• SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    6 days ago

    One could understand “men are trash” as having the meaning “every single man is trash”, which would be in line with racism as you say. Or one could understand it as “the group overall is trash”, meaning any individual member isn’t necessarily trash.

    The latter meaning is in some senses a matter of data - men are extremely overrepresented in e.g. violent crimes.

    Which, again, doesn’t much about the individual man.

    • quips@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      So would you say “Black people overall are trash” is a racist statement?

        • quips@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I think at the core its like we are all here to be kind to one another. You can point to statistics, historical context, etc… but when it comes down to it, is calling people trash leading with kindness? Is that the kind of speech that seeds good into the world? Is that speech that betters you, men, and women? I don’t think so. I think there are far more kind and constructive ways to have dialogue.

          • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            It’s not kind for sure, completely agree. My point was more that even if it’s unkind, it’s not necessarily racism or bioessentialism.

            I think we must be kind to individuals, but still acknowledge problems with groups. That does require a shift in mindset to not feel personally impacted by statements about a group you belong to, which is easier said than done.

      • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        6 days ago

        Because of the current cultural context, yes. Even when you add “overall.” But I’d be completely open to you elucidating that you are referring to some non-racist point.

        If there’s been a history of people stating this about a group meaning every single member, then you need to assume that’s what they mean. I don’t think that’s the case with men.

        Not saying one meaning must be assumed over the other, you’ll have to depend on cultural context to understand the deeper meaning.

        Compare for example “men can’t give birth” vs. “men love sports”. The former clearly intends to say “all men”, the latter intends “the group overall”.