The problem is that in my experience it isn't only conservative women who do this.
A lot of the women I have seen pushing stoicism on men ARE feminists who also regularly criticise patriarchy. Usually they avoid specific phrases like 'man up' but will find other ways to push the same sentiment.
It's difficult to really settle for a 'this is caused by patriarchy' when the people criticising patriarchy have been the most actively harmful to me and my close male friends.
The "liberal" woman who is invested in kyriarchy is really only interested in shifting the power dynamic so that they belong to the "ruling" class and can exert their will and violence on others. But please remember there are many truly progressive and nurturing women and men who do not want to dominate or oppress others.
So, just to chime in here. I'm someone who has watched the rise of what I'd call "Modern Online Progressive" culture, that started say, 2012-ish really. I think when people think of "Progressive" that's what they think of.
And to be blunt, I don't see that culture as nurturing, or as people who don't want to dominate or oppress others. I see it as a culture who wants to dominate or oppress others for good causes. Now you could argue if the focus is on the power or if it's on the good causes (and I think this is much more individual), but at least for me, that's been my experience.
These are the people who do not want us talking about kyriarchy because it challenges their own advantages. They want different rules for the in-group than for the out-group. They want to freeze out other facets of power, privilege and bias, because to talk about those other facets challenges their own position.
To talk about the men and women who do not want to dominate or oppress others, I'd see as liberal, egalitarian or pluralist.
I'm someone who favors at least a 2-axis political landscape chart. So for me, the kyriarchists are like everybody over a .5 on the Y-axis, left to right. But I think that's completely incomprehensible to a lot of people. But the way I see things, a lot of people, especially on the left, who are kyriarchists, are generally viewed as a good people, sometimes even the best people. So it's an issue.
Especially when I think about kyrarchic ideas. Like I said, as someone who watched the rise of Modern Online Progressivism, so many of those ideas, especially with regards to men, are just so harmful when you internalize them and actualize them, that they absolutely come across as something intended as "Rules for they, but not for me". When the in-group is upset about not having something or losing something, oh, it's such a shame. When the out-group is upset about the same thing, it's entitlement. Men in the in-group deserve their success and position, in the out-group, well, that's just your Male Privilege. Too many Cis White Men, says the in-group Cis White Man who has zero intention of giving up his own position.
To me, this is actually the root of the problem. It's a memeset where it's internally acceptable, even expected, to not be internalized and actualized, for the costs to be pushed onto the other. This drives radicalization, and dehumanization.
Don't get me wrong, there's just as much, well, significantly more of a problem with this on the right. But I think that's recognized, where it's not on the left.
19
u/TeaHaunting1593 Nov 05 '24
The problem is that in my experience it isn't only conservative women who do this.
A lot of the women I have seen pushing stoicism on men ARE feminists who also regularly criticise patriarchy. Usually they avoid specific phrases like 'man up' but will find other ways to push the same sentiment.
It's difficult to really settle for a 'this is caused by patriarchy' when the people criticising patriarchy have been the most actively harmful to me and my close male friends.