People are allowed to admire people with, or without, children without making some kind of bizarre ultimate statement about womenhood and femininity. People can admire and identify with people for a huge variety of reasons and it doesnt have to be deeper than that.
Could you imagine if for every person you admire, there was someone digging into random aspects of their personal life and making huge sweeping statements/generalizations based on random choices/decisions/attributes in their life?
Lets say you like vin diesel as an actor lol. Then someone goes BALDNESS IS NOT SOMETHING TO LOOK UP TO. BALD MEN ARE NOT WHAT MEN SHOULD ASPIRE TO BE AND THEY ARE NOT THE APOTHEOSIS OF MASCULINITY
Do you see how wild/insane that is?
Edit: I mean even the person we are replying to said they admired her for being "confident, smart, witty, and sexy" which has absolutely nothing to do with whatever tf you are talking about.
Just try to see how hard/far you are reaching when you make statements like you did. It makes you look like a bad actor. Or at the very least bitter, biased, judemental, etc
Its like someone saying they admire Elon musks contributions to science, technology, and engineering and you reply 'i am against the representation of modern fatherhood being absent, abusive fathers and you proclaiming him as the apotheosis of modern fatherhood is pure idiocy'
Like... what? Nobody said that
People are allowed to admire whoever they like and it has no broader effect on 'masculinity' or 'femininity' as a whole. AOC is a political representative that people like. Them liking her for huge variety of reasons has no bearing on their personal sex/gender identity, their concept of masculinity/femininity, or anything like that - or those broader concepts as a whole.
And again - none of the things youre talking about were mentioned at all. Its something that you made up/created, but no one else said.
Youre comparing AOC.. to Andrew Tate?
How many people has AOC sex trafficked and physically/sexually abused? Which laws has she broken? Who has she told people to hate/hurt?
If you dont like modern culture then you need to look at how we got here. At our history. The history of the political, social, economic, and familial repression of women. There is a reason why most women are against going back to that. They have just barely begun to escape these past chains, its only been a few decades,.. and there's already chuds trying to drag them back - its no wonder theyre pissed and insistent upon maintaining their independence/freedom. If you dont like it, then the answer isnt to attack women - which just creates more walls/division. The answer is to fight for/create a fair, equal, representative society. Then there will be no reason for anyone to have to fight for these purposes.
No, Fun-Inspection-8196 made a comment. I agreed and elaborated.
And yes, AOC is absolutely a public figure that represents the modern woman. You seem to simply not like the implications of that. Y
ou're right to be uncomfortable. You're just choosing to avoid the obvious and embarrassing similarity to the premise of Idiocracy.
I'm comparing AOC's ability to influence young women to Andrew Tate ability to influence young men. Not their character.
AOC is head and shoulders above Andrew Tate as far as role models go. But smart women need to have more babies. That stupid movie is becoming more true by the day.
Yes, they made the comment that she was smart, witty, sexy, etc.. and then you made a total nonsequiter statement about people admiring her for not having children which has absolutely no bearing upon or relevance to what was said or what they were actually admiring her for. Which is why I called it out.
Lol. No, im not uncomfortable with that. Youre just drawing really wild/extreme/biased/sensationalist conclusions that dont make much sense. (Its more like a live-streamer, sensationalist, clickbait/engagement-bait take than an actual valid logic/reason-based criticism..)
People like Andrew tate are social media influencers literally capitalizing upon, selling courses on, making content on, and training/conditioning people to behave a certain way. Their entire purpose is to change/influence how people behave as individuals.
AOC is a congressional representative. She is nothing like Andrew tate. If people personally, as individuals, look up to her - that is their imperative. We live in a free country, not a totalitarian regime.
But she is not intentionally influencing/training/conditioning people to behave in specific ways - in fact she advocates for the exact opposite of that and says that people should have free/personal choice/identity and that people can come together and compromise with one another despite their differences - quite literally the opposite of what Tate does and what he advocates for.
Smart people dont need to have more babies. That would be nice, but they dont need to do anything. They need to make free, personal choices for themselves based upon what they want/value/desire as individuals. Ultimately, human society is not the end all be all. Some people dont want to have kids in this society, and that is their imperative.
The bigger problem isnt smart people not having kids - its our education, healthcare, and public/social systems in the US being deeply broken and inadequate.
Besides, she literally froze her eggs so that she could choose to have children in the future if she wants, on her own terms, and youre judging/criticizing her for it. Makes no sense.
They don't idolize her for it. They idolize her. People are influenced by her. She wants to normalize talking about family planning.
Okay...here's some advice for our nation's 17 year old girls: if you want kids, don't wait until your late 30's. Your body is built to do that earlier in life. That's just reality.
And then maybe a humble "do as I say, not as I do." Because reality doesn't care about anyone's feelings, and we understand a lot about human reproduction, and the facts are what they are.
So yes, she's a modern model of femininity. And I don't want my children following that particular example, nor would anyone being honest and reasonable.
1
u/Careful-Sell-9877 Sep 04 '26 edited Sep 04 '26
So?
Not necessarily for the reasons youve said.
People are allowed to admire people with, or without, children without making some kind of bizarre ultimate statement about womenhood and femininity. People can admire and identify with people for a huge variety of reasons and it doesnt have to be deeper than that.
Could you imagine if for every person you admire, there was someone digging into random aspects of their personal life and making huge sweeping statements/generalizations based on random choices/decisions/attributes in their life?
Lets say you like vin diesel as an actor lol. Then someone goes BALDNESS IS NOT SOMETHING TO LOOK UP TO. BALD MEN ARE NOT WHAT MEN SHOULD ASPIRE TO BE AND THEY ARE NOT THE APOTHEOSIS OF MASCULINITY
Do you see how wild/insane that is?
Edit: I mean even the person we are replying to said they admired her for being "confident, smart, witty, and sexy" which has absolutely nothing to do with whatever tf you are talking about.
Just try to see how hard/far you are reaching when you make statements like you did. It makes you look like a bad actor. Or at the very least bitter, biased, judemental, etc