lol fair enough, and it's perhaps a not very useful point to dwell anyway, it seems it was just an example
I mean, I have no shame in acknowledging that I too had and may still have from time to time some resentment. Maybe I'm projecting? But I do see in your writing the mindspace I recognize personally. It's part of being in a privileged position while also suffering the negative consequences of said privilege. It really is uncomfortable to be told that I'm the problem when, from my point of view, I'm trying to get rid of the problem.
But both are true, so I do think it's easier to get through this by letting go of this peeve. Yeah sure a bunch of women will say they'd rather come across a bear when hiking, some will wear t-shirts saying that all men are garbage, some misandrists will yell that all cis males need to have their dicks chopped off. But if that's what the majority of your experience of "the left" is, there's something wrong with the composition of your social life. "The left" is more than that, and in that regard it's just a fine place to be, even if it's one that will not let me forget that I still have lots of ingrained sexism - I really do, I would not pass infinitely narrow "purity tests" as you say. Same for racism, transphobia, ageism, ableism etc (which is why I said this experience is universal).
Sometimes when the little kid invites you to play tea time, you gotta hold the plastic teacup and say yum
Sure, it means “redress socioeconomic inequality and impose greater fairness for all” but it sure doesn’t say that.
So what's the issue, again? Just that it sounds scary?
Why is "eat the reach" messaging that "lost the plot" if the slogan does exactly what it's supposed to do (be powerful and popular, appealing to human nature)?
And at which point does messaging about the source of oppression stop guarding against the natural human inclination to substitute “source demographic” with “individual in that demographic?”
I don't know, you tell me. I don't see rich people getting the short end of a stick because out there a bunch of protestors are holding "eat the rich" plaques. I still don't quite get what's this phrase being used as an example for given it's so inconsequential.
I see. You are resentful for having your flaws exposed by people who do not concern themselves with making this comfortable for you. That, I can agree, is a common experience for men. It's not the same thing as "the left says that you're evil because you have a Y chromosome", though.
The irony is that this isn't specific to men either. The same journey applies to everyone. Hope you find a group that can help you grow in a safer space, though such things are not a given, unfortunately.
I did not say "it's just the right" so ...
I don't understand the point for which "eat the rich" is the case, nor what you mean with "natural issues". Yes, systemic issues are generally associated with a particular in-group and a particular out-group, that's how they tend to become systemic - oppression has a source and a target. And?
Yeah, it's probably more expensive to design a system that covers Seattle but doesn't cover Vancouver just because they're so close. Same thing for Toronto and Montreal. And in there you already have more than a third of the Canadian population.
Edmonton is out of the playground, though.
I know. Doesn't change anything regarding what I said.
You're missing the point. It's not that "biological clocks" are irrelevant, and it's not that housing doesn't affect family planning. The point is that the motivation behind housing affordability shouldn't be restoring/protecting a funcional utility of women.
There's no reason to single out women in the first place. A less dystopian statement would be something closer to what you said: families need housing affordability so they can realize whatever shape of family they dream of. If a gay couple wants to adopt two kids and three dogs, they also deserve affordability.
If you're not a woman or not attuned to sexism and heteronormativity in everyday speech, this might sound like nitpicking. But this kind of phrasing is a telling signal that foreshadows regressive policies.
It's not like we're not trying, but building stuff is harder and costlier than destroying stuff. In this case, the "stuff" is kinship. For this vulnerable audience, it's easy to break into self-centredness and in-group thinking.
the predominant message from the left
Meh people keep saying this, but this comes mostly from the right that likes to amplify the most fringe leftist stuff for rage bait. The predominant message from the left is that men need help. Leftist outlets, influencers, thinkers and communicators routinely try to bridge that gap, but the "fuck your feelings" crowd is only interested in hate-watching the tiktoks of a random punk saying that men are shit.
I've got bad news for you: conservative (or whatever other self identifying right-wing) woman also say this. But the good news is that your friend-group is not necessarily representative of "the left".
It's also true, though. One is said nicely, one is said violently. But despite that, some women still spend an inordinate amount of time trying to bridge that gap. Books and presentations and workshops etc are dedicated to rescuing men. You just can't expect this from every individual, that's unrealistic.
Before any more responses show up to say "ah my leftist wife/friend says men are shit", my wife does that too. My wife has a general dislike against men. That's not news to me, and doesn't change anything regarding what I said above.