207
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
207 points (97.7% liked)
politics
30135 readers
2092 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I know this is unpopular but people who claim to be for things like feminism shouldn't be using "weak men" and "strong men" as categories no matter how you are defining those categories. This rhetoric should be thrown out completely.
I disagree. As a feminist there's nothing wrong with calling some men weak or strong, just as there's nothing wrong with calling some women weak or strong. Fascism and authoritarianism are ideologies of the weak. Weak women hide behind men demanding they make decisions for them rather than being strong and accepting the burdens of freedom. Weak men hide behind authoritarian leaders and strive to make women weak so that they can control us. Toxic masculinity is the domain of weak men insecure in their weaknesses trying to make up for absence of inner strength with machismo.
Strong men want women to be strong so we can all stand together as free equals. They don't fear the choices we might make or the choices they might make, because they're strong enough to endure unpleasantness, rejection, insecurity, etc.
This opinion should be thrown out completely. Dude's trying to win in Texas.
Okay sorry I forget toxic masculinity and reinforcing the patriarchy are okay if you are a Texas politician.
False dichotomy. What next? All men are toxic because of their masculinity?
It takes strength to empower others. Men are strong when they empower others (including women). That's literally all that Talarico is saying. How is that incompatible with feminism?
You've just repeated the kind of rhetoric that gives rise to _anti-feminism; your definition of "feminism" is less about empowering women than it is about suppressing men, and I don't like it one bit.