The casual misogyny of this thread is impressively internalized.
I have a great capacity to become an asshole when I'm being glib. I would like to add that there's nothing impressive with how well casual prejudice becomes internalized because that is literally the easiest and laziest thing a brain can do.
Thank you. It made my day incrementally better.
Every once in a while I need a reminder that my loose tongue can make people feel marginalized. What you do is thankless and I know people resent you because they feel like you're trying to censor everybody. I know you're just trying to protect people who don't have a thick skin. Not everyone can have a thick skin, so somebody should look out for them.
I almost responded differently but I'm really glad I didn't. The world doesn't need more distance between people.
If you don't understand why this is a misogynistic statement, I think the best advice I can offer you is to research why it might be considered as such. Ask a feminist you know and trust more than me, as a suggested start.
But also, I was on the bus and felt a prompt response was more useful than an exhaustive one.
I think my degree of investment was entirely appropriate given the new turn of the discourse. But! But but but! As you were kind to me, I have paid it forward as well! I've actually offered an explanation.
Investigation of who I am talking to leads me to believe my first suggestion might still have more impact on their thinking though.
1. The concept that you can "steal a woman's heart from a man" implies a concept of ownership of the woman's heart by the man. Even metaphorically, this is a very toxic sort of thinking.
2. Implying that you should be able to "take possession" of a woman's affection from a man if you find him less worthy only doubles own on the woman's lack of agency in this scenario. That this language is old and from "a different time" is no defense.
3. Implying that this is in fact a good thing because "he abuses her," is a double whammy because it invokes a very negative cognitive resonance with "Why don't those bitches see I am a nice guy" reddit psychology (made famous by the UCSB incident) but also implies that a woman would need rescuing from what the third party man views as abusive because she's not capable of such an escape herself and needs a man to effect said escape.
We can talk about how co-dependency makes 3's secondary point more debatable if you're an expert in that subject matter, because it's morbidly fascinating.
But yes, ultimately "because feminism." Inasmuch as this sort of talk is at least as "offensive" as implying a man "only thinks with his small head." And while equally offensive, it has far more pernicious effects for women in a society that has so much inertia directed towards removing their autonomy (both of body and mind).
Ultimately, I think the author did this by accident. And that accidental misogyny is what I was commenting on. That's what we mean by "internalized". It's so natural that you can use loaded language and actively perpetuate stereotypes without even realizing you're doing it.
What I was embarrassed about was callously invoking domestic abuse and mixing it with a cheesy heroism cliche to make that point.