Murple_27

Your single existence might be ephemeral, but humanity isn’t, your community isn’t, and possibly your family either

It is though. Life has existed on this planet for just under 4 Billion years and in that time over 99% of all species to have ever come into existence have gone extinct.

Your community & family are no less ephemeral than the life you yourself live, but you won't get to see any of that.

If we lose trust in our community or in humanity in general

I never had a reason to trust them to begin with, tbh.

It’s so fucking embarrassing I wish I could literally just not be my gender for awhile.

You should probably delve that particular line of thought more deeply, tbh.

Female encroachment on what has traditionally been considered male spaces is not taken well. Female empowerment is considered taking from deserving males.

The problem is that in the context of a "winner-take-all" society it does do that though.

Obviously the general solution is to make a society that is overall more equitable between those who succeed & those who don't.

But if you aren't going to do that then you will get a reaction from those who are losing ground, even if that happening is the morally progressive outcome.

If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?

I'm kinda confused about who is supposed to be who...

The actual top answers to the questions seem to be reasonable tbh. IDK what you're getting at here.

I almost stopped reading at the first four words, tbh.

But I also think that “shaming” as a tactic hasn’t succeeded because of the material conditions of men in society, of course.

In considering material conditions, there is what one is able to do as a consequence of the position that they hold in relation to others; and there is what one needs to do in order to secure their survival & posterity. If it is always a conflict between the personal agency of women & the ability of men to secure their livelihoods, then most men are always going to at some level resent that agency, or the choices made with it. Hence, the drive to create a Patriarchal society.

Dissolving that drive is a challenge of reconciling the ability of men to meet their material needs, with the freedom & agency of women.

Edit: I should clarify that this is meant to engage with the question of how to stop men being personally misogynistic, not how to empower women to combat it. These are two different questions, with different answers, although the latter is probably more important historically.

So the ones who are salvageable will change after some shaming... and those who aren’t won’t be saved.

What is this Christian Evangelical/Calvinist nonsense?

One podcast episode will never hook these people to listen to more: the strategy must begin elsewhere (like shaming or women denying them their objectification) so that reflection is required. But that reflection is most successful when they are confronted directly.

I'm gonna be direct with you here, no amount of personal or public shaming has ever gotten me to change any view I've ever had; definitely not from strangers on the internet. It usually just makes me see whoever is trying to shame me as a personal enemy, not somebody to suck up to. The only time I've ever actually changed my opinion on anything (with regards to fundamental values & not simple "facts about the world") is when they either directly conflicted with me achieving my own goals, or it resulted in somebody I care about getting hurt & I felt bad about that.

I don't think that shaming men is going to result in any kind of general shift in behavior, especially since that's kind of been the default way of engaging with men from a Feminist position generally for as long as it's been a thing. You have to highlight either how it actively impedes them from achieving what they want, or harms people they actually care about.