Hacker News Reader

Comment by JulianChastain | Hacker News Reader

I grew up with the sentiment that forms of masculinity are some of the chief evils of society being the dominant narrative. I grew up learning that the US is patriarchal culture, and that it must continue to evolve and progress in order to truly provide equal opportunity to women. This narrative always seemed to view men as a kind of primordial oppressor. I remember in high school and college it was common for some people to say, "Kill All Men!" as a half joking slogan. I'm 24 for reference.

View on HN

No, it is only referring to men who are, you know, evil to other people. Of which there are plenty of examples. One of them is our president.

I confess, I'm not very bright and am having trouble decoding the subtleties of "Kill All Men!" as you have done. Could you explain how you got from "All" to "just the bad ones"? Would you interpret "Kill All Women" in the same manner?

Tangential question: do you advocate death for all bad people, a group which according to you includes the president?

I think GP is more in response to "view[ing] men as a kind of primordial oppressor", then the "Kill All Men" statement.

In any case - "Kill All Men" was always just a shibboleth. Treating it as an actual policy recommendation is prima facie risible. Throwing it out there to see who is oblivious enough to object is the point.

When I grew up, I was taught that if someone in your friend group makes a racist joke, you should stand up to them, and inform them that casual racism leads to normalizing racism.

Even if "Kill All Men" was just a shibboleth of a specific online culture, it seems like objecting to it would be a kind of moral duty (for the same reasons), as long we are in agreement that normalized misandry is bad. But again, in my generation I don't think there was any kind of consensus that misandry is wrong. That's why objecting to a shibboleth like this would be evidence of how "oblivious" and behind the times you are

Okay but "some people are racist and we should stand up to them" is different from "the sentiment that forms of masculinity are some of the chief evils of society was the dominant narrative."

Both are damaging and shouldn't be normalized, for similar reasons.

Do you honestly believe these people are advocating for slaughtering half the human race and damning the rest of it to extinction? Or is there some hyperbole that is going over your head?

In your comment above, you said that the less-hyperbolic version is killing all "bad" men, including the president. If one is trying to get all non-"bad" men on board with this, why would you use an alienating slogan like "Kill All Men?" It's such a big messaging fail that I can't really credit them with any thought process.

This is why I asked how you managed to extract something other than "Kill All Men" from the phrase "Kill All Men".

I am not claiming my experience generalizes here. But my experience was absolutely saturated by a narrative that men are oppressors who are the cause of many/most of the ills of society. The nuance of only including men who are "evil" was not present in my experience. A conversation might go like:

A: "Kill All Men! They are disgusting"

B: "Well, surely not all men, some men are noble or allies to your cause"

A: "When I look at who the evil people are, they are almost all men, and they are supported by many men. Men are responsible for the evil and for failing to stop the evil. For every man that commits date rape, there's 5 men that hear about it and don't do anything. They are all responsible, and just as guilty."

I'm certainly not claiming that there is widespread oppression towards men, but at least in my generation (particularly in higher education) the overton window includes denigrating masculinity but doesn't include admiring it.

Who are the people you have these conversations with?

Another comment mentioned "ShitRedditSays" - is it possible you were saturated with a narrative that you went out and sought to saturate yourself with?

I don't know what exactly you're asking by "Who are the people I have these conversations with?" They were real-life in-person interactions, most often with young women I knew in college. It's interesting that even when I specifically say that I don't know whether my experience generalizes I still get subtly accused of having a preconceived narrative that I tried to confirm. I can only give you a n=1 sample size. But in my experience growing up in the US casual misandry is very normalized, in a way that contrasts to the stigma that surrounds casual misogyny.

FWIW, the specific insinuation here is that you are terminally online and have formed your opinions without the benefit of touching grass.

Just to help you decode the lifetime of these interactions that awaits you.

Yes. It is an ad hominem attack meant to make it easy to dismiss an ideologically inconvenient lived experience.

Sadly, ad hominem attacks to reinforce group identity have become common across ideological groups.

I honestly think you're over-intellectualizing it.

The core contention is that he's a virginal loser with no friends. Men have insinuated this about each other, independently of political division, across the ages.

I do think it's helpful to understand when interactions are really just boiling down to this. Helps with the angst.

It feels like there's almost no engagement with the actual claims I'm making.

From the original claim of, "Nobody really thinks men are the cause of most of societies problems."

My response was, "While growing up I was taught and interacted with people who definitely thought men were the cause of most of societies problems."

The counter was, "You must be a terminally online virgin with no friends then."

From my perspective I have a rich social life that includes both genders and would consider myself a feminist. But it really is radicalizing that even mentioning experiences of casual misandry is met with accusations of social ineptitude

You ever hear anybody say "toxic femininity"? Yeah, me neither.

But, anyway, it's a confused conversation. It's helpful to zoom out a bit. The top-level comment is (partially) blaming feminist discourse for a social ill (increasing gambling addiction among young men). While politely stated, the claim is pretty inflammatory.

So part of what's going on here is that people are reacting to what they perceive as you defending that initial claim (which, again, is pretty inflammatory IMO) instead of just denouncing a bunch of people as incels and moving on.

Anyway, I will validate you. You are not taking crazy pills. You're just ... saying some things that are taboo to say. I would, uh, avoid ever using the word "misandry" in a setting where it can be associated with your real name.

I simply do not believe that people start interactions with you by saying "Kill All Men! They are disgusting"

That is simply so far out of the realm of believability. It is no different than if you said people started conversations with you by levitating and turning into flocks of bats.

I can believe that a conversation like that happened once. Maybe twice, if I want to be extra generous with the benefit of the doubt. It's missing context but I can have my imagination can fill in those gaps.

But he said that this was common.

Yeah that wasn't meant to be an accurate transcript of a whole conversation, just wanted to sketch out the ideas involved. The "kill all men" bit would come after getting to know the other person and talking to them about how they see the world, they wouldn't say that to introduce themselves

"Kill all men" was certainly a Tumblrism (and SRSism) in the mid-20-teens, so if you hung out with young women into Tumblr in 2014 or so you might have heard someone drop it in real life. I did a couple times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com