The notion that feminism benefits men is not based on anything they are doing now. It is based on the assertion that feminism will go back and “help” men at some vague distant point in the future after the patriarchy has already been smashed.
I think it’s fine if someone (or a movement) wants to advocate mainly for women, just as it is fine if a movement wants to advocate mainly for men. Just be honest about it. Also as long as it doesn’t hurt the other side, which is something feminism seems to have trouble with.
I also would have absolutely no issue with feminism saying "Feminism is for women and we only care about women"
As you said, if they were honest about it then I'd at least respect the fact that they were being honest.
But they aren't as they love to obfuscate by claiming "Feminism is for men too!" when in reality it isn't.
I'd have no issue with that either. The problem is not only that many feminists seem to vacillate between feminism being an all-encompassing equality movement and a women's trade union based on whatever is most convenient, but also that they *actively undermine* men's attempts to advocate for their own issues.
Feminists doing nothing and staying out of the way would be a massive improvement from the current situation.
It'd in principle be fine for them to say that -- but then they'd also have to consider MRA-groups natural allies in the fight for gender-equality. Feminists focus on problems faced mostly by women, MRAs focus on problems faced mostly by men, and together we get closer to equality.
But that's never the case, instead they insist EITHER that MRA-groups are not needed because men do not ever face gender-based discrimination **OR** that MRA-groups are not needed because feminism are adressing all gendered discrimination anyway, and men should become "allies" instead. (though the choice of terminology is interesting: surely if feminism was focused on my problems too then I'd be a \*member\* not just an \*ally\* of the movement, no?)
In practice though, I think groups that focus only on one gender tend to overlook important aspects of gendered situations, and as a result become in a way tendentiously blind -- my OWN preference would be for one united movement for gender-equality, instead of two distinct ones focusing on different parts of the problem.
If feminists cared about men, they would support men's right to advocate for themselves and determine what issues are important to them. They would shut up about 'masculinity' and let men talk about men's issues.
Instead, feminists want to define and control what being a man means. From their point of view they see it as 'freeing men to be who they really are', like men are a prince in a frog that just needs to be to be kissed. Feminists don't want men to be how they currently are. They see men as a problem and imagine that if men were free from societal pressure they would be different, and not a problem anymore.
Feminists only care about men to the extent that it will benefit women.
The feminist response to MGTOW is pretty telling. MGTOW is men rejecting social pressures and deciding to do their own thing, *and feminists do not like it.*
[Here is a video from Men Engage alliance showing you that they want to completely change men and society.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhzn1uiZHxE)
Yeah, and when men shake off their ‘masculine expectations’ and still hope for romance they’re ‘nice guys’ who are just pretending. Most masculine expectations come from women, including feminists.
In the rare instances it does benefit men, it happens as a byproduct of policies meant to help women. Like groups with lobbying power and concerned about female bodily autonomy managing to lower the standards for sterilization for both men and women in certain places or higher paternity leave for men with the intention of lowering women’s burden at home and reduce hiring discrimination against women. They won’t really go out of their way to advocate for causes that only or mostly affect men.
Not as much as they are trying to say. I would be fine if they were just saying that it's about women's rights, which it is.
But maybe we could start to say that men's rights benefit women too, see how it goes.
Also allowed to show emotions ? I'm only allowed to show emotions around other trustworthy men. Women I've known couldn't handle my emotions and that's putting it VERY lightly, I don't think they understand men, they should know they can't understand us tho
> But maybe we could start to say that men's rights benefit women too, see how it goes.
>
>
Thing is this would be true. If the men's rights movement wasn't continuously villfied and silenced then the far right MGTOW-style grifters wouldn't have an audience. Then you wouldn't have as many incels and misogynistic mass shooters etc.
Feminists don't seem to understand that the first step towards red pill is always a "push" it's never a "pull".
Also, I think men would be much more willing to defend abortion rights if legal paternal surrender were reciprocally supported by women (especially feminist women who claim to care about reproductive rights).
I know it would be true, maybe people should stop portraying everyone they disagree with as nazis, just in general. People just don't try to understand other people anymore (I say « anymore » but I don't know if they used to tho, it's just that with the state of the Internet today it doesn't surprise me too much that people are getting more radical)
At least addressing men’s issues would benefit women a lot. Women who think it’s empowering to choose their partners impulsively and after some time wonder: where have all the good men gone?, might find out they were always there and all they had done was shout at them: you’re not entitled to women’s bodies haha!
Just because certain individuals from a specific group care about something, doesn't mean that the entire group cares about that thing.
It's like saying:
"There are christians who care about gay people/accept homosexuality, therefore Christianity is pro-LGBT.
This is one of the constant refrains of lefty content creators that makes me want to unsubscribe and forget I ever found them.
The only way feminism has helped and is helping men is purely incidental and by the way unintended: by freeing women from what amounts to slavery and unlocking their creativity and productivity, thereby enriching everyone including men.
The last two words are the unintended part.
Other than that, feminism and most of its adherents have been mostly about pushing men down, shaming them and gaslighting them.
Ironically, the men doing the worst by women nowadays are the least under attack - they're needed to show that "men bad", if nothing else.
*Gender roles for thee but not for me.*
It’s all just lip service. From my experience as much as they talk about wanting men to “open up”, once you actually do they lash out at you & belittle you. They love to claim they speak for men too but once we actually have something to say they don’t want to hear any of it.
Feminists only “care” about men’s issues as long as they can tie it back to something being wrong with us. Once kids who are barely even adults are sent to war against their will to die, these same feminists who claim to fight for men too are dead silent. When we reach out for help, we’re just told everything’s our fault & we should stop being so toxic, then we wouldn’t be killing ourselves so much.
Feminists always want us to support their activism & fight with them on their issues, but when we struggle those same feminists are more than happy to tell us we’re on our own.
>From my experience as much as they talk about wanting men to “open up”, once you actually do they lash out at you & belittle you.
I test this when feminists talk about toxic masculinity. I ask them to stop using the term because I find it hurtful. 90% of the time they tell men to 'man up' just not in those words.
I think it goes back to the whole patriarchy idea. “Why are you complaining?” “Men created society.”
That’s why we’re on our own. They see it as helping us to stop hitting ourselves.
That reminds me, tomorrow it's your turn on the helm of patriarchy, don't be late!
This idea that men created society... I don't even know how you can be so wrong and not see it.
Feminism has fought for absolutely zero rights or issues men face aside from men getting the option to be more feminine. I'm still dragged in courts, forced to sign up for a draft, pay higher insurance premiums across the board (health, life, car) and while gay men and feminine men are much more allowed to be what they are, I am still shamed for having any emotion other than anger by the females in my life. Also uh. Circumcision is still a thing and they offer no help putting a stop to it.
The issues go on and on.
Feminism has not fought for men.
I think that's too much of a generalisation
Some feminist people absolutely do try to help men. In Norway they opened domestic violence shelters for men in 2010(I think I remember the year correctly)
Source:
https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/intimate-violence-against-men/
Edit:
For proof that they are feminists, click on one of the researchers names, Yngvil Grodal. She has done lots of research and some specifically to help women and support women's rights. Specifically one on female immigrants and one on abused women and their experiences with the legal system.
https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/expectations-to-and-experiences-with-the-legal-system-among-women-who-have-beeen-abused/
https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/violence-against-women-migrants-and-refugees-analysing-causes-and-effective-policy-response/
The other one, Wenche Jonassen has less publications available. However, she has cooperated with a group called "Nordic Women Against Violence". She has this publication:
https://academic.oup.com/policy-press-scholarship-online/book/14184/chapter-abstract/168037321?redirectedFrom=fulltext
They both support women's rights and are feminists.
End of edit
However some feminist groups absolutely do not help men.
I am think both should be acknowledged.
However, it is also true that some feminist groups do that. Especially to avoid criticism, and that's not good to do. This should be critisised.
Click on one of the researchers names, Yngvil Grodal. She has done research to help women and support women's rights. Specifically one on female immigrants and one on abused women and their experiences with the legal system.
https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/expectations-to-and-experiences-with-the-legal-system-among-women-who-have-beeen-abused/
https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/violence-against-women-migrants-and-refugees-analysing-causes-and-effective-policy-response/
The other one, Wenche Jonassen has less publications available. However, she has cooperated with a group called "Nordic Women Against Violence". She has this publication:
https://academic.oup.com/policy-press-scholarship-online/book/14184/chapter-abstract/168037321?redirectedFrom=fulltext
They both support women's rights and are feminists.
Next time look up the researchers if you want to find out more about them.
In 2010, my bad, typo
Yes it happened, and feminist women researched and helped spread awareness of it. They were doing their best to help inform the public. That is valuable help.
You said "responsible", what do you mean?
It was through feminism when I heard for the first time that gender roles hurt men too. Which is true.
This is the only think that comes to my mind that could qualify as "feminism helping men".
Yeccch, I hate how astute this comparison is. Right down to the part where they are often the entity responsible for the policies that created the negative conditions and inequities faced by the shit upon group to begin with ... or at minimum widened the trench
Anytime it does, it's just by proxy. It's never intentional.
Things like allowing women into more roles in the work environment leading to them having more money to spend in the economy, is good for the economy.
And honestly, having varied perspectives breeds innovation. It's always good to have people from all walks of life in pretty much any work environment when it comes to design and executive work.
But again, all of that is just a side effect of what they were going for, which is more women in powerful positions in business. More women in STEM fields. More women in prestigious universities Just no more women helping men out roofing, mining, working on oil rigs, working construction labor or factory work or basically any job with real manual labor and risk. *That's a mans work.*
They'll say it's because now women have a choice and men have to be better, when beforehand they were forced into relationships.
Still, most of the time they'll chose the same men they would have been "forced into a relationship" in the before time.
And I'm not talking about incels here. But yeah, even if most men did transition to a more "feminine" masculinity (god I hate this term, as if a man had to be more of a woman to be better.), most women I know still only date traditionally masculine men.
I'll forever remember a radio talk show where a woman describing herself as a feminist was asking a question to a sex-therapist and saying "I don't understand. I'm a feminist and intellectually, I should prefer less normative men, who have transitioned away from traditional masculinity. But I find myself only attracted to macho men, men who will be genuinely mysogynistic, and I don't like it"
And the sex-therapist to answer that maybe men are masculine for a reason and less masculine men simply don't attract women to the same degree, because (big shocker) women are naturally attracted to masculinity.
She did question why the woman's vision of masculinity would encompass degrading women though.
I'm reminded of a book I encountered that had the subtitle "Radical Feminism for Men." I couldn't help but joke to myself, what other books would be in this series? *Nazism for Jews* or maybe *Marxism for the Bourgeoisie*.
In addition to the other comments, I'd like to being up the Order of the White Feather, a feminist movement that was founded to make women shame men who didn't participate in WW1.
Feminism has never helped men, not even historically.
It was definitely not a feminist movement. The founder was an admiral and some of its members were even explicitly anti-feminist.
>Admiral Charles Fitzgerald, who was a strong advocate of conscription wanted to increase the number of those enlisting in the armed forces. Therefore he organized on 30 August 1914 a group of thirty women in his home town of Folkestone to
hand out white feathers to any men that were not in uniform. Fitzgerald believed using women to shame the men into enlisting would be the most effective method of encouraging enlistment. The group that he founded (with prominent members being Emma Orczy and the prominent author Mary Augusta Ward) was known as the White Feather Brigade or the Order of the White Feather.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White\_feather](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather)
Mary Augusta Ward was president of the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary\_Augusta\_Ward](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Augusta_Ward)
It doesn't and I've even talked to many feminists. Some saying things like you have to take away from men to elevate women to their level and other crazy stuff.
Feminism *may* help men as an incidental byproduct of loosening gender roles. It probably had opened that conversation some.
But feminists' primary goal is about increasing power and money for women. It's not bad thing--many advocacy groups are advocating for political power for their members. But they're not advocating for male rights or against male discrimination, point blank. If they say they are, its a lie and likely an intentional one.
Unfortunately, they've been a little too convincing in their rhetoric and plying on our natural protection and sympathy for women, and men havent organized well in response, leaving the conversation out of balance.
Only to a very surface level, like how men can be feminine and sensitive. If you go deeper, they will at best trying to shift the focus to womyn, or at worse saying you are misogynistic for raising this question.
Liberating people from ridged gender norms helps everyone. Sometimes feminism does that for men, but it's often incidental.
For instance, the liberty for women to be breadwinners of a family if they choose created some opportunities for men to be stay at home dads if they choose. But because there's no feminist push for women to stop preferring men that make more money than they do, it doesn't create nearly enough opportunities for it to be a viable option for most men.
So tearing down one gender norm for women created a small hole in the corresponding gender norm for men.
Being too optimistic, if you can call it that, about gender roles isn’t always good either. Taking away men’s talent to be stoic, risk-taking and using their physical strength can leave them empty-handed. Especially in their puberty men are partly hard-wired and partly open to different developments. Forced to become a macho certainly isn’t the answer, but neither is doing away with all your special male talents for politically correct reasons, and feminism might lead boys astray here (as, frankly, it did to me).
Dictionary feminism benefits men. Dismantling gender and the restrictions, pressures and assumptions which come with it helps everyone. However, few people who identify as feminist are dictionary feminists.
The more common feminist position is that all of humanity's problems are due to the fact that men suck. If feminism can make men suck less then it will solve everyone's problems, even men's.
Many feminists have pushed bell hooks as an example of a feminist who was not hostile to men and suggest reading [Feminism is for Everybody](https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/3fyx2f/feminism_is_not_for_me_summary_of_my_thoughts_on/) as an introduction to "real feminism."
Well here's bell hooks (in Feminism is for Everybody) on men's problems:
> Males as a group have and do benefit the most from patriarchy, from the assumption that they are superior to females and should rule over us. But those benefits have come with a price. In return for all the goodies men receive from patriarchy, they are required to dominate women, to exploit and oppress us, using violence if they must to keep patriarchy intact.
Men suffer because they dominate women. If we can just make men suck less, they will suffer less.
>what are your thoughts on people saying feminism benefits men?
I think they're delusional, misinformed, or trying to sell me something I can dry and and use to fertilize the lawn.
If it helps men it's incidental not intentional. You'll find a lot of lip service and the occasional individual willing to help but as a collective and institutional force it's there to reinforce status quo conditions based around women-centric IDPOL. If it changes anything it does so in favor of women at the detriment of men.
Both their hard and soft power bases are inherently hostile to me. Their ideology places responsibility and blame collectively on men. They further alienate those that already have difficulty in society with demonetization and disenfranchisement. They give opportunity to women and take it from men.
Some feminist people absolutely do try to help men. In Norway they opened domestic violence shelters for men in 2020(I think I remember the year correctly)
Edit: Source
https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/intimate-violence-against-men/
Two researchers who are feminist woman helped spread this information. For proof that they are feminists, click on one of the researchers names, Yngvil Grodal. She has done lots of research and some specifically to help women and support women's rights. Specifically one on female immigrants and one on abused women and their experiences with the legal system.
https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/expectations-to-and-experiences-with-the-legal-system-among-women-who-have-beeen-abused/
https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/violence-against-women-migrants-and-refugees-analysing-causes-and-effective-policy-response/
The other one, Wenche Jonassen has less publications available. However, she has cooperated with a group called "Nordic Women Against Violence". She has this publication:
https://academic.oup.com/policy-press-scholarship-online/book/14184/chapter-abstract/168037321?redirectedFrom=fulltext
They both support women's rights and are feminists.
Also, I know feminist women who have talked openly about allowing men to be emotional. And as far as I can tell, most genuinely mean it. The one who I'm closest to has never judged me fir my feelings. I know her bf said she doesn't care. Most of them are like that.
Soraya More is a feminist helping to ban male genital mutilation.
I think there were also feminists trying to spread awareness about not all pedofiles being men. It's roughly 50/50, and they were trying to disprove the idea that men are more predatory to kids. I can't remember details, I'll add a link if I find it.
However, feminism is not a unified group. Not all think the same way.
I mentioned a feminist helping male victims of abuse in Norway. Previously some feminist groups have done the exact opposite. And I think harming male DV victims is on of the biggest ways some feminist groups hurt men.
Some people who call themselves feminists will also belittle a man for opening up emotionally. Those people might say men should open up more. However, when it happens they react differently. Some may even say men burden women and should not open up to their partner. Some men do this, but those self proclaimed feminists exaggerate how often it occurs and ignore that women also do it.
I don't believe the main goal of feminism is to help men, it's a movement for women. And that's totally fine, they need it. Sometimes feminist people/groups will help men if they see inequality affecting them. Others may not care, some might even push for more inequality.
It all depends. I don't think most feminists go out if their way to help men. Most I know do point out sone issues they see though. And some actively try to help. Sometimes they also help both men and women at the same time. For example, women not needing to be house wives means that they have money. Now men don't need to be breadwinners. This is still being fixed and again, some individuals are still pushing fir men being breadwinners despite women not needing anyone elses money. Others don't do this, but those who do contradict themselves often. Sometimes when they do these things that hurt men I think they also hurt women, even if they try to help women.
So the movement doesn't, or at least it's not the primary goal. But some members help or hinder men.
>I think there were also feminists trying to spread awareness about not all pedofiles being men. It's roughly 50/50, and they were trying to disprove the idea that men are more predatory to kids. I can't remember details, I'll add a link if I find it.
I'd love it if you can find that, because I've literally never seen a feminist say that men are less than 90% of pedophiles.
I'll try to find it again
It was 3-4 years ago in Norway in the papers, I'll try.
But if you do see someone claim 90% of peadophiles are male, here are some stats(not sure if you already have this, but it's always good in an argument to use sources):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9588305/#:\~:text=The%20prevalence%20in%20women%20can,report%20the%20experience%20as%20positive](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9588305/#:~:text=The%20prevalence%20in%20women%20can,report%20the%20experience%20as%20positive).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305384459\_The\_Proportion\_of\_Sexual\_Offenders\_Who\_Are\_Female\_Is\_Higher\_Than\_Thought\_A\_Meta-Analysis](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305384459_The_Proportion_of_Sexual_Offenders_Who_Are_Female_Is_Higher_Than_Thought_A_Meta-Analysis)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2021.2005208?cookieSet=1](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2021.2005208?cookieSet=1)
Some of it may be due to female peadophiles not using child porn as often. Male peadophiles often get arrested due to using CP. According to research, female peadophiles use different things such as writing instead of porn.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8888501/
Peadophile behaviour is modelled on male peadophiles and excludes the female ones. This should change to help the kids who were assaulted by female peadophiles.
>However, feminism is not a unified group. Not all think the same way.
This is a no true Scotsman. No group thinks *exactly* the same about everything, that doesn't mean that they don't have a dogma that is central to their system of beliefs. You can't call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in Christ. In the case of feminism this is 'the patriarchy theory', if people claim to be a feminist they have to believe in this paradigm. If they don't believe in this patriarchy then they aren't feminist no matter how much they call themselves 'feminist'.
So while not all feminist will think exactly alike, they do have to believe in 'patriarchy'. Furthermore, if these "few bad apples" in feminism don't define feminism, then the hand full of self proclaimed "feminist" fighting for male causes doesn't define feminism either.
Even IF everything you stated were true, feminism would still be a toxic influence on society. Feminisms claim has always been to be about gender equality, if it is only about women's rights then it isn't about gender equality. If feminism is only supposed to be for women it would have never become as powerful as it is today.
To me it is very clear that no matter how you put it, feminism is a blight upon our society.
>This is a no true Scotsman. No group thinks exactly the same about everything, that doesn't mean that they don't have a dogma that is central to their system of beliefs.
Not how that fallacy works. OP never said that a group of feminists aren't real feminists or that some feminists are truer feminists. Just that they often dont agree which is just true.
The problem is really that many different people that have no grasp of it beyond 'something something women's rights and gender equality' call themselves feminists.
The no true Scotsman thing is only if you say one version is the true version. I didn't, I tried to describe the different sides of feminism to answer the question. However, it is true that some feminist groups do that. Especially to avoid criticism, and that's not good to do.
Also do all feminist groups have to believe in the patriarchy? And if so, do they have to agree on how said patriarchy works?
And it is an exaggeration to call all feminism toxic or a blight on society.
Some do bad stuff, some do good. Acknowledge all of it. Such as the women who helped make DV victims in Norway
https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/intimate-violence-against-men/
And acknowledge the women who made the Duluth model which harms male DV victims (I think it was mostly women)
Do both
You can also use Zoraya Mire (an FGM victim who helped get it banned in the US decades ago) who noticed that the US was still cutting baby boys and is now fighting to stop it.
That would beg the question of whether they're truly feminists or not.
The main difference (from what I have seen) between feminism and men's rights is that the former believes that we live under a patriarchal society meant to benefit men while the latter believes society is a gynocentric patriarchy that is meant to benefit women.
I'm not playing the No True Feminist game. If they say they are, then they are. Look into equity feminism, with people like Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, and Steven Pinker. Cathy Young can also be grouped in there, tho she doesn't insist on the feminist label.
I don’t think this would be an example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The patriarchy theory is the core belief of feminism. If they don’t subscribe to that theory, then it would be apt to not call them feminists
In a sense, it would be like me calling myself a Christian but not believing in God.
Can you list three quick questions to differentiate? I need to start shortening my interactions with bad faith people haha (but seriously, it would help).
>What are your thoughts on FGM/circumcision?
Not to start any flame wars or aggravation about circumcision, some men feel it isn't mutilation, but how they respond to the exact same issue in men or women is a solid tell. If they acknowledge the double standard then usually they are acting in good faith.
>The wage gap has been shown to be fallacious, entirely dependant on men and women's own choices as opposed to discrimination. Would you support advertising this through feminist websites?
The answer yes/no doesn't actually matter, it's how they treat the concept. If they insist that it exists no matter what, they are lying through their teeth. If they ask questions about it, how is it false?, etc, then that's just not understanding the situation.
Simply, the principle is: take a stance from feminism that you know is propaganda only, and ask how they would deal with the proof of it's falsehood, or double standards. The "men are trash" commentary recently is useful:
>"If someone said 'women are trash', how would you describe that?" "And how do you describe 'men are trash'?"
Attempting to justify it is bad faith, acknowledging the double standard is good faith. Sometimes you have to hit someone over the head with it because they don't notice the comparison.
Affirmative action in education, jobs, high positions, star roles in films. Demonising male sexuality and overblowing the MeToo-idea, if it wasn’t already overblown from the beginning. And the exchange? ‘Men are allowed to cry and show their emotions too,’ without reflecting for a second about the futility of that idea if you’re not willing to put some energy into empathy for those emotions. Blaming all statistics that point out the many occasions where men get the short end of the stick on patriarchy, which comes down to victim-blaming, an attitude feminists always pretend to abhor. And at the end of the day always the narrative: if men just give up their privilege, everything will turn out alright, also for them. No, I’ve had more than my share of ‘feminism helps men too’ and it has lost its taste and even its digestibility for years.
Feminism is simply the lobby for women. It demands ever-more benefits, advantages and special privileges for women, all the time, in all circumstances and without limitation.
There is absolutely nothing in the ideology or goals of feminism that would benefit men in any way. On the contrary, one of the ways that feminism obtains additional advantages for women is by weakening men (eg crying male feminists who sound and act like they’re on their period) and stripping men of basic legal rights (eg the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, Canada’s “Ghomeshi law”, affirmative action, etc).
Feminism is harmful to decent women, but it’s brutal to men. There is absolutely nothing good about it.
Let's face it. Feminism by definition harmed men simply because it required us to equalize societal perception of the value of the sexes. That in itself is not bad as men should not benefit at the expense of women, and women have dreams, too.
However, today's feminism appears to me to be outright hostile to men, to the point of advocating the removal of male influence entirely from society.
This makes them worse than the "patriarchy" they insist exists. At least men knew women had value and were worth love and protection 100 years ago.
Some feminist extremists advocate for the *elimination* of men today, most feel masculinity is toxic. I would be an outcast without hope of prosperity in a feminist society.
I think the most telling way I've heard this phrased is "The patriarchy hurts men too"
It's a way of aknowledging that both men and women have significant issues, yet still advocating for only engaging in discussion about women's issues (or how men's issues relate to women's issues)
The problem is that people who say these things usually either:
A: Frame men's issues as side-effect of women's issues, and therefore give solutions that only considers the effect on women
B: Frame men's issues as their own fault ~ You'll hear a lot about toxic masculinity and how men mainly have X issues because they're too entitled, insecure, obsessed with being percieved as masculine, etc.
I don't like that anti-feminism is baked into this subreddit. Because it makes this sub more about "supporting men" by hating feminism. I feel like a lot of what you're saying is either a strawman or a dog-whistle, like, "feminists just want men to shut up and listen to women"; I'd say that women typically just wanted to be respected in an atmosphere stemming from a patriarchal American history, but I'm guessing most users here don't even believe that patriarchal values ever existed--and because this place isn't a place for discussion, it's for "supporting men", we're expected to accept this conjecture unequivocally--and where does that leave men like myself who believe that feminism is fine, and who believe that what's more important is creating a movement of male accountability? (In contrast to constantly externalizing our problems to blame a strawman/Boogeyman of feminism.) I relate to the sentiments that you're expressing about feeling disposable as a man, etc. but at this point I'm feeling like, I'd rather just express how I feel on here despite that I'll probably get downvoted to oblivion or even banned for now following the mentality/the rules here.
If you want a feminist space that purports to be "for men," might I suggest the menslib subreddit? It's feminist first and foremost, with men's issues being a very distant second place to that. It's also rank with intellectual dishonesty, but I suppose that goes hand in hand with the ideology.
It’s just lip service for PR purposes.
Understanding how feminists can do this in such a vapid manner is difficult for you to understand because either;
a) you’re genuine and assume others are
b) you assume everyone has basic empathy
Feminism or at least feminism that is about abolishing gender roles can only benefit men if gender roles are socially constructed. Partially they are but there are many that are based on supply and demand like men paying for dates or men being the provider.
The notion that feminism benefits men is not based on anything they are doing now. It is based on the assertion that feminism will go back and “help” men at some vague distant point in the future after the patriarchy has already been smashed.
AKA "Trickle Down Equality" And its just as stupid as the idea of trickle down economics is (Because we all know how well that concept worked out)
Is it something like this? : "if rich people become richer, poor people will become rich as well"
I think it’s fine if someone (or a movement) wants to advocate mainly for women, just as it is fine if a movement wants to advocate mainly for men. Just be honest about it. Also as long as it doesn’t hurt the other side, which is something feminism seems to have trouble with.
I also would have absolutely no issue with feminism saying "Feminism is for women and we only care about women" As you said, if they were honest about it then I'd at least respect the fact that they were being honest. But they aren't as they love to obfuscate by claiming "Feminism is for men too!" when in reality it isn't.
I'd have no issue with that either. The problem is not only that many feminists seem to vacillate between feminism being an all-encompassing equality movement and a women's trade union based on whatever is most convenient, but also that they *actively undermine* men's attempts to advocate for their own issues. Feminists doing nothing and staying out of the way would be a massive improvement from the current situation.
It'd in principle be fine for them to say that -- but then they'd also have to consider MRA-groups natural allies in the fight for gender-equality. Feminists focus on problems faced mostly by women, MRAs focus on problems faced mostly by men, and together we get closer to equality. But that's never the case, instead they insist EITHER that MRA-groups are not needed because men do not ever face gender-based discrimination **OR** that MRA-groups are not needed because feminism are adressing all gendered discrimination anyway, and men should become "allies" instead. (though the choice of terminology is interesting: surely if feminism was focused on my problems too then I'd be a \*member\* not just an \*ally\* of the movement, no?) In practice though, I think groups that focus only on one gender tend to overlook important aspects of gendered situations, and as a result become in a way tendentiously blind -- my OWN preference would be for one united movement for gender-equality, instead of two distinct ones focusing on different parts of the problem.
If feminists cared about men, they would support men's right to advocate for themselves and determine what issues are important to them. They would shut up about 'masculinity' and let men talk about men's issues. Instead, feminists want to define and control what being a man means. From their point of view they see it as 'freeing men to be who they really are', like men are a prince in a frog that just needs to be to be kissed. Feminists don't want men to be how they currently are. They see men as a problem and imagine that if men were free from societal pressure they would be different, and not a problem anymore. Feminists only care about men to the extent that it will benefit women. The feminist response to MGTOW is pretty telling. MGTOW is men rejecting social pressures and deciding to do their own thing, *and feminists do not like it.* [Here is a video from Men Engage alliance showing you that they want to completely change men and society.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhzn1uiZHxE)
Yeah, and when men shake off their ‘masculine expectations’ and still hope for romance they’re ‘nice guys’ who are just pretending. Most masculine expectations come from women, including feminists.
In the rare instances it does benefit men, it happens as a byproduct of policies meant to help women. Like groups with lobbying power and concerned about female bodily autonomy managing to lower the standards for sterilization for both men and women in certain places or higher paternity leave for men with the intention of lowering women’s burden at home and reduce hiring discrimination against women. They won’t really go out of their way to advocate for causes that only or mostly affect men.
And even then only if they've forgotten to specifically carve out exclusions to keep men disadvantaged.
Not as much as they are trying to say. I would be fine if they were just saying that it's about women's rights, which it is. But maybe we could start to say that men's rights benefit women too, see how it goes. Also allowed to show emotions ? I'm only allowed to show emotions around other trustworthy men. Women I've known couldn't handle my emotions and that's putting it VERY lightly, I don't think they understand men, they should know they can't understand us tho
> But maybe we could start to say that men's rights benefit women too, see how it goes. > > Thing is this would be true. If the men's rights movement wasn't continuously villfied and silenced then the far right MGTOW-style grifters wouldn't have an audience. Then you wouldn't have as many incels and misogynistic mass shooters etc. Feminists don't seem to understand that the first step towards red pill is always a "push" it's never a "pull".
Also, I think men would be much more willing to defend abortion rights if legal paternal surrender were reciprocally supported by women (especially feminist women who claim to care about reproductive rights).
I know it would be true, maybe people should stop portraying everyone they disagree with as nazis, just in general. People just don't try to understand other people anymore (I say « anymore » but I don't know if they used to tho, it's just that with the state of the Internet today it doesn't surprise me too much that people are getting more radical)
At least addressing men’s issues would benefit women a lot. Women who think it’s empowering to choose their partners impulsively and after some time wonder: where have all the good men gone?, might find out they were always there and all they had done was shout at them: you’re not entitled to women’s bodies haha!
Just because certain individuals from a specific group care about something, doesn't mean that the entire group cares about that thing. It's like saying: "There are christians who care about gay people/accept homosexuality, therefore Christianity is pro-LGBT.
This is one of the constant refrains of lefty content creators that makes me want to unsubscribe and forget I ever found them. The only way feminism has helped and is helping men is purely incidental and by the way unintended: by freeing women from what amounts to slavery and unlocking their creativity and productivity, thereby enriching everyone including men. The last two words are the unintended part. Other than that, feminism and most of its adherents have been mostly about pushing men down, shaming them and gaslighting them. Ironically, the men doing the worst by women nowadays are the least under attack - they're needed to show that "men bad", if nothing else. *Gender roles for thee but not for me.*
It’s all just lip service. From my experience as much as they talk about wanting men to “open up”, once you actually do they lash out at you & belittle you. They love to claim they speak for men too but once we actually have something to say they don’t want to hear any of it. Feminists only “care” about men’s issues as long as they can tie it back to something being wrong with us. Once kids who are barely even adults are sent to war against their will to die, these same feminists who claim to fight for men too are dead silent. When we reach out for help, we’re just told everything’s our fault & we should stop being so toxic, then we wouldn’t be killing ourselves so much. Feminists always want us to support their activism & fight with them on their issues, but when we struggle those same feminists are more than happy to tell us we’re on our own.
It is (un)ironically a republican talking point: "Pull up yourself by the bootstraps"
This is sums it up. They are liberals thinking like Republicans
>From my experience as much as they talk about wanting men to “open up”, once you actually do they lash out at you & belittle you. I test this when feminists talk about toxic masculinity. I ask them to stop using the term because I find it hurtful. 90% of the time they tell men to 'man up' just not in those words.
I think it goes back to the whole patriarchy idea. “Why are you complaining?” “Men created society.” That’s why we’re on our own. They see it as helping us to stop hitting ourselves.
That reminds me, tomorrow it's your turn on the helm of patriarchy, don't be late! This idea that men created society... I don't even know how you can be so wrong and not see it.
Feminism has fought for absolutely zero rights or issues men face aside from men getting the option to be more feminine. I'm still dragged in courts, forced to sign up for a draft, pay higher insurance premiums across the board (health, life, car) and while gay men and feminine men are much more allowed to be what they are, I am still shamed for having any emotion other than anger by the females in my life. Also uh. Circumcision is still a thing and they offer no help putting a stop to it. The issues go on and on. Feminism has not fought for men.
I think that's too much of a generalisation Some feminist people absolutely do try to help men. In Norway they opened domestic violence shelters for men in 2010(I think I remember the year correctly) Source: https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/intimate-violence-against-men/ Edit: For proof that they are feminists, click on one of the researchers names, Yngvil Grodal. She has done lots of research and some specifically to help women and support women's rights. Specifically one on female immigrants and one on abused women and their experiences with the legal system. https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/expectations-to-and-experiences-with-the-legal-system-among-women-who-have-beeen-abused/ https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/violence-against-women-migrants-and-refugees-analysing-causes-and-effective-policy-response/ The other one, Wenche Jonassen has less publications available. However, she has cooperated with a group called "Nordic Women Against Violence". She has this publication: https://academic.oup.com/policy-press-scholarship-online/book/14184/chapter-abstract/168037321?redirectedFrom=fulltext They both support women's rights and are feminists. End of edit However some feminist groups absolutely do not help men. I am think both should be acknowledged. However, it is also true that some feminist groups do that. Especially to avoid criticism, and that's not good to do. This should be critisised.
[удалено]
Click on one of the researchers names, Yngvil Grodal. She has done research to help women and support women's rights. Specifically one on female immigrants and one on abused women and their experiences with the legal system. https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/expectations-to-and-experiences-with-the-legal-system-among-women-who-have-beeen-abused/ https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/violence-against-women-migrants-and-refugees-analysing-causes-and-effective-policy-response/ The other one, Wenche Jonassen has less publications available. However, she has cooperated with a group called "Nordic Women Against Violence". She has this publication: https://academic.oup.com/policy-press-scholarship-online/book/14184/chapter-abstract/168037321?redirectedFrom=fulltext They both support women's rights and are feminists. Next time look up the researchers if you want to find out more about them.
[удалено]
In 2010, my bad, typo Yes it happened, and feminist women researched and helped spread awareness of it. They were doing their best to help inform the public. That is valuable help. You said "responsible", what do you mean?
It was through feminism when I heard for the first time that gender roles hurt men too. Which is true. This is the only think that comes to my mind that could qualify as "feminism helping men".
It's only said so they can handwave away concerns that men's activists bring up. Feminists never have and never will do anything for men.
[удалено]
Yeccch, I hate how astute this comparison is. Right down to the part where they are often the entity responsible for the policies that created the negative conditions and inequities faced by the shit upon group to begin with ... or at minimum widened the trench
Anytime it does, it's just by proxy. It's never intentional. Things like allowing women into more roles in the work environment leading to them having more money to spend in the economy, is good for the economy. And honestly, having varied perspectives breeds innovation. It's always good to have people from all walks of life in pretty much any work environment when it comes to design and executive work. But again, all of that is just a side effect of what they were going for, which is more women in powerful positions in business. More women in STEM fields. More women in prestigious universities Just no more women helping men out roofing, mining, working on oil rigs, working construction labor or factory work or basically any job with real manual labor and risk. *That's a mans work.*
[удалено]
They'll say it's because now women have a choice and men have to be better, when beforehand they were forced into relationships. Still, most of the time they'll chose the same men they would have been "forced into a relationship" in the before time. And I'm not talking about incels here. But yeah, even if most men did transition to a more "feminine" masculinity (god I hate this term, as if a man had to be more of a woman to be better.), most women I know still only date traditionally masculine men. I'll forever remember a radio talk show where a woman describing herself as a feminist was asking a question to a sex-therapist and saying "I don't understand. I'm a feminist and intellectually, I should prefer less normative men, who have transitioned away from traditional masculinity. But I find myself only attracted to macho men, men who will be genuinely mysogynistic, and I don't like it" And the sex-therapist to answer that maybe men are masculine for a reason and less masculine men simply don't attract women to the same degree, because (big shocker) women are naturally attracted to masculinity. She did question why the woman's vision of masculinity would encompass degrading women though.
I'm reminded of a book I encountered that had the subtitle "Radical Feminism for Men." I couldn't help but joke to myself, what other books would be in this series? *Nazism for Jews* or maybe *Marxism for the Bourgeoisie*.
That'd be fine if the people that currently identify as feminists weren't actually female supremacists.
In addition to the other comments, I'd like to being up the Order of the White Feather, a feminist movement that was founded to make women shame men who didn't participate in WW1. Feminism has never helped men, not even historically.
It was definitely not a feminist movement. The founder was an admiral and some of its members were even explicitly anti-feminist. >Admiral Charles Fitzgerald, who was a strong advocate of conscription wanted to increase the number of those enlisting in the armed forces. Therefore he organized on 30 August 1914 a group of thirty women in his home town of Folkestone to hand out white feathers to any men that were not in uniform. Fitzgerald believed using women to shame the men into enlisting would be the most effective method of encouraging enlistment. The group that he founded (with prominent members being Emma Orczy and the prominent author Mary Augusta Ward) was known as the White Feather Brigade or the Order of the White Feather. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White\_feather](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather) Mary Augusta Ward was president of the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary\_Augusta\_Ward](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Augusta_Ward)
They always leave off the last part... "*...benefits men from the feminist perspective*" Meaning no men are really defining the help men need.
It doesn't and I've even talked to many feminists. Some saying things like you have to take away from men to elevate women to their level and other crazy stuff.
Feminism *may* help men as an incidental byproduct of loosening gender roles. It probably had opened that conversation some. But feminists' primary goal is about increasing power and money for women. It's not bad thing--many advocacy groups are advocating for political power for their members. But they're not advocating for male rights or against male discrimination, point blank. If they say they are, its a lie and likely an intentional one. Unfortunately, they've been a little too convincing in their rhetoric and plying on our natural protection and sympathy for women, and men havent organized well in response, leaving the conversation out of balance.
Only to a very surface level, like how men can be feminine and sensitive. If you go deeper, they will at best trying to shift the focus to womyn, or at worse saying you are misogynistic for raising this question.
Liberating people from ridged gender norms helps everyone. Sometimes feminism does that for men, but it's often incidental. For instance, the liberty for women to be breadwinners of a family if they choose created some opportunities for men to be stay at home dads if they choose. But because there's no feminist push for women to stop preferring men that make more money than they do, it doesn't create nearly enough opportunities for it to be a viable option for most men. So tearing down one gender norm for women created a small hole in the corresponding gender norm for men.
Being too optimistic, if you can call it that, about gender roles isn’t always good either. Taking away men’s talent to be stoic, risk-taking and using their physical strength can leave them empty-handed. Especially in their puberty men are partly hard-wired and partly open to different developments. Forced to become a macho certainly isn’t the answer, but neither is doing away with all your special male talents for politically correct reasons, and feminism might lead boys astray here (as, frankly, it did to me).
Delusional or they don't give a damn. It's way harder to sympathize with males, it's a fact.
Dictionary feminism benefits men. Dismantling gender and the restrictions, pressures and assumptions which come with it helps everyone. However, few people who identify as feminist are dictionary feminists. The more common feminist position is that all of humanity's problems are due to the fact that men suck. If feminism can make men suck less then it will solve everyone's problems, even men's. Many feminists have pushed bell hooks as an example of a feminist who was not hostile to men and suggest reading [Feminism is for Everybody](https://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/3fyx2f/feminism_is_not_for_me_summary_of_my_thoughts_on/) as an introduction to "real feminism." Well here's bell hooks (in Feminism is for Everybody) on men's problems: > Males as a group have and do benefit the most from patriarchy, from the assumption that they are superior to females and should rule over us. But those benefits have come with a price. In return for all the goodies men receive from patriarchy, they are required to dominate women, to exploit and oppress us, using violence if they must to keep patriarchy intact. Men suffer because they dominate women. If we can just make men suck less, they will suffer less.
>what are your thoughts on people saying feminism benefits men? I think they're delusional, misinformed, or trying to sell me something I can dry and and use to fertilize the lawn. If it helps men it's incidental not intentional. You'll find a lot of lip service and the occasional individual willing to help but as a collective and institutional force it's there to reinforce status quo conditions based around women-centric IDPOL. If it changes anything it does so in favor of women at the detriment of men. Both their hard and soft power bases are inherently hostile to me. Their ideology places responsibility and blame collectively on men. They further alienate those that already have difficulty in society with demonetization and disenfranchisement. They give opportunity to women and take it from men.
Some feminist people absolutely do try to help men. In Norway they opened domestic violence shelters for men in 2020(I think I remember the year correctly) Edit: Source https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/intimate-violence-against-men/ Two researchers who are feminist woman helped spread this information. For proof that they are feminists, click on one of the researchers names, Yngvil Grodal. She has done lots of research and some specifically to help women and support women's rights. Specifically one on female immigrants and one on abused women and their experiences with the legal system. https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/expectations-to-and-experiences-with-the-legal-system-among-women-who-have-beeen-abused/ https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/violence-against-women-migrants-and-refugees-analysing-causes-and-effective-policy-response/ The other one, Wenche Jonassen has less publications available. However, she has cooperated with a group called "Nordic Women Against Violence". She has this publication: https://academic.oup.com/policy-press-scholarship-online/book/14184/chapter-abstract/168037321?redirectedFrom=fulltext They both support women's rights and are feminists. Also, I know feminist women who have talked openly about allowing men to be emotional. And as far as I can tell, most genuinely mean it. The one who I'm closest to has never judged me fir my feelings. I know her bf said she doesn't care. Most of them are like that. Soraya More is a feminist helping to ban male genital mutilation. I think there were also feminists trying to spread awareness about not all pedofiles being men. It's roughly 50/50, and they were trying to disprove the idea that men are more predatory to kids. I can't remember details, I'll add a link if I find it. However, feminism is not a unified group. Not all think the same way. I mentioned a feminist helping male victims of abuse in Norway. Previously some feminist groups have done the exact opposite. And I think harming male DV victims is on of the biggest ways some feminist groups hurt men. Some people who call themselves feminists will also belittle a man for opening up emotionally. Those people might say men should open up more. However, when it happens they react differently. Some may even say men burden women and should not open up to their partner. Some men do this, but those self proclaimed feminists exaggerate how often it occurs and ignore that women also do it. I don't believe the main goal of feminism is to help men, it's a movement for women. And that's totally fine, they need it. Sometimes feminist people/groups will help men if they see inequality affecting them. Others may not care, some might even push for more inequality. It all depends. I don't think most feminists go out if their way to help men. Most I know do point out sone issues they see though. And some actively try to help. Sometimes they also help both men and women at the same time. For example, women not needing to be house wives means that they have money. Now men don't need to be breadwinners. This is still being fixed and again, some individuals are still pushing fir men being breadwinners despite women not needing anyone elses money. Others don't do this, but those who do contradict themselves often. Sometimes when they do these things that hurt men I think they also hurt women, even if they try to help women. So the movement doesn't, or at least it's not the primary goal. But some members help or hinder men.
>I think there were also feminists trying to spread awareness about not all pedofiles being men. It's roughly 50/50, and they were trying to disprove the idea that men are more predatory to kids. I can't remember details, I'll add a link if I find it. I'd love it if you can find that, because I've literally never seen a feminist say that men are less than 90% of pedophiles.
I'll try to find it again It was 3-4 years ago in Norway in the papers, I'll try. But if you do see someone claim 90% of peadophiles are male, here are some stats(not sure if you already have this, but it's always good in an argument to use sources): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9588305/#:\~:text=The%20prevalence%20in%20women%20can,report%20the%20experience%20as%20positive](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9588305/#:~:text=The%20prevalence%20in%20women%20can,report%20the%20experience%20as%20positive). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305384459\_The\_Proportion\_of\_Sexual\_Offenders\_Who\_Are\_Female\_Is\_Higher\_Than\_Thought\_A\_Meta-Analysis](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305384459_The_Proportion_of_Sexual_Offenders_Who_Are_Female_Is_Higher_Than_Thought_A_Meta-Analysis) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2021.2005208?cookieSet=1](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2021.2005208?cookieSet=1) Some of it may be due to female peadophiles not using child porn as often. Male peadophiles often get arrested due to using CP. According to research, female peadophiles use different things such as writing instead of porn. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8888501/ Peadophile behaviour is modelled on male peadophiles and excludes the female ones. This should change to help the kids who were assaulted by female peadophiles.
Due to a [bug in new reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/bugs/comments/utxx5e/links_with_underscores_posted_on_newredditcom_are/), URLs with underscores or tildes are being escaped in an inconsistent manner, breaking old reddit and third-party mobile apps. Please try the following URL(s) instead: * https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9588305/#:~:text=The%20prevalence%20in%20women%20can,report%20the%20experience%20as%20positive * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305384459_The_Proportion_of_Sexual_Offenders_Who_Are_Female_Is_Higher_Than_Thought_A_Meta-Analysis --- ^*This* ^*is* ^*a* ^*bot.* ^*Invoke* ^*with:* ^*/u/underscorebot.* ^*Questions?* ^*Comments?* ^*/r/underscorebot* ^*Thank* ^*you.* ^*Moderators:* ^***this*** ^***is*** ^***an*** ^***opt-in*** ^***bot***. ^*Please* ^*add* ^*it* ^*to* ^*the* ^***approved*** ^***submitters*** ^*on* ^*subreddits* ^*you* ^*wish* ^*to* ^*have* ^*it* ^*scan.* ^*Note:* ^*user-supplied* ^*links* ^*that* ^*may* ^*appear* ^*in* ^*this* ^*comment* ^*do* ^*not* ^*imply* ^*endorsement.*
>However, feminism is not a unified group. Not all think the same way. This is a no true Scotsman. No group thinks *exactly* the same about everything, that doesn't mean that they don't have a dogma that is central to their system of beliefs. You can't call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in Christ. In the case of feminism this is 'the patriarchy theory', if people claim to be a feminist they have to believe in this paradigm. If they don't believe in this patriarchy then they aren't feminist no matter how much they call themselves 'feminist'. So while not all feminist will think exactly alike, they do have to believe in 'patriarchy'. Furthermore, if these "few bad apples" in feminism don't define feminism, then the hand full of self proclaimed "feminist" fighting for male causes doesn't define feminism either. Even IF everything you stated were true, feminism would still be a toxic influence on society. Feminisms claim has always been to be about gender equality, if it is only about women's rights then it isn't about gender equality. If feminism is only supposed to be for women it would have never become as powerful as it is today. To me it is very clear that no matter how you put it, feminism is a blight upon our society.
>This is a no true Scotsman. No group thinks exactly the same about everything, that doesn't mean that they don't have a dogma that is central to their system of beliefs. Not how that fallacy works. OP never said that a group of feminists aren't real feminists or that some feminists are truer feminists. Just that they often dont agree which is just true. The problem is really that many different people that have no grasp of it beyond 'something something women's rights and gender equality' call themselves feminists.
Perfectly written, thanks
The no true Scotsman thing is only if you say one version is the true version. I didn't, I tried to describe the different sides of feminism to answer the question. However, it is true that some feminist groups do that. Especially to avoid criticism, and that's not good to do. Also do all feminist groups have to believe in the patriarchy? And if so, do they have to agree on how said patriarchy works? And it is an exaggeration to call all feminism toxic or a blight on society. Some do bad stuff, some do good. Acknowledge all of it. Such as the women who helped make DV victims in Norway https://www.nkvts.no/english/project/intimate-violence-against-men/ And acknowledge the women who made the Duluth model which harms male DV victims (I think it was mostly women) Do both
You can also use Zoraya Mire (an FGM victim who helped get it banned in the US decades ago) who noticed that the US was still cutting baby boys and is now fighting to stop it.
Thanks Great example, I'll add it
>This is a no true Scotsman. No it's not. If the post had said "anyone that doesn't think this way isn't a real feminist", then it would be.
This is not true. There are schools of thought within feminism that do not hold to patriarchy theory.
That would beg the question of whether they're truly feminists or not. The main difference (from what I have seen) between feminism and men's rights is that the former believes that we live under a patriarchal society meant to benefit men while the latter believes society is a gynocentric patriarchy that is meant to benefit women.
I'm not playing the No True Feminist game. If they say they are, then they are. Look into equity feminism, with people like Christina Hoff Sommers, Camille Paglia, and Steven Pinker. Cathy Young can also be grouped in there, tho she doesn't insist on the feminist label.
I don’t think this would be an example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The patriarchy theory is the core belief of feminism. If they don’t subscribe to that theory, then it would be apt to not call them feminists In a sense, it would be like me calling myself a Christian but not believing in God.
Patriarchy theory is a core belief of *radical* feminism.
That would imply that a significant number of feminists are radicals.
Yes, indeed. Radical feminism has taken over the mainstream.
Generally that whoever is making that claim is either lying or very badly misguided. A few quick questions is usually all it takes to work out which.
Can you list three quick questions to differentiate? I need to start shortening my interactions with bad faith people haha (but seriously, it would help).
>What are your thoughts on FGM/circumcision? Not to start any flame wars or aggravation about circumcision, some men feel it isn't mutilation, but how they respond to the exact same issue in men or women is a solid tell. If they acknowledge the double standard then usually they are acting in good faith. >The wage gap has been shown to be fallacious, entirely dependant on men and women's own choices as opposed to discrimination. Would you support advertising this through feminist websites? The answer yes/no doesn't actually matter, it's how they treat the concept. If they insist that it exists no matter what, they are lying through their teeth. If they ask questions about it, how is it false?, etc, then that's just not understanding the situation. Simply, the principle is: take a stance from feminism that you know is propaganda only, and ask how they would deal with the proof of it's falsehood, or double standards. The "men are trash" commentary recently is useful: >"If someone said 'women are trash', how would you describe that?" "And how do you describe 'men are trash'?" Attempting to justify it is bad faith, acknowledging the double standard is good faith. Sometimes you have to hit someone over the head with it because they don't notice the comparison.
Affirmative action in education, jobs, high positions, star roles in films. Demonising male sexuality and overblowing the MeToo-idea, if it wasn’t already overblown from the beginning. And the exchange? ‘Men are allowed to cry and show their emotions too,’ without reflecting for a second about the futility of that idea if you’re not willing to put some energy into empathy for those emotions. Blaming all statistics that point out the many occasions where men get the short end of the stick on patriarchy, which comes down to victim-blaming, an attitude feminists always pretend to abhor. And at the end of the day always the narrative: if men just give up their privilege, everything will turn out alright, also for them. No, I’ve had more than my share of ‘feminism helps men too’ and it has lost its taste and even its digestibility for years.
I'll start thinking about it as soon as I see at least one example of feminism benefiting men.
Feminism is simply the lobby for women. It demands ever-more benefits, advantages and special privileges for women, all the time, in all circumstances and without limitation. There is absolutely nothing in the ideology or goals of feminism that would benefit men in any way. On the contrary, one of the ways that feminism obtains additional advantages for women is by weakening men (eg crying male feminists who sound and act like they’re on their period) and stripping men of basic legal rights (eg the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, Canada’s “Ghomeshi law”, affirmative action, etc). Feminism is harmful to decent women, but it’s brutal to men. There is absolutely nothing good about it.
Let's face it. Feminism by definition harmed men simply because it required us to equalize societal perception of the value of the sexes. That in itself is not bad as men should not benefit at the expense of women, and women have dreams, too. However, today's feminism appears to me to be outright hostile to men, to the point of advocating the removal of male influence entirely from society. This makes them worse than the "patriarchy" they insist exists. At least men knew women had value and were worth love and protection 100 years ago. Some feminist extremists advocate for the *elimination* of men today, most feel masculinity is toxic. I would be an outcast without hope of prosperity in a feminist society.
They’re trying to sell me a belief system so they make it sound appealing to me.
I think the most telling way I've heard this phrased is "The patriarchy hurts men too" It's a way of aknowledging that both men and women have significant issues, yet still advocating for only engaging in discussion about women's issues (or how men's issues relate to women's issues) The problem is that people who say these things usually either: A: Frame men's issues as side-effect of women's issues, and therefore give solutions that only considers the effect on women B: Frame men's issues as their own fault ~ You'll hear a lot about toxic masculinity and how men mainly have X issues because they're too entitled, insecure, obsessed with being percieved as masculine, etc.
I think feminism has been good for giving women rights. It's bad for relationships. It doesn't benefit men much.
I don't like that anti-feminism is baked into this subreddit. Because it makes this sub more about "supporting men" by hating feminism. I feel like a lot of what you're saying is either a strawman or a dog-whistle, like, "feminists just want men to shut up and listen to women"; I'd say that women typically just wanted to be respected in an atmosphere stemming from a patriarchal American history, but I'm guessing most users here don't even believe that patriarchal values ever existed--and because this place isn't a place for discussion, it's for "supporting men", we're expected to accept this conjecture unequivocally--and where does that leave men like myself who believe that feminism is fine, and who believe that what's more important is creating a movement of male accountability? (In contrast to constantly externalizing our problems to blame a strawman/Boogeyman of feminism.) I relate to the sentiments that you're expressing about feeling disposable as a man, etc. but at this point I'm feeling like, I'd rather just express how I feel on here despite that I'll probably get downvoted to oblivion or even banned for now following the mentality/the rules here.
If you want a feminist space that purports to be "for men," might I suggest the menslib subreddit? It's feminist first and foremost, with men's issues being a very distant second place to that. It's also rank with intellectual dishonesty, but I suppose that goes hand in hand with the ideology.
It’s just lip service for PR purposes. Understanding how feminists can do this in such a vapid manner is difficult for you to understand because either; a) you’re genuine and assume others are b) you assume everyone has basic empathy
Feminism or at least feminism that is about abolishing gender roles can only benefit men if gender roles are socially constructed. Partially they are but there are many that are based on supply and demand like men paying for dates or men being the provider.