I agree it’s hard to know what’s part of divide and conquer political psyops and whether that was the intention or not of the person that created the original content.
I personally scrolled by this and read it as a debate about feminism in its most basic sense (equality for all) vs conservative traditionalism and patriarchy (heirarchy based control). Not as an attack on men, or to exclude anyone who doesn’t fall into the heteronormative categories which exist as a consequence of the protected heirarchies demanded by conservative traditionalism and patriarchy.
Like the propaganda behind conservative traditionalism has always relied on convincing people that all of modern society’s problems are simply due to moving further away from the traditional values of the past. It’s circular logic that offers easy and appealing solutions to those being targeted with propaganda, while offering a scapegoat and relying on supporters to either remain unaware of or intentionally ignore the very obvious problems caused by conservative heirarchies (“values”) the traditionalist movement seeks to preserve and strengthen.
For example, addressing the declining standard of living with each successive generation, lack of affordable housing, affordable education, and job opportunities in the United States. Traditional conservativism often targets young men by offering them easy solutions to the issues by claiming they were caused by the feminist and civil rights movements moving American society away from the traditional values (heirarchies) that were already in place. DEI practices that arose from those movements mean that the resources previously available for young men to build the American dream, are now unavailable because they’re being handed to women and minorities while young men have been forgotten. Essentially, these movements have upset the natural order of things, and until that order is restored, there will be no way to fix the problems. How do you fix the problem? Remove equality.
It’s definitely true that opportunity, housing, affordability, and standard of living have all noticably declined in the U.S over the last 50 years. The argument that the lack of available resources in the U.S. in 2026 can be traced to the most salient social movements 50 years prior (1970’s) is an easy conclusion to make out of context. It requires you have some knowledge of the most often discussed history of the decade without acknowledging what was simultaneously happening in the background of the U.S. in response to those movements.
Blaming social equality movements and toppling of established heirarchies, very intentionally ignores the fact that since the 1970’s wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of the 1%. It also ignores the fact that the 1970’s marks the establishment of the first U.S. conservative think tanks (Heritage Foundation, Free Congress Foundation), which were funded by billionaires, and created in direct response to fighting the civil rights movement by establishing political influence and promoting conservative economic and social policies, which both ultimately favor economic inequality.
Tldr: To restore and preserve the conservative natural order and heirarchy, the policies promoted are always backed by traditional values that require division by default.
The traditionalist movement argues a woman’s place is in the home, supported by a hardworking man. While equality based movements would argue a woman’s place, (like any autonomous human being, regardless of class, race, or other identity like male, female, cis, trans, NB etc.), is wherever they want it to be. Whether that’s at home, working, single, married, straight, queer, kids, no kids etc. It promotes equal choice for the individual rather than demanding conformity. The entire point is there are no pre-established roles set out for her or anybody else.
Opportunities and resources are available to everyone who chooses to pursue them, rather than kept locked away under the control of a small but heavily insulated and protected 1%, who will then decide how to divide up whatever meager resources they’re willing to allow the other 99% to share and fight over for their own survival.
I swear memes like these seem like a psyops to keep us at each others throats
I agree it’s hard to know what’s part of divide and conquer political psyops and whether that was the intention or not of the person that created the original content.
I personally scrolled by this and read it as a debate about feminism in its most basic sense (equality for all) vs conservative traditionalism and patriarchy (heirarchy based control). Not as an attack on men, or to exclude anyone who doesn’t fall into the heteronormative categories which exist as a consequence of the protected heirarchies demanded by conservative traditionalism and patriarchy.
Like the propaganda behind conservative traditionalism has always relied on convincing people that all of modern society’s problems are simply due to moving further away from the traditional values of the past. It’s circular logic that offers easy and appealing solutions to those being targeted with propaganda, while offering a scapegoat and relying on supporters to either remain unaware of or intentionally ignore the very obvious problems caused by conservative heirarchies (“values”) the traditionalist movement seeks to preserve and strengthen.
For example, addressing the declining standard of living with each successive generation, lack of affordable housing, affordable education, and job opportunities in the United States. Traditional conservativism often targets young men by offering them easy solutions to the issues by claiming they were caused by the feminist and civil rights movements moving American society away from the traditional values (heirarchies) that were already in place. DEI practices that arose from those movements mean that the resources previously available for young men to build the American dream, are now unavailable because they’re being handed to women and minorities while young men have been forgotten. Essentially, these movements have upset the natural order of things, and until that order is restored, there will be no way to fix the problems. How do you fix the problem? Remove equality.
It’s definitely true that opportunity, housing, affordability, and standard of living have all noticably declined in the U.S over the last 50 years. The argument that the lack of available resources in the U.S. in 2026 can be traced to the most salient social movements 50 years prior (1970’s) is an easy conclusion to make out of context. It requires you have some knowledge of the most often discussed history of the decade without acknowledging what was simultaneously happening in the background of the U.S. in response to those movements.
Blaming social equality movements and toppling of established heirarchies, very intentionally ignores the fact that since the 1970’s wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of the 1%. It also ignores the fact that the 1970’s marks the establishment of the first U.S. conservative think tanks (Heritage Foundation, Free Congress Foundation), which were funded by billionaires, and created in direct response to fighting the civil rights movement by establishing political influence and promoting conservative economic and social policies, which both ultimately favor economic inequality.
Tldr: To restore and preserve the conservative natural order and heirarchy, the policies promoted are always backed by traditional values that require division by default.
The traditionalist movement argues a woman’s place is in the home, supported by a hardworking man. While equality based movements would argue a woman’s place, (like any autonomous human being, regardless of class, race, or other identity like male, female, cis, trans, NB etc.), is wherever they want it to be. Whether that’s at home, working, single, married, straight, queer, kids, no kids etc. It promotes equal choice for the individual rather than demanding conformity. The entire point is there are no pre-established roles set out for her or anybody else.
Opportunities and resources are available to everyone who chooses to pursue them, rather than kept locked away under the control of a small but heavily insulated and protected 1%, who will then decide how to divide up whatever meager resources they’re willing to allow the other 99% to share and fight over for their own survival.
Na, a self-secure person can take a joke while acknowledging the truth in it.
It’s true. Us humans clearly only harm each-other, so let’s keep a distance, ok?
Why is it any more okay to create conflict with less secure people?
Insecure about what?
No idea. You should ask raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world about that.
Am I too insecure to acknowledge the truth? Or maybe it just doesn’t have any truth to it.
Not sure I fully understand, that’s like saying “It’s true, but funny, because… reasons.”