468
rule shame (lemmy.ca)
submitted 9 months ago by reimufumo@lemmy.ca to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 23 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

using a devastating neurological diseases as an insult, is wrong, but using it a a reason that he shouldn’t run a country is fair.

I don’t necessarily disagree but you also run the risk of distracting from the most dangerous part about him. He is a fascist, that is what is wildly dangerous about him and as much as it is fun to make fun of fascists for being dumbshits, it isn’t a lack of mental capacity that leads to fascism. Those two things are perpendicular and as tempting as it is to equate fascism with stupidity the far more terrifying truth is that it only really equates with ignorance.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

As long as we are arguing about the various reasons he is unfit to serve, I’m good.

[-] dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

As long as we are arguing about the various reasons he is unfit to serve, and also being careful not to throw our trans friends under the bus in the process, I'm good!

Also Donald Trump is one of the straightest, most heterosexually normative men alive if we measure heterosexual masculinity in terms of insecurity, which I think is a reasonable way to quantify heterosexual masculinity. I mean, describing thermonuclear explosive yields of nuclear bombs in terms of kilotons of TNT is a reasonable way of talking about abstract regimes of force we can't directly grasp, so why not kilotons of insecurity to describe the toxic yields of bigots?

edit gotta love the downvotes, I’m sorry if y’all can’t handle people punching up at heterosexual male identity, I know it is such a fragile thing and I am very sorry I should have been more careful not to break it :)

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Why would we judge heterosexual masculinity by insecurity? Yes there are deep ties there, but those deep ties are more based on a precarious position of a neutral trait being held up as an ideal and imbued with societal power. The insecurity is a byproduct of patriarchy favoring it and thus incentivizing those who do not embody it faking it. I would instead say that folks like Nick Offerman who both embody it and reject its dominance are the ones who hold it most. Someone like Steven Crowder for example who clearly hates the cigars he smokes and the whiskey he drinks and just reeks of a bad performance of heterosexual masculinity clearly lacks any authentic expression of gender and orientation.

Trump is clearly a straight man and a masculine one for his culture. I believe the performance he gives, but his insecurities seem to be of value and of strength, especially as he ages and declines. That insecurity is not inherent to straight men, but rather rampant among them

[-] dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That insecurity is not inherent to straight men, but rather rampant among them

How brave of you to make the point “Not All Men!”

Why would we judge heterosexual masculinity by insecurity?

I don’t know, maybe because I am a heterosexual man and I have met countless heterosexual men and one of the most common threads that makes heterosexual men stand out from other people is their deeply ingrained insecurity and propensity to project it with regimes of control and violence?

And ok… to calm the all the men having temper tantrums I am not saying men are inherently…. well anything but is undeniable that the constructed male heterosexual identity is imbued with what I am describing. Our jobs as heterosexual men is to demolish that construction of violence that we were taught (which as you brought up, someone like Nick Offerman does effectively through characters), of course it isn’t inherent to “being a man” , unlike bigots I am not insulting the mental capacity of men by pretending like they don’t have a choice of how to behave, but rather pointing out that heteronormative masculinity is an extremely problematic construct that we must intentionally dismantle and rebuild in more healthy ways for everyone.

Part of doing that is taking the piss out of heterosexual men drowning in insecurity that they impose on everyone else through sexism, driving massive pickups that are custom designed to kill children in a car accident, mass shootings (~99% of mass shooters in the US are, surprise!, heterosexual white men!) talking over other people constantly, pretending the ideas put forward by women are theirs, desiring to possess a partner as an object not a human being with a brain, confusing displays of the capacity for violence as a display of a confidence in their masculinity, taking up as much space as possible in public, demanding to settle disputes with other men through violence and using the threat of that those men will no longer be real men if they refuse….

….how much do I have to go on?

By making fun of the worst aspects of heterosexual men like Donald Trump I am punching up at a thing that needs some punching I think. If this were punching down at a vulnerable group without power in the societies they inhabit ok that would be a different conversation than punching up at the category of people that controls almost every power structure and power dynamic in society wouldn’t it?

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Ok honestly fair, tbh I totally read your comments as someone who’s been in queer female vent spaces long enough to forget how to act outside of them. And part of my reason for the response is because I do see harm being done by a lack of positive role models for young straight men, and I think the solution is twofold: yes they do need some obviously, but also they need to learn the media empathy that women are expected to always be showing.

Though I feel from the bottom of my heart a desire to make a “who here has been victimized by ~~Regina George~~ heterosexual male insecurity” meme if I wasn’t on my phone on my lunch break. But yeah you ain’t wrong, it’s just the sort of thing I instinctively keep to inside thoughts for fear of men’s anger.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

So male heterosexuality is the same as mass murdering with nuclear weapons.

Got it.

[-] NotAtWork@startrek.website 3 points 9 months ago

Statistically, 100% of all nuclear weapons used in war were dropped by Dudes with Dicks.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

So y’all are doubling down.

This is why people go on Fox News and say crazy things about the Woke Left.

Because all y’all prove ‘em right.

[-] NotAtWork@startrek.website 1 points 9 months ago

/s right please be/s no one should be stupid enough to say this with a straight face.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

And an ad hominem attack for the perfection of an unsupportable position

[-] dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I mean, that is basically one of the key points Thomas Pynchon makes in Gravity’s Rainbow but with V2 rockets instead of nuclear weapons and yes absolutely I think it is a great point!

Do you not think the mass brutality of warfare is inextricably linked with societal constructions of male heterosexuality? Like… who else is doing the killing and driving all the violence then? Sure anybody can be a soldier, not just heterosexual men but come on…. are you going to claim with a straight face that there isn’t a connection between male heterosexuality and state violence? Lol I hope you do, that is an absurd position to take and I welcome the amusing rhetorical gymnastics you will have to display to make that kind of argument!

this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
468 points (100.0% liked)

196

16709 readers
2163 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS