You're viewing a single thread.
Yes, blame the victims instead of the aggressors. This will surely solve the problem!
Wut
Those pushing the sexist zeitgeist are seldom the ones suffering from it. As in, generally speaking, it's not an average guy that sits there and thinks, "man I wish I could wear a dress right now without being ridiculed.". Pretty sure that's what they mean.
Joke's still funny though because it's pointing at how stupid the sexist zeitgeist even is. Even if it's leveraging a bad thing, it's aware of and making fun of the bad thing. That's what a good real-world joke does. No one celebrates George Carlin for saying nice things.
Ehhhhh. Victims? Maybe. But that doesn't mean that they're innocent. How many of those dudes who are pressured by society then villify and hate those who are gay? How many times have LGBTQ+ folk been hurt because someone was upset about the simple perception of being gay? Fuck sakes there's a legal argument called Gay Panic that has absolutely worked where straight people freak that someone is gay and then attacks time because they were shocked or surprised. That's just the violence. How many men say that they don't wanna be seen as gay and then bully gay folks in that exact same sentence? They will then put down gay folks to make themselves seem more masculine and heterosexual.
Just because you're a victim of societies bullshit doesn't mean that you get a free pass to hate. More over, if you want that to stop then you have to be the one to help stop it. You don't get to shrug and go along with it while saying "But I'm just a victimmmmm" if you're not trying to stop it or help.
I agree, I'm just explaining what they were complaining about.
Remember, I'm replying to "Wut?" What part of that informs me that you are aware of what they could be thinking?
Oh I know. If that came off directed or angry at you then that was completely unintentional and you have my sincere apologies. Was talking about the idea in general.
Uh, even with the clarification, I'm still confused at what you're trying to say. You seem very triggered by this, and I'm not sure why.
I'm not the one disagreeing with the joke, so your triggered comment is rather pathetic.
The joke is aware that the sexist zeitgeist is stupid. That's the point.
I didn't look at the username before replying. And I'm not triggered. Not sure where you got that from.
The problem with this viewpoint is that in this case, these people are both the victim AND the aggressor. It's an entirely self-made problem for them, which is precisely what being mocked here.
Hey man, what do mean?
If men don't do XYZ because they're afraid of being perceived as gay, shame the people who have created a society where being perceived as gay is something to be afraid of. The men here saying "I'd like to carry a reusable bag but am afraid of the consequences of people thinking I'm gay" are victims here.
First of all, I find the premise that other people would think that dubious at best, but let's assume it's true. What are the consequences of someone else thinking you're gay? Are you the victim of thought-crime? This sounds more like self victimization.
Its called social stigma. Its been a thing ever since socialization has been a thing. Social pressures are a very real thing. Its not like men woke up one day and decided "you know what? I'm gonna be homophobic today, sounds like a real trip!"
Obviously personal choice is a factor, and a major one at that... but its far from the only one.
Lot of irrelevant content here.
I find the premise that other people would think that dubious at best
Not relevant. What matters is that the men surveyed felt like they would be thought of that way.
What are the consequences of someone else thinking you're gay?
That also isn't a rebuttal to my argument. What matters is that these men feel like they'll be thought of as gay and they feel like that's a bad thing. These feelings don't form in a vacuum. They're taught and reinforced to people in society over generations.
Let's suppose that the poll said, "8/10 of men are afraid of wearing slim jeans out of fear of being called gay." Would it not be the obvious conclusion that they're victims of the patriarchy^1. Neither of the two actions are exclusive to being gay in any way, but society teaches individuals to associate the two.
- Patriarchy not being the worship of male over female but the masculine over the feminine. See why traditionally feminine-acting men achieve less success than masculine men, or masculine women over feminine women.
You're correct in sentiment, but the joke is fully aware of that. It's not a joke at all if this is just the simple facts of life. It's a joke because he's self-victimizing over the dumbest shit. No one is sitting there ready to shame the guy if he pulls out a reusable bag. He's doing it to himself. You want us to shame HIM for victimizing himself??
I mean, unironically yes, but please be aware of what you're saying. There is no attacker to yell at here. Shaming someone for attempting to be normal is a GREAT way to twist them up further.
The joke is contingent on linking completely unrelated factors. If you don't, the joke doesn't make sense. Its based on accepting the premise that sexuality has literally anything to do with environmentalism or responsibility.
Sure, its a premise posited by those mired in toxic masculinity... but why accept that premise? That is the core of the joke, accepting a premise that is wholly false.
No, it's a premise based in the reality of a sexist culture. The fuck commentary do you think it's trying to make?
Not the person you're replying to, but I made the original comment in this thread. I made another reply about how this meme's conclusion is flawed, but its premise is too. And it (inadvertently, I don't think OP had any malicious intentions) erases centuries of homophobia in the process.
The basic argument being made here hinges on the fact that the person in the top picture (Louis XIV, I belive but I was never good with monarchy) is wearing items associated today as being feminine and says that modern men have regressed in their sexual security for being too afraid to dress that way, but ignores the fact that those items didn't have those connotations at the time. It isn't like King Louis said "yeah I know these shoes make me look gay, but I'm going to wear them anyway." It's a false comparison between two tome period, attitudes, societies, etc. being made.
Yes, but that is obviously reading WAY too much in to the anachronism. The point is NOT that those were normal back then, but that they magically aren't today.
The juxtaposition is the ENTIRE point: Sex-based fashion (and most other things) IS NOT intrinsic to the sexes. If you analyze it by removing it from modern context, you no longer have ANY juxtaposition to point at, and thus miss the entire point.
The POINT is that it was different back then vs today. The entire point is to demonstrate that gender expression changes COMPLETELY over time, showing that it is a social construct and not intrinsic to the sexes what so ever.
The point of the message is reinforced by the fact that the modern guy is twisting themselves up over "completely unrelated" things. You guys are literally complaining about things that reinforce the main point.
That's projection of insecurity rather than the fault of a society. Nobody would call a guy gay for using a reusable bag, except for the guy who's afraid of other people doing that.
I would argue they're the victims and the ones making society that way at the same time.