It's weird... sexism against women hurts women. Sexism against men makes men hurt others. (i.e. be toxic)
It's almost like the normal use of sexism is, itself, sexist.
When no woman is involved at all, it's often called homophobia. But the hint there is that if no LGBT person or LGBT attribute is involved in any way, it's not homophobia either. It's just sexism. Against men.
Your ideology is just rebranded communism. Which is itself a lie.
> Not every claim about one group having done something to another group rests on some kind of Marxist ideology
Of course it doesn't.
What I am saying is that I find parallels in many, many, ideologies. If the only difference between the ideologies is the names of the "bad" and "good" people, then I call the ideologies the same.
Women earned the right to vote in 1919; women have been historically oppressed in at least that sense for more than half of the lifetime of the US. Women are still considered property of their fathers and husbands in many parts of the world.
And when did men earn the right to vote?
> Women are still considered property of their fathers and husbands in many parts of the world.
So... this means that women in the US are oppressed.
Right?
Right?
That's a bit of a complicated question in the case of the USA, but the passing of the fifteenth amendment in 1870 guaranteed the right to vote for a large segment of the male population at a time when no women whatsoever had the right to vote. And of course, at least some men had the right to vote right from the foundation of the US.
Or... women are oppressed today because your great-grandmother didn't have the right to vote?
Color me unconvinced. If the best argument you have is to go back 100 years, it shows that you know that women aren't oppressed by men today.
See, I've looked into this. Pretty much every talking point (i.e. slogan repeated ad nauseaum) is either half of the truth, or an outright lie.
And there are massive parallels between certain ideologies. The idea that people are "oppressed" as a class is originally Marxist, and has been co-opted by other ideologies. Who (wink wink) aren't Marxist. Despite sharing ideologies, coordinating protests together, etc.
I don't follow your ideology for the same reason I'm not a Marxist. Both are lies.
I don't know why you keep going on about ideologies. I haven't expressed any particular ideology in any of my posts.
The idea that women are oppressed by men is an ideology. Because it's based on ideas, and not on reality. If it was based on reality, it would be called "science". Or maybe "facts".
Instead, it's based on "just so" stories that people tell each other. Like "the Jews are rich because they stole from the white people". It's a lie.
All of these ideologies are the same. They use the same talking points. The same BS rhetoric about "oppressors" and "oppressed". The only things that change are the names of the oppressors (men / jews / the rich) and the names of the oppressed (women / white people / the poor). The ideologies are otherwise substantially similar.
Since you're arguing over this. Let's talk details:
* men in the US do not have the right to vote.
Huh? How can I say this? That sounds crazy!
Well... because they have historically not had the right to vote unless the registered for selective services. So men in the US did not have the unrestricted right to vote. The selective service act was fought in court, and men lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Draft_Law_Cases
The court held that the draft was an obligation citizens had, in return for the right to vote.
Women, of course, have had no restrictions on their right to vote.
And who gave women the right to vote? The evil, patriarchal, oppressive, misogynistic... men. Yes, the men who "oppress" women gave them the right to vote. Without asking them to take on the social burdens that were demanded of men.
So who's oppressed, really? The people who got conscripted, and died without having the vote? Or the people sitting at home, secure in the knowledge they'll never have to break a nail supporting their country?
Yes. Women were not able to get the vote until men assented to it. That is a textbook example of men oppressing women. You might as well argue that slaves weren't oppressed because they were eventually "given" their freedom by white men.
For a very long time most countries, including the USA, had laws that forced men to go into wars and die. In the roman empire, voting was a privilege only for those that made the sacrifice to serve in the military.
The US stopped forcing men into war in 1973, 54 years after women got the right to vote. I can't think of many things more oppressive then being force to go to a war and fight against your will. What would you pick between forced conscription during war time (before 1919, so consider medical care and death rate during world war 1) or no right to vote? I know what I would prefer in 1917.
Ehhh... I think its more important to see characters in the general sense rather than focusing in on particular characters.
Trevor Philips (Grand Theft Auto 5) for example is clearly a sociopathic machismo-fueled nutjob. But he's also clearly evil to the point of parody. He's an anti-hero protagonist.
Another "Machismo-fueled" character is Kratos from "God of War". A man who goes on a hate-filled killing spree where he one-by-one kills every God and Goddess in the Greek Pantheon (while having lots of sex in between) until the world is a ruin. Despite being the main character for the game, I think its pretty clear that Kratos is a morally "bad" person, and the 3rd game's conclusion (with the seas out of control with the death of Neptune / Zeus / etc. etc.) makes it clear that Kratos's rage basically went nowhere as far as bringing back his family.
When people are "machismo-fueled dude-bro" types, the storyline usually takes a deeper and more philosophical turn. For the most part, mainstream video games seem to be about Greek-style tragedy if a character goes down that route.
-------------
I mean, I personally didn't like either of the games. But I recognize that these characters (and the stories that contain these characters) are deeper than the typical person would expect.
IE: Did you kill Trevor (GTA 5)? Does Trevor deserve to die after what he has done? The game encourages philosophical thought and brings the decision directly to the player in a way that no other medium can do or accomplish.
All the violence and agony that Trevor does throughout the game (under the player's control nonetheless!) is really just a vehicle to a deeper question that exists within the great scope of the plot.