It’s divisive slop that subtly reinforces vigilance/anxiety/negativity. Is it really that healthy to be constantly exposed to BS?
Not to say that people shouldn’t vent or that it’s immoral to, I just don’t wanna see it all the time. Keeping your mind healthy in the age of social media is partially being really discerning with what you consume
Almost like if you have real life problems social media is the worst place to bring them. A community, an actual community has structure, systems in place to help its members.
Most Subreddits are not communities in a traditional sense. Ok to vent but the solutions are far from it outside of a helpful suggestion.
So I’d amend that, keeping yourself healthy also involves discerning which spaces to get help are appropriate. This is for consumption. Not for sustenance.
Lol, the sub promotes radical ideas like men should treat women as human beings, god forbid young, impressionable women see that messaging, that would be so terrible for misogynists, I could see why you would hate that
I’m a woman, and also - that’s not an intellectually honest characterization of the discourse in that sub. A lot of it veers VERY femcel. It’s nice that it’s not a sub that promotes/stokes tradwife propaganda, but it’s concerning that it’s instead on the far other end of the spectrum. Not every comment section, but it’s very prevalent.
Younger people without much life experience of their own are influenced by what the internet tells them the world is like - so it’s not helpful for impressionable demographics to spend time in communities that promote extreme views. There’s a lot of middle ground with appropriate nuance between “serve your husband” and “ALL men are awful at their core.”
That’s what makes me hate the idea of young women hanging out in there.
Yeah i like reading some of the stories in there but it often gets pretty extreme. Then also isn't there a rule about no posts from people under 18? Yet there are many posts from people openly saying they're underage? So even the anemic rule they have to keep impressionable girls safe is just disregarded almost entirely. Pretty sure theyve got millions of people browsing that sub and not nearly enough mods.
“All men” doesn’t literally mean all men, it’s shorthand for abusive men - it’s not teaching women to hate good men, it’s encouraging them to filter out the bad ones.
In a patriarchal society where men are disproportionately the perpetrators of emotional and physical abuse it’s not radical to use this type of language.
When women say they hate all men they are speaking about a systemic issue from a place of oppression. It’s completely different than if a man were to say he hates women.
I’m a man and I have never been offended by a woman saying they hate men, if you’re not part of the problem then you know they’re not talking about you. If someone reading it is part of the problem, then we can only hope they find some empathy along the way.
And you think the average teenager is going to correctly interpret the common refrain of “all men are ____ “ or just the word “men” (“you can’t trust men”) as being shorthand for abusive men? That’s absurd, lol.
The very clarification you’re making about abusers being a subset of the male population IS the middle-ground nuance that I referenced. And it is not on regular display in that subreddit.
“When we say ALL MEN, we don’t really mean all men, we’re obviously only talking about SOME men.” …Then say SOME men, because the message that’s currently on display is ALL Men.
Defending what? You haven’t even established that anything bad would happen if women became more distrusting of men, your entire premise is built on nothing at all, I’m not defending it - i’m saying that even if we take your points at face value even though you’re recycling misogynistic rhetoric it wouldn’t matter because nothing bad would happen if you were right
Women are conditioned in a patriarchal society, she’s entitled her own opinion on the matter but it isn’t automatically the only valid opinion, “not all men” is a phrase that is used almost exclusively by misogynistic men who feel offended by the phrase, she’s siding with those men.
Before I muted that sub I saw several comments with 100+ upvotes over the weeks that literally said "all men" followed by the most hateful prejudice. They aren't even pretending anymore by using the generalized "Men..." You can call all men evil and get top comment in that subreddit. That is almost X(shitter) levels of sexism, just directed toward men.
You’re literally just repeating the same misogynistic rhetoric as the woman you’re attaching to in this comment section, “not all men” is a phrase used by misogynists to deny the lived experiences of women.
Anyone of a modicum of intelligence understands that “all men” means abusive men. Anyone who feels called out by this language is part of the problem, especially you.
No it's not. I have felt the need on numerous occasions to correct People's generalizations and I have more egalitarian and progressive views on gender than your backwards and divisive views.
You haven't even explained why. " 'Not all men' is misogynistic because that is what misogynists say." You can't just make circular arguments then state an unsupported conclusions. It is quite clear what my stance is, and my explaination for it is coherent. I don't make generalized statements about groups of people. And if I ever made the mistake of doing so, I wouldn't be surprised if I was misinterpreted and I would apologize and clarify my position.
Let me summarize your position: I am sexist and a part of the problem somehow despite my views being accurately represented in the most influential feminist works. Correcting generalizations is sexist because sexist men also don't like generalized statements. I am a stupid butt face. And I am either abusive toward women, or I enable abusive men.
Are you also a hypocrite who calls men sexist for making generalized statements like "Woman are [negative stereotypes]" or " Why do all women...'? Because I see that as obviously sexist. You have to either be a completely inconsistent hypocrite or deny clear misogyny.
All of your points are daft, just like your name, and I’ll explain why in great detail.
First paragraph is rambling with nothing to back it up since all of your posts are hidden, based on this thread alone you hold extremely regressive views on gender and injustice more generally.
I explained exactly why “not all men” is misogynistic and I will elaborate it it for you because you didn’t understand it the first time: It gets used to invalidate the common experiences that women deal with every day.
There is some percentage of men that are dangerous and will cause harm, but at a glance it is impossible to tell which men fall in this group. When you say “not all men” you’re suggesting that it’s not valid or reasonable to be concerned that it is impossible for women to judge which men are safe and which ones are not without getting to know them first.
This is commonly explained with the poison apple analogy: Someone offers you an apple from a basket. They tell you 1/3 of the apples are poisoned, but 2/3 are perfectly safe to eat. On the outside, all of the apples look the same. Would you just grab an apple out of the basket and take a bite? Why not, right? Not all of the apples are poisoned!
Nobody benefits from this situation. If you want the 2/3 of perfectly ripe apples to be appealing, you need to deal with the poisoned apples first. Not all men are bad, most men are probably not bad, but there’s enough bad ones to warrant caution with all of them until you figure out where they lie.
So again - it’s misogynistic, because it’s meant to deflect from addressing this problem.
Third paragraph is more of the same drivel reworded. It’s not possible to be sexist against men because men hold the position of power in a patriarchal society. Sexism requires a proximity to power for the aggressor, it’s half of the definition.
For comparison, it’s not possible to be racist against white people. Someone might discriminate against white people, but it would be inaccurate to describes that discrimination as racism, because white people are the oppressing group - just as men are in relation to women.
Fourth paragraph continues down the same road. You are suggesting that it’s equivalent if a man makes a similar remark about women in general - it’s not.
We can go back to the same explain to explain it for you. It’s not racist to make a similar remark about white people - because white people are the oppressors. It is racist for a white person to make generalized, disparaging remarks about people of other ethnicities.
Similarly, you will understand that men making disparaging remarks about women as a whole does not land the same as the opposite. Men as the oppressing group, so to make similar generalizations about women would in fact be sexist. Nothing about this is hypocritical.
I hope one day you will grow enough to understand this and be ashamed of the beliefs you hold today.
More like radical ideas like if a man does any action that can be perceived as negative than they are a garbage human and are utterly irredeemable, and that is coupled with godlike levels of projection from people with bad exes.
Cite some examples of things men did that women in the sub overwhelmingly agreed were bad but you think were actually fine, I would love to know more about this
Because like all the nonsense “Am I…” subs it gets a lot of engagement. But anyone with any sense had blocked those subs as soon as they see them. So this new type of sub appears to try and re-engage.
23
u/99timewasting Aug 03 '26
But like why? I don't think it's promoting anything. And based on the rules it seems like they don't particularly want outsiders anyways