this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
385 points (94.7% liked)
People Twitter
9998 readers
895 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
God, this shit pisses me off so fucking much because it's this bullshit-ass pop-philosophy that liberals have settled into that pushes away young men and perpetuates the patriarchal bullshit in the world. "tHeY'rE jUsT pUnChInG uP" NOBODY SHOULD BE PUNCHING ANYBODY. The problem is the fucking system, not who is doing the punching. Libs get so wrapped up in anything but the system that they make the problem worse. Like the popularization of the term "mansplaining". Oh neat, so now the problem women face about being seen as competent is about men. Because, of course, feminism didn't come about to improve the treatment of women, but to point out who the bad people are. The would you rather for women about running across a bear or a random man is about how man worse than bear, not that women feel so egregiously unsafe in their daily lives. Libs are so far up their own ass, they'd rather create another fucking problem than actually engage in being part of the solution. Libs will see one problem and be like "but what if it could be two problem?" Libs see women get mistreated for no reason then go "men should suffer, too", then pat themselves on the back because now everyone hates everyone, no matter the gender[bullshit-ass heart emojis].
Fuck the patriarchy.
They have to play men and women against each other. Or else they would have to explain how systemic patriarchy manages to self-replicate despite worsening the lives of nearly all of the people (of all genders) who suffer under it. And the answer to that is: capitalism. Which is not an acceptable answer for the donor class.
To start with..... Have you ever even met anyone in real life that spoke this way? I feel like people on lemmy are so quick to see a post from an unknown random on the internet and speak about it as if it's an epidemic.
I think the critique is aimed at a functional aspect of the system. You seem to acknowledge the patriarchy, which is a critique of a hierarchical system that is largely controlled by and benefits men. I don't see how agitating against mansplaining is anything but critical towards people talking over or diminishing the voices of women.
How do you change a system without being critical about aspects of the system that require change?
The man vs bear is definitely an allegory about how women feel unsafe due to the discrepancy of power between the sexes, in both physical and societal power.
I think the point is to highlight the discrepancy between the experiences of men and women. For example the man vs bear scenario isn't claiming that men too should be more afraid to run across a random woman than a bear. It's a way to highlight their perspective, the point is we should live in a society where women do not have to feel like they could become prey to unjust violence from a random man.
I cannot think of a joke - except for puns - that do not have a victim.
Men in general / the husband is the victim of the punch line here. Or maybe pharmacists?
Much like dramatic narrative, from Shakespeare to Ted Lasso, all rising tension is resolved by a winner and loser.
I think you completely missed the point. "Nobody should be punching anybody" isn't about jokes, but discrimination. The answer to discrimination against women isn't to add discrimination against men. I'm pointing out that feminism is about liberation from discrimination rather than redirecting it to the "right group". The system should be the focus, not the people.
Also, it's not all victim this, winner that. It's not pie. Everyone can win, everyone can lose. Again, it's the system that's the problem, not the people.
I'm speaking dramaturgically. There's no literal Romeo and Juliet getting hurt, but in the story they both die.
That's what is meant by "punching."
Every rising action is met by a falling action. In a comedy format the tension rises to a punch line, where the punching happens, the fall is the release of laughter, and then resetting for the next joke.
You either don't hear enough jokes or you have a bad sense of humour. Either way this is just objectively wrong
it's not just jokes - all narrative forms adhere to this. The concept of all stories is essentially based on conflict, where a platform is established, corrupted and reset.
"Punching down" means making jokes at the expense of vulnerable people. But all jokes have a punch line of some description- so it is impossible to be both a joke and have no resolution.
Some surreal humor relies on subverting this form somewhat, but the tension is usually released in other ways (i.e. a "straightman" or "fish out of water", commenting on it or else a structural change like cutting to a different scene)
There's no punching done in this joke, no winner or loser. It's just observational humor. The pharmacist draws a mistaken conclusion from his observation.
it's "winner" and "loser" not winner and loser.
If Cinderella, Cinderella is the loser to the step sisters, the winner to the prince's affection, the loser to time constraints, the winner to the final slipper fit.
It's a method of discussing rising and falling action in Aristotlean poetics w/r/t narrative mores.