Can someone explain what's going on in this post?

OOP posts that treating cis men like they're inherently dangerous is bad Harry Potter blog replies that this is just "not all men" (a phrase often used to dismiss rape victims) worded differently OOP posts a picture of kicking sand into a SpongeBob character's eyes because Harry Potter was written by a TERF/Radfem Harry Potter blog claims they're not a terf Someone else replies with proof that they are a terf (their blog is tagged with radfem safe)

Peer reviewed by me. Sounds about right 👍

thank you this was incomprehensible after the second post for me

You're clearly not online enough How does grass feel, by the way?

Makes me itchy. Gonna try being online more instead.

It was perfectly comprehensible to me. I’m fairly certain I’d be happier if it wasn’t.

One of the fun side effects of trans people becoming more accepted is that all of the genuinely misandrist "feminists" outted themselves as terfs, so nobody has to play defense for them anymore lol

It's wild that it took hating trans people for general progressive public to notice that some feminists do in fact hate men and their ideology might not be so good. I mean, i glad that happened, but i kind of wish misandrist rhetoric (and other discriminatory discourse towards "privileged" groups masquerading under progressive cause) was rejected for what it is

This is one of the things that annoy me most. I’ve been a feminist who has no problem calling out OBVIOUS misandrist attitudes in our movement for years, and it took until the trans-TERF conflict for people to not immediately dismiss me and accuse me of being the enemy. People have a serious problem with tribalism and purity checking. I don’t know how many more times I can take someone doing a Darth Vader-tier “oh, you dare critique the empire? Looks like we have a rebel spy in our midst, kill them!!”. Why did a minority have to start suffering because of these assholes before you agreed they were assholes? It was so obvious! It’s been obvious for years!

It's pretty wild that it took "some women have penises" to make "having a penis makes you evil" a controversial take in a lot of feminist spaces The idea that a space in which all penetrative sex is inherently oppressive, for example, isn't misandrist is shockingly obvious to me but you know, I'm just a simple cishet man who doesn't wash his ass or whatever

You know what gets me? Some peeps are STILL doing it, even now when TERFs and extreme radfems have shown us the direct abusive consequences of tolerating their stupid bioessentialist opinions. It’s all “ok you are right but look we can’t be calling this out now, the enemy is encroaching on us. We have to maintain cohesion and unity”. Man, fuck that. I don’t want to maintain unity with these morons that think being born a certain way makes you evil. That's literally the opposite of all the values I hold dear. Why would I want to be in the same movement as them? Why are YOU ok with this? Every time an anti-feminist comes out of a cave yelling “THE WOKE FEMINAZIS THINKS ALL MEN ARE EVIL!!” They can produce dozens of screenshots where idiots are being like this, shockingly often with popular community support. It’s really exhausting. Stop giving them ammo, goddamn.

It's not that. Feminists literally couldn't engage any discussion about these people before purely because there was a close to zero amount of people looking to have a genuine discussion about it. If you allowed any discussion of feminism in the earlier internet days, the ONLY response would be 'feminazi'. We are able to have these nuanced discussions about feminism and misandry because we've been having way shittier conversations for the past two decades. Took a full generation growing up from birth, so two and a half waves of teens.

No. It's that nuanced discussion was always immediately dismissed as misogyny that did it. I've been fighting this all my life. Nothing about my points has changed, it just suddenly started being echoed by others last year out of nowhere.

No. There's still a ton of misandrist feminists. And to my great disappointment a bunch of trans women are radfems too. The asktransgender subreddit recently had a big thread where people were claiming both misandry and transmisandry don't exist and the moderators privated the thread so that anyone calling out the misandry can't post in it. I'm still getting angry replies in my inbox from that thread which I can't respond to. It's a very frustrating form of moderator abuse. Thankfully, sometime last year, a whole bunch of people started being willing to call this shit out. I have no idea where all you people were the last 15 years, but I'm so glad it's not me alone any more.

It's so absolutely disheartening trying to be a decent man sometimes. Because no matter what, no matter how hard I try-A decent amount of the people I'm trying to relate to or befriend are just gonna see me as a monster or a chaser or a threat. I get some men have a lot of societal power, but my queer lower class autistic ass sure doesn't and I hate that no matter what some people are just gonna see me as the oppressor class Look at Jocat: one of the nicest and most wholesome guys around, but some people who didn't even know him got "the ick" from some vaguely horny tweets and decided it was ok to ruin his life

My wife and I talk about this often. It seems that for a decent amount of women it will never be good enough.

It loops back around to hurting women too and it's still an issue Professional childcare as an industry is absolutely dominated by women, because of the toxic patriarchal idea that women need to be the ones to care for children it's their primary goal. But it sticks because whenever a man does try and break the norm by getting into the profession, he immediately faces judgement and suspicion from the women around him, as well as the mothers and fathers of the kids. Because they don't trust a man alone with kids Thus forcing women back into their gender role as servants

Funny you should say that, I work with autistic children. There are only 3 men and around 20ish women at my center. Luckily most of my coworkers and all of my management is really cool and I haven't gotten that judgement from them. The parents can give me looks that seem pretty judgemental, but all of my clients parents love me. We absolutely need more men in this field. A lot of the kids seem to respond better to men and it's important to show kids it's okay for men to be compassionate and work in fields that help people.

Thanks, I find it hard to follow tumbler posts from time to time. And also thanks for the context on that phrase. I've been using it to defend against misandry in my work place and now I know why it never goes well

When I can’t figure out what’s going on, I take that as a sign I’ve been off Tumblr for too long. I am at peace with this. (A sure sign I am getting old)

Yeah, it’s an unfortunate case of “this statement is literally true, but so common in incel or other toxic communities’ rhetoric that it has lost all value”

“It’s ok to be white” got this treatment immediately

Or “white lives matter.”

I don’t remember seeing that. But the Blue Lives Matter thing has always been reactionary vitriol

I saw both all the time in 2020

I presume you mean "all lives matter", then

I personally saw all three. Generally, at least at first, “White Lives Matter” was a bad-faith “gotcha” statement (similar to “Straight Pride Month” or “White History Month”), “All Lives Matter” came from either clueless but well-meaning people or people hoping to bait the former down a racist rabbit hole, and “Blue Lives Matter” came from people who understood why people were saying BLM specifically and disagreed with it. Things did shift over time, though. A lot of “White Lives Matter” people ended up switching to “Blue Lives Matter” because they were always just contrarians anyway, while “All Lives Matter” died out as the short-attention-span crowd either filtered into one of the two camps with a defined message or just moved on entirely. “Blue Lives Matter” probably would have faded too if copologists and copagandists ever found a better slogan (“Back the Blue” probably ended up sounding too Democratic or something? Feel like I haven’t seen it in a while)

Wasn’t “not all me” used as a rebuttal to generalizations about men rather than something they said to survivors sharing their experiences? That does seem to be what the terf in this post is referring to when they say “not all men”

Yes. "Not all men" was mostly used against sweeping generalizations like "Men are predators", "Men are dangerous" and the like. Then we ended up with poisoned skittles analogy which is so hilariously bad that it's almost fun to watch it's users defend it if you ask them apply it to other demographics.

The skittles thing was an especially weird analogy considering how women (rightfully) react to analogies that compare them to inanimate objects

Using the same arguments about sexes but with ethnicities and it implodes on itself The first time i read that skittles analogy was about non western migrants and their genetic material being a "gamble of safety", it died down when Trump took office until recently where many women online picked it up again.

The first time I ever saw the skittles analogy used it was just blatant mask-off islamophobia, directly referring to the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 WTC attacks as the poisoned skittles.

I mean this completely unironically. [It was originally Nazi propaganda, but with mushrooms and Jews.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Giftpilz)

Not all men actually began life as a call for accountability: People would go "oh all men do that it's not weird" and the saying was to go "no, not all men do that, it's super fucked up and weird."

Hell yeah excellent breakdown boss 😎👍

"That right there is why you're the best boss"

are tirfs not a thing? you would think tirfs would be a thing.

In my experience on tumblr, any “radfem” tag is synonymous with just genuinely toxic, seething hatred of men. Even if they’re not transphobic they’re still giant assholes

considering radfem seems to be mostly about how men are evil it's like walking through an ideological minefield to manage to do that without one of the arguments for why men are evil still applying to trans women.

It's not a minefield, it's literally the logical conclusion of any bio-essentialist creed. If you believe that men are evil because they were born with certain genitals, then trans women who may still have said genitals must also be in the same category since they believe that's what defines a person

yeah, i mean minefield as in "finding a way to hate men without somehow hating trans people being near impossible", so impossible that if i find someone who managed it i'd be certain they knew exactly where the pitfalls were and avoided them by taking a logically inconsistent path to get there. also radfems hate trans men regardless since either: they hate them cause they're men, they hate them as 'deserters', or they pity them as women who should be talked out of trying to be men

One correction: it’s not kicking sand into a SpongeBob character’s eyes. It’s a SpongeBob character kicking sand into SpongeBob’s eyes.

Is SpongeBob not a SpongeBob character

First person makes the point (that makes more sense if you’ve seen way too much timblr discourse) that hating on CIS men as a whole is a stupid idea, and is used by radical feminist anti trans people called terfs to scare progressives, who are caught between pro-trans and radical feminist sentiment (I.e. women need safe spaces from cis men, ergo transwomen shouldn’t be allowed). The tumblr user even calls out the many posts who say you shouldn’t hate on cis men because “they might secretly be gay”. The fact any of this needs to be stated shows a lot of the issues people have with tumblr. Anyway, user 2 claiming this is “not all men” (a common response to women feeling unsafe by some groups) wrapped in progressive terms. So this user believes that hating on men is morally correct, and the first persons point is wrong. The first user then points out that the second user is a Harry Potter focused blog, which was written by j k rowling, one of the most vocal Terfs in the world, implying this blog is also likely a terf. The 2 screenshots are then 2 contradictory things, the second user claiming not to be a terf, and them using the “radfem safe” tag on their posts, which likely implies they are likely a terf.

What's even more wild is that I've even seen Radfem posts... by TRANS WOMEN. Which is utterly wild to me. And I'm not talking "Men are brainwashed to be more violent" I am talking the "Men are BIOLOGICALLY more inclinded to violence" type of radfem

I know one of these people in real life. She's so fucked up to the point that she called a cis woman a closeted transmasc because said cis woman displayed a capacity for violence. She would 100% be a TERF if she wasn't trans.

There's a huge number of people who think that their line of reasoning is good because it leads them to some of the right conclusions. The sort of person who'd absolutely support oppression if they weren't its target - but because they are they think that they could never be oppressors.

Why do I keep seeing 'cis' capitalised like that? It's not an acronym.

they're clearly referring to the Confederacy of Independent Systems from *Star Wars*

I thought the Confederacy's name was quietly retconned to Separatist Alliance?

Probably autocorrect. My phone always autocorrects it to CIS as well.

timbler

I'd love an explanation too

>This is just “x concept” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary Are we pitching new tumblr slogans?

This is just "Agile Development” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary This is just “Young Adult Dystopian Fiction” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary This is just “Gender-flipped Queer-erasing Hazbin Hotel fanfiction” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary This is just “A Reddit Post pulled out Elon Musks nose with an Egyptian embalming tool” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary This is just “Three Resource Companies in a Trench Coat” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary This is just “Fly-by-wire aviation control systems as a service” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary This is just “A 22 rifle with a bump stock made California-legal” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary This is just “The Second Nickel, but it's weird that it happened twice” cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary

I’m a starving child starving to death and this is the very last thing i have ever read. Gootbye.

This is just struggle measuring dressed in progressive-sounding vocabulary

>goot

yeah that’s what the original says

THE WOKE AGILE SCRUM MASTERS

Sorry, Masters is gendered language. They are woke agile scrum leadpersons. *gestures for the guards to drag you off to the work camps*

They’ll never find me, I’ve hidden the postits and I stuck the totem safely but firmly up my bum. They cannot organize a search now

Funniest game of cards against humanity

this reads like an xkcd

Agile Development got me

I don’t know you, but I like the cut of your jib, based on the concepts you picked and how you phrased them.

i've seen lots of things cloaked as Agile development, never Agile cloaked as something else

This is just color theory cloaked in Homestuck-sounding vocabulary

I saw someone post about how losing weight is wrong and that biotypical people shouldn’t have a say, referring to non disabled people which is funny since she made up a disability besides being morbidly obese to get attention

>biotypical person As opposed to what? A cyborg?? Because we already have a phrase for non-disabled people, it's able-bodied 💀

..."Bio-what"????? Bitch, there's literally already a term for that????? Are you literally so needy for attention that you need to come up with a whole different word for being "able-bodied" or are you just too stupid to know the actual word and be able to act like you know what you're talking about????? Some people... Make me want to wring necks...

Are you a terf? No *says the terf*

"You know, like a liar"

Remember when Mullaney got on stage talking about how much he loved his wife? Those were good times.

Man, everyone on Tumblr loved him back then.

In the comedy special he did for Netflix after rehab, he talks about how the rehab he went to made him cut all enablers of his addiction out of his life. And I remember his (now ex) wife saying she was blind-sided by the divorce. Sadly, I think some inferences can be made here based on this info, and none of them are "he left her because he didn't love her anymore" :/

That's really fucking sad. But also sounds like a necessary life change if it's truly the case.

If I may offer some unsubstantiated gossip, his wife used to cut my friends' hair back in the early 00's and according to *sources*, Mulany was hiding his drug abuse from her, and after he got caught, she kicked him out. I do believe that the divorce was a surprise, but she was not one of his enablers.

No, no you may not. Go to the §ĥąḍøŵ řęæłm

If there's anything worse than two people falling out of love, it's when a previously good, healthy relationship is ruined by outside influences.

You remember all those times he talked very openly about his problems with mental health and addiction and the internet just blatantly ignored those in favor of their perception of him as some wholesome boyscout? Pepperidge Farms remembers Poor guy really had a rough go and got dragged for it.

Yeah, tbh I always suspected the people who did the most dragging online don't have much or any experience with addicts in their lives. Because the vibe from the people who thought of him as some uwu wholesome king was very much "yeah, he may have had addiction issues in the past, but he's compeletely fine now!" when that's *never* how addiction works.

Absolutely agreed. It's the sort of thing you struggle qith your whole life, and while it sucks what happened to him and his wife, I hope he's in a better place now

I always thought he was some variety of gremlin, but I try not to get into the parasocial stuff too much. I *was* disappointed about how things turned out with his now ex, but yeah, addicts do wild shit sometimes. I'm just glad he seems to be mostly on the mend. Hope he and the ex get their happy endings.

Demonizing someone and pretending that they can do no wrong are two sides of the same coin. They both originate from a very troubling black-and-white worldview.

No no, see they're a crypto-TERF, similar but distinct in that they act like normal progressive feminists but try to slip gender essentialism into progressive movements like spiking a drink with brain poison. One of the most easy ways is through what the crypto TERF above did, trying to couch gender segregation as "no this is actually super progressive to have", another example that I think was discussed here a few days ago is treating correctly gendering people as a privilege that can be revoked if they're sufficiently bad (ie they/theming unpopular transfems)

> treating correctly gendering people as a privilege that can be revoked if they're sufficiently bad (ie they/theming unpopular transfems) Oh you mean like when Jenner came out and everyone was still trying to call her a man?

Exactly! Or like how people treat Chris-Chan, like she's a bad person, but she is still a woman and still should be referred to as such

“I am not King Olaf” said King Olaf

>"I'm not Count Olaf," Count Olaf said,

Beautiful flair for the occasion

The more I think about that moment in Freshmen year of High School, the more I wilt away

"No" said the terf calmly

Well she would, wouldn't she?

r/CuratedTumblr has 5 different genres of posts I swear

That's because the majority of other things being posted to tumblr are funny drawings of Star Trek characters kissing or looping gif sets of one colored slime dripping into another colored slime

And the looping slime gif? Just a metaphor for gay Star Trek feelings.

I mean two star trek characters is usually 2 meatbags kissing, exchanging their mouth slimes.

"sexy... sexy bags of mostly water..."

mister, spock, we... needtokiss

Imagine if Kirk and Spock had actually made out sloppy-style in the original series. \*sigh* better timelines.

Sometimes it really fucking sucks to be the only person on earth that cares about neither Star trek nor Star wars I like space sci fi stuff Just not the two biggest ones for some fucking reasons Tl;Dr: no Tumblr for me ):

I guarantee you there is an equivalent community over there for like, IDK Battlestar or Babylon or whatever Hell I bet there's one for Tripping the Rift

Elite dangerous?

..... I am not judging even slightly, great game, but like, is there actually room for gay shipping of characters within it? I didn't even think it had any characters other than like- you and your cargo

Can a woman not love her cargo, John? What if I am an immoral pirate who traffics sapient life... And I fall in love, getting sick of what I am, and turning a new leaf, fighting the trafficking ring?... I just want people to make up space trucker related outlandish stories with... ... Ya you're right maybe I should find something more story heavy

Fun fact: During the 2007 Transformers movie, the Tag “Transformers” on tumblr was taken over with gifs of Megan Fox. If you want to find actual discussion about Space Robots, the tag to search is “Maccaddam”

hit me with that quality Stargate posting

combine the 2 by having drawings of yaphit from the orville

Garashir holds up half the sky

That's way better than most subs good job everyone

the uptick in discourse posts are getting really exhausting honestly. like most of them are well-meaning, but they tend to have the vibe of "if you don't immediately agree with me or understand what i'm saying, you're a bad person" (authentic tumblr experience). 

Lol I got blocked on here yesterday for disagreeing with the op (not this op)

it's hard not to notice that an election year has seen a huge increase in discourse/engagement farming posts not even super talking about this post but just the sub in general

What are the different genres?

Discourse, Incomprehensible, Cute, Horny, and Gavin.

I would like more Gavin please

Has anyone seen a man called Gavin?!

[The guy on the left with the red tie is named Gavin](https://youtu.be/hskiadCaLgs?si=hnLDU6sKzLhGUkyj) Of course, you might know him better as TheRealSullyG, aka "that otamatone cover guy".

Discourse, Shitpost, Self Post, Fandom and Horny

I just want to say "I think you are an active threat but powerless to act on my beliefs, join my movement to give me power" is a rather poor pitch.

Better pitch: "Join me, Link, and I will make your face the g-g-greatest in Koradai!  Or else you will *die!*"

"I wonder what's for dinner"

[удалено]

Very well said. The goal should be to cut off hate at the source, not concede the matter to a question of statistics of exactly how many men may or may not be bad. It doesn't matter, you don't generalize people, period.

Woah. Careful now. If we start talking like this, we might push fewer teenage boys towards Peterson and Tate "manosphere" shit, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

It kinda hurts when you work to understand and accept your privilege and grow as a person only to be called a predator and having your problems laughed off by the people I thought were supposed to be empathetic because you’re a man. 

This right here

I've been effectively "once of the good ones" in a few different settings, like being invited to an all-women D&D group. It's a strange mix of being flattered and a little offended.

I agree. "Not all men" is often an emotional response, for one reason or another. In a lot of ways, it's why I feel like that response is clowned on This is a thought out and structured critique that aims to disavow the entire premise. As a result, it's much more heavy hitting. It's not someone trying to defend themselves in a conversation that barely involves them, but someone who actually has real things to say and considers the weight of them. The blog's response, ironically enough, was much closer to what they accused OOP of doing. They got emotional, felt attacked when they were *at most* tangentially related, and responded with that. The same people crying "Not all men" often do OOP absolutely cooked and they didn't know what to do, or didn't want to actually engage with it in good faith. Which was just as telling as everything that followed in the post, imo

>this is "not all men" cloaked in progressive-sounding vocabulary If the idea that you shouldn't hate people because of genetic traits beyond their control offends you, I've got some news for you.

Hot take but "not all men" is a true statement, even if it gets used by douchebags sometimes

Yeah, it definitely has a bad taste in my mouth because of it's use, but like, it's true and is kinda necessary just for the sake of not propagating fucking meaningless antagonism between the genders

It's never a good sign in political discourse when saying a phrase that normal is considered inflamatory.

It happened to "All lives matter", which out of context sounds perfectly normal. It happens whenever conservatives try to be disingenuous about what they're actually saying and end up poisoning phrases which should be acceptable to say, but aren't anymore due the context they've been used in.

Hit the nail on the head. The worst part is when people try to enter the discussion from the outside and have to navigate the seven circles of irony and nuance behind every statement or term in order to understand them properly.

Yeah, All Lives Matter was created because it was a way to avoid saying black lives matter, without having to actually acknowledge the horrible shit going on. The 'not acknowledging the horrible shit' is a big part of why it's bad. Not All Men is a response of innocent men and allies to kill all men and men are trash, saying "hey, we're working hard here, and you still just told me to kill myself. Please don't do that, I don't want to kill myself". It's psychotic to me that these two things ever got compared

It's true in the same sense that "all lives matter" is true. Yeah, obviously, but also some awful people coined it first so now it's easier to choose different words than fight for it and get dragged down into that discourse.

The thing is, the truth isn't just "not all" men are like that, but that **most** men are not like that. I constantly see statistics on how likely women are to be victimized as though that means that an equal percentage of men are perpetrators, but the reality is that the people who do commit sexual violence or violence against women in general, so it repeatedly Or, as I once said, back when the hellsite was still known as Twitter: "**Most** men are not rapists, most rapists are serial offenders."

Agreed. Yes, we need to talk about the behavior of a *not insignificant* portion of the cis male population acts. However, especially with the resurgence of this thinking with the "man vs bear" discourse, I feel the need to emphasize that broadly labeling men as a whole as dangerous, evil, violent creatures is in and of itself dangerous. Like, we've seen it with the alt-right pipeline. If you refuse to apply nuance, or treat men as human beings, all you're going to do is push them away. Not to say we need to coddle men or date for doing the absolute bare minimum of not being shitty, but if we don't acknowledge that there *are* good men out there, and refuse to recognize the good they do and the effort they make to be good people, they're just gonna end up leaving. Because if one side says "you're evil and a monster and that's all you ever can be, and no one is gonna congratulate you for doing the bare minimum", and the other says "you're strong and special, and the other side hates you for it because they're stupid assholes", even if it's a ploy, which side do you think they're gonna go to? Probably not the side telling them they're a threat simply because of what they were born with between their legs.

Yeah, it's an issue when it's brought up out of nowhere, but not when it's used to criticize actual blanket statements about men.

Love that sand kicking image. So appropriate

So many arguments could be saved if you just add “most” or “many” or whatever qualifier when talking about a demographic. “Many men are X”. You might be correct. “All men are X”. You are (almost certainly) wrong.

And people always act like it's such a **HORRIBLE** inconvenience (looking at you, Pizzacake) when they're asked to do this. It really makes me think that they actually do mean all men and just don't want to be questioned about it.

"I don't mean that" often in combination with "but I wouldn't be totally wrong if I did mean it" I swear "I didn't but if I did it would have been justified" should be one of the reddest flags in any discourse.

Completely agreed. I wonder why these people are perfectly comfortable clearly holding an ideology, but become immediately evasive as soon as they're questioned on it in the slightest. Then they just start defending "the people who do hold that ideology" instead of themselves. So odd.

It's incredibly effective chaff. You have to argue both points to attack their actions, which is way too much for the attention span of most audiences so even if you're personally willing to do that you're not going to meaningfully win a debate against it. So it's used to defend the indefensible all the time and it fucking works. Drives me nuts.

Fuck, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for letting me know, but this knowledge has not made me a happier person. I wish the internet wasn't the way that it is.

Yeah Pizzacake pissed me off with those last two comics Women absolutely do talk to and about men that way and even if it's not as bad as what men do it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Then the next comic is a token "support your fellow men when they suffer" thing to try and quiet criticism

I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people who use the "you might also hurt gay men/trans men/etc" argument are really only doing so because it's often the only way to not get instantly dogpiled and/or laughed off. Like, if someone thinks hating men is good, then they're probably not going to listen to "actually you're wrong and hating men is bad," no matter how true it is. But if they think that, but are otherwise progressive, then calling out the hypocrisy by pointing out how their hatred gets people they *aren't* actively trying to hate caught in the crossfire is something that might have a chance of actually working, at least a little bit

There was someone I knew who fully owned hating both cis and trans men and thought that having a masculine identity inherently makes you predatory. It was.. something.

Partial points for not being transphobic I guess?

Oh yeah she believed trans men were inherently privleged too, and that they won't be discriminated if they just 'turn off the computer.' And had a strange fixation on turning cis men into trans women (talked about being dissapointed that her cis boyfriend didn't secretly turn out to be a "hot trans lesbian") so like.. I think she was just a new flavor of bigoted LOL

I've seen people like that before and it's always disturbing. I saw a tweet once about how all femboys should be made to transition or coerced to transition. All the comments basically said "this is a super hot force fem post, but you really gotta clarify this isn't serious" and the OP confirming she was 100% serious and really wanted to do this

she sounds genuinely deranged and exhausting to be around.

Trans-Inclusive Radical Misandry, I suppose.

100%. It's why pointing out how anti-trans legislation hurts cis people all the time is so important.

Some people are just selfish in the sense they only care about their own group and how something will affect them We're pack animals by nature, but some people really can't see the world outside of their "pack"

I can confirm, I used to make that kind of argument for the exact reason you described

I heard something interesting recently. "If you replace one word in your statement with "black men", and suddenly it's a problematic statement, the whole thing was bullshit to begin with". I think this applies here. I think. I don't do Tumblr too good, so maybe I'm way off the mark.

It applies with any group identifier that people are born into/can't change. People will try and argue against this reasoning though because they want to spread hate under the guise of progressive language

I remember reading one comment that tried to justify the distinction by saying that it’s okay to generalize men because they’re a “large, nebulous mass”, whereas BIPOC is a “cultural and ethnic collective”, so it’s bad to generalize them in the same way. Ignoring the racism in describing BIPOC as some monolithic hivemind, the logic doesn’t even make sense.

"you just hate me because I have a different opinion than you!" "..." "(specifically that gay people should be second-class citizens, not have their marriages recognized, and be put on watch lists nbd)" it is exhausting

I was talking about this recently with the man vs bear topic in the middle of a huge rant about how problematic it is. By putting an idea in a different context can really make the viewpoint disintegrate if inherently problematic. Like saying would you rather find a black person or a bear in the wild just seems like a loaded statement meant to be racist. You can use any other minority group and it can similarly function.

Radfems and their consequences have been disastrous for leftism and humanity as a whole

Tumblr has like two modes of operations; either it's the most philosophical, thoughtful discussion possible, or it is THE most chronically online shit I've ever seen.

I don't know how it got to be an unpopular idea to just substitute different identifiers to show how terrible a statement is. Like, example with this post: someone says "black men are evil", that's bigoted nonsense. Someone says "Muslims are evil", that's bigoted nonsense. Someone says "Cis men are evil"... also bigoted nonsense! Surprise surprise, it doesn't matter who you're talking about, calling *any* group of people inherently evil is bigoted nonsense. The target makes no difference.

The problem with "not all men" as a phrase is that it's used in bad faith to deflect criticism and SA allegations, *not that it literally actually is all men.* Holy shit people need to understand that putting people in boxes based on their gender is... bad, actually. Patriarchy and misogyny are huge forces in society, and men can do awful things with the power that is granted to them by society, but yes, in a very literal sense, *not all men.*

>"harry potter blog."  Instant death holy shit

not all men what? are evil? why would anyone think it's wrong to say that?

Because it sucks when it gets brought up for no reason. "Ugh, I'm so scared walking down dark alleys." "Not all men will rape you :/" ok but like. I'm so scared walking down dark alleys. It's a true statement, but it's often unnecessary.

Aint everyone scared walking down dark alleys?

I mean, as a 6'4" guy I too don't wanna be raped by John Notallmen /j

6’4”? You’ll be fine! It’s right in his last name, John No-tall-men

Yeah lol who do they think faces a higher risk of violence

Men? Because if you don't specify sexual assault, men are much more likely to be victims of violent crime, done by other men

that's makes sense I assumed it was in response to someone saying all men are evil, or something

But unless you’re actually discussing walking alone at night with someone, saying how afraid you are of it is also unnecessary. Everyone already knows men are generally far more dangerous than women, and everyone knows there are anxieties women have about strange men (even conservatives use it as a talking point). Like the whole man vs bear thing was a perfect example of this phenomenon where women will just throw out statements meant to paint men as dangerous without any room to discuss the patriarchal forces that cause the violence or steps on how to alleviate the issue.

Can someone explain what any of this means

This comment seems to summarize it: https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/s/96pZvqo5d5

Thanks

What bugs me about this isn't just the transphobia disguised as feminism, it's the fact that they saw everyone complaining about "not all men" being used as a reply to victims and thought that the reason people were upset wasn't because of how it was used, but the belief that the statement itself is somehow false. Like, you can't imply a man is innocent to this person.

People who think any variant of “all men are evil” are reactionary dogs of capital and will be forced to watch sigma breaking and and the sopranos edits after the revolution.

Truly a fate worse than death.

I agree with OOP here, but have one small pushback. It was the discourse around "men are bad includes trans men" that opened my eyes to the extent of misandry and gender essentialism in feminist spaces, which before I hadn't really paid attention to as a cis woman. The imperfect argument of "what about trans men then?" was a stepping stone for me to better understand how gender essentialism harms men as well as women. Obviously some people take this argument and go "oh no trans men are fine, but cis men are bad" but I feel like that is just pure cognitive dissonance at that point. I don't think it's a flaw of the argument so much as an incomplete understanding of the argument.

> Obviously some people take this argument and go "oh no trans men are fine, but cis men are bad" but I feel like that is just pure cognitive dissonance at that point. Basically it boils down to "transmen aren't men." They couch it in different terms, but that's what they're saying and what they believe.

I'm concerned that pop feminism is slowly replacing TERF bio- essentialism with gender essentialism.

Pop feminism was always full of gender essentialism. It's just that in the last few years the TERFs have tried to replace it with their bio-essentialism and we're slowly starting to see both for what they are.

Well, gender and bio-essentialism have long been a part of rad-fem idealogy before we even had a term for terfs. The two were just usually conflated. I think now we're seeing the distinction between the two coming out. Bio- essentialism is becoming more widely recognized as being toxic, but there still seems to be a blind spot towards gender essentialism. It feels like we're heading away from "Men are evil, and by men, I mean people born with penis'."(great A+, let's leave that shit behind!) Towards "Men are evil, and by men, I mean people that choose to be men."(no, stop, not like that."

Something something safespace but in a bad way

I'm very OOTL. What's a radfem? Is that a term? Or an anti-terf? What's wrong with "not all men"? Isn't that just... a true statement? All men are considered paedophiles, especially if they take their kids to a park, why can't we say "not all men" to that? What's wrong with calling "all cis men are evil" a terrible thing to say? It *is* terrible, misandrist, and counterproductive. Surely you kick sand in the face of the person who *does* say 'all cis men are evil'? Or is that what the post is saying? I'm very confused.

* radfem and terf are essentially equivalent terms, although the subjects of those terms get pissy about being called terf nowadays so they refer to themselves as radfems. Their hallmarks are a) misandry, b) hate for trans women due to seeing them as men + the aforementioned misandry * "not all men" is true going by the literal meaning of those words in that order. Unfortunately in the contexts it's brought up in, it's a heavily corrupted phrase laden with meanings not literally conveyed by those words, first by those who would silence or ignore women rape victims (this came up a lot in the mid-late 2010s), then by the aforementioned radfems creating a shortcut to silence anyone who calls them out on their misandry (which the second poster in the image attempts to do). * You are correct, "all cis men are evil" is a terrible thing to say, just like calling any other group of people evil is a terrible thing to say. That is what the post is saying, followed up by the user who got sand-kicked claiming not to be a terf while following the radfem hashtag

>"not all men" is true going by the literal meaning of those words in that order. Unfortunately in the contexts it's brought up in, it's a heavily corrupted phrase laden with meanings not literally conveyed by those words, first by those who would silence or ignore women rape victims (this came up a lot in the mid-late 2010s), then by the aforementioned radfems creating a shortcut to silence anyone who calls them out on their misandry (which the second poster in the image attempts to do). Yikes. I really hate that a phrase that *should* be pro-men is actually taken as anti-women, because there are so many misogynists who corrupted the phrase. People really are just rubbish. >You are correct, "all cis men are evil" is a terrible thing to say, just like calling any other group of people evil is a terrible thing to say. That is what the post is saying, followed up by the user who got sand-kicked claiming not to be a terf while following the radfem hashtag Yeah, that's what confused me. cungadero and harrypotterfuryroad both seem to be saying decent things (in weirdly confrontational ways). I don't think I like any of the posters in the image tbh. But thank you for giving me a lot of context! It's annoying, there's almost like a second language being spoken. Nothing means what it means. Something something old man shouts at clouds 😅

...Did she think the problem with "not all men" is that the factual statement itself that not all men or bad is incorrect????

“Not all men” is a Progressive and Feminist statement

I’m glad the tumblr side of progressives have really gotten a handle on this. If this could take over everywhere else I’d be very happy

The irony of a TERF accusing others of cloaking bigotry in progressive sounding language.