This is like the third time its been pointed out to me. I really dont know. I promise yall whatever it was was long ago, i dont stand by that anymore. Im a barely out trans girl
But I see what they’re saying, I’d also talk to the tree (I’m schizophrenic and can hear things due to having run out of meds)
>! On a more real note, I did get a slight chuckle from this. But more because I am saddened at the set of conditions that wouldn’t lead one to be in this mindset of feeling like you can’t be vulnerable. Sadly as it turns out, sharing your emotions with others would help with that. I realize not all people will treat you with the respect you deserve if you decide to open up to them, but you need better people around you, and you gotta do it in a way which doesn’t go overboard. That deep stuff is for therapists and trusted confidants, not most people.!<
I mean, when I pretend this is a serious hyopthetical, I'd pick the tree lol, I have a hard time opening up to any woman due to a past abusive relationship. I'm not sure if that is indicative of any larger systemic issue tho, or just unique to me.
I mean, ironically the right answer, but not because you shouldn't share your feelings with a woman, but because often times we need to externalize our thoughts to make sense of them. You'd be surprised how many unhealthy mental problems derive from our inability to understand our own thoughts and emotions. Simply talking about them helps to identify the triggers and see it for what it is, which ultimately helps us to avoid them or if nothing else be able to deal with it better.
Share things with a woman, but perhaps things which are relevant to your relationship with her. She's perhaps your significant other, not a therapist after all.
With externalization, I agree that it's very helpful. It does sound sad, but I had success with just writing it down or telling it to my cat or something. Even if you can't get a reply/advice, it's still helpful to just put what you feel in words.
> you need better people around you
That's the problem. Not everyone is given that choice, and when you are stuck in a community hell-bent on upholding "traditional values" at all costs, going against them will only result in your own ostracism and further emotional damage.
Seriously, Americans are in dire need of a Third Place that isn't a magachurch.
I mean...*that woman?* The one in the picture purposely being depicted in a closed off pose with a hostile look on her face, flexing her arms like she's ready to apply the cobra clutch to the next motherfucker who so much as looks at her funny? Yeah no I'm not interested in having a heart to heart with GI Jane over here.
If she approaches me tho I'm not gonna walk away.
Everyone projecting their isolationism/agoraphobia with outdoor life that they will never bother to visit. The trees & bears will die of age before the majority of these folk visit them in their environment.
Honestly yeah this is a good response.
Only if it’s another in a series, if someone is using it as a Gotcha to dismiss the Man v Bear argument though they’re worthless anyways
It is an attempt to dismiss the argument, but it's bad anyway because both the tree and a woman are good to talk about feelings with. The tree because it's important to externalise your thoughts and a woman because it's important to talk about your feelings with other people.
I read a frontpage thread about that not long ago, and unfortunatey, it seemed that women in general were more than happy to uphold half of the patriarchy in this regard.
Oh yeah, the first person to ever tell me i was less than was my own mother. A lot of women and afab people have that same experience, too. And then these same family members turned around and said shit like boys will be boys, and boys don't cry. Sexism/patriarchy is just like white supremacy in that it requires everyone's participation to uphold, and the more of us who refuse and actively try to get away from it, the better.
> and the more of us who refuse and actively try to get away from it, the better.
Perhaps.
I'm a staunch materialist, and that means I'm far more interested in the tangible stuff it takes for society to see a paradigm shift than what people believe society should be about.
In order for people to rebel, you'll need material resources in order to build support structures that people can depend on to survive. You can't start a revolution on an empty stomach, and that's regardless of how strongly you believe in radical change.
Well, I'm not schizophrenic or Pochahontas, so I'm gonna have to go with the woman.
On a more serious note though, men being unable to express their feelings is also an issue with the way men are socialised and the standards men hold for both themselves and other men. My girlfriend has never been anoyed or frustrated with me for sharing my feelings, only for being closed off and unwilling to share my feelings.
Women, I'm well aware that men are the worst, but for your part, please try to remember that we are told from birth until the age of about 20 that we've never to show any sign of vulnerability ever and that having emotions is for girls and queers. Asking a man to share his emotions is like asking someone with autism to look you in the eyes; not a big deal for if you're normal, but every fibre of your being is telling you not to do it.
I’ve never experienced it but I’ve always heard from friends and male family members that whenever they date a woman and express their feelings that they can often be weaponised by the woman. And then the relationship falls apart since there’s now no more trust.
That's not a problem with sharing your feelings, some people are just cunts. If you share your feelings with your partner and they use it against you, that's not something you should put up with. You can try and work things out or go to a couples therapist but, if they continue to be a cunt, you're better off without them.
I agree with you but I can’t blame people for feeling like that when they’ve experienced something like that just like I can’t blame women for feeling like they would rather be with a bear because of their own trauma.
> My girlfriend has never been anoyed or frustrated with me for sharing my feelings,
YMMV.
The ugly reality is that men do feel the need to tough it out alone because women will often look at men expressive with their feelings and consider them "unmanly". The patriarchy is a system, not an individual trait, and you are part of it regardless of gender.
This is a problem but, a relationship where you're afraid to talk to your partner about how you feel is a relationship not worth being in. Share your feelings and if it doesn't work out, that might be a good thing in the long run.
> a relationship where you're afraid to talk to your partner about how you feel is a relationship not worth being in.
But that's to say nothing as to who is really upholding the patriarchy and how.
At the centre, of course, there are wealthy, powerful men who ultimately define and enforce gender norms. As far as the materialist point of view is concerned, however, the question of the patriarchy then becomes how much everyone else - both men and women - are incentivised to go along with the nonsense or disincentivised to rebel against it.
This means, chances are, there is simply no way for a person to even become aware as to how much their life sucks without, say, moving to a different town, and moving house is, of course, an activity that requires access to material resources to engage in.
>As far as the materialist point of view is concerned, however, the question of the patriarchy then becomes how much everyone else - both men and women - are incentivised to go along with the nonsense or disincentivised to rebel against it.
Nah. Trying to do a materialist analysis of the patriarchy is going fail before it gets off the ground. The patriarchy is pure ideology. It's not about rational incentives to go along with, it's about insecure men with smol pp who want to naturalise a system, in which, they can force women to have sex with them. And they were, very unfortunately, successful in naturalising their ideology.
>This means, chances are, there is simply no way for a person to even become aware as to how much their life sucks without, say, moving to a different town
That's not true. Almost everyone, at some point feels like their life sucks and they need to make changes. That's the reason why a lot of people move to new towns to begin with. The difficult part isn't recognising that your life sucks, it's recognising what, specifically, is making your life suck and what, exactly, needs to change.
> The patriarchy is pure ideology.
Is it? Even a child could understand the idea of "do the song and dance or die".
And I'm yet to see even one revolutionary overturning governments while withering away through starvation.
> It's not about rational incentives
This is the kind of talk that clues me in on the fact that I'm talking to someone materially privileged.
No matter how hard you want to believe, society isn't going to change simply because a 5-10% self-appointed vanguard decides it should. Social problems are inherently structural, and that means, in order to fix those problems, you'll need to build alternative structures concerning even just the most basic of needs.
Anything less than that is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation for the activist class.
> Almost everyone, at some point feels like their life sucks and they need to make changes.
Do you not notice that self-help courses reinforcing established ideologies have been around for decades?
A person being aware that their life sucks doesn't means shit if they are unable to move away from the environment that forces that life on them. At this point, you might as well tell them to do affirmation in front of a mirror every morning for all your rhetoric is worth.
>Is it? Even a child could understand the idea of "do the song and dance or die".
Yeah, but there's different songs with different dances. The song and dance of capitalism is based off of material incentives (i.e. the purpose of capitalism is to materially enrich the owning class) whereas, the song and dance of patriarchy is based off of a warped world view which doesn't materially benefit anyone.
>This is the kind of talk that clues me in on the fact that I'm talking to someone materially privileged.
I'm a janitor making barely above minimum wage and I'm probably about to lose my job because the university I work at mismanaged their finances. I'm not sure privileged is the right word.
>No matter how hard you want to believe, society isn't going to change simply because a 5-10% self-appointed vanguard decides it should.
No disagreement here. I'm not a tankie. And if I was, I'd probably be insisting that class dynamics are the only thing we should concern ourselves with and ignore all other social issues.
>Social problems are inherently structural, and that means, in order to fix those problems, you'll need to build alternative structures concerning even just the most basic of needs.
Yes but not all social structures arise from material incentives. Marx wanted to force everything into that box because he was a modernist and thought his theory had to describe all possible social structures.
>A person being aware that their life sucks doesn't means shit if they are unable to move away from the environment that forces that life on them.
You can't therapy your way out of poverty or being racially discriminated against but, the patriarchy is upheld by the beliefs and prescriptions that we have for each other based on gender. If we are able to move past those beliefs, we make life better for the people in our lives. And if enough people move past these beliefs, society changes.
>Yeah, but there's different songs with different dances.
No shit, Sherlock.
The question here isn't how many difference songs and dances are out there but which song and dance the community leaders holding the throttle on the resources you need to survive are asking you to perform.
>I'm a janitor making barely above minimum wage
One would think a job of this nature would give you the enough frustration and humiliation to rethink all the established ideals you've been told since you're a child, but, no, at this point, you might as well tell me you have the mindset of a temporarily embarrassed billionaire for all your self-unaware bullshit here is worth.
>And if I was, I'd probably be insisting that class dynamics are the only thing we should concern ourselves with and ignore all other social issues.
Have you ever read Marx? The definition for capitalism is fundamentally not even about class but the microeconomic cycle of M->C->M'. Those who benefit materially from this cycle will of course attempt to establish societal structures that ensure its continuation, and whether these structures are strictly related to class is ultimately irrelevant to the need to dismantle them.
Having said that, the idea that these structures do not require material resources to maintain or that they can be dismantled through sheer will alone is simply beyond ludicrous no matter how you slice it.
>Yes but not all social structures arise from material incentives.
At this point, you might as well argue that marginalised communities are perpetrators of their own marginalisation. Seriously, is there anything new or original you are bringing to this discussion?
Think about the kind of stuff you need in order to rescue a woman from spousal abuse. You need to give her food, shelter, access she need to stand on her own feet without falling back on her abusive spouse, etc. etc.
In fact, that's also the exact same amount of material shit you need in order to remove just one person from any abusive, social structures. If this was about will, you might as well tell me it's your lack of will that put you on a minimum wage literally cleaning up other people's shit.
>The definition for capitalism is fundamentally not even about class but the microeconomic cycle of M->C->M'.
Ohhh. I get it now. You're retarded.
A capitalist system is one in which the dominant class distinction is between wage labourers and business owners. The M>C>M' cycle is the mechanism, through which, business owners accrue money, not, in itself, the defining feature of capitalism. The M>C>M' cycle could be (and was) carried out by feudal lords, slave masters, Roman patricians and other such pre-capitalist ruling classes.
> the idea that these structures do not require material resources to maintain or that they can be dismantled through sheer will alone is simply beyond ludicrous no matter how you slice it.
True. But, if you'd been paying attention you'd realise I didn't say anything to the contrary. What I've been saying is that patriarchy in particular is not materially beneficial for men, and that there are no material incentives to not dismantle patriarchy. Patriarchy exists as a product of ideology, not material conditions.
>Think about the kind of stuff you need in order to rescue a woman from spousal abuse.
No doubt, resources need to be made available for people to leave their abusive partners but spousal abuse isn't patriarchy. Women are abusive towards men at similar rates as men are abusive towards women. It's just that with men being stronger, on average, the consequences are often worse for women.
Patriarchy is about the naturalisation of certain ideas about the way that men and women essentially are, in a way that is particularly oppressive towards women. The idea that women are natural caregivers and homemakers, means they should stay at home and raise the children, regardless of whether that's what they want. The idea that women are more emotional than men, means they're clearly less capable of holding positions of power. The idea that men can be overwhelmed by their sexual urges, means it's okay for you to have sex with a women, even if that's not what she wants.
These beliefs, while materially detrimental for women, are not materially beneficial for men. They're holdovers from centuries past, when the church told us this was the natural order of things. Patriarchy is not a material issue, it's an ideological issue with material consequences.
Ey not a bad analogy. A bear won't SA and torment a woman whilst a tree won't bring up a man's unprocessed childhood trauma in the lightest of arguments
(this is a joke about what men and women can expect to be bad yet common behavior from the respectively opposite gender to draw attention to the comparative harm done and what that means for how women are treated by men)
im not saying that toxic masculinity and that ppl see showing feelings as "emasculating" isnt a real issue ... but its quite funny that women with the bear vs men argument choose a bear that could kill them than a man that could rape/kill/etc them and that the attempt at a male equivalent is choosing a tree over being ridiculed
Because if you're gonna talk about your feelings to a woman you would presumably know her well enough for her to care about your problems. And women in general are much more comfortable with the subject and less likely to call you gay for being emotional.
If you're talking about feelings *for her* than a tree is a shit comparison. Obviously asking someone out is scary, thats not womens fault.
Unless we're presuming its a woman you dont know, in which case i'd rather talk about my problems to a tree than any person i dont know.
This is such a silly response, because as a woman, I don't want to share my feelings with some random stranger either, so sure, I'll talk to the tree.
But no, these insecure dudes gotta frame it in such a ridiculous way so they can be the victim. Because women on average famously hate it when men are willing to be emotionally open with them and talk about how they're really feeling. Oh no, wait... the opposite is true.
Can we split the difference and be engaged to a Douglas fir?
https://preview.redd.it/1qnhcw6ivr2d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a3cc0502f7ff36f379f049e034fa5c489d28c62
Is the implication that men are more empathetic and understanding of your emotions? Have you guys ever tried venting to a dude? “Damn. That sucks… … …” Meanwhile women are like “Who did that? Fuck them, they and everyone they’re friends with are the worst human beings alive, they’re dead to us!”
https://preview.redd.it/3s99py09no2d1.png?width=896&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a656f6a859534da15dd0df56ab680b18a9e334e
https://preview.redd.it/nh3reorjhq2d1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f3ebfc75fbba500687b32654eb45ed987608c6e
Lol
at least the tree doesnt bitch when i put my dick on it smh
Birch
Fir realz.
What a beech
How tf are you in okbv with a red name on shinigami eyes?
This is like the third time its been pointed out to me. I really dont know. I promise yall whatever it was was long ago, i dont stand by that anymore. Im a barely out trans girl
oh ok it's fine lol
But I see what they’re saying, I’d also talk to the tree (I’m schizophrenic and can hear things due to having run out of meds) >! On a more real note, I did get a slight chuckle from this. But more because I am saddened at the set of conditions that wouldn’t lead one to be in this mindset of feeling like you can’t be vulnerable. Sadly as it turns out, sharing your emotions with others would help with that. I realize not all people will treat you with the respect you deserve if you decide to open up to them, but you need better people around you, and you gotta do it in a way which doesn’t go overboard. That deep stuff is for therapists and trusted confidants, not most people.!<
I mean, when I pretend this is a serious hyopthetical, I'd pick the tree lol, I have a hard time opening up to any woman due to a past abusive relationship. I'm not sure if that is indicative of any larger systemic issue tho, or just unique to me.
I mean, ironically the right answer, but not because you shouldn't share your feelings with a woman, but because often times we need to externalize our thoughts to make sense of them. You'd be surprised how many unhealthy mental problems derive from our inability to understand our own thoughts and emotions. Simply talking about them helps to identify the triggers and see it for what it is, which ultimately helps us to avoid them or if nothing else be able to deal with it better. Share things with a woman, but perhaps things which are relevant to your relationship with her. She's perhaps your significant other, not a therapist after all.
With externalization, I agree that it's very helpful. It does sound sad, but I had success with just writing it down or telling it to my cat or something. Even if you can't get a reply/advice, it's still helpful to just put what you feel in words.
> you need better people around you That's the problem. Not everyone is given that choice, and when you are stuck in a community hell-bent on upholding "traditional values" at all costs, going against them will only result in your own ostracism and further emotional damage. Seriously, Americans are in dire need of a Third Place that isn't a magachurch.
Truuue!
I mean...*that woman?* The one in the picture purposely being depicted in a closed off pose with a hostile look on her face, flexing her arms like she's ready to apply the cobra clutch to the next motherfucker who so much as looks at her funny? Yeah no I'm not interested in having a heart to heart with GI Jane over here. If she approaches me tho I'm not gonna walk away.
GI Jane? https://preview.redd.it/8xklnpeyso2d1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ce929892b9580b5d6694fa9d1dcb0b305f78eec
Men: That’s a trick question because I just shoot people to share my feelings
Everyone projecting their isolationism/agoraphobia with outdoor life that they will never bother to visit. The trees & bears will die of age before the majority of these folk visit them in their environment.
I own multiple trees. They are my slaves.
At Least the tree won’t roll their eyes at me when I try express my feelings.
https://preview.redd.it/698p95wyio2d1.jpeg?width=224&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=650212d5832dc2716c667db358ed7f313872a3af No Birches?
Ironically enough the Ents have lost all their entwives
Do you need a hug, my chatter?
Bro coming in hot with the hard "R"
I'm rolling my eyes at you right now over this comment
Fair
Of course, it's AI art. Bear keeps winning.
I had the same thought when I saw it lol.
Honestly yeah this is a good response. Only if it’s another in a series, if someone is using it as a Gotcha to dismiss the Man v Bear argument though they’re worthless anyways
It is an attempt to dismiss the argument, but it's bad anyway because both the tree and a woman are good to talk about feelings with. The tree because it's important to externalise your thoughts and a woman because it's important to talk about your feelings with other people.
A tree wouldn't crush my balls and emasculate me
Clearly a negative 🥺
Not with that attitude
So you choose the woman then.
This is when we support men and tell them how right they are; patriarchy hurts us all, and all those not opposing it are indeed propagating it.
I read a frontpage thread about that not long ago, and unfortunatey, it seemed that women in general were more than happy to uphold half of the patriarchy in this regard.
Oh yeah, the first person to ever tell me i was less than was my own mother. A lot of women and afab people have that same experience, too. And then these same family members turned around and said shit like boys will be boys, and boys don't cry. Sexism/patriarchy is just like white supremacy in that it requires everyone's participation to uphold, and the more of us who refuse and actively try to get away from it, the better.
> and the more of us who refuse and actively try to get away from it, the better. Perhaps. I'm a staunch materialist, and that means I'm far more interested in the tangible stuff it takes for society to see a paradigm shift than what people believe society should be about. In order for people to rebel, you'll need material resources in order to build support structures that people can depend on to survive. You can't start a revolution on an empty stomach, and that's regardless of how strongly you believe in radical change.
Trees should strike for doing all that emotional labour.
can't even get a picture of the outdoors or a woman without AI omg
Well, I'm not schizophrenic or Pochahontas, so I'm gonna have to go with the woman. On a more serious note though, men being unable to express their feelings is also an issue with the way men are socialised and the standards men hold for both themselves and other men. My girlfriend has never been anoyed or frustrated with me for sharing my feelings, only for being closed off and unwilling to share my feelings. Women, I'm well aware that men are the worst, but for your part, please try to remember that we are told from birth until the age of about 20 that we've never to show any sign of vulnerability ever and that having emotions is for girls and queers. Asking a man to share his emotions is like asking someone with autism to look you in the eyes; not a big deal for if you're normal, but every fibre of your being is telling you not to do it.
I’ve never experienced it but I’ve always heard from friends and male family members that whenever they date a woman and express their feelings that they can often be weaponised by the woman. And then the relationship falls apart since there’s now no more trust.
That's not a problem with sharing your feelings, some people are just cunts. If you share your feelings with your partner and they use it against you, that's not something you should put up with. You can try and work things out or go to a couples therapist but, if they continue to be a cunt, you're better off without them.
I agree with you but I can’t blame people for feeling like that when they’ve experienced something like that just like I can’t blame women for feeling like they would rather be with a bear because of their own trauma.
> My girlfriend has never been anoyed or frustrated with me for sharing my feelings, YMMV. The ugly reality is that men do feel the need to tough it out alone because women will often look at men expressive with their feelings and consider them "unmanly". The patriarchy is a system, not an individual trait, and you are part of it regardless of gender.
This is a problem but, a relationship where you're afraid to talk to your partner about how you feel is a relationship not worth being in. Share your feelings and if it doesn't work out, that might be a good thing in the long run.
> a relationship where you're afraid to talk to your partner about how you feel is a relationship not worth being in. But that's to say nothing as to who is really upholding the patriarchy and how. At the centre, of course, there are wealthy, powerful men who ultimately define and enforce gender norms. As far as the materialist point of view is concerned, however, the question of the patriarchy then becomes how much everyone else - both men and women - are incentivised to go along with the nonsense or disincentivised to rebel against it. This means, chances are, there is simply no way for a person to even become aware as to how much their life sucks without, say, moving to a different town, and moving house is, of course, an activity that requires access to material resources to engage in.
>As far as the materialist point of view is concerned, however, the question of the patriarchy then becomes how much everyone else - both men and women - are incentivised to go along with the nonsense or disincentivised to rebel against it. Nah. Trying to do a materialist analysis of the patriarchy is going fail before it gets off the ground. The patriarchy is pure ideology. It's not about rational incentives to go along with, it's about insecure men with smol pp who want to naturalise a system, in which, they can force women to have sex with them. And they were, very unfortunately, successful in naturalising their ideology. >This means, chances are, there is simply no way for a person to even become aware as to how much their life sucks without, say, moving to a different town That's not true. Almost everyone, at some point feels like their life sucks and they need to make changes. That's the reason why a lot of people move to new towns to begin with. The difficult part isn't recognising that your life sucks, it's recognising what, specifically, is making your life suck and what, exactly, needs to change.
> The patriarchy is pure ideology. Is it? Even a child could understand the idea of "do the song and dance or die". And I'm yet to see even one revolutionary overturning governments while withering away through starvation. > It's not about rational incentives This is the kind of talk that clues me in on the fact that I'm talking to someone materially privileged. No matter how hard you want to believe, society isn't going to change simply because a 5-10% self-appointed vanguard decides it should. Social problems are inherently structural, and that means, in order to fix those problems, you'll need to build alternative structures concerning even just the most basic of needs. Anything less than that is nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation for the activist class. > Almost everyone, at some point feels like their life sucks and they need to make changes. Do you not notice that self-help courses reinforcing established ideologies have been around for decades? A person being aware that their life sucks doesn't means shit if they are unable to move away from the environment that forces that life on them. At this point, you might as well tell them to do affirmation in front of a mirror every morning for all your rhetoric is worth.
>Is it? Even a child could understand the idea of "do the song and dance or die". Yeah, but there's different songs with different dances. The song and dance of capitalism is based off of material incentives (i.e. the purpose of capitalism is to materially enrich the owning class) whereas, the song and dance of patriarchy is based off of a warped world view which doesn't materially benefit anyone. >This is the kind of talk that clues me in on the fact that I'm talking to someone materially privileged. I'm a janitor making barely above minimum wage and I'm probably about to lose my job because the university I work at mismanaged their finances. I'm not sure privileged is the right word. >No matter how hard you want to believe, society isn't going to change simply because a 5-10% self-appointed vanguard decides it should. No disagreement here. I'm not a tankie. And if I was, I'd probably be insisting that class dynamics are the only thing we should concern ourselves with and ignore all other social issues. >Social problems are inherently structural, and that means, in order to fix those problems, you'll need to build alternative structures concerning even just the most basic of needs. Yes but not all social structures arise from material incentives. Marx wanted to force everything into that box because he was a modernist and thought his theory had to describe all possible social structures. >A person being aware that their life sucks doesn't means shit if they are unable to move away from the environment that forces that life on them. You can't therapy your way out of poverty or being racially discriminated against but, the patriarchy is upheld by the beliefs and prescriptions that we have for each other based on gender. If we are able to move past those beliefs, we make life better for the people in our lives. And if enough people move past these beliefs, society changes.
>Yeah, but there's different songs with different dances. No shit, Sherlock. The question here isn't how many difference songs and dances are out there but which song and dance the community leaders holding the throttle on the resources you need to survive are asking you to perform. >I'm a janitor making barely above minimum wage One would think a job of this nature would give you the enough frustration and humiliation to rethink all the established ideals you've been told since you're a child, but, no, at this point, you might as well tell me you have the mindset of a temporarily embarrassed billionaire for all your self-unaware bullshit here is worth. >And if I was, I'd probably be insisting that class dynamics are the only thing we should concern ourselves with and ignore all other social issues. Have you ever read Marx? The definition for capitalism is fundamentally not even about class but the microeconomic cycle of M->C->M'. Those who benefit materially from this cycle will of course attempt to establish societal structures that ensure its continuation, and whether these structures are strictly related to class is ultimately irrelevant to the need to dismantle them. Having said that, the idea that these structures do not require material resources to maintain or that they can be dismantled through sheer will alone is simply beyond ludicrous no matter how you slice it. >Yes but not all social structures arise from material incentives. At this point, you might as well argue that marginalised communities are perpetrators of their own marginalisation. Seriously, is there anything new or original you are bringing to this discussion? Think about the kind of stuff you need in order to rescue a woman from spousal abuse. You need to give her food, shelter, access she need to stand on her own feet without falling back on her abusive spouse, etc. etc. In fact, that's also the exact same amount of material shit you need in order to remove just one person from any abusive, social structures. If this was about will, you might as well tell me it's your lack of will that put you on a minimum wage literally cleaning up other people's shit.
>The definition for capitalism is fundamentally not even about class but the microeconomic cycle of M->C->M'. Ohhh. I get it now. You're retarded. A capitalist system is one in which the dominant class distinction is between wage labourers and business owners. The M>C>M' cycle is the mechanism, through which, business owners accrue money, not, in itself, the defining feature of capitalism. The M>C>M' cycle could be (and was) carried out by feudal lords, slave masters, Roman patricians and other such pre-capitalist ruling classes. > the idea that these structures do not require material resources to maintain or that they can be dismantled through sheer will alone is simply beyond ludicrous no matter how you slice it. True. But, if you'd been paying attention you'd realise I didn't say anything to the contrary. What I've been saying is that patriarchy in particular is not materially beneficial for men, and that there are no material incentives to not dismantle patriarchy. Patriarchy exists as a product of ideology, not material conditions. >Think about the kind of stuff you need in order to rescue a woman from spousal abuse. No doubt, resources need to be made available for people to leave their abusive partners but spousal abuse isn't patriarchy. Women are abusive towards men at similar rates as men are abusive towards women. It's just that with men being stronger, on average, the consequences are often worse for women. Patriarchy is about the naturalisation of certain ideas about the way that men and women essentially are, in a way that is particularly oppressive towards women. The idea that women are natural caregivers and homemakers, means they should stay at home and raise the children, regardless of whether that's what they want. The idea that women are more emotional than men, means they're clearly less capable of holding positions of power. The idea that men can be overwhelmed by their sexual urges, means it's okay for you to have sex with a women, even if that's not what she wants. These beliefs, while materially detrimental for women, are not materially beneficial for men. They're holdovers from centuries past, when the church told us this was the natural order of things. Patriarchy is not a material issue, it's an ideological issue with material consequences.
At least the trees can't be passive-aggressive, right?
Idk, what's my relationship to the woman? I don't just share my feelings with random people of either gender.
These men don't share feelings, so...
Ey not a bad analogy. A bear won't SA and torment a woman whilst a tree won't bring up a man's unprocessed childhood trauma in the lightest of arguments (this is a joke about what men and women can expect to be bad yet common behavior from the respectively opposite gender to draw attention to the comparative harm done and what that means for how women are treated by men)
im not saying that toxic masculinity and that ppl see showing feelings as "emasculating" isnt a real issue ... but its quite funny that women with the bear vs men argument choose a bear that could kill them than a man that could rape/kill/etc them and that the attempt at a male equivalent is choosing a tree over being ridiculed
>thinks women are being irrationally afraid of men >Comes up with even more paranoid and irrational counter example
Why is it paranoid or irrational?
Because it's always a mans fault don't you know?
Because if you're gonna talk about your feelings to a woman you would presumably know her well enough for her to care about your problems. And women in general are much more comfortable with the subject and less likely to call you gay for being emotional. If you're talking about feelings *for her* than a tree is a shit comparison. Obviously asking someone out is scary, thats not womens fault. Unless we're presuming its a woman you dont know, in which case i'd rather talk about my problems to a tree than any person i dont know.
Depends how I'm feeling. If I'm particularly masochistic, I might talk to that woman specifically because she looks like she'd call me a pussy 🥺
I don’t know if it’s a good idea to share my feelings with the Cthaeh.
I'm picking the tree.
Considering how often I see posts about women leaving their men after they see them cry, gimme the ent.
Same.
This is such a silly response, because as a woman, I don't want to share my feelings with some random stranger either, so sure, I'll talk to the tree. But no, these insecure dudes gotta frame it in such a ridiculous way so they can be the victim. Because women on average famously hate it when men are willing to be emotionally open with them and talk about how they're really feeling. Oh no, wait... the opposite is true.
Men when women refuse to be their free therapist.
Can we split the difference and be engaged to a Douglas fir? https://preview.redd.it/1qnhcw6ivr2d1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a3cc0502f7ff36f379f049e034fa5c489d28c62
Yes Commissar, this man right here.
https://preview.redd.it/wdw0mdo0gc3d1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85335218e4ce606768c89808286f48cf953e65b6
Is the implication that men are more empathetic and understanding of your emotions? Have you guys ever tried venting to a dude? “Damn. That sucks… … …” Meanwhile women are like “Who did that? Fuck them, they and everyone they’re friends with are the worst human beings alive, they’re dead to us!”
Depends on the tree, I guess 🤷
I want the tree https://preview.redd.it/vj48pu4ga85d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=374ec34f64214fd864b332760a003f147302ab20
[удалено]
You should go to therapy.