People seek confirmation that their negative traits are positive ones. Why put in effort to win, when you can just get an echo chamber to explain to you that you already won because of XYZ reason.
This isn’t limited to the manosphere stuff but it certainly is a big part of it. Any group that uses that other people are full of shit though as evidence that they are the good guys is also trying to pull the same trick.
There is value in feminisim because women’s rights are “new” and that is to say that there are people alive who grew up in a time where women’s rights were considered a joke. Women received the ability to have their own bank account without a man co signing in 1974. That means MOST Gen X people, when they were born, their mothers were not legally allowed to have a bank account. That isn’t ancient history like some folks like to act it is.
So… look, I hate having to pick at something that I generally agree with, but it wasn’t illegal for women to have bank accounts or credit cards or whatever prior to 1974. It just became illegal to discriminate against women for bank accounts as of the 1974 law.
I get that it’s a subtle distinction, but the reason it is important is because there are those who would think that as long as the government isn’t actively oppressing a group, then it’s doing fine (“it was illegal for women to have bank accounts, now it’s not. Job’s done!”), as opposed to recognizing that it is people who oppress others and it is the government’s job (like it was in 1974) to prevent it.
Banks (most, anyway) did not allow women to have bank accounts or lines of credit. And they’d do it again (or some other discriminatory bullshit) without government regulation.
There is value in feminisim because women’s rights are “new” and that is to say that there are people alive who grew up in a time where women’s rights were considered a joke.
I’d like to remind everyone that men’s rights are new too. For example, in the UK, women got rights to vote in 1928. Men got it in 1918, a whole 10 years earlier.
Most of the population was (and continues to be) under the boot of the wealthy, their rights immaterial.
People seek confirmation that their negative traits are positive ones. Why put in effort to win, when you can just get an echo chamber to explain to you that you already won because of XYZ reason.
This isn’t limited to the manosphere stuff but it certainly is a big part of it. Any group that uses that other people are full of shit though as evidence that they are the good guys is also trying to pull the same trick.
There is value in feminisim because women’s rights are “new” and that is to say that there are people alive who grew up in a time where women’s rights were considered a joke. Women received the ability to have their own bank account without a man co signing in 1974. That means MOST Gen X people, when they were born, their mothers were not legally allowed to have a bank account. That isn’t ancient history like some folks like to act it is.
So… look, I hate having to pick at something that I generally agree with, but it wasn’t illegal for women to have bank accounts or credit cards or whatever prior to 1974. It just became illegal to discriminate against women for bank accounts as of the 1974 law.
I get that it’s a subtle distinction, but the reason it is important is because there are those who would think that as long as the government isn’t actively oppressing a group, then it’s doing fine (“it was illegal for women to have bank accounts, now it’s not. Job’s done!”), as opposed to recognizing that it is people who oppress others and it is the government’s job (like it was in 1974) to prevent it.
Banks (most, anyway) did not allow women to have bank accounts or lines of credit. And they’d do it again (or some other discriminatory bullshit) without government regulation.
I’d like to remind everyone that men’s rights are new too. For example, in the UK, women got rights to vote in 1928. Men got it in 1918, a whole 10 years earlier.
Most of the population was (and continues to be) under the boot of the wealthy, their rights immaterial.