• Zorque@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    The joke is contingent on linking completely unrelated factors. If you don’t, the joke doesn’t make sense. Its based on accepting the premise that sexuality has literally anything to do with environmentalism or responsibility.

    Sure, its a premise posited by those mired in toxic masculinity… but why accept that premise? That is the core of the joke, accepting a premise that is wholly false.

    • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      No, it’s a premise based in the reality of a sexist culture. The fuck commentary do you think it’s trying to make?

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Not the person you’re replying to, but I made the original comment in this thread. I made another reply about how this meme’s conclusion is flawed, but its premise is too. And it (inadvertently, I don’t think OP had any malicious intentions) erases centuries of homophobia in the process.

        The basic argument being made here hinges on the fact that the person in the top picture (Louis XIV, I belive but I was never good with monarchy) is wearing items associated today as being feminine and says that modern men have regressed in their sexual security for being too afraid to dress that way, but ignores the fact that those items didn’t have those connotations at the time. It isn’t like King Louis said “yeah I know these shoes make me look gay, but I’m going to wear them anyway.” It’s a false comparison between two tome period, attitudes, societies, etc. being made.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Yes, but that is obviously reading WAY too much in to the anachronism. The point is NOT that those were normal back then, but that they magically aren’t today.

          The juxtaposition is the ENTIRE point: Sex-based fashion (and most other things) IS NOT intrinsic to the sexes. If you analyze it by removing it from modern context, you no longer have ANY juxtaposition to point at, and thus miss the entire point.

          The POINT is that it was different back then vs today. The entire point is to demonstrate that gender expression changes COMPLETELY over time, showing that it is a social construct and not intrinsic to the sexes what so ever.

          The point of the message is reinforced by the fact that the modern guy is twisting themselves up over “completely unrelated” things. You guys are literally complaining about things that reinforce the main point.