Yes, you did. In approximately the same way that All Lives Matter was just a dog-whistley way of saying "No they don't" to Black Lives Matter.
When someone says I suffer from THING, responding with other people suffer too as your primary message is always a dismissal of the person's suffering.
If you want to avoid the inferred message, include an affirmative message of acknowledgement, like "nobody should suffer like that."
If we're going to compare this to BLM then you said something amongst the lines of "White people have to grow up in a world where everyone hates them." and I responded "Actually, black people have had it worse."
If you are a cis white straight man, you are not oppressed. Stop trying to be.
If you are a cis white straight man, you are not oppressed. Stop trying to be.
The entire model you are operating on has it's roots in Marxist class conflict. Broadly the problem with that is that it was created in terms of economic class, and economic class is where it works best (or possibly at all). It can be shoehorned into other dynamics, but it only really works to the degree that that dynamic is also a proxy for economic class.
For example, it works passably well for race in the US because broadly speaking race is a decent proxy for economic class in 21st century America, though less of one than it used to be. It's a bad fit for sex or gender precisely because those things do not function as a proxy for economic class at all.
the hell are you on about? this discussion was about men claiming everybody hates them, even though they're privileged on most aspects of life. why do you start rambling about the working class?
I'm saying that the whole model of gender dynamics built on an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy you operate on is flawed in a way that makes it at best useless. That model has it's roots in Marxist class conflict, and as a consequence the entire model and worldview only works as well as the alleged oppressor/oppressed dichotomy in question functions as a proxy for economic class. Which is why it works imperfectly for race, and even worse for sex/gender. You could literally make an argument for oppressed/oppressor zip codes and it would fit the model better than it does to sex/gender.
As an analogy, the model you operate on is like a geocentric model of the solar system. It's just plain not accurate, and every time it's made absolutely clear it's not accurate another apologetic is stitched on like epicycles and deferents were used to shoehorn geocentric models into line with observations instead of being willing to take the leap that it's bad model and should be tossed. This is where we get things like "the patriarchy hurts men too!" in exactly the way that no one would dare talk about how white supremacy hurts white people or capitalism hurts billionaires.
But as far as hating men, just look at the news media and reporting on various issues in the world. When "1/4 of the people this bad thing happens to are women!" is a call to action that something needs to be done to protect specifically women from the bad thing (see homelessness or suicide) which should be a hint about how men are viewed.
When you see casualties from some tragedy or another divided into women, children and "other", when you can go on your social media of choice and it's broadly acceptable to shit on men as a group with no qualifiers but you need to be extremely narrow and specific to say anything negative about any woman that should be another.
Hell, Reddit admins outright officially stated that their rules against hate speech do not apply to speech attacking men.
When you look at domestic violence resources, that should be a hint (yes, men are less often victims than women but the difference is not remotely as large as the difference in available resources).
Or look at heath care funding - there are numerous cutouts for women's health in the ACA while the word "men" only occurs in the context of "men and women" and ACA coverage of contraception includes every kind of FDA recognized contraceptive, including barrier methods...for women. Cancer research funding (including government funding) is dramatically higher for cancers that are female-specific or massively female majority (breast, cervical, ovarian, etc) than for cancers that are male-specific or massively male majority (testicular, prostate, etc).
Kentucky passed a law a few years requiring judges in contested custody cases start from the presumption that equal custody is best unless there's a good reason otherwise, as opposed to just starting from their own biases - this was heavily protested by women's groups for...some reason.
Title fucking IX (a law that just outright bans sex discrimination in any federally funded educational program in the US) is consistently implemented in a way that is biased against men and boys in education, a great example being that the current US government website explaining how to handle Title IX claims outright says that if a girl wants to play a sport and there is no girl's team she must be allowed to try out for the boy's team and be put on the team if she's capable but if a boy wants to play a sport and there is no boy's team there is no requirement to allow him anything at all. There have been a fuckton of lawsuits over the last decade or so from boys accused of sexual assault in an educational context going through the system and being denied due process over things like: not being allowed to know what the process actually is or how school officials are trained for it, not being allowed access to exculpatory evidence the school had, not being allowed to know what evidence was being arrayed against them until immediately before proceedings so that they wouldn't know what they needed to defend against, not being told what the accusation actually was or who was accusing them until the hearing so they couldn't build a defense at all, not being allowed to have legal counsel present, that kind of thing. Even one case where a boy accused a girl of sexually assaulting him and when she found out she accused him of doing the same in response so his accusation was tossed as being retaliatory, and no I didn't get my pronouns wrong in that and yes it is fucked up.
And the sad part is I can keep going with stuff like this for thousands and thousands of words and you probably won't read it, and if you do you'll probably ignore it or simply dub it misogyny and call me an incel or w/e. And the even sadder part is that this is the tip of a huge and depressing iceberg.
I've had the cops called on me for watching my nephew at the park.
Go fuck yourself you fucking fuck.
The plane rules of rhetoric do not change simply because a thing is not oppression. I'm just a rando adding comment to down vote to express what I think was done wrong.
Thosen two quotes are an excellent example of my principle, actually. The second one when given as a response to the first carries all the factionalist racism and denial of your last line.
so I'm racist now for saying white men are not not all white men are oppressed? alright then sure bud
There are plenty of white-appearing men who suffer oppression, just not from the civil society of the USA on account of their gender or apparent ancestry.
Plenty of "white men" are gay, trans, left-handed, Jewish, atheist, nearsigjted, handicapped, neurodivergent, or mentally ill. It is absolutely racist to assume that a "white man" is not oppressed just because they are white and a man.
(Unless of course you hold fast to Patricia Bidol-Padva's thesis, in which case it would merely be "racially prejudical.".)
(edit: wrote "autistic" twice and said sex when I meant gender.)
I'm talking about men in general. Of course some of them belong to other minorities, but this argument is about the person who complained about having to raise a son in a world that allegedly hates men.
Maybe on your half. Like I said, I'm only here for grammar, rhetoric, and understanding.
I dont want to argue about whether or not the pain of children who happen to resemble the elite of the patriarchy is less urgent than the pain of children who do not. Both sides of that fight are very passionate and have good-sounding arguments and in other contexts I might argue either side.
Right now, here, in this thread, I just want to stand up for language and rhetoric and the need to be mindful that unspoken messages can still be heard and cause harm.
ok so you're admitting you're here for being annoying instead of adding anything of value to the discussion? thanks man, appreciate it
