I agree it’s hard to know what’s part of divide and conquer political psyops and whether that was the intention or not of the person that created it.
I personally scrolled by this and read it as a debate about feminism in its most basic sense (equality for all) vs traditionalism and patriarchy (heirarchy based control). Not as an attack on men or meaning to exclude anyone who doesn’t fall into the heteronormative categories which exist as a consequence of the heirarchies demanded by traditionalism and patriarchy.
Like the propaganda behind conservative traditionalism has always relied on convincing people of the idea that all of modern society’s problems are simply due to moving further away from the traditional values of the past. It’s somewhat circular logic that offers easy and appealing solutions to those being targeted, while relying on supporters to either remain unaware of or intentionally ignore some of the very obvious problems caused by the conservative heirarchies the traditionalist movement hopes to preserve and strengthen.
For example, addressing the declining standard of living with each successive generation, lack of affordable housing, affordable education, and job opportunities in the United States. Traditional conservativism often targets young men by offering them easy solutions to these issues by claiming they were caused by the feminist and civil rights movements moving American society away from the traditional values (heirarchies) that were already in place. DEI practices that arose from those movements mean that the resources previously available for young men to build the American dream, are now unavailable because they’re being handed to women and minorities while young men have been forgotten. Essentially, these movements have upset the natural order of things, and until that order is restored, there will be no way to fix the problems.
It’s true that opportunity, housing, affordability, and standard of living have all noticably declined in the U.S over the last 50 years. The argument that the lack of available resources in the U.S. in 2026 is due to the most salient social movements of the 60’s and 70’s is an easy conclusion to make, but it requires you to ignore what was simultaneously happening in the background of those movements.
While blaming equality movements and toppling of established heirarchies, it ignores the fact that since the 1970’s wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of the 1%. It ignores the fact that the 70’s also marks the establishment of the first conservative think tanks (Heritage Foundation), which were funded by billionaires, and created in direct response to the civil rights movement, in order to establish influence and promote conservative economic and social policies.
Tldr: To restore and preserve the conservative natural order and heirarchy, the policies promoted are always backed by traditional values that require division by default.
The traditionalist movement argues a woman’s place is in the home, supported by a hardworking man. While equality based movements would argue a woman’s place, (like any autonomous human being, regardless of class or identity male, female, cis, trans, NB), is wherever they want it to be, whether that’s at home, working, single, married, straight, queer etc. The entire point is there are no pre established roles set out for her or anybody else. Opportunities and resources are available to everyone, rather than kept locked away under the control of a small but heavily insulated and protected 1%, who then decide how to divide up whatever resources they’re willing to allow the other 99% to share.
raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Na, a self-secure person can take a joke while acknowledging the truth in it.
howrar@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Why is it any more okay to create conflict with less secure people?
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Insecure about what?
howrar@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
No idea. You should ask raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world about that.
Kaerkob@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Am I too insecure to acknowledge the truth? Or maybe it just doesn’t have any truth to it.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 2 months ago
It’s true. Us humans clearly only harm each-other, so let’s keep a distance, ok?
frog_brawler@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Not sure I fully understand, that’s like saying “It’s true, but funny, because… reasons.”