Why is the manosphere on the rise? UN Women sounds the alarm over online misogyny
Technology
346
Beiträge
111
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
Because more women than men want to be in daycare it’s unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women.
I don't expect it. It is you who is insisting for no discernible reason that 70:30 is, and I quote, "ideal". It is you who is saying "guys get some other job I don't care how much you want the job and how good you'd be at it, we already have a quota of 30%".
Did I say anywhere that the 30:70 means a really had 30:70 cap and that nobody after that is free to join or leave the job? Did I say that the 30% is exactly, not more not less, the amount of men who want to for ex. work in daycare?
-
Believe it. There's a single community in the Lemmyverse that is "women only". And it's a fucking magnet for passing men who absolutely have to make sure they're heard in this one single community when 99.44% of the other communities are so dominated by men that women participating is practically a unicorn.
Even the "leftists" of Lemmy can't stand a women's space. Lemmy is the manosphere!
you sound pissy and project hate in every of your responses and on to everything you perceive to involve a man. I feel sorry for you. However, you're making up facts that the other communities are "so dominated by men" to appease your distorted perceptions of the world.
-
Because people like you oppose women being drafted.
Anybody sane opposes the draft for women. Because anybody sane opposes the draft for anybody, a set that clearly includes women.
Stop blaming straw feminists for your own shortcoming you grotty little boy.
You purport to being intelligent so you know what you're doing with your inflammatory responses of explicitly "opposing the draft for women".
Oh and yet more insults in your responses. I sense a theme here
-
Did I say anywhere that the 30:70 means a really had 30:70 cap and that nobody after that is free to join or leave the job? Did I say that the 30% is exactly, not more not less, the amount of men who want to for ex. work in daycare?
You said, verbatim:
Childcare should ideally be 30% men and 70% women
and then went on to justify it with
because women are natual caretakers and excell at emotional and social tasks.
implying that more men would mean worse results "because women are so much better at it": If the ideal is 70:30 then everything else is worse, no? And you were also being very essentialist, saying that "women provide one thing, men another".
The trouble with childcare in Germany wasn't absence of men as such -- it was absence of male insight into childcare. Doing things in way that make a lot of sense but women aren't as prone to do instinctively, but are very capable of doing. As long as there's a baseline level of diversity such that both approaches are present, things are just fine. There's no ideal ratio, there's a wide span of equally good ratios that ensure that everything is covered.
And btw you don't teach emotional resilience by being authoritarian. You teach it by being there, hold watch, while the kid figures out how to control their emotions, maybe some gently encouraging words. Shouting at them might shock them into silence but it's not going to teach them anything about actual emotional regulation. The very presence of the word "authority", on top of that "strict authority", in what you say betrays your ignorance about childcare. If you have kids I feel sorry for them.
-
Your argument and vitriole is a nice example of weaponized self-righteousness. You think because you're aware of a class of people that has a disadvantage in labor, that makes your opinion on that group more valuable than others, and instead of having the conversation about labor or why some men fall prey to bullshit, because of vitriole like this that serves only to alienate, you're playing right into the hands of people who divide labor and reap profits.
Lol, you aren't accepting their argument because they didn't say please and thank you?
You are accepting that women are a more disadvantaged labour class, but are being a prissy little prick because they are upset about it? That's the softest shit I've ever seen.
Show some class solidarity for your sisters, the most disadvantaged need to be lifted first. Stop whining like a 4 year old, we men have every advantage in this system compared to our counterparts. Though I'd hardly acknowledge nearly anyone in this thread as a man. Weak shit.
Solidarity with women is not the same thing as accepting ad hominem and infantilization from a stranger on the Internet. Soak your head.
-
Solidarity with women is not the same thing as accepting ad hominem and infantilization from a stranger on the Internet. Soak your head.
Lol, what part of her comment was an hominem, how did she infantalize anyone?
His response was inappropriate and completely avoided her points. Telling a woman to watch their tone is about as common as a misogynistic dog whistle as you can find.
Just because he didn't call her a slur doesn't mean he wasn't being an asshole. The substance of his response was more offensive than any ad hominem.
I dont respect anyone defending sexism, so throwing ad hominems at incels is fine with me. I also don't care about the opinions of misogynist, so please fuck off and go be a disappointment to your mother elsewhere, thanks.
Edit: oh I thought it was some once defending you, you were the fuckface in the original post. Yeah you can go fuck yourself, Lord knows you're never going to find someone else to do it for you.
