Just recently we had a popular post: "The Will To Change Men, Masculinity, And Love By bell hooks". I can take a couple quotes from the preface of that book:
I had not been able to confess that not only did I not understand men, I feared them.
Militant feminism gave women permission to unleash their rage and hatred at men...
I think too many feminists do hate men, and to say "no true feminist hates men" is falling into the no true scotsman fallacy. Typically the loudest people in a group are the most extreme and I don't believe most feminists hate men, but I also think it's understandable how some people do believe that.
I'm a cis, heterosexual, white male. I also pretty heavily defend human rights, try not to be a skeeze ball, and like to think of myself as generally a pretty decent dude. During the height of the MeToo movement and the #NotAllMen thing, though, it really felt like society as a large, or at least the parts of it I want to occupy, viewed many aspects of my simple existence as villainous.
Believe me, I KNOW that no one reasonable has ever thought it was all men, or all white people, or all straight people, or all cis gendered people. That doesn't stop it from hurting anymore when you're walking around the city with a woman you consider a really good friend, and she's posting pictures of stickers that actually DO say "all men suck" she finds to social media.
I'm also not blind. I know this is the same treatment that marginalized groups have faced since the dawn of time. Maybe it's finally time for men to get theirs. Or, we can all acknowledge that any condemnation over an immutable human feature just plain sucks. Just my 2 cents on the matter.
During the height of the MeToo movement and the #NotAllMen thing, though, it really felt like society as a large, or at least the parts of it I want to occupy, viewed many aspects of my simple existence as villainous.
I just stopped bothering. My input was clearly neither desired nor welcome, so I stopped offering it. I'll happily stay out of the way, but if they want active support I want to stop hearing that my opinion isn't valid on any given set of subjects, before I even voice it.
Mostly the "man" part. Pretty clear in the OP I thought. I was quite simply born as a male, and happened to identify as that gender. A significant enough portion of the population seems to believe that, because a patriarchy exists, all men have benefited from it, and all men want to continue it. The same idea plays through well enough for skin color, and orientation.
I know what I am, I know my thoughts, my feelings and my intentions. It starts to play with your sense of self-worth to be told that these things, things that have never caused you to do anything to harm anyone else, must be bad parts of yourself, because look at what people have done in their name.
It's not the same scale, no. I'm not facing segregation, and don't have to fight for my right to vote. Any of a number of other advantages you want to point out. Yeah, I benefited in some ways from the circumstances of my birth. All of this, common talking points from the sides of the aisle that I want to belong to. The side of the aisle that believes that no person should ever feel marginalized because of something that they had no control over. To hear that, and then feel like these same people are telling you you're part of the problem because of your existence... It's not hard to see how that can really impact one's sense of worth to the world.
telling you you're part of the problem because of your existence... It's not hard to see how that can really impact one's sense of worth to the world.
I don't mean to invalidate what you're feeling, but that's what it's like to be a minority in America. I have dealt with that in some shape or form for as long as I can remember. Sorry, I don't have any answers, but I do empathize with you.
Right. I explained in both of my previous comments that I understand that. I recognize that it's a similar mechanism of action, and that relatively speaking, I've got it good. It's really disheartening to see so many (the 'left' not you) getting so close to understanding that -everyone- deserves to be treated with respect by the default, and somehow turning it into a zero-sum game where, for it to get better for some, there must be a class that suffers.
Is it necessary? If so, it's a zero-sum game. Fine. That's just going to encourage an endless cycle of warfare to be the class currently not suffering.
If it's not necessary, if it's NOT a zero-sum game, then why are we treating it like it is?
I'm sorry that you've had to experience this. It terrible to have sexism not only impacting one group of people, but both/all. I haven't experienced what you have, it's not possible for me to exactly as I'm female. Could you share one or two specific examples that made you feel that way? It would help me to understand your experience to help paint a picture. You are under no obligation to, nor does my request imply your argument is invalid.
Sometimes discrimination can be more of a gut feeling. Sometimes it is obvious but hidden, and sometimes it is direct. I'm going to list a few examples. None of which left me weeping and defeated, but all of them felt unpleasant. I want to hear your experience particularly so I can avoid doing this to others, but also because your experience is outside of my own.
Some of my examples:
as a Flight Attendant, we have to do cabin checks every 10-15 minutes, this includes bathrooms. I've had two people go unconscious in the bathroom, it's not personal when I knock and ask if you're OK. I did so recently, the man came out shortly afterwards stood over me and shouted three inches from my face, "can't I even take a shit?". I responded, calmly (I've been at this too long), "any time someone is longer than ten minutes we have to check on them, I'm so sorry." His response, "I wasn't ten minutes, bitch," and he returns to his seat.
I was a regulatory compliance manager having a regular meeting with the director of regulatory compliance who was like a mentor to me. He lived an hours flight away with his wife on weekends and rented an apartment to stay in near the office during the week. He knew I was divorcing at that time. He suggested we had future meetings at his condo, using phrases such as "I know you must be lonely," and "I'm away from my wife too often." I was polite but declined and changed the subject. He canceled our future meetings on the calendar, when I asked, via email, he responded by email to say I no longer needed his mentorship.
I was so proud to pass my private pilots final stage check with less than fifty hours, about average for our class but some took upwards of seventy. I shared my accomplishment in the class groupchat to be told, by a male student, "your examiner goes easy on women." I didn't press it because it was a stand alone comment amongst the congratulations, but I felt he implied that somehow my PPL was worth less than his.
It seems so silly to type out these things that hurt me. I almost feel it's an unfair ask to commit yours to 'paper', I just don't know how else to learn what your feeling, except to assume that your situation may be different but your feelings similar to mine.
You're being downvoted, but even though most wouldn't express it explicitly, men consistently demonstrate a very similar danger response to other men as women.
Are we though? Are we bastards, or is that a product of the environment, the society, we've been born into? Is there something specific to men that makes them somehow evil, aggressive, bad, whatever word you want to use to describe them? Are there no good men? If there are, how do we explain them?
I believe there are good men. The existence of good men means there isn't something inherent to man that makes one not good. So again, why are men right bastards?
It's a self feeding loop. Men have to be bastards because men are bastards, and only bastards get ahead. Or, we can accept that, regardless of these arbitrary lines and divisions, each human is an individual, capable of acts of good, evil, and everything in-between.
The rare wackadoodles proposing an asexual lesbian commune are simply not who most people are talking about, when they mention feminism. Those loons can wear the label. Nobody can stop them. But they're not relevant.
Feminism is gender egalitarianism with an archaic name. When people denounce self-proclaimed feminists who don't agree with that, it's not fallacious bickering, it's active gatekeeping, and it's fucking important. Some clear boundaries are necessary for a movement demanding systemic change. Any political label can have a complicated history, and it's not somehow a contradiction to point to the fringe weirdos and say they were just plain wrong.
It creates such a weird environment because women bashing men has become a very socially accepted if not encouraged thing. In some cases that’s not bad, but it’s putting young men just emerging into a world of social media in a position where they feel they’re being viewed as the bad guy.
That’s why you have all these far right influencers scooping up young guys and feeding them all the validation they aren’t getting in a positive way from the society around them.
Idk I don’t have a solution but I do have a little boy and trying to teach him to navigate the world keeps me awake at night.
It creates such a weird environment because women bashing men has become a very socially accepted if not encouraged thing. In some cases that’s not bad, but it’s putting young men just emerging into a world of social media in a position where they feel they’re being viewed as the bad guy.
Women: treat young men like they're an asshole by default
Men: act like an asshole because they're treated like one regardless
I mean it’s not really about who started it. The goal is to create a more equitable society right? So demonizing men-young men in particular—doesn’t really achieve that goal.
I’d even argue that doing so will do exactly the opposite. Young men with delicate identities aren’t receiving positive reinforcement about their being from any direction unless they already have a strong role model.
There is the big big big underlying issue that a lot of men really, really suck and make it impossible to create systems that will provide that reinforcement… so guys just have to figure it out.
Women: treat young men like they're an asshole by default
This is different than demonizing young men.
An asshole would maybe do things like sexually harassing a woman, or give her unwanted attention, or be dangerous to her.
The issue is that women sometimes have to expect that a man could do these things for their own safety.
Like a man offering to give a woman a ride when she's walking down the street. Or a man offering a woman a drink at the bar that she didn't see poured.
Those could be nice gestures if the man isn't an asshole. But if the man is an asshole, the woman could get herself killed or worse. So women have to anticipate that ANY man could be an asshole because their lives literally depend on it.
And if that translates to anticipating that ALL men are assholes, and treating all situations as such, until proven otherwise... that's going to be upsetting to some men.
Men need to recognize that this problem is not caused by women, but instead caused by assholes. If you're not an asshole, and someone anticipates that you are, the answer is to react with understanding and to figure out how to adjust your behaviour so that it doesn't look like something that the evil assholes would do. (E.g. if you want to buy her a drink, let her see the server pour it)
I know that it's hard for men to figure it out, because we don't really have many positive role models or even instructional videos. Someone needs to bring back those instructional videos for social norms they had in the 50's, but adjust them for modern times...make some TikToks or something, lol
And it shouldn't need to be said, but I'm not saying that women should be throwing refused drinks in the faces of strange men. But I don't think that's what the original commenter meant is happening.
I think that, when women are mad at the things men do, men need to be mad at asshole men for doing those things, not at women for being victims of the assholes.
Let's talk about dogs. You want to raise your kid to not be terrified of dogs, but dogs kill and main a lot of kids every year. So you have two choices. First, any time a dog comes near your kid, you can shout, "Stay away from that dog! They're dangerous and could kill you!" Or you could explain to them that dogs can be dangerous. They're tough, they have sharp teeth and strong jaws, and some are taught to be particularly dangerous for a variety of reasons. You should be wary when you meet a new dog, and should watch for signs that the dog is friendly or not, and approach it in stages if you want to be friends with it, while being wary that things can change quickly.
One says all dogs are bad, the other says any dog could be bad, and you shouldn't assume differently before they make their intentions clear. One demonizes dogs, the other promotes due caution. Neither one gives the dog the benefit of the doubt, but one does leave the door open for the dog to be friendly.
Bro, let’s stop pretending that men are in the driver’s seat for women’s behavior. They are grown adults. I’m not saying you’re all wrong, this kind of behavior is often understandable. Having said that, lot of the toxicity I see has nothing to do with men’s actions, it’s just people bullying other people and getting a dopamine rush from it.
Stuff like saying how stupid and simple minded the male mind is in a story about boys underperforming girls in school. Things that are rooted in resentment but not directly tied to any asshole in particular, and wouldn’t be considered acceptable if they were flipped the other way around. Another one I saw recently was that men should be subjected to genital mutilation so they know what it’s like (which is a good one considering how normalized circumcision is). Cruelty for the sake of cruelty. Does it come from resentment? Maybe, but since when was it appropriate behavior to take our grievances out on everyone?
What I’m saying is that there’s a lot of genuine bullying out there that can’t be justified as a reaction to others.
Grownups of all genders aren’t taking responsibility for things they say. It’s like everyone’s turning into their own little Donald trump and can say whatever fucked shit that’s on their mind, and their in-group immediately validates, excuses and reinforces it.
How many black folks do you see bragging on social media about committing crimes and getting endorsements from other black people? The way posts like KillAllMen or any other such posts get traction on social media?
Based on your statements, I'd say "Enough" means at least one so that you can claim some moral high ground.
Which in turn make some men feel alienated and push them towards content creators like Peterson or Tate.
Which, as you say, is a choice. Their choice. They can either suck it up and not take a minority of vocal extremists as gospel, or they can become the same because they're insecure.
Listen, if I have to specifically follow what these feminists say about 'man-hating' content that is going viral, then that's not very useful.
Because even if I know these feminists don't agree what's being posted, their views have low visibility compared to misandrist content which doesn't help the victimization that other young men are feeling.
If a black person robs your house and he says "I robbed your house because I'm black", you're gonna hate black people because they commit crimes. The thing is, no one says "I robbed your house because I'm black" because it doesn't make sense and it's not true.
However, the feminists that hate men do say "I hate men because I'm feminist", which make a lot of men think that feminism is about hating men, before they have to chance to learn what feminism is really about. Specially considering that the "I hate men" feminists are very loud.
The name doesn't make it easier though. This doesn't happen in English, but in spanish (my language) when a man does sexism it's called "machismo". And we say "machismo" way more often than "sexismo". To someone unaware, "feminist" seems like "the women version of machismo".
In my opinion we should stop using the term "feminism" and change to a more accurate term that isn't misleading. In the western modern society (not the USA, abortion banning troglodytes) women don't really need that radical of change anymore, we're almost there in gender equality, can't risk going back by making young men afraid of the movement just because the name is no longer accurate.
However, the feminists that hate men do say “I hate men because I’m feminist”, which make a lot of men think that feminism is about hating men, before they have to chance to learn what feminism is really about.
Then maybe they should stop wallowing in ignorance and listen to something other than an extreme. It's still their choice to react rather than think about their positions. Making someone else change because you're too scared to do it first is lazy and cheap. There's no way to scream a rational position like there is an extreme position, and you're never going to get rid of them by reacting as they do.
Stop using them as an excuse for your unwillingness to change. They're not at fault for your choices.
I suggest you read my comment again. It seems like you are replying to another dude. I don't know what my "unwillingness to change" refers to.
I am a feminist suggesting that we should change the name from "feminism" to any other thing like "gender equality" or whatever.
Because a lot of people are politically lazy. They don't care to inform themselves about what "feminism" means, they just heard their Andrew tate telling them that it's a women-run society or whatever bullshit. Which would make sense if it's the first time you heard the term, it's right there "fem-something".
It's much easier to convince people that A means equal rights if A is called "equal rights". It works too well, some people even think that china is communist because it's ran by the communist party, and that the DPRK is democratic because the D stands for democratic.
I agree, but words are important. Men will find it hard to relate to a movement called feminism. It's not just being uninformed. It's being excluded by the language.
I don't think so. The Hispanics would have to travel a long way to be an illegal immigrant in my country to steal my job. Why wouldn't they just go somewhere closer to LATAM?
This is true, but it’s just like how the alt-right morphed. With the internet these days, and with social media more specifically, there are these identities wherein people try to out-____ each other: out-“leftist” each other, out-“conservative” each other, etc. So, with feminism, people wanted to “out feminist” the other feminists. For strangers. On the internet. To think they’re more hardcore. It’s fuckin dumb, but it’s fuckin everywhere, and within every ideology. You think women deserve equal rights? Well I believe women deserve REPARATIONS! You think women deserve reparations? Well, I hate MEN!
Similarly: “you think we should stop immigration? Well I think we should kill all non whites!”
No ideology is immune. I’ve seen it in every circle.
There will always be idiots, trying to claim an ideology for their own image, and who utterly misunderstand the idea itself. To be fair, though, some of those people just have really personal reasons for being drawn to an idea in the first place, and their emotions get the best of them. However, that doesn’t excuse the behavior. Because racists use the same logic. “I was robbed by black men…BLACK MEN ARE ALL CRIMINALS!” It’s boiler plate prejudice. Those feminists that hate men are falling into the same trap as racists. They generalize and slip under the current of hate. Now, it’s hard to start at the same place, because feminism has some logical backbone while racism doesn’t. But the catalyst is the same: prejudice and hate.
Yeah, some feminists hate men, but they’re small minded people who like the concept of claiming an ideology for themselves and who bastardize and undercut the goals. It’s sad, but it’s true. And it’s everywhere. The problem with it is that people who dislike the original, sound idea, will use those idiots as effigies to paint the entire idea with the worst brush available. It’s a shame.
I hate it, I consider myself a feminist because I want to claw the term back, not give it up to some assholes. It's feminist to give men grace and understanding because vulnerability isn't a feminine trait, it's a human one. It's feminists to demand paternity leave because new mothers shouldn't be carrying the entire weight of child rearing along with a job while men are obligated to miss formative years of their child's existence. Etc, etc
I wish I could push that message and blot out all the genuine misandrists (who almost invariably are also transphobic), but it's an uphill battle when the assholes on the other side only give voice to those people to prove their point.
They used to just be on the Internet, but that brainrot is reaching gen z. Half of my younger female coworkers openly talk shit about men.(then pull the "oh I don't mean you" card when I give them the side eye. Like that's less offensive)
If the possibility that a man will treat a woman badly (everything between belittling and straight up murder) is high enough, it is a life insurance to expect every man to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Its the same logic as "don't talk to cops".
I've seen other men giving me answers to questions my wife asked to many times. Of course thats not dangerous, but thats still asshole-behaviour and you can recognise a whole lot of this behaviour everyday, if you just listen to your female coworkers instead of giving them the side eye.
They probably wouldn't feel the need to "not-you" you, if they KNEW you are not a possible asshole.
If the possibility that a man will treat a woman badly (everything between belittling and straight up murder) is high enough, it is a life insurance to expect every man to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Its the same logic as "don't talk to cops".
No, it's not life insurance. It's pathological paranoia that doesn't effectively improve one's safety. If you go through life with an incredibly simplistic model of judgement, where any interaction with men or cops is dangerous until proven otherwise, you are simply trading one set of risks for another. There are many situations where a certain cop or man could be in a position to help or protect you, and you might fail to recognize that.
If you're not making any distinction between "belittling and straight up murder", then you're really just handicapping your ability to distinguish people who are actually violently dangerous from people who are just normal people. Most people act like assholes on a regular basis, but that doesn't make them dangerous.
The fear of men is vastly over exaggerated. Men are still far more likely to be assaulted or murdered than women. Even when women are attacked, it's rarely a stranger.
Tons of men I've known endlessly talk shit about women. It's a standard feature of our species to talk shit about the opposite gender. It's a standard of our species to talk shit in general really.
Talking shit about a person is one thing, grouping people into categories and denigrating or dehumanizing the whole category is another.
I'm not saying either are good, but the whole grouping people and creating an us vs them attitude is very harmful to society. Much more than talking shit about Joe because he's being a dick. There are very few situations where it's useful such as when one group by its definition harms the other, such as slave owners, corporate executives with a fiduciary duty for profit over employees and customers, etc... In any situation where there is nuance it's best to avoid making groups.
Hate misandry or misogyny without projecting it as a feature common to all men or women or feminists even if you feel a large portion of them exhibit that feature.
My problem isn't per se in the fact that Cleese is transphobic, it's the fact that saying to a transphobe "hey, you're like this moronic character that was created by a transphobe" might be taken as a compliment by said transphobes, and so not have the intended effect.
Are pregnant women going to send them on vacations, pay for their summer homes, and give sweet jobs to their relatives? No? Then fuck them, go on and die. They should have been richer.
"I got mine, fuck you." With a little dash of "Nothing like the afternoon delight of some bootlicking."
I know plenty of staunchly feminist women whose entire personae (or life goal) is the 50s US housewife fantasy. But, that's still a matter of self-determination. Nothing about the GOP's actions indicate self-determination is part of their platform, except for oligarchs. This is yet another play in their ongoing Big Lie Tactic: tell a big enough lie enough times, and people will start to believe it.
the very foundation of an abortion ban is an assumption that a woman’s body does not belong to her. Abusive men agree.
I'm at a loss for a phrase that expresses the opposite of "unlikely allies" correctly. That I'm surprised, not that they're working together, but that it took them so long to do openly
That's the myth I routinely have to bust to guys I meet who hate feminists. I ask if they think women should have the right to vote. When they yes, I say that's feminism. It's simplistic and I usually follow up with other basic rights until I get to the contemporary issues. I say that if they want all that stuff then they are also feminists. Their reaction after this depends on how entrenched or how stupid they are.
"Feminism" is just a sloppy term. It's "egalitarianism": people deserve rights, your demographic shouldn't decrease your rights. Those who you're referring to when you use the term "feminists" will insist upon this interpretation, for good reason.
"Feminism", as a term, conjures images of the uplifting of women, which was a potent image when women weren't allowed to vote or work most jobs. Now, with many of those low-hanging battles won, equality is largely the case, and the image of uplifting women feels a lot more like favoritism and bias than leveling the field.
Yes there are gender specific issues, but those exist in both directions much more equally than when the "feminism" label was solidified. The goal should not be to uplift women, the goal should be to trivialize the influence of gender and sex on the involuntary conditions of life. When that results in the uplifting of women, great. But men face struggles intrinsic to being men too, and naming your egalitarian movement after femininity only deepens the divide with marginalized men.
Yeah, but no. To refuse the term feminism is like to say “white lives matter too”. Of course men deserve rights, and of course white lives matter too. But white people and men don't need to fight for themselves.
Swing and a miss, mate. 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. While there are lots of feminists who say feminism also means uplifting enbies, some enbies feel misgendered by this terminology, and reality is nonetheless more complicated. But your comment reducing every opponent of the term to male privilege is perfectly symbolic of the nonbinary exclusionism practiced by many who use the term feminism, and demonstrates exactly why some nonbinary people have a problem.
Swing and a miss, mate. 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'm not sure the mere existence of TERFs has led to any significant movement to rename feminism among the NB community.
It's a complicated issue. I'm being a bit reductive when I say every enbyphobic feminist is a terf. There's lots of people who think of themselves as trans allies, but still don't believe in genderfluidity, xenogenders, or two-spirit. They think they're allies of nonbinary people, because they simply choose not to believe in the nonbinary people they exclude and oppress. Does that make them TERFs? It's complicated.
We haven't assembled into a movement about this because it's not that big a deal, and we have more pressing problems like impending genocide. We can't waste time organising about a word. But on a personal level, the word still makes us uncomfortable. When we're told feminism is for nonbinary people, some of us feel like we're being called female. Misgendered. But if feminism isn't for nonbinary people, well that's a bigger problem.
The debate around terminology for spaces intended for women (and the tendency for folks to make nebulous assertions about the inclusion of NBs) seems to me to be an entirely separate issue.
Fundamentally, I see what you're saying but I'd like to push back on the idea that the term "feminism" needs rethinking at this point in time.
I'd even go so far as to say the parent comment where a rejection of the term feminism is portrayed as tantamount to "all lives matter" is more correct than the idea that "feminism" is a poor term because it feels like misgendering. This is a space centered around the idea that feminism is good for men because feminism is not a term that should leave you feeling gendered in it's primary usage.
At this point in time I tend to take terms like "intersectional feminist" to mean someone is probably an ally, but if someone just calls themself a feminist without any adjectives, that gives me absolutely zero information as to whether they're interested in gender equality for all genders. I know they support cis women, but I have no idea whether they support any kind of trans person.
Throwing out feminism because it does not essentialise trans and NB rights feels like very poor praxis. From the perspective of one individual assessing the views of another, I don't disagree with your metric, but I disagree with your application of the ideas to the broader movement. Particularly in so far as it grants to right wingers that feminism is a sexist term.
Well this is a debate about prescriptivism vs descriptivism, right? I'm saying the complexities of the ways the word is used no longer make its meaning clear unless certain adjectives are applied. 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? Surely there's a point where that's the case, right? How do you know we haven't reached that point?
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.
Ah, no, I meant to say that feminism losing its implication of progress for all gender identities (if it had such an implication in the past), is evidenced by the fact that if someone says they're a feminist, that doesn't tell you whether they support equality for enbies.
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".
When you say "cedineg a right wing talking point", you mean admitting the right is correct about something, right? I'm as left as they come but I don't see a problem with that. The right is correct that the sky is blue. The right is correct that water is wet. The right was (partially) correct that chemicals in the water were turning the frogs gay, and the right is (partially) correct that an armed population is a necessary component of a healthy democracy. I'm just seeing this as an issue of ego. If you have an unhealthy ego, then you worry about denying any and all criticism. But if you have a big healthy ego, then you take criticism onboard and improve. 99% of what the right criticises us for is wrong, but that 1% is a chance for us to improve. I have a huge ego, and my thinking is we could either fight the right on this and be 99% correct, or we could be nonbinary allies, "cede a talking point", and get closer to perfection.
I don't know I'm not trying to be reactionary, I'm just thinking that pretending enbies' criticisms don't exist in order to "stick it to the right" is erasure and bad. It should be about doing the right thing, not about winning. We only truly win by doing the right thing.
I don't think feminism is the wrong word in this case. The way men are harmed by patriarchy is directly related to how women are understood as lesser. Male only drafts, male worth based on possession of women, unequal familial rights, and harmful beliefs about men's emotion all exists as ways to subjugate women.
For the draft and emotions, men's "violent nature" is cultivated because "we have to protect the women." The only emotion you allowed to have is righteous anger used to defend women. This dynamic ties neatly into men as predators. Men are naturally violent, look at how that violence protects the women, but when improperly raised they become monsters.
Men often feel as though they have no social standing if they haven't had sex with a woman. The way that relationship is framed is often conquest and power rather than mutual connection and understanding. The truth is men would benefit far more from connection, understanding, and knowing that they can have social standing beyond fucking somebody.
Unequal family rights are directly related to the societal expectation that women are the primary care givers. Which frequently results in women working full time jobs, taking care of the children, and taking care of the house.
I don't think the term feminism is really the problem. Billions of dollars have been spent by right wing billionaires to control this narrative. It's no wonder young people have a skewed perception of what feminism is. I don't think changing the term to gender equality really would have helped much.
The truth is men would benefit far more from connection, understanding, and knowing that they can have social standing beyond fucking somebody.
Please stop viewing men as defective women. Maybe fucking somebody is more important than you think. Maybe the problem is that instead of supporting men we're telling them to stop wanting the things they want.
As a man who has had sex, it's not as good as connection, understanding, and social belonging. Granted, that's just me. Maybe other men do in fact need to fuck somebody to feel like a worthwhile person.
Granted, that’s just me. Maybe other men do in fact need to fuck somebody to feel like a worthwhile person.
Correct. And I'm saying that's not a defect. That's just an aspect of personality, and it's as valid as any other.
Anyone who says you're less of a man for not wanting to fuck a different girl every night is an idiot and an asshole. But conversely, anyone who says I'm toxic for wanting to fuck a different girl every night is also an asshole.
It's easy to fall into motte-and-bailey reasoning though. The motte is an easily defended simple thing most people agree with. The bailey is a controversial thing you want to advance. If the bailey is debated, you can retreat into the motte and make claims that it's simple and uncontroversial. Most ideologies or systems of thought have a core that many people agree with, and then that's taken as approval of all its extrapolations. For example, do you believe that people should be able to decide what they use their money for? Well, then you must agree with laissez-faire neo-liberalism. Do you want children to be safe online? Then you agree that the government should inspect all your communication. Do you want everyone to be equal? Then you must agree with everything the soviet union did.
With feminism, it's easy to defend the core ideas, but it also encompasses implementations like affirmative action which not everyone agrees with, and practices that are not about dismantling hierarchies but rather just "wanting a better seat at the table of tyranny", to quote White Lotus.
On a personal level, I work in a female dominated workplace, where women hold all the positions of power. There's a lot of remarks and actions that would absolutely not be ok if the genders were reversed. A constant flow of explanations why men are stupid, sexualizing male workers, "playful" sexual harassment, ridiculing men etc. Many of them are self-proclaimed feminists. And it's cheered on and praised as a form of "girl power". If you ask me to identify as a feminist, these are the people I think of.
I have struggled a lot with setting boundaries and not letting myself be taken advantage of, so I'm very reluctant to be a part of something that requires self-flagellation over which group of people I belong to. I agree with the core of feminism, but to call myself a feminist I'd like my voice to be as welcome as a womans voice, which is rarely the case in my experience.
There's a bit of... something, irony maybe, in my experience that I'm trying to be aware of. I can't judge a movement by the not-true-feminists while feeling hurt that I'm judged by what other men have done. Maybe there's a difference between an ideological label and a gender, but still. It's this generalization that feels similar. I know that when I am given compassion I am much more likely to care about others. And vice versa. Maybe I need to look past the loud not-true-feminists and try harder to see the points of the true feminists. Maybe they need to look past bad men and not treat me as a villain by default. It's this stalemate I feel locked into.
We all live in our own little bubbles; they may not be true feminists to you, but they sound quite consistent with the people around me who describe themselves as feminists. A significant portion of feminist activists in my online bubble also seem to subscribe to the same ideas.
Sounds like you have a toxic work environment, I'm sorry these people suck. I'm assuming HR is all women, but start documenting and pursue a lawsuit if you don't want to leave. You shouldn't have to suffer this bullshit.
"what we see around us" – where? there are very few "modern radical feminists" in real life, they're all on shitty youtubros' channels and weird conservatives' twitter feeds. i guarantee you've met a ton of feminists without even knowing, hell a lot of your childhood idols and role models were probably feminists (there are a lot more self-identified feminist role models than you may think).
specifically focusing on the distinction between "modern feminism" and "previous feminism" is a conservative talking point that has unfortunately made its way into common internet culture, there is nothing less righteous about the modern feminist/equality movement than before – although there are bad parts of it which still exist like TERFs. "it was okay before, but now i can't tolerate it" is basically what righties say whenever a movement threatens the hierarchy too much and they want to make it seem "radical" and therefore "bad". the reality is that the past of the feminist movement has had many flaws and a lot of bigotry (especially in the context of LGBT), which "modern" feminists have made significant improvements on.
And in doing so, they drill the idea of "men are at fault for existing" down the brains of little boys. I have said this before and I will keep saying it: feminism was defined as promoting women's equality with relation to men, but it's now about the equity women can get from men
The US Supreme Court is an illegitimate, unelected governing body wielding about as much power as all of our elected congresspeople combined. It is one of the reasons that the United States is not considered a full democracy.
The SCOTUS has that much power by design: to create checks and balances. It literally is intended to have as much power as the executive and congressional branches.
Yes, the founding fathers were deeply worried about peasants voting to redistribute wealth or give themselves civil liberties. These were the impulses that needed checking and balancing. Hence the existence of a Senate and a Supreme Court. Democratic scholars know this, yet schoolchildren continue to be taught incorrect information.
“Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. […] Democracy, will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes, and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure and every one of these will soon mold itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues, and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."
John Adams (1807)
"Too many... love pure democracy dearly. They seem not to consider that pure democracy, like pure rum, easily produces intoxication, and with it a thousand mad pranks and fooleries.”
First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay
"If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy."
Hamilton (1787)
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Damn, the author really hit the nail on the head with this one.
On the other side are progressives and liberals, who, according to Emba, are hesitant to say much of anything about men, especially white men, much less speak empathetically about their struggles
Being raised in the 00s when this sort of thing was on the rise, my mother was especially defensive about boys being left out. From a young kid's perspective, I just assumed many teachers didn't like boys, but it still kind of hurt to be treated like a fuckup. Years later, I understood why she was so annoyed at the anti-male behavior of the 00s and 10s.
Unfortunately, this sort of thing continued throughout highschool and college, with community meetings in highschool that essentially blamed rape on men, or special trips that female students were allowed to go on, but male students were not (science conventions, etc).
While I never felt the corrupting force of the Jorden Petersens and Andrew Tates of the world, I completely understand why men in different situations might feel this way. Some friends were swayed by those types for years, and turned over a new leaf when shown empathy and kindness. But that was not an overnight change. It takes awhile to undo that hurt.
The only place where boys were consistently not told they were fuckups was Boyscouts. Boys made mistakes there. They learned there. And it helped them get through tough times or work through shitty personalities. The ones that looked the least redeemable actually became incredible leaders, empathetic people, and people who now give back to society in surprising ways.
There are probably other avenues for boys and men, such as having boys start school a year later than girls. Having spaces where they can make mistakes in a fairly controlled environment, and express emotions would help. Recently, I posted a thread asking about physical affection between men and got some surprisingly good answers. So I think we will get there. At the end of the day, the vast majority of people are normal. Most just want to be treated warmly and will reciprocate that :)
This is going to be counter intuitive: being a POS is something some people want. They especially want it if it promises them comfort, luxury, or status.
I mean, look at all the trash people consume everyday despite how bad it is for them. We all know it's bad. Still, we gotta have it.
Being a POS is like drinking soda with no one to tout the benefits of drinking straight H2O. The left needs to make drinking water sexy!
Bad analogy. My choice of beverage does not affect other people.
Treating people with basic respect and as equals is no one's responsibility to "make sexy". Let's say the convo was about being racist. Is it someone's responsibility to make it cool to treat another person as an equal? Or would you be bigoted because it just how things are?
Yeah, I get it. It's really hard to understand. It's just basic respect, right? How could someone not value basic human decency?
I can't answer that question. All I know is that some people just don't.
It doesn't make sense to me that domestic abusers will beat up someone that loves them, yet it still happens. Politicians push legislation that they know will hurt their constituents, yet they still push it. Parents will try to force the lifestyle they desire for their children on their children out of love, even as it alienates their children, yet they persist. Some (many/all??) criminals know what they do hurts other people, yet they still commit crime.
I don't get it either. I only know basic human decency isn't valued by a lot of people. And you can indignantly scoff at such people all you want, incredulous that they just don't get the basics of empathy, a fundamental human emotion. They'll hurt others all the same.
Me, though? Drawing on my empathy, I hope such people find the happiness and freedom they're looking for without the pain and suffering they cause.
It boggles the mind doesn't it? The left tells them what behavior is unacceptable. So they ask how they're supposed to behave. But the left already told them what was unacceptable. Then they get upset when the people who told them how to behave react to negatively to them acting ignorant.
If men really need to be told how to behave at all. There's no hope for men's liberation. If you don't know what patriarchy and misogyny is. You shouldn't be taking part in any debates activism or discourse on the subject. At least not until you've gone and educated yourself.
And to those who really don't know or would actually like to understand. Asking how you're supposed to behave is the wrong way to go about it. You can behave however you like as long as you don't act misogynist and patriarchal. Don't imply someone must be a certain way or can't do a certain thing because of who they are. For example I think most guys would get a little upset if someone assumed that they were an ignorant caveman incapable of learning.
If you really have to ask. The best way to ask is to be genuine. To tell anyone acting offended that you're aware some of the behaviors Etc that you've been raised with are problematic. And that you are doing your best to understand when they are and learn to not do that. And then ask the person to help you understand what Behavior it was that upset them. You'll have infinitely more success and much better answers that way. Just by being sincere.
And in turn, I don't understand this comment. You seem to be saying that young people should just figure things out for themselves, and asking why it should be someone else's responsibility to provide them with guidance.
The act of people calling out toxicity is the guidance. It is corrective action. It's disciplining a child.
Your orgional comment reads
Toxic man: doing something toxic
The left: Don't do that is toxic.
Toxic man: what should I do instead?
The left: ???? WTF ????
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 answer is literally stop doing that thing. Obviously people need role models, young people are going to make mistakes, and when they make mistakes they need to be corrected. It is on the person to change their behavior. It isn't a failure of "the left" from preventing this behavior, it's a failure of those acting poorly to correct their behavior after being called out for it.
I just don't understand how someone can write a comment implying it's "the lefts" fault for not elevating people out of the absolute shit hole wasteland of ethics and behavior the GOP and right wing personalities have created. Like damn maybe you right, people like Andrew Tate are really a failing by left wing ideology to prevent them from spouting toxic nonsense.
It's literally right there, just a couple of posts up from this one. There's no excuse for misrepresenting it.
Here's what I actually said:
The left: “The patriarchy and toxic masculinity are evil and destructive!”
Young men: “Okay. What should I do instead then?”
l>The left: “Fuck off!”
I didn't stipulate "young" men by accident - that's the central point. I'm not talking about adults who have already developed a set of behaviors (which makes your first sentence entirely and completely wrong). I'm talking about young people - people who are lost and confused and casting about for guidance, as virtually all young people are (and not coincidentally, that's also what the linked article is talking about).
And ironically enough, you actually provide an example of the problem insofar as you don't even acknowledge the distinction - you just lump them in with overtly misogynistic and toxic adults and condemn them each and all. You not only refuse to provide them with the guidance they want and need, but bristle self-righteously at the very thought that there might be any expectation that you should.
And meanwhile, people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate go out of their way to recognize them and cultivate them. And it works not least because you've already written them off.
Which is pretty much exactly my point, and the point of the linked article. We need to do more than simply assume that young men are automatically misogynists and therefore condemn them. We need to provide them with something positive - an actual path that they can follow that leads to a better way of living. They're right there, right now - at the crossroads in their lives, wondering how they should go about growing into adults, and Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate and their ilk are right there, right now, telling them a bunch of toxic bullshit.
And meanwhile, what are we offering them? Just what you said here - the presumption that they're already toxic, and a bland command to knock it the fuck off.
I have to say I think your comment is very well written. You are much better with words than I. However, I fail to see where I am lumping people together.
Like I understand there is some discontinuity between your orgional comment and my approximation of how it comes across. I get what you are saying about swapping "young man" for "toxic man" and see how it seems I conflated the two. But the answer to their question is still "dont act like this". I am clearly not insinuating that all young people are automatically misogynistic just because the word was omitted. People acting misogynistic are (intended or not) perpetuating misogyny and if they fail to respond to correction, even if not directed at them, is not the failure of the left.
I am not sure what you meant by "makes your first sentence completely wrong". If you are referring to my use of "child" it was a euphemism comparing how social backlash for poor behavior is akin to disciplining a child.
It's clear that you want the best for young people and to keep them out if the right wing ideology. But blaming it on "the left" and not the source of the probelm is just ridiculous.
Edit: Deleted my last sentence about positive role models because it was incorrect. And added stuff below.
After thinking about your comments overnight I understand what you are saying and agree. The left needs to do more to educate and guide young people.
I am not sure what you meant by “makes your first sentence completely wrong”.
Sorry - I should've made that more clear. I meant the first sentence of your summation of what I said - the part I quoted. It went wrong immediately because you started with the presumption of an already toxic man doing something toxic, for which he's then condemned. But I was talking about young people - people who haven't established an adult personality yet - who are still feeling their way through life, trying to figure out who and what they want to be.
And to your edit - there's nothing I value more in a discussion/debate than honesty,cand not just the surface homesty of telling the truth as one sees it, but the deeper and much more rare intellectual honesty of actually considering what the other person has said, rather than just rejecting it out of hand. So thanks.
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.
What the fuck do you mean by "the left"? I don't remember any leftist political party in my country adopting any such program. Or for you "the left" is random people on tumblr or something?
The left is far less monolithic than the right. It was a sub-subset of the left, a percentage of feminists were/are anti male. Unfortunately, they were not called out for this, and so got very loud about it. This coloured the message from general left leaning sources.
Growing up, there was a lot of "men are bad/evil" and that we needed to make it up to women. A lot of this pressure came from left leaning sources.
Thankfully, I managed to avoid getting drawn into the right leaning backlash to this.
msmagazine.com
Top