It’s honestly so hard to take them seriously.

Stopping out seems to be an industry term that refers to semi-quitting school with an intent to return.

What does harassment mean in this context?

Why tf would you associate with men who would punish you if you don’t “live up to a masculine ideal”?

It’s not like men are ever given an explicit choice. Very frequently this means older male relatives.

My problem with this is these new qualities are just as likely to be used to build a toxic hierarchy. The problem seems to me to be not just the qualities themselves but the competitive nature that is more or less beaten into boys at a young age.

I think we’re splitting hairs here. They don’t want to because they feel like they can’t do so without repurcussions.

This is absolutely true and I’m always surprised there isn’t more acknowledgement in progressive women’s circles. Simple polling shows that roughly a third of women hold all men to these standards but there are significantly more who exclusively apply it to potential partners (speaking from a very US-centric perspective).

The honest solution is that women who think this way are simply not good partners, and should be avoided to whatever degree is possible.

Well it’s entirely dependent on their social circle, right? They’re the ones who would or would not enforce these norms.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here.

Toxic man: oh guess I am just gunna keep doing what I am doing if you aren’t going to tell me what to do.

The reason this comes up is that masculinity is largely based around externally conferred social status. You have to constantly be doing something to maintain an image of masculinity. Often this means some sort of social or physical violence in the right time or place (beat up the mugger to defend your partner, call out your boss when you’re being treated unfairly, put rival men in their place). Just as frequently, however, it is the expectation of a certain amount of self sacrifice (paying for meals, military service). What they don’t understand is how anyone can expect them to maintain their social status when they are avoiding this role that they have been explicitly shown that there will be consequences if they fail to meet. The answer is simple: once you’re out of the masculinity rat race, you’re out. By refusing to take part in the hierarchy of dominance you will eventually be subject to a more general and, frankly, human set of standards.

The only problem is that all of these pressures are external in the first place and this whole dynamic creates strong social gender boundaries. It is very easy for a lot of men to look at their social circles and see exclusively people who punish them for a failure to live up to a masculine ideal.

I dunno if ‘Siri but functional’ is good enough to get points from me. That said this is definitely good for the industry

I mean the biggest innovation here isn’t the “AI” (partially “on-device” or otherwise). It’s exposing the apps action hooks to the model.

This isn’t actually innovative it is just not OpenAIs business model. This recent trend is honestly a much smaller blip than most people recognize.

Let’s be honest. They certainly plan to, but first they’re gonna see if saying “Apple Intelligence” a bunch is going to convince people they actually did something innovative.

I believe librera and koreader are really the only names in the game atm

People here are seriously not a fan of videos 🤷‍♀️ . Don’t take it personally it pretty much always goes like this.

As mod however I very much appreciate your posting.

I’ve known a few people whose gender I would describe as lovecraftian.

If anybody’s interested in signing up for the rolling beta, here’s the link

Many people who have a problem with the name feminism are nonbinary people, who want equality but have been excluded from the movement by enbyphobic women, AKA TERFs.

I assert that the quantity of nbs who hold this opinion is so small as to be negligable and that ceding a major right wing talking point for gender equity for nbs (a group in which I, and the majority of my social circle are a part of) is mostly just ceding a right wing talking point.

Put another way, the idea that “feminism” is an insufficient term is tantamount to “all lives matter”.

Well this is a debate about prescriptivism vs descriptivism, right?

No I don’t think so.

You’re arguing we should stick to the “intended” meaning. But at what point does denying the evolution of language to become more transphobic deny the genuine harms suffered by trans people?

I’m arguing that your particular claimed usage of feminism as a transphobic term (that is, the general inclusion of NBs as a class for whom feminism benefits is tantamount to gendering them female) simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. This is distinct from the issue of women’s spaces explicitly including NBs feels like misgendering (which is valid).

The premise of this community is fundamentally dependent on the idea that being a beneficiary of feminism MUST be entirely seperate from being gendered female.

It’s not that there must be a class that suffers, it’s that there is.