• undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Its not whataboutism. Its trying to help you see something youre clearly missing. Its applying the same logic somewhere else, to see if it still works. Its literally how you explain fallacies.

    Its not an all lives matter response either. Instead its you attempting to reject intersectionality, in the name of feminism, without a hint of irony or self awareness. Luckily for you, no one else seems to have read theory post the 1980s either.

    “Men are trash” being acceptable for all women implies that every man ever has always suffered less power imbalances than every woman ever. For example, it would mean that black male slaves in the 1800s would have to of suffered less at the hand of power imbalances than Queens of the United Kingdom, for your “power imbalance makes sexism ok” argument to hold any weight. Its just a safespace for sexism, provided it’s only directed one way.

    Lol no, intersectionality isn’t a false equivalence, as you’re attempting to paint. It’s the rejection of upper class white women, for whom all the men in their lives were all powerful, declaring that all men are always in a higher position of power than all women because that’s the only thing they ever saw (bougouise feminism).

    Turns out, for all their talk of equality, people like yourself just want to be at the top of a new hierarchy, exacting revenge.

    You literally tried to refute intersectionality with “thats like saying all lives matter.”