Title and image source from this Mastodon toot by fatsam@mstdn.social. I even took the damn title because I couldn’t think of anything more apt.
As always, respect my trans homies or I make your pronouns was/were.
Title and image source from this Mastodon toot by fatsam@mstdn.social. I even took the damn title because I couldn’t think of anything more apt.
As always, respect my trans homies or I make your pronouns was/were.
I’m glad the analogy is holding so well.
You only treat the symptoms when doing so improves the quality of life of the patient. Brain swelling, you try and reduce the swelling. Sprain an ankle that’s swollen, treating that swelling impedes healing so you only do so for the patient’s ease of motion.
However, in the case of women, treating their anger doesn’t help them. It helps men.
You don’t think women being angry and bitter hurts women? I know of at least one woman irl who was headed down a very dark path until I and others pulled her out of the hate spiral.
We talk a lot about incels and redpill and whatnot because they’re dangerous to women, but what is less mentioned is how absolutely toxic it is to those in the ideology (which is itself an interesting men’s issue, the way something tends to only be a societal problem once it threatens women or children).
Women who go down the angry misandrist path have the same problems: it’s just not a healthy place to be, mentally.
Women being angry doesn’t hurt women.
People being angry in general hurts themselves.
We don’t need to frame it any more than that, and especially not in the context here. Otherwise it just screams “whataboutism” and gives the red pill people and excuse.
Context is always important.
I mean, sure, I thought we were just on a more or less unrelated sidebar conversation. Doesn’t have much to do with the topic of the post. I just took issue with that one suggestion that it’s okay for women to be angry/misandrist against men, since men did it to women. That’s about the extent of the context, for me.