men’s spaces are an easy way for men to vent about shit that is bothering them.
That’s what interests me. Why is that best achieved in exclusively male groups? What would actually be required to empower men to vent in gender inclusice spaces?
I mean what’s really needed: Spaces without women, or spaces without toxic masculinity?
Lol alright. Thanks. Thought it might be a term for something specific
Okay not at all what this is about, but what is a white widow? If you don’t mind explaining. Looking that up brought me to a particularly strong strain of weed and a british terrorist.
As someone who relates a lot to the feeling OP is describing, I actually blocked that community. Feeling uncomfortable with the label “woman” and the baggage it comes with, a place that’s labeled “for women only!” is one of the few things I’ve encountered that made me sympathise with what actual gender dysphoria must feel like.
Or:
So let’s not jump to conclusion. There are many options and being a trans man is just one of them - and one we should never hastily impose on anyone.
How do you expect me to join a revolution when I’m lying in bed, too depressed to move?
Being able to “cope”, or survive, within horrible circumstances isn’t oppressive. Oftentimes it’s absolutely necessary to even begin to change your circumstances for the better. The alternative is unnecessarily cruel and to be clear helps absolutely zero with the status quo.
But how?
Sounds great what you’re proposing - sounds also like magical thinking.
What’s a realistic way to achieve all the changes you’re suggesting? That’s the question we actually have to answer. Right now you’re just daydreaming which systemic changes would change the system for the best outcome.
And to add: Corporations won’t adjust without being forced politically or economically, and both of those options depend entirely on individual action - either at the voting booth or with our purchases.
None of this is realistic though. What you’re asking for is akin to an absolute miracle. Where would the political forces come from that do that? How could a majority be motivated to vote them into office? How could we get a whole capitalist machinery on board not to counteract and sabotage this?
They’re good ideas, but realistically speaking we have to start somewhere else.
It looks like the spongebob-health-inspector-nasty-krabby-patty equivalent of an avocado. Probably rotted, tried to sprout, died, and rotted again.
And it can mean building something with them and then talking about how they are. I work closely together with OTs who do exactly that.
And it already exists, called occupational therapy or ergotherapy.
That wouldn’t be a problem at all if we had better science journalism. Every psychologist knows that “a study showed” means nothing. Consensus over several repeated studies is how we approximate the truth.
The psychological methodology is absolutely fine as long as you know it’s limitations and how to correctly apply it. In my experience that’s not a problem within the field, but since a lot of people think psychology = common sense, and most people think they excel at that, a lot of laypeople overconfidently interpret scientific resultst which leads a ton of errors.
The replication crisis is mainly a problem of our publications (the journals, how impact factors are calculated, how peer review is done) and the economic reality of academia (namely how your livelihood depends on the publications!), not the methodology. The methods would be perfectly usable for valid replication studies - including falsification of bs results that are currently published en masse in pop science magazines.
HawlSera is generalising feminists, while at the same time critizising them for generalising.
Sorry, thats just not a perspective that deserves to be respected. It deserves to be corrected and criticized.
You seem to have left the conversation about the topic at hand altogether if the only thing you’re willing to talk about is her background.
Now you’ve lost me - should we all be held to the same standard or should OP be exempt from the general rules of decency because of their background?
Because if we’re talking about the standard of “unfair generalisations are unfair, don’t do it” (which is what I’ve been talking about, don’t know about you) then Queen HawlSera clearly failed to meet it.
The alternative is not what youre thinking likely. The alternative is something more nuanced than this-or-that thinking. Something where everyone that’s not bigoted is recognized and considered. Not just a single group.
But working against feminism is bigoted. I feel sorry if someone acts destructively because they had a horrible childhood - nevertheless, acting destructively in itself shouldn’t be tolerated.
I mean who actually benefits from ruining the reputation of feminism? Probably the very people who hurt Queen HawlSera as a child. We’re not doing kids like her any favors by allowing that.
Proof that if you don’t tow the party line, it doesn’t matter what your background is.
Well, yeah? What’s the alternative? “If we like your background it doesn’t really matter what positions you hold - trans people should be allowed generalise a bit and trash feminism, as a treat”?!
I’m queer myself. I will hold you responsible for your words, no matter your background. Especially when it comes to feminism. And that obviously includes women of all backgrounds. If anything I expect more solidarity from them, not less.
All feminists?
Because if we had a mandatory global meeting I sure as hell missed my invitation.
I agree, but I wonder if it’s inevitable. Safe spaces for men would obviously have to be non-judgmental, but by women and men alike. In order to have safe spaces for men in the first place we’d need some kind of rules of conduct anyway. Explicitly or implicitly. And if those rules are in place it shouldn’t make a difference if the people upholding them are men or women.
In real life I feel the justification for exclusively male spaces is often sexist in nature (e.g. “women cannot be non-judgemental” or "they wouldn’t/couldn’t be supportive of men) or based in toxic masculinity (by reinforcing that men have a role to play in front of women, which makes it impossible to truly open up before them).
Obviously we all have learned and integrated these gender roles so much that even if we disagree with them on a cognitive level, it’s still a fact that we are restricted by them. So as long as we don’t have equality, men will probably in parts be held back by the idea of being vulnerable in front of women, even though it shouldn’t have to be this way. With that in mind maybe male only spaces could be a clutch until men get better at talking with women. I’m just wondering if we aren’t yet at a point where we can think of something better, and make a step in the right direction already - with gender inclusive safe spaces, that clearly support the right and the opportunity for men and women alike to express their feelings.