• CorruptBuddha
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah like… I get what you’re saying, you just don’t seem to want to acknowledge the obvious bias and contradictions.

    Basically from what you’re saying is the ONLY way you’d acknowledge systemic misandry is if women were in charge… But the fucking gender of the person imposing themselves is irrelevant to the status of victimization. Misandry is about persecution of men, not about who’s persecuting, and when you see systemic instances of misandry, how do you not acknowledge that? How do you just ignore your own biases?

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are no systemic instances of misandry, because the ruling class is not discriminated against in any way and they are men. Men suffer, but not from an institution that commits acts of violence and discrimination against men as a class. Last 3 words are key there.

      • CorruptBuddha
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Men suffer, but not from an institution that commits acts of violence and discrimination against men as a class.

        I’ve given you examples already. Like god damn that’s literally the point of the OP meme. And the class that men are subject to is aristocracy. Happy? There, we have a ruling class. Now can we acknowledge systemic misandry?