there was an indication 45 would be bad, during his presidency he did a bunch unexpectedly, that means my poor imagination has no clue how awful some of the stuff he implements will be

You might find Negative Income Tax proposed by Milton Friedman interesting, he certainly was no collectivist.

Hey, are you also referring to Negative Income Tax by Friedman?

thank you for your service 🫡

yeah, think my response was responding to something non-existent (like i made up a take to argue against), appreciate your comment. one needs to take the complaints and grievances seriously if they wanna understand or have a meaningful affect.

I don’t think they are federated? Neither is the other big community whatever it’s called.

no i don’t think they were “the original”, where i see it now, they are in academic institutions (like the philosophy dept at my school, a few in women’s studies) and publications (here’s one from radical philosophy, she wrote for the london review of books which i really like and i thought the title was interesting, i thought it was a good piece that i’ll have to revisit at some point.

you’ll note there isn’t really any provocative language. you mentioned female dating strategy, that’s not a pleasant place to be. i browsed it a bit then noped out when all the acronyms started to come out, i checked the sidebar and thought yeah this is not a place which wants me…

i think the notion of ‘convincing’ is the issue. it really needs to be done by men, it’s not as though what women are saying is factually incorrect or the content is off, it’s often the opposite i find. when i say what women or feminists i respect say i always seem to get a better response than if a woman said it or the original author said it.

it’s such a shame, there’s already a ton of work done by a sizeable proportion of the population and it’s ignored or misconstrued :/

i think the cool stuff the suffragettes did would be labeled way more negatively now. the civil disobedience was rad.

i do read that stuff, well, i don’t consider it as such but it’s been told to me to be as such. i still don’t know why as i never got a chance to ask for an explanation

i mentioned in another comment in this thread; i like physical activity, just not intense sports (even ‘amateur’ or ‘casual’ floor hockey/basketball was intense), would like it if there were more options. i just ended up working out and that was good for getting the physical activity i needed. it’s only, i wanna do stuff outdoors sometimes and there aren’t as many convenient options as a gym.

what a pain, sucks to hear that. do you think it is more common in like your field of study or is there not too much difference? i took cs classes and found a lot of the younger guys louder and obnoxious compared to those in my chem or bio classes (bio was majority women, chem was sorta equally spilt, obviously excluding other genders, it was not something i was really knowledgeable about the time and ignored)

i thought it’s cuz their aero industry died?

i did see the low value men used; tbh i see men are trash more but that might be because of the places i stick around online

do you think it makes sense to distinguish between the kind of radical feminism you’re talking about, and the dry academic stuff that’s also called radical feminism by the people who are engaged in it at least?

it’s tricky, i can’t deny there aren’t spaces which are predominantly women where a bunch of unfair or negative stuff about men is said.

thing is, radical, which in math is another term for getting the ‘root’ of something, like a square root, and also means like ‘fundamental’ does have more than one meaning. when you use it, that’s one use of the word which makes sense, another which is the one i first learned and the places i go to use to describe themselves is rather dry academic, philosophical, and artsy (artsy in the way which is confusing as heck to me) and they are also radical.

so often i am confused because it’s not as though when you use the word you’re making anything up. other commenters will likely treat you like you invented that use of the word, people always police language. it’d be way nicer if we could understand each other better i really think you and i and the commenters which probably gave you a downvote all have way more in common than not.

damn, good way to put it

i think so, even if it isn’t stuff like “hot” or “active” definitely are

do you know if there is one for movember? i always felt that international mens day wasnt really popular because it wasnt ‘themed’ if you get what i mean. during movember in high school the girls would get those like moustache cutouts and wear them and it all raised awareness for men and boys and there was funding for like, i think it was prostate cancer?

i don’t think it’s ok for people to laugh at an abuse victim. i also don’t think it is as important to work on at present compared to other issues. it’s a shame it happens, and i think there are other battles to fight first; like boys for some reason (from the evidence from research i gathered) needing more like physical activity in schools and doing much better when they aren’t tied to a desk all day. something like this is important, because testing indicates boys are getting worse especially recently in stuff like math and general literacy.

so yes men do get laughed at for this kinda stuff, by men and also by women. when men do it, i noticed it doesn’t bother me as much truthfully.

i’ll say when i’m in more women-friendly, radical feminist spaces (journals, magazines, irl events) there really isn’t this negativity around. something like the scumm manifesto does say stuff that can be hurtful or seem hateful (i’d agree it is hateful; i’d also agree it’s completely justified and rational given the circumstances) and honestly so much of the tension seems to me to be due to the online nature of this stuff.

are there women-only spaces where a bunch of negative things about men are said? obviously, and i can’t for the life of me figure out why it’s held to a different standard than other groups outside of the patriarchy being the explanation.

i think treating and seeing women as equal is accepting there are women who have awful takes. women as a group will be like many other groups, they might appear homogeneous and their’s a wealth of differences between them.

i’m ok believing some men are toxic, as am i for some women, what i don’t do is share that opinion with others if the circumstances aren’t appropriate. i think that’s where “think before you act” or “think before you talk” comes in.