bell hooks is truly a blessing! she’s certainly not the first to do so, but she’s the most forefront and accessible of feminist voices to attend to the needs and experiences of men under patriarchy.

Women would get raped or killed

By whom? 🤔

And yes it does make sense that the physically stronger sex becomes the protector. Feminists will agree with you on this.

But they will take immediate issue with your supposition that men therefore need to be emotionally repressed in order to protect women from… most often, themselves.

your hypothesis isn’t stupid and in fact i think it lines up quite nicely with quite a few theories put forward by feminist scholars, including the one i summarized in my own response to this post. violence and the maintenance of control is a big element tied to most models of patriarchal masculinity :) you got good instincts

Short answer: It’s complicated.

Medium answer: As above, but in Western culture, this dynamic was reinforced by the advent of private property, which created a need to protect assets. While forms of patriarchy exist without private property, the patriarchy we recognize today is theorized to have been shaped by a perceived “need” for a dominant figure to hold and maintain property. Many factors have contributed to this dominance, but the factors of stoicism and emotional repression you describe are a significant facet tied to enforcing the male role as protector of property.

Long answer: As above, and as Simone de Beauvoir explains in The Second Sex, which is ~1000 pages, these roles evolved into patriarchal systems that have shaped society for centuries. Feminism as a whole is dedicated to unraveling these complexities, and the points above are only a broad overview of a much larger, nuanced topic.

Layman’s answer for those without time to read massive works of analysis: If you haven’t, I highly recommend reading bell hooks’ The Will to Change. It’s available as a free PDF on the Internet Archive. The book is under 200 pages and written to be accessible to non-academics, so feel free to skim and jump between chapters as suits your curiosity. The introduction and chapter 2 may be especially helpful for understanding this topic! 😁

If you haven’t, I always recommend reading bell hooks’ The Will to Change. It’s available as a free PDF under 200 pages on the Internet Archive but it’s also written to be very accessible to non-academics and so it’s also absolutely fine to skim and jump between chapters as suits your curiosity! The introduction and chapter 2 would probably get you a long way there 😊

didn’t say it was. it was an intentional manipulation of the law, as i wrote above.

Most of the replies here aren't giving you a solid answer, though @finitebanjo@lemmy.world was close—so sorry about that.

At one point, the bill text included anti-refugee, anti-CRT, and other controversial provisions that Republicans added, but those were fortunately removed.

However, the anti-trans language was reportedly "slipped in" and didn’t even appear in the bill summary. The bill itself has been described as "must pass," which means it’s prioritized regardless of what’s in it.

Final takeaway: Bad actors in Congress added the language, and Biden didn’t care enough about trans rights to thoroughly review it.

Sources:

• Military.com Article
• Wikipedia: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025

“it’s totally silent if i plug my ears and totally dark if i close my eyes”!

thank you for your service. this is the type of post i wish would get downvoted to the floor. if we can’t get basic googleable facts right in !news@lemmy.world how can we have any hope for accuracy in reporting on climate catastrophe and genocide? hawt damb

a Black man earning 8 cents an hour flipping burgers separated from his family for most of the rest of his life because he was caught with drugs once under Reagan’s racist policy reading this: oh hell yeah i find this to be totally fair

get real.

that’s why i worship oil and medicine execs, they have never hurt or killed anyone with their hands and they help make the world go round!

My understanding is that this is contentious, and some scholars believe that the invasion was truly done to expand territory (not an uncommon theme in world history) and/or that the hierarchal system in Tibet, while inequitable, was hardly comparable to the Western model of slavery. So just be careful I guess?

also… “focus”? iirc it was like 2-3 tweets so… idk if we can give him that much credit