of their circumstances so if we can improve those circumstances we can help rehabilitate them. Addicts who are treated with dignity and compassion are more likely to be able to get their lives together. We shouldn't paint over people with broad brush strokes, like assuming all Muslims are terrorists just because a few have done terrible things while claiming it is in the name of Islam.
But the left has a blind spot for men. The problem is solely with them, and they are garbage beyond redemption. They clearly are acting only out of hate, and not a result of their circumstances, so people seem to think. "It's not my job to educate you" became a trope in a society where educating others is literally the only way to make change.
I submit that these people can be changed and can be rehabilitated if they are shown a better way. If their problems are listened to, rather than dismissed. If their circumstances are improved, rather than belittled. There are valid concerns, valid reasons for them to be upset, but they are handwaved away: "Well feminism cares about that too (even if you don't see it)" or "The privileged feel like equality is oppression."
Anyway, I don't expect anyone will learn anything from this result. The left will say, "Man, misogyny just won't let a woman be President" while ignoring how few people actually even voted. The left will say, "Men are to blame" without ever questioning beyond "I guess they're just spiteful." And if we get another election, we'll have a Democratic candidate who moves right on everything except these problems.
I don't know what spaces you hang out in, but that's never been the case anywhere I've been. I see more people complaining about this behavior than I've ever seen the behavior itself.
From the article...
The article is cautious at first, pointing at facts and figures. At times, it almost seems to care. But when it comes to the final arguments, it is just: We gotta get rid of these men. Not even a viable solution, much less a sensible one.
It's everywhere. It's not hard to find, but it's not always overt. Usually, it is dismissive: "Well that's not what we're talking about right now." "Well feminism would fix those problems too." Or the person gets lumped in with Nazis, or misogynists, or whatever when what they've said doesn't really support that.
The article is not saying the problem is solely with them, and they are garbage beyond redemption.
So your argument is "it doesn't literally say that to the letter, so you're wrong?" At best it suggests that this relatively wide swath of the population shouldn't vote. What's your interpretation?
Calling out the problem is not saying they are irredeemable.
Like, yes, these people absolutely do need to be flushed. Nowhere does that mean they are permanently branded Bad Forever, you're just making that up.
There are like two of those people, not enough to be the driving factor behind Kamala losing.
We're not talking about why Kamala lost, we're talking about why you think the left is blaming all men when articles like this are very specific about the kinds of men that are the problem.
Ok, but how many or what percentage of men like this need to exist for it to be a talking point? If it's not generalized to a significant percentage, then it's not a valid point to bring up in the first place.
That's just not true, like it or not, the manosphere has an impact beyond their population. Sorry you get triggered when people talk meanly about incels, but I assure you most people are aware that they don't represent all men, despite how you feel about it.
And yet these people want to blame it for the election loss. I think "the manosphere" has more impact on them as an easy scapegoat then it does on general voters in effecting elections.