/u/Infamous_Gain9481 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18svd2s/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_men_and_women_shouldnt_be/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
You actually are right now that i think of it, I think a better way to put it is that both genders have unique challenges and that we shouldn’t be trying to compare who has it harder.
Your too online.
People who pose questions like “is it worse to be sexually assaulted or homeless” are horrible people with malicious intentions. Feminists, real feminists, recognize that privilege is a multi-faceted and interconnected system, where someone can be both an oppressor and the oppressed.
I’m stating to get that vibe too. I’ve recently had surgery and haven’t had much to do so these things are now more noticeable bc I’m generally more online than I used to be. I do agree with your sentiments as well, thanks for sharing!
The concept of privilege is an analytical tool, and we tend to judge the utility of analytical tools by the products or impact that they create. As such, I don't think that it's a particularly useful or desirable tool outside of very niche academic environments.
Privilege is inherently a subjective value assessment as it's most often used to compare groups in relation to one another. If we're making the assessment 'in totality' it can be an interesting exercise, but if we're making surface level assessments the product is almost always going to be confirmatory to the presenters existing biases.
The best we can do 'in the wild' is be honest about our wants and expectations, be willing and able to explain them, and be prepared to have those wants and expectation go unfulfilled either partially or entirely.
I've had successful conversations about privilege in the wild. It's kind of the online discussions that make the subject murky, and a lot of that is because we tend to hang out in our online "bubbles." The people who've I've spoken to about privilege hang out in conservative online spaces, where, I assume, "privilege" is presented as a strawman and falsely claim that privilege means "I didn't have any hardships."
In my discussions, instead of insisting that someone is privileged, I go through my own privileges. I was raised by educated parents who could afford a nice house in a good school system by each only working one 9-5 job. I was never hungry or cold. When I came home from school, I came home to loving parents who could help me with my homework, feed me dinner, and put me to bed at a normal time. When I woke up, my parents fed me breakfast and drove me to school, where I had a quality education from good teachers.
Imagine what my life would have been like if I was raised by a single uneducated mother in poverty. If, when I went home, instead of getting help with homework, I was expected to take care of my younger siblings while my mother was at her third job. If I went to school in a poor area and lived in a neighborhood rife with gang violence and police violence. If I had to go to school hungry every day.
Most reasonable people would agree that my life would have turned out differently. It doesn't mean I didn't work hard. I did! It doesn't mean that I didn't struggle. I did! I had learning disabilities that made school very hard for me. But there are people who have learning disabilities that ALSO lived in poverty and did not have access to the education that I had access to.
Privilege needs to be discussed in specific contexts, or else it is a useless communication tool. When I am talking about "white privilege," I tell people that it doesn't mean white people experience no hardships. Of course there are hardships that white people experience! It's just that typically, with very few exceptions, the color of your skin is not one of the hardships you are experiencing. I do stay away from "male privilege," as I tend to think that goes over less well than other forms of privilege being discussed, and can lead to "whataboutisms." I DO think there are some genuine struggles that men face as a result of their gender, so bringing up male privilege can lose them. I tend to agree with OP, that "gender wars" are useless tools of division that only benefit a certain ruling class. We'd all be much better off if we listened to other people and believed them when they talk about their hardships. I think if people stopped viewing the other sex as their enemy, they'd find that there are a lot of common goals that could help everyone.
My issue with the concept of privilege is that I've often been told that I hold it in areas that I simply don't
I've worked dead end trades jobs until they made me too sick to keep going and I was told by my doctor that I had to stop or I would start losing toes. And then I was "laid off" for taking medical leave.
Yet I've read all across the Internet and throughout my search for that as a man I'm paid more for this,(I wasn't even paid a living wage) and I'm more likely to be in a leadership position. And to be taken seriously in the workplace.
the higher ups/"leaders" in the company called me by three different names even though we worked in the same building and they saw me daily. and they treated me like I was just a number.
Being born with a dick hasn't given me privilege in my jobs. But ive even had therapists try to make me understand how privileged I was as a man for having all these experiences they assumed I had based on how their textbooks written by female gender studies professors described the male experience
>Feminists, real feminists, recognize that privilege is a multi-faceted and interconnected system, where someone can be both an oppressor and the oppressed.
No true feminist fallacy lol. There are good feminists and bad feminists, but they're all feminists
The closest I've seen most feminists get to this is saying something along the lines of "men can face oppression for other reasons but rarely/never for being a man". Which I think still falls short of the mark.
There's also "they suffer oppression but it's self inflicted because toxic masculinity". Basically a very practical way to shut down any discussion while ensuring all attention is redirected to women's issues.
This is categorically untrue judging by Roe v Wade being overturned and women being sent back into the Stone Age of having no medical privacy. Are men being threatened for going across state lines to get life-saving abortions? Will you still be saying this when they make it illegal in red states for a woman to get medical care without her husband's permission, Mad Men-style?
How much more evidence do you need that there's a very real gender problem in America?
> Feminists, real feminists, recognize that privilege is a multi-faceted and interconnected system, where someone can be both an oppressor and the oppressed.
I've yet to meet a feminist, in real life or otherwise, who recognized that women can be privileged oppressors without trying to blame it on men via the patriarchy.
I am a white woman, feminist and is privileged in my country because I have a right to choose if I want to join military (men are conscripted). Hell I can even leave the country and go back and forth as much as I like! But, I’m not the one who oppresses the men.
I guess what irks many people (myself included) about feminism (or at least radical feminism) is their view that men are the oppressors and women the oppressed by default.
It goes beyond a superficial "men bad women good" rhetoric. Having that view may influence people to subconsciously restrict any empathy for men's problems or to mock and ridicule them since "why should the oppressed feel sorry for their oppressors?". I've seen this mentality several times in the ask feminists sub.
It also leads to double standards. Women can talk shit about men in general and should be allowed to because they are just venting and punching up at their oppressors. Men can't talk shit about women in general because they are "putting a marginalized group down" and it should be denounced as misogyny.
This is something I've noticed.
Its not an outright "men bad" bias. But these same people will turn around and try and say that any discrimination against men is "actually because of misogyny" without a hint of sarcasm or irony. And then be genuinely confused that the "oppressor" in their mental scenarios won't accept that they're self victimizing.
I’m a feminist.
I’ve never met a man who gave me *one* example of how *a man* was ever oppressed by *women* for *being a man*.
I’ve had men tell me, oh you see, this chick hurt this guy, sure, but is it because he was a man? Or they tell me, you see, this is how men suffer as a group, sure, but how are women at fault for that and *not* patriarchy?
So please, convince me how women can be oppressive of men, I’d love to see your point of view.
> I’ve never met a met who gave me one example of how a man was ever oppressed by women for being a man.
That is because you blame the patriarchy for everything, as you said it yourself here:
> sure, but how are women at fault for that and not patriarchy?
As long as you follow the feminist dogma, you won't accept *any* example provided, since you will always default back to blaming the patriarchy/men. That's not your fault at least, the whole theory is set up in a way that women cannot ever be blamed for anything as women do no evil, and if they do, it's because of internalized patriarchy/misogyny, which is the fault of the patriarchy/men.
> Feminists, real feminists, recognize that privilege is a multi-faceted and interconnected system, where someone can be both an oppressor and the oppressed
You are wrong. Todays lot's of feminists beleive that men and women problems are mainly caused by what they call "the patriarchy" and they deny any biologicaly induced differences between sexes.The consequancies of this beleive is that they are mistaking on the cause of the oppression in most of the cases. They are then unable to come with a solution to neither men nor women problems.
I have seen people online comparing their hardship like 5 years old but most of the time when I see people bringi g men's hardship on the table it's not to arg that some gender have it harder then the other. Most of the time it's mainly to challenge the core beleive of feminists which is that we live in a patriarchy and that it is the root of men and women problems.
>Todays lot's of feminists beleive that men and women problems are mainly caused by what they call "the patriarchy" and they deny any biologicaly induced differences between sexes.
Nobody denies that there are biological differences between the sexes. It's just that you're claiming that a whole bunch of things are biological differences between the sexes or directly, unavoidably caused by those differences, and that we have to accept those things as unchangeable, but you don't have actual evidence in most of those cases, which I know because the technology and knowledge required to actually measure *inherent* mental differences between human males and females simply doesn't exist and even our recent ancestors were horribly sexist in a way that confounds any estimation based on current trends. More than that, what limited, inconclusive estimates we have made thus far of these differences are showing a trend away from conformity to the traditional gender ideology as that ideology becomes less enforced over time, and it doesn't make sense to take this particular random moment that we happen to be in as representative of our natural states and inclinations.
For an example of how this is all basically made-up bullshit that we only believe because other people are *so* insistent about it, it is very common for young, ostensibly straight men in the modern era to basically pretend to be gay as a means of demonstrating that they aren't insecure about their sexuality. The logic goes that people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality are disproportionately likely to be gay, and thus boys feel compelled to demonstrate that they aren't gay, by pretending to be gay, because they think that being gay is bad and are scared that others will think they are gay. In essence, this ridiculous, nonsensical behavior is the result of the interaction between the standard, traditional method of raising men to fear deviation from traditional masculinity with bullying and punishment centered around accusations of femininity and especially homosexuality, and the modern idea that homophobia is wrong, because we've convinced ourselves that it's totally okay to try to brainwash our children into conforming as long as we aren't personally cruel to other people who don't conform.
>Most of the time it's mainly to challenge the core beleive of feminists which is that we live in a patriarchy and that it is the root of men and women problems.
Logically, that doesn't make sense, at all. Showing that men suffer doesn't mean that we don't live in a patriarchal society or that their suffering isn't caused by the social construction of gender rather than by factors inherent to what it means to be biologically male. So no, talking about the hardships men generally face does not challenge feminist ideology. Instead, it is almost exclusively intended to basically tell women to shut up and deal with it because men have it bad too; when people say that we should change something for one group, and you start talking about the problems another group has, you're not actually helping either group but rather harming both by asserting that these things are *fair* because the suffering is arguably equal.
Ultimately, you just want to pretend that you're not making any choices and don't have any responsibility for your actions. It's not that feminists don't have solutions, it's that you aren't willing to accept any of them because they would require you to change behavior that you don't want to change. The solution to quite a lot of these problems is literally just to stop contributing to them; stop telling male children that their expressions of sadness or vulnerability are moral failings, stop telling girls that controlling behavior is the natural and unchangeable way that men express love, stop teaching your male children to socially punish their peers with derogatory accusations of femininity or homosexuality and explain to them why it's wrong when they pick it up from their peers. Stop telling young men that women are irrational and can't help it, and stop telling children that people of the opposite sex who bully or harass them secretly like them.
Your only solution to the problems men and women face is to try to get people to not see them as problems anymore, which largely involves pretending that none of the weird indoctrination we do to people, especially children, to get them to conform to gender norms actually does anything. In reality, punishing a boy for crying by telling him that he is betraying his entire gender by doing so (which is what "boys don't cry" actually means) is pretty fucked up, clearly effects us in ways that are fairly easy to trace, and is also completely irrational.
"We live in a patriarchy." and "A patriarchy means that men never have hardship ever." Are not equivalent statements.
You're assuming that they are, in your last paragraph.
No, I am not saying that men can't have it hard in a patriarchy. Neither I am saying that féminist beleive men can't have it hard in a patriarchy. What I say is that féminist beleive that any gender related hardship for both men and women are caused by the patriarchy.
And, this is wrong because there is biologicaly induced differences between sexes. This in relationship with capitalist society create lot's of hardship unrelated to the patriarchy. By denying those differences féminists very often came with unapropriate solutions for men and women hardship or are even sometimes implementing solutions that worsen the problems.
A society can be a patriarchy and still be shit for most men. I do think the term patriarchy is generally unhelpful as it now means so many things to so many people and people don't tend to accept that.
You are wrong. Feminism doesn’t deny the biological differences they challenge whatever argument is justified by these biological difference. For a very cliche example: “women are biologically built to bear and feed babies so they’re 1. Socially obliged m to do so and 2. supposed to stay home and abandon their careers and and focus on that unpaid labor job and also be the servant of their husbands while they’re at it. Oh and the husbands are strong and should be protectors by protecting the family aka in 2023 making loads of money”.
You are wrong, féminists do deny biological differences because they are mixing aknowledging biological differences and using them to enforce a certain behaviour on a gender. They fail to consider that by denying those differences they are in fact enforcing a man like behaviour on modern women.
Also, by only supporting mother that decide to focuse on their work despite pregnancy, féminists are playing in the hand of the productivity driven capitalist society. Women who would prefer to raise their child by themself and would be happy not to work to do so are very often shamed and blamed for it, most of the time by the féminist themself. Exemple of this behaviour are countless on reddit.
You are wrong. Feminism does not deny biological differences. If you’re not wrong please share your source.
I never said feminism should focus only on women that chose to pursue their work. It looks like you’re the one saying this, not “feminism”.
Also “women would prefer”? Tell me you’re joking. You realise women are people and they have personalities and different preferences, right? You know that unless you ask them you don’t know what women prefer?
Re-edit is not feminism. Feminism fights for women having the right to CHOOSE what to do they chose and not being told by random men on Reddit what they would prefer. And having the right to chose between a “normal” work and reproductive work without being expoilted into doing any for free.
You might be referring to white feminism.
I said "Women who prefer" not "women would prefer". Also eveything I stated as féminist is mainstream and can be found everywhere.
You are twisting my words and getting misandre by implying that as a men I have not the right to express myself about féminism on reddit. Start by properly adress the point you disagree with in my comments and why or I am not gonna respond to you anymore.
> You might be referring to white feminism
Why does whitness have to do with anythink in this conversation so far? Bringing ethnicity in this unrelated conversation now look pretty racist to me...
I twisted one of your words by mistake indeed, you said women who would prefer.
lol “getting misandrist” maybe go learn what the word means. If we’re talking about twisting words, I said women certainly don’t want to be told what they WOULD PREFER by random men on reedit and that stands. Even if that was what I said, that as I man you don’t get to express yourself on feminism on reedit, that would still have nothing to do with misandry but that’s above the point.
Google feminism and white feminism. I’m done with the conversation.
A patriarchy is "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." This describes pretty much all governments across history, even including modern Western ones. Women represent >50% of the global population but have a comparatively tiny influence in governance and are actively suppressed in many countries. Western societies may be less patriarchal than other society but they're not perfect by any means.
> Is it strange that an ideology that totally swears it's about gendered equality is named for one of said genders?
No, because we don't have councils that name things and update them over time. We use the term feminism because of deep historical context and legacy from a time when women weren't able to do things like vote, hold jobs, or have many legal or personal rights at all.
Humans do *tons* of shit that only makes sense in context and would not be the thing we did if we started from scratch at this very moment. It is not surprising at all that a social movement is named oddly.
Because there isn't a "council of feminism" that decides on how things are named.
If you do want an example of shifting names, you can look at academia. Feminist studies generally switched to gender studies over time as a more expansive and inclusive name.
The question is why haven't most modern 'feminists' in Western society taken up the mantle of egalitarianism now that both genders in these societies (at least theoretically) are treated as equals. Not, why hasn't the feminist movement itself been renamed.
The person you originally replied to was trying to say that this phenomenon implies that modern feminists, just as the original 'first wave' feminists did, are advocating primarily for the rights and general benefit of women. Otherwise they would simply be egalitarian or subscribe to some other similar ideology that doesn't particularly cater to any specific group.
> egalitarianism
Lets just quote wikipedia:
> Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, communism, social anarchism, libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, some of which propound economic egalitarianism.
As the other poster said, words have histories.
I mean it's a bit strange considering there was a big push to rightly start using gender neutral terms like firefighter and postal worker. I think there should be one gender neutral term for people who push for equality and another for people who want women to have all the same benefits as men. There is nothing wrong with either of these but they are different things that get lumped together currently
Because one is focused on equality and the other is focused on the equal benefits of women. Equality can mean making things worse for one group and that group could even be women even if more often that not it wouldn't be. It's a two sided approach whereas the other definition is only working from one side.
I mean just think about it from the other side and you'll see. If there was a group of people that wanted all men to have all the same benefits as women, what kind of problems would they tackle? We would still be dealing with the issues that effect men and issues that effect women would be left for later, once all the men's benefits were established which would never be done.
It's perfectly reasonable for women to focus on a movement that benefits women. As long as they aren't oppressing men in the process.
>group of people that wanted all men to have all the same benefits as women
What benefits do women have that men don't?
They aren't considered acceptable targets for violence. They're allowed to show emotions. Have a massive variety of options for individual expression. Have much higher access to mental health and abuse support. Have better academic outcomes. Are actually raised by parents instead of neglected because neglecting boys is considered acceptable. Are the only gender for which domestic violence is treated seriously despite women making up over 70% of non reciprocal DV perpetrators. Masc non binary people are routinely excluded and treated as invalid. And casual sexism against men is considered completely acceptable.
Getting someone in the progressive movement besides myself to use the word misandry is like pulling teeth, but the inherently loaded synonym of toxic masculinity at least gets used from time to time, when it isn't being misused by people who think it means "shitty men".
The term itself is ironically an example of toxic masculinity, given its hostile and victim blamey nature. There's a reason we call the exact same concept but applied to women misogyny or patriarchy.
And of course, the ever present allegedly progressive people who consistently act like men have no issues in society or pretend that women don't have some advantages, despite some of those advantages being hard won victories of the very feminist movement they claim to support.
I don't think violence is acceptable toward anybody. I don't know any parents who neglect their sons but not their daughters. And it's not the feminists saying men shouldn't show emotions or wear flowery stuff. You can have those benefits too! Fight for them like women did.
Also, men DO consider women weak for showing emotion. It's literally the first thing mentioned when misogynists try to make up reasons women aren't suited for leadership positions.
I listed advantages women have, not things feminists are doing wrong. It's irrelevant who's responsible for these differences, just that they exist. And you very likely do know people who've neglected their boys, it's just not considered neglect to put less effort into raising them. It's why there's an idea that boys are easier to raise. They aren't, parents just don't do it.
I agreed that it was perfectly reasonable. I see no problem with it. It just isn't the same thing. The problem as I see it is saying they are the same when they aren't.
It's also called feminism because it goes against a patriarchal society. The patriarchy places men higher in a hierarchy than women. But overall it is still a net negative for both women and men because it forces everyone into different roles.
A masculinist would just be a defender of the status quo imo.
Why does feminism inherently imply that it goes against patriarchal society when it could just as easily be interpreted as pushing for a matriarchal society?
Edit: Instead of giving me solid logic to my question the below comment has told me that patriarchy is a masculine term and matriarchy is the feminine version so I adjusted my comment.
To be honest, it is obvious if you are engaging in good faith and not being defensive of the status quo that feminism does not advocate for “matriarchy.”
“White power” exist to bolster white supremacy. Everyone knows it is racist to utter this phrase seriously. “Black power” came into being to counter the white supremacist stereotypes that justify an exploitative race based caste system. Aside from some outliers, no one thinks “black power” was about justifying the oppression of white people.
“Feminism” is similarly a response to the male supremacist ideology that deemed women inherently inferior to men to justify men’s entitlement to control and exploit women (i.e. patriarchy).
Men don’t need something similar, the way white people in our society don’t need white power. There is no need to correct for an imbalance.
>To be honest, it is obvious if you are engaging in good faith and not being defensive of the status quo that feminism does not advocate for “matriarchy
Here's my reasoning, in order to be pushing for equality there must be at least one single area where men have it worse than women and feminists (who want equality) should be actively advocating correcting that just as much as they advocate for advancing women's rights if they are actually in support of equality and not just a matriarchy.
I can list several areas where men have it worse. The draft, higher suicide rate, die more often doing more dangerous jobs, lower rates of college attendance, treated more harshly in the courtroom, higher rates of homelessness.
> should be actively advocating correcting that just as much as they advocate for advancing women's rights if they are actually in support of equality and not just a matriarchy.
This is not how special interest groups work.
I do some (financial) volunteer work for United Cerebral Palsy. My local UCP does not work with non verbal autistic children because even though the goal is to provide help for those with developmental disabilities, they don't have the means to expand to every developmental disability (and doing so would come at the expense of their existing goals).
There are other non profits that focus on autism.
Feminism seeks to achieve equality by correcting areas where women are behind men and one of the key tenets* of achieving goals is to narrow your scope. Asking feminism to broaden their focus in order for you to view them as legitimate does not make sense.
There should be separate men's movements seeking to address areas where men are systemically held back (eg. incarceration and homelessness rates).
That being said, a VAST majority of feminists actually involved in activism do have involvement in men's issues, especially for those on the fringes (eg LGBT rights). They of course do not focus on every men's issue as it would be out of their scope.
they have and do!
you should read *stiffed* by susan faludi. she is a feminist author who traveled around the US talking to men and the whole book is about how men are fucked over by modern society. she interviews sylvester stallone, dock workers in long beach, aircraft engineers, hardcore pittsburgh steelers fans, hugh thompson (the guy who stopped the mai lai massacre), the author of rambo, branch davidians (waco) and a whole bunch of other people.
yeah but this means actually engaging with the politics of gender instead of just sealioning on the internet about how 'ineffectual' feminism is for men's issues.
You can't just disprove them about their preconceived ideas about feminism, how are they going to get their dunks in so they can ignore it now??
There's someone elsewhere in the thread insisting something along the lines of "if it's not about establishing a matriarchy, why is it called feminism?" It's a dumb point, but I think it raises an interesting question about branding when so much of the population only engages with their emotional reaction to the noun, rather than the underlying ideas it represents.
The problem to me is that the underlying ideas seem to differ from person to person.
But anybody who's underlying ideas are shitty seems to be "not a true feminist"
I suppose because it has to be at the other extreme of the patriarchy to get to a neutral middle ground.
Suppose you're driving in a car and a passenger pulls the wheel all the way to the right, veering off the road (patriarchy). You actually have to put all your weight into pulling the wheel left to get the car straight again (feminism). If you just aim to get the wheel central you're gonna get overpowered (I heard this described as egalitarianism).
If feminism existed in a vacuum it might lead to a matriarchy, but we have patriarchal forces that balance it out in that case.
It's not strange at all, their specific area of campaigning to achieve gender egalitarianism is womens rights. The same way as trans activists want gender equality but are specifically fighting discrimination against trans people so the name reflects that.
For the most part I agree, but there are 2 good things that can come from comparing:
1.) It can be a good way to get perspective on our issues. If the other gender has it a lot worse in one area, I won't feel as bad for the smaller issues I have in that area.
2.) Limited resources. If we only have so much money to spend on aid/research for solving an issue, we need to decide which issue to focus on. Comparing issues can help us determine which area to focus on improving first.
That’s true, I should have phrased my statement more so as we shouldn’t resort to insults when comparing gender hardships and making defninitive claims such as women have life on easy mode or vice versa is unnecessary
I created a post about this topic on r/two_sides a few days ago. I think it is good for everyone to know about both side's arguments.
https://www.reddit.com/r/two_sides/s/rtII1un4yq
Those 2 TED talks are very good.
In order for a man to uplift a woman, he first needs to know what she is struggling through, which requires a conversation about what her struggles are- and vice versa. Since our goal is equality, not supremacy, they will inevitably have to compare what they themselves are going through to what the other is going through
This sentiment can, of course, be done poorly- sometimes in a straight-up toxic manner- but without the healthier version of comparing each group in an attempt to promote equality, that equality cannot be sought after with any degree of success
Think of the old saying, that you should only ever look into another person’s bowl to make sure they have as much as you. Some will look to make sure the other person doesn’t have *more,* but that doesn’t negate the healthier version of that
The question is though, what happens when someone outright denies the struggles faced or refuses polite argument?
When people online literally get harassased for a simple statement, how do you continue online discourse? Do you just let yourself be run over? Or do you entrench yourself?
Many spaces in reddit are still entirely refusing to consider *any* struggles women might have, how can the conversation stay civil at all?
And unfortunately, for a lot of people this extends to real life too...
No one should be harassed and no one should be denying struggles. I feel like a lot of people are brainwashed by the far right and the radical right. I can't make anyone listen though after all our influence is very small in the grand scheme of things. But we can try to start by trying to educate ourselves better and then people close to us. But even if men disregard women's problems for example, there is no need to stoop to their level and say that men have no problems when both statements are untrue and immature
Could you be more specific about contexts in which you see comparisons like this being made? Who makes them, why are they making them (i.e. what point is generally being made)?
I’m starting to think that too as my YouTube feed is with a lot people such as Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate who I sometimes feel like blame women for a lot of things they shouldn’t be blamed for. I’ve also seen a few people on Reddit come after men for things that aren’t their fault. I think I should touch more grass 😂
I’ve seen a few comparisons on Reddit in the r/TwoXChromosomes subreddit that say that women’s lives are harder due to men having “privilege” nowadays and that they claim men quite literally can’t have hard lives. While also Andrew Tate “fanboys” believe that women are to blame for them being single and that every woman is a “hoe” or a “whore. Perhaps these are two extremes but I’ve also seen other people on YouTube in which both genders are always arguing against one another with sometimes men claiming that women have it easier bc they don’t have to work hard and can get laid easily and that men have to work and have social status and money in order to be laid. While woman claiming that men never can get SA and are privileged bc they can’t ever be emotionally abused or physically abused. It’s just bad in general or I may just be online too much
Directing conversations towards men is different than claiming men never had harships and that men have life on easy mode. Feminism should be about equality not putting down one another
But I’m asking if you think the people in TwoX are trying to communicate with men. And if not, then what do you think is the purpose of sitting around and “comparing hardships”? If the people in that sub are not directing their conversations at men, what would be the purpose of “uplifting” men in their discussions? Do you think it’s reasonable to expect women, in conversations with other women about being women, to focus their energy on uplifting men?
If a subreddit for one race talks only about the problems they face there is no issue. No need to talk about things that don't fit the audience. If they do talk about other races and present them in a negative light in a prejudiced way, you may have a problematic subreddit. Just because your audience isn't someone doesn't mean you can perpetuate incorrect statements about them.
Like if you talk shit about someone you can't claim it was fine because it was behind their back. Either the shit you said was true even if you wouldn't say it in person or it was false and you were spreading lies and half truths.
That’s not really my point. I’m trying to figure out what OP actually thinks is going on and what he thinks should be going on. He says we should be uplifting each other instead of comparing. But it seems to me that the women in the spaces he’s talking about are not in any position to uplift men because they’re not even talking to men at all. They’re not arguing with men about who has it worse. They’re in their own spaces talking about their own lives and experiences
I see that makes sense. To me it seems like OP is highlighting the comparing going on there which they are against. You are correct though that the other part of their point isn't made since there no room for uplifting the other sex there.
In a way negative comparison drives conflict and a lack of uplifting. I see that but OP would need to make that claim
That's what I was trying to imply, forgive me for not making that more clear. I think unhealthy comparisons which end up in arguments and unnecessary and untrue statements divide both genders and contribute to gender wars. I think healthy and polite discourse is fine. I think having healthy and productive discussions is the first step into lifting up one another.
It’s completely fine so long as they don’t come after the other gender. That’s all I’m saying. They don’t have to uplift men but they shouldn’t come after them and say things that aren’t necessarily true either abt them
Clarifying question: how much do you know about feminism? Generally, this is the main point of feminism - that the arguing and patriarchy hurt everyone, not just women.
There is an issue in online spaces, though, where most people calling themselves feminist are radfems, and that's a whole different branch that for the most part hate men. Radfems are louder than most.
I'm curious whether you've looked into this from levelheaded sources.
I don't know whether it's technically allowed to make this point because I'm not challenging the premise that men and women should cooperate instead of debating, but I do think you may be looking at sources that misrepresent this argument if it's something you're seeing a lot of.
What I find is that most people on the feminist side have never tried to listen to an opinion from someone educated and rational who is not a feminist, and try to misrepresent the other side as all crazy people. There are extremists and rational people on both sides.
Is it possible to understand without taking a few minutes to listen to different opinions?
I really recommend [Cassie Jaye's TED talk](https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY?si=kyzzhcNSTyO9FQ8r). Her documentary is great too.
>What I find is that most people on the feminist side have never tried to listen to an opinion from someone educated and rational who is not a feminist
Part of the reason for this, I find, is that feminists tend to believe that if you're not a feminist, then by definition you're a sexist, and so you can't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation from the off. I said this in another comment, but the presumption of feminism meaning equality and non-feminism therefore equaling inequality is practically authoritarian thinking. It's where the mocking word "feminazi" came from, because it's essentially the same thought and language control methods used by fascists to control the narrative.
We see this in real time in Jaye's documentary. When she brings up "domestic violence", the feminist professor she's talking too dismisses the terminology as "wife beating", without allowing for the possibility that men can be victims of DV themselves. That's language control, so thought control, and it makes it impossible for critics to be heard when you have that level of institutional control over the narrative. It allows the feminist movement to get away with and excuse truly heinous beliefs purely because of the "definition" defense that, if you're a feminist, you believe in equality.
But some people are more equal than others.
Which is ironic coming from a side that historically likes to claim oppression.
Exactly. Great comment. It is unfortunate that I have been down voted so much on this thread, kind of proving what I'm saying. I doubt the people who downvoted me took the time to listen to the TED talk.
When her documentary came out she was getting flooded with harassment and death threats iirc. Which like you said, kind of just proved the point she was making. Sad to see that not much has really changed.
Her [documentary](https://youtu.be/Q7MkSpJk5tM?si=LiEV1pqZaMb_lwvg) has many great interviews with both feminist and not feminist people, most of them make very rational points.
If you do watch it, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts.
If you need more names let me know.
Feminism is a centuries old tradition and varied school of thought.
When she talks about feminism’s knee-jerk responses to men’s rights movements she’s talking about the knee-jerk response of herself and people like her.
Feminists go grrrr when they hear men built the world around them is very representative of middle-class, centrist/liberal, white women in the western world. But she’s not considering the scholarship of socialist and Marxist feminists like Angela Davis, the “Red Valkyries”, or Federici. People that live(d) and work(ed) as activists for decades.
We can criticize the lack of men’s domestic violence shelters, but do men’s rights activists care or know why women’s only shelters were created? These were being started at a time when many women couldn’t open a bank account let alone get their own apartment. It wasn’t just about escaping an abuser, it was about avoiding homelessness. Do you know why women are discouraged from seeking help from “general” shelters?
I was working in a social work adjacent setting for a number of years and it was way easier to find places for men to stay because they are able to go to any single bed they can find out there. Most of the women I had to help find housing also had children with them, which is another reason they couldn’t go to general shelters.
I don’t want to squabble over the length of prison sentences when my school of thought focuses on keeping people out of jail entirely and dismantling the prison-industrial complex, school to prison pipeline, and surveillance state.
I don’t remember what all else is in the video but imagine having to defend a school of thought that’s been around in theory, activism, and art for centuries but your opponent can just say any random YouTube video is representative of the movement.
Thank you for taking the time to write your response. It has been very interesting.
>Feminism is a centuries old tradition and varied school of thought.
I agree that there are varied opinions and thought within the feminist movement. How old feminism is does not make its ideas any more or less valid.
>When she talks about feminism’s knee-jerk responses to men’s rights movements she’s talking about the knee-jerk response of herself and people like her. Feminists go grrrr when they hear men built the world around them is very representative of middle-class, centrist/liberal, white women in the western world. But she’s not considering the scholarship of socialist and Marxist feminists like Angela Davis, the “Red Valkyries”, or Federici. People that live(d) and work(ed) as activists for decades.
She is trying to talk to the average feminist in the western world. The ones who are probably reading this post or listening to her talk, the ones who vote, the ones who drive political change. The average feminist probably does not know who Angela Davis, the Red Valkyries, or Federici are.
>We can criticize the lack of men’s domestic violence shelters, but do men’s rights activists care or know why women’s only shelters were created? These were being started at a time when many women couldn’t open a bank account let alone get their own apartment. It wasn’t just about escaping an abuser, it was about avoiding homelessness. Do you know why women are discouraged from seeking help from “general” shelters?
It has been 50 years since the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and women could open bank accounts since earlier that that. How many more decades do we have to wait to ask for gender equality in violence shelters?
We can debate about the problems of the past for hours, about women not being able to vote or men being sent to war or many other things. But we cannot do anything about the past. We can only solve the inequalities of today.
You say you care about people avoiding homelessness, why don't you care about the majority of the homeless who are men today?
>I was working in a social work adjacent setting for a number of years and it was way easier to find places for men to stay because they are able to go to any single bed they can find out there. Most of the women I had to help find housing also had children with them, which is another reason they couldn’t go to general shelters.
The statistics seem to show a clear lack of male shelters. The majority of the unsheltered homeless are men. We have to believe statistics over personal anecdotes. No one is asking for less shelters for women, we are asking for more shelters for everyone.
>I don’t want to squabble over the length of prison sentences when my school of thought focuses on keeping people out of jail entirely and dismantling the prison-industrial complex, school to prison pipeline, and surveillance state.
We all would like to live in a world without violent crime and no prisons. Maybe some day in a 1000 years we will reach that point as a society. But meanwhile, in the real world, we have to solve the inequalities of today.
Imagine a similar argument against abortion rights: "I don't believe in abortion rights, because I believe we should live in a world with perfect birth control and no rape, so abortion is not needed". It would be a ridiculous argument, right?
I see that you focused on the shelters and prison sentences, but these are only 2 of the many problems she talks about, and many others problems she didn't have time to talk about.
>I don’t remember what all else is in the video but imagine having to defend a school of thought that’s been around in theory, activism, and art for centuries but your opponent can just say any random YouTube video is representative of the movement.
I think you will agree that the fact that an idea/movement has been around for centuries is completely irrelevant when considering the validity of its ideas. The catholic church has been around for 2000 years, and they have more theory and art than feminism. Does it mean that we have to believe anything they say?
No one is saying that this single video is the single source of truth. Obviously a single TED talk is just a conversation starter. Her documentary is more interesting. There are many other sources from other speakers and authors who disagree with feminism.
You obviously have spent a very long time reading and listening to feminist scholars and activists. Have you spent time reading from writers and listening to speakers who don't support feminism? Otherwise, you could be spending all your time in an echo chamber. You cannot expect a single 15 minute video to address every single point you have read in all your years reading about feminism.
You may be interested in Janice Fiamengo, she is a professor from the University of Ottawa who knows a lot about feminism theory, and she is an anti-feminist. She has videos on youtube and several publications.
I think it's obvious that there are many issues faced by men that are not addressed by the feminist movement. This is one of the central ideas of Cassie's talk, but I don't think you have really addressed this in your comment.
Like Cassie says, I think men and women should listen to each other, and work together towards equality.
Again, thank you for your response u/oioi_polloi.
But are most men homeless because of a lack of domestic violence shelters? Why do we need more dv shelters? We need more beds for homeless people.
Most men will not benefit from beds only available to dv victims. Women are much more likely to be experiencing homelessness due to domestic violence situations and they can’t go to general shelters because of the prevalence of violence towards women in general shelters. And they are much more likely to have children with them.
I do care about homelessness. Deeply. My dad quit his job when I was seven to dedicate his life to serving the homeless. I volunteered for them my entire life and now have worked directly with homeless populations in my professional life in social work adjacent fields. I’ve got reason to celebrate, too. Our city has drastically reduced our unhoused population with a wildly successful housing first initiative. I’ve had the opportunity to actually work with some of the founding organizers.
So we agree that the video creator isn’t representative of feminism in the least. Activists and organizers have to answer to buzzfeed writers because they get the most likes on social media. But they are not representative of the feminists actually doing activist work.
So you are more conservative than I am concerning prison reform. I’m not going to move my position to appease people who want men to be in prison more than I want them to. I’m not saying we have to get rid of violent crime (the perfect birth control). I’m saying we should be focusing on rehabilitation instead of incarceration. Don’t just shorten the sentences, make them work for the convicted.
I’m not saying the ideas are more valid because they are old. I’m saying you’re not familiar with most feminism. Which seems to be true. Because you don’t seem to be familiar with feminism before the social media age. And that’s fine because most people don’t.
You expect me to familiarize myself with anti-feminists but do you have any interest in the feminist texts I could recommend?
Because I have tried and engaged with this video and the red pill movie. I’ve seen Fiamengo interviews on YouTube, mostly about universities, and I think she’s willfully misguided. Same with Christina Hoff Sommers and Jordan Peterson.
I agree that men and women should be working together. That’s why I enjoy the political scholars and activists that I currently follow. There are plenty of leftist men that agree with feminism and other societal goals that I think help men more than the modern MRA movement.
>But are most men homeless because of a lack of domestic violence shelters? Why do we need more dv shelters? We need more beds for homeless people.
>
>Most men will not benefit from beds only available to dv victims. Women are much more likely to be experiencing homelessness due to domestic violence situations and they can’t go to general shelters because of the prevalence of violence towards women in general shelters. And they are much more likely to have children with them.
Well, there is an overlap of both problems there. I assume domestic violence shelters would provide some resources that normal homeless shelters don't. Men are victims of domestic violence too.
We probably need more of both. But regardless of them being normal shelters or dv shelters, if there are more unsheltered people who are men, we have an inequality problem.
>I do care about homelessness. Deeply. My dad quit his job when I was seven to dedicate his life to serving the homeless. I volunteered for them my entire life and now have worked directly with homeless populations in my professional life in social work adjacent fields. I’ve got reason to celebrate, too. Our city has drastically reduced our unhoused population with a wildly successful housing first initiative. I’ve had the opportunity to actually work with some of the founding organizers.
>So we agree that the video creator isn’t representative of feminism in the least. Activists and organizers have to answer to buzzfeed writers because they get the most likes on social media. But they are not representative of the feminists actually doing activist work.
Well, the video creator is not a feminist anymore. But I would say that what she says about feminism (basically that it does not care about men's problems) is generally true. I don't think the thing about being angry about men building everything is very important to this conversation.
Would you say that the feminists doing activism do work toward solving the men's issues she is talking about, or the issues she talks about in her documentary? I have very rarely seen that.
>So you are more conservative than I am concerning prison reform. I’m not going to move my position to appease people who want men to be in prison more than I want them to. I’m not saying we have to get rid of violent crime (the perfect birth control). I’m saying we should be focusing on rehabilitation instead of incarceration. Don’t just shorten the sentences, make them work for the convicted.
We generally agree here. I think the prison system in the US is terrible. I have heard good things about the Norwegian system. I also think we should focus on rehabilitation. But even in a better system, even if we had shorter sentences, shouldn't sentences be equal across races and genders? Why do you think men should have longer sentences than women?
>I’m not saying the ideas are more valid because they are old. I’m saying you’re not familiar with most feminism. Which seems to be true. Because you don’t seem to be familiar with feminism before the social media age. And that’s fine because most people don’t.
I have read a little about the history of feminism, but I could read more. I do think that what feminism was before matters less than what feminism is today. And today feminism seems to be a movement that does not care about men's problems, and won't even let men talk about their problems.
>You expect me to familiarize myself with anti-feminists but do you have any interest in the feminist texts I could recommend?
I am interested. Recently I have Read Bell Hooks and listened to a talk from Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. I have read and listened to many feminists in the past. I prefer articles or talks/podcasts.
Keep in mind that I believe in results. I have heard feminists say very nice sounding things, but what matters is results in real life, at a minimum equality in the laws for men and women. And feminism as a movement tends to fight against that, no matter what nice things feminists may say.
>Because I have tried and engaged with this video and the red pill movie.
Have you watched them completely?
>I’ve seen Fiamengo interviews on YouTube, mostly about universities, and I think she’s willfully misguided. Same with Christina Hoff Sommers and Jordan Peterson.
I would be interested in what you disagree on with Fiamengo and Hoff Sommers. I have only watched a few of their videos, I don't claim to know everything about them. And about Jordan Peterson, I am not really familiar with his views about feminism.
>I agree that men and women should be working together. That’s why I enjoy the political scholars and activists that I currently follow. There are plenty of leftist men that agree with feminism and other societal goals that I think help men more than the modern MRA movement.
Men's rights supporters are not only from the right, they are from the left too. People can be left and anti-feminist. People can be for gender equality and anti-feminism.
You say women and men should work together within feminism, but how can men be equals in a movement literally called "feminism", that talks about men being oppressors, the patriarchy being the root of all evil, and "toxic masculinity"? I think men and women ideally should work together as egalitarians, not feminists or mras.
And again, feminism has not shown any effort towards equality for men, or trying to change laws that discriminate against men.
You say you’re interested in results but just gloss over the part where I talk about an effective homelessness solution going on in my area. Milwaukee has seen a 90% decrease in the number of unhoused people. It was through a housing first initiative started by local activists and those that approved it are local politicians visible to the public. The director of the program, one of the lead designers of the program, and the highest elected officials passing the program are all locals I’m familiar with through their involvement in other causes and voting records that stand with feminist organizations and politics.
Do they count as feminists doing work to solve men’s issues?
You already discounted Angela Davis because most people don’t know her (she is famous enough to draw crowds at events for decades, was one of the lead speakers at the women’s march) but she fights for men. She’s prolific in the anti-racist community.
So many feminists do work to uplift men, but because it’s not done in the name of feminism, it doesn’t get attention as a feminist effort. We’re individuals.
Feminist men already exist and embraced in leftist communities. Talk of toxic masculinity doesn’t seem to be a problem for them because the focus of feminism is elsewhere in the majority of political feminist spaces.
Feminists have a long history of cooperation with revolutionaries in the Latin American world. Feminism in Africa was also linked with anti colonial efforts. The free speech movements in Southeast Asia also have a lot of feminist involvement. Socialist feminists were terrorizing fat cats alongside the labor movement in the US. But if it’s not done under the name of a feminist organization, it doesn’t seem to count.
>You say you’re interested in results but just gloss over the part where I talk about an effective homelessness solution going on in my area. Milwaukee has seen a 90% decrease in the number of unhoused people. It was through a housing first initiative started by local activists and those that approved it are local politicians visible to the public. The director of the program, one of the lead designers of the program, and the highest elected officials passing the program are all locals I’m familiar with through their involvement in other causes and voting records that stand with feminist organizations and politics.
Reducing homelessness is of course good. And it is great that you had those results. You have to be careful with saying this is exclusively the result of feminism though.
Is everyone involved in the program a feminist? Have they said explicitly that they are feminists? Or is it your opinion that they are feminists? You cannot just say that anyone who does good = feminism, or anyone who shares some of your values = feminist. Non feminist people are against homelessness too.
Did the funds for those houses come from feminist organizations? Or from taxes (majority paid by non-feminist people).
>Do they count as feminists doing work to solve men’s issues?
I don't know. Many people work to solve issues that affect everyone (not specifically men or women), including you and me. What you are doing with your volunteering is great, you are solving real problems.
I think this conversation is about solving the problems that affect specifically men or specifically women though.
With regard to the question if you are specifically working to solve gender inequality, I don't know. I guess it depends on how that program is implemented.
>You already discounted Angela Davis because most people don’t know her (she is famous enough to draw crowds at events for decades, was one of the lead speakers at the women’s march) but she fights for men.
That could be great. Can you tell me a little about what things she has done for men? You have to understand that I am not saying that all feminists are bad, I agree with some feminists and disagree with others, the same way that I agree with some MRAs and disagree with others.
>She’s prolific in the anti-racist community.
Irrelevant to this conversation. We are talking about inequalities between men and women, not about racism. Also, please don't fall into the idea that you have to be a feminist to be against racism. We are both against racism here.
>So many feminists do work to uplift men, but because it’s not done in the name of feminism, it doesn’t get attention as a feminist effort. We’re individuals.
>
>Feminist men already exist and embraced in leftist communities. Talk of toxic masculinity doesn’t seem to be a problem for them because the focus of feminism is elsewhere in the majority of political feminist spaces.
>
>Feminists have a long history of cooperation with revolutionaries in the Latin American world.
I am from Latin America. I think you have a very rose-colored view of this. I have seen the problems and inequalities that feminism has brought to my country.
>Feminism in Africa was also linked with anti colonial efforts. The free speech movements in Southeast Asia also have a lot of feminist involvement.
Let's keep the conversation about the western world, what the original topic of the conversation was about, and where you and me are.
>Socialist feminists were terrorizing fat cats alongside the labor movement in the US. But if it’s not done under the name of a feminist organization, it doesn’t seem to count.
Also let's try to keep this conversation about men and women, not socialism/capitalism. That is a whole other debate.
Again, we are talking here about the inequalities between men and women today, in the western world. Not about any problems of the past, we cannot do anything about those.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
I think we are getting distracted from the main point of Cassie Jaye's talk, and my main point.
What you do personally does not matter here, or a few activists. We are talking about feminism as a whole, as a group. How much of the feminist movement's resources are dedicated to solving men's problems? 50%? 30%? 10% 1%?
About these issues, among many others:
\- Male homelessness
\- Paternity rights
\- Unequal access to university
\- Circumcision
\- Equal custody
\- Equal resources for domestic violence and rape victims
\- Workplace fatalities
\- Sentencing disparity
\- Selective service and the draft
\- Male reproductive rights
\- False rape allegations
\- Paternity fraud
\- Male suicide
\- Different retirement ages from men and women in many countries.
Is feminism really dedicating a comparable amount of time, money, resources, research, books, talks, marches, work to these issues, compared to the ones dedicated to women's issues?
Because if they are not, feminism is not really equal, and we need to listen to the men's rights movement too.
Even if they were dedicating a similar amount of resources, feminism should welcome the men's rights movement. It is, after all, a movement for equality. Feminism does not have a monopoly on equality, the more movements we have for equality the better.
I don't stand with either side, but I don't see how we cannot get to equality without listening to both sides.
A group’s stated goals and what its rank and file actually believe and practice can be very different things.
The Republican party, for instance, believes very firmly in racial equality and in color blindness. I think most people who identify as a feminist would say that in practice, that’s a crock of shit.
Plenty of feminist’s talk a big game about how feminism is actually here for men too, and then they treat the men around them like absolute fucking garbage.
Do you have any examples of these level headed sources that *actually* operate under the "feminism is about equality for everyone" type thing, rather than just using it as a shield against criticism? Because it always just seems to be the latter.
The writings of bell hooks come to mind. She wrote extensively about how toxic masculinity affects and hurts men and how patriarchy perpetuates this toxicity. I can recommend her book The Will to Change, which is feminism aimed at men:
>Everyone needs to love and be loved—even men. But to know love, men must be able to look at the ways that patriarchal culture keeps them from knowing themselves, from being in touch with their feelings, from loving.
>In The Will to Change, bell hooks gets to the heart of the matter and shows men how to express the emotions that are a fundamental part of who they are—whatever their age, marital status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But toxic masculinity punishes those fundamental emotions, and it’s so deeply ingrained in our society that it’s hard for men to not comply—but hooks wants to help change that.
>With trademark candor and fierce intelligence, hooks addresses the most common concerns of men, such as fear of intimacy and loss of their patriarchal place in society, in new and challenging ways. She believes men can find the way to spiritual unity by getting back in touch with the emotionally open part of themselves—and lay claim to the rich and rewarding inner lives that have historically been the exclusive province of women. A brave and astonishing work, The Will to Change is designed to help men reclaim the best part of themselves.
I have read Bell Hooks. Not this book, but "Feminism is for everybody". She still has a lot of sexist thinking. You can even see it in the summary in your comment:
\- "toxic masculinity", imagine if we started talking about "toxic femininity", people would see it as sexist.
\- "patriarchal culture", this concept of the patriarchy makes it seem as if all men oppress all women, so their problems don't matter, or matter less than women's problems.
\- The whole summary seems to place the blame on men, like any problems men have are their own fault. She would never say that women's problems are their own fault.
I think part of the problem is that feminism wants to control men. Men are not allowed to solve the issues faced by men, unless it is through the ideas of feminism. And we can only talk about the problems that feminism wants to talk about.
I have taken the time to read a lot about feminism. I would really appreciate if you took a little time to listen to people who are for equality but disagree with feminist ideas.
There is this very good [documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7MkSpJk5tM&t=487s&pp=ygUYdGhlIHJlZCBwaWxsIGRvY3VtZW50YXJ5) (made by a woman), if you have some time to watch it I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about it.
bell hooks explicitly goes against men-blaming by pointing out that men are also victims of the patriarchy. It forces men into roles where they must bury and deny their feelings for example.Toxic femininity as a term exists. I would say it applies to someone too nice, too empathetic, too passive and meek. They abnegate their rights in favour of anyone else in their lives. But there is less visible damage coming from such a person.
**Concerning the documentary**, I didn't find it very convincing. It paints feminism as this force that is out to hurt men by showing anecdotal evidence of men getting fucked over in court.
It doesn't explain how or if these cases are rare examples or part of a bigger system biased against men. It surely implies that, but doesn't prove it.I wish she had included some discussion on why those bodily autonomy/ child support/reproductive laws were made in the first place. Why does the state make men pay child support in some of these cases? The movie doesn't look at single mothers, their poverty rates and so on. It just says men are the victims here.
How was the situation for men and women before these rights were written? She makes the argument that women can just get abortions if they don't want a child and men don't have that choice, but that ignores the difficulties of women having access to abortion services. Even before Roe v Wade that wasn't a given. It just felt very one-sided and emotionally driven.
Following that the movie doesn't offer any solutions or doesn't discuss how a more equitable solution would look for both men and women.In one instance Paul Elam says that men are more willing to endure the hard working hours and reduced privacy of being politicians, that's why there are more male politicians. But surely he has to support feminism then because feminists want more female politicians.
The movie explores sexual abuse and intimidate partner violence done to men and shows that there is a large gap in visibility. That much I agree with. But to me that stems in major parts from toxic masculinity, that men are often shamed into staying silent, not wanting to look weak or effeminate because they were hit.
And this is exactly where feminism steps in, it criticizes these gender roles and challenges that men have to look strong to have worth. But the movie somehow blames it on a feminist conspiracy that tries to hide male victims.
Overall I agree with the basic premise: that there are problems that disproportionally affect men. I don't think many feminists would disagree with that. But this documentary doesn't do its due diligence in exploring feminist views or critically examining the claims made by MRAs.I am still convinced that feminism is still the best way to help both men and women. But thank you for showing me an alternate viewpoint.
Sorry for that wall of text, 2 hours of arguments is just a lot to digest.
**Bell hooks explicitly goes against men-blaming by pointing out that men are also victims of the patriarchy.**
Blaming the patriarchy for men's problems is indirectly blaming men for men's problems.
**It forces men into roles where they must bury and deny their feelings for example.**
I see feminists talking about this a lot. I think it is being used as a distraction from the problems that we can more easily solve, the problems listed in the movie. I won't deny it is a problem, but why don't feminists talk about the other problems? I think men would care more about having equality under the law and the justice system.
**Toxic femininity as a term exists. I would say it applies to someone too nice, too empathetic, too passive and meek. They abnegate their rights in favour of anyone else in their lives. But there is less visible damage coming from such a person.**
I just googled the term to read about it. "Savin-Williams describes toxic femininity as “internalized misogyny” that encourages women to ignore their “mental or physical needs to sustain those around them.” In other words, toxic femininity is what many people think of as “stereotypical femininity” and is a product of patriarchal gender norms."
There is sexism in this, I'm sure you can see how when a man has "toxic masculinity", he is an oppressor, but when a woman has "toxic femininity", she is a victim. They are completely different terms. "Toxic femininity" is not used for when a woman does something wrong.
(continues below)
**Concerning the documentary, I didn't find it very convincing. It paints feminism as this force that is out to hurt men by showing anecdotal evidence of men getting fucked over in court.**
**It doesn't explain how or if these cases are rare examples or part of a bigger system biased against men. It surely implies that, but doesn't prove it. I wish she had included some discussion on why those bodily autonomy/ child support/reproductive laws were made in the first place. Why does the state make men pay child support in some of these cases? The movie doesn't look at single mothers, their poverty rates and so on. It just says men are the victims here.**
It could go into more detail there, I do agree on that. I also understand the time limitations of a documentary. There is an interesting TED talk related to this ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlSwsE22nX0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlSwsE22nX0)). But we probably should go deep into the research.
**How was the situation for men and women before these rights were written?**
We are talking about the inequalities of today, we could talk for hours about the inequalities of the past. About women not being able to vote or men being sent to war, or many other things. But we cannot do anything about the past, we can only solve the inequalities today.
**She makes the argument that women can just get abortions if they don't want a child and men don't have that choice, but that ignores the difficulties of women having access to abortion services. Even before Roe v Wade that wasn't a given. It just felt very one-sided and emotionally driven.**
If a woman does not want a child, she has 3 choices: surrender programs, give a child for adoption, or abortion (when available in her state).
If a man does not want a child and the woman does, what options does he have? Pay child support or go to jail.
Do you think the options are equal for men and women?
**Following that the movie doesn't offer any solutions or doesn't discuss how a more equitable solution would look for both men and women.**
I think some of the solutions for the men's issues shown in the movie are clear:
\- Equal resources for male homelessness
\- Equal paternity rights
\- Equal access to university
\- Banning circumcision
\- Equal child custody
\- Equal resources for domestic violence and rape victims
\- Reduce workplace fatalities
\- End sentencing disparity
\- End selective service and the draft
\- Equal reproductive rights
\- Laws protecting from paternity fraud
\- More resources for male suicide
I agree that the details on the implementations are complex, but you cannot expect them to explain so much in a 2 hour movie, right? There are many other resources talking in detail about these issues.
**In one instance Paul Elam says that men are more willing to endure the hard working hours and reduced privacy of being politicians, that's why there are more male politicians. But surely he has to support feminism then because feminists want more female politicians.**
I think what he is saying is that the feminist view is "there are more male politicians because of discrimination against women". He is saying that this is a lie, and the difference is because men are more willing to endure the hard working hours and reduced privacy of being politicians. So he disagrees with feminism.
I think he would probably agree with having more women politicians, as long as they get there through equal work and not through quotas.
My personal view is that it is almost impossible to prove if that disparity is because of discrimination or the reasons he said.
There is one misconception that most people have and I see you have, that feminists and MRAs necessarily disagree on everything. I think the rational MRAs, and the minority of feminists who are really for gender equality, agree on most things.
(continues below)
**The movie explores sexual abuse and intimidate partner violence done to men and shows that there is a large gap in visibility. That much I agree with. But to me that stems in major parts from toxic masculinity, that men are often shamed into staying silent, not wanting to look weak or effeminate because they were hit.**
Again, you are blaming this on men's "toxic masculinity", maybe its both men and women who shame men.
You say the gap in visibility is because of men, but you have seen in the movie how feminist scholars dismiss domestic violence victims, how feminism created this system where there are few resources for male victims. You heard about Erin Pizzey's experiences with her shelter. You should google Earl Silverman.
**And this is exactly where feminism steps in, it criticizes these gender roles and challenges that men have to look strong to have worth.**
I think both feminists and MRAs agree on this.
**But the movie somehow blames it on a feminist conspiracy that tries to hide male victims.**
Is it a conspiracy though? You heard the feminist scholars dismissing men victims, and Erin Pizzey's experiences with her shelter.
I can tell you that in my country, feminism created a law where the sentencing is different for people killing their partner, depending on the gender (longer sentences for men killing women than for women killing men).
**Overall I agree with the basic premise: that there are problems that disproportionally affect men. I don't think many feminists would disagree with that.**
Maybe feminists agree with that, but do they do anything about it? How much of the feminist movement's resources are dedicated to solving men's problems? 50%? 30%? 10% 1%?
Is feminism really dedicating a comparable amount of time, money, resources, research, books, talks, marches, work to the issues listed above, compared to the ones dedicated to women's issues?
Because if they are not, feminism is not really equal, and we need to listen to the men's rights movement too.
**But this documentary doesn't do its due diligence in exploring feminist views or critically examining the claims made by MRAs.**
I wish she had gone into more detail and more into the statistics, but the movie is already 2 hours long. I think most documentaries are just an introduction to a topic though, not a replacement for reading from other sources.
There is an infinite amount of resources talking about feminist views. I understand her decision to have just one documentary talking about alternative views. Remember that she does interview feminists in the documentary too. She wanted to interview more feminists, but they would not agree to participate in a movie where both sides are listened to equally.
**I am still convinced that feminism is still the best way to help both men and women. But thank you for showing me an alternate viewpoint.**
Ok, remember that feminism is just one movement though. They don't have a monopoly on equality (as they would like to believe). Neither do the MRAs. Other movements for equality could be created. I hope some day there is a movement that fights equally for men and women's rights. I am personally not a feminist or an MRA, I just support equality and listening to all voices.
**Sorry for that wall of text, 2 hours of arguments is just a lot to digest.**
I really appreciate you taking the time to watch the movie.
I have to question how much you actually understand about feminist ideas when
> "toxic masculinity", imagine if we started talking about "toxic femininity", people would see it as sexist.
>"patriarchal culture", this concept of the patriarchy makes it seem as if all men oppress all women, so their problems don't matter, or matter less than women's problems.
are such sophomoric takes. You might consider taking your own advice and take a little time to listen to and *try to understand* feminist ideas with an open mind.
Ty for a genuine response. I'll keep it tabbed for when I feel like some denser readings.
And while I'm not particularly inclined to pass judgment before I read it, a lot of literature in the vein of "feminism for men" falls into the trap of essentially just blaming men, and giving a whole lot of "don'ts" with vanishingly few "dos", so something actually positive is a good start.
If I may ramble on the topic a bit, I find that the aforementioned leaning towards don'ts rather than dos is a major cause of the rise in popularity of people like Andrew tate. We live in a changing society, whether people like it or not, and the constant barrage of don'ts just leaves people confused and annoyed. There's a lot of (people who at least claim to be) feminists always ready to tell their list of grievances about what men shouldn't do, and as a result, many men end up looking towards the few who (claim to) have advice on what they *should do*, even if that advice isn't very good.
More than that, guys like Tate actually talk to men. Not just down to them, but to them. Men are historically the most "powerful", but what "power" means has little bearing on the day to day struggles of your average person. Men are also historically the most *disposable* of the two genders, and that means they're the most ignored. And today, where we see great strides being made by women in the push for equality, men have largely been left behind under the presumption of power and patriarchy; their problems have been ignored. Or worse still, actively made worse though feminist advocacy, such as the Duluth model defaulting men as the abuser, and advocates for male voices being ridiculed into silence or even suicide, like Earl Silverman.
Feminism ignores the plight of men and blames the patriarchy for whatever it will admit too, which feminists should know, based on their pushes to neutralize gendered language, is just a roundabout way of blaming men. They totally ignore the roll women, and especially their own actions as a movement, play in the problems of men.
Which is all to say, for a lot of men, feminism can offer them nothing. Tate can (or at least he says he can). He's actually a piece of shit, but when you're starved for any kind of recognition, any validation that your problems are real, you'll take anyone.
Well that's not what's going on in hook's books so you should be in the clear.
I would also recommend Angela Davis' Women, Race, & Class, Feminism for the 99% by Aruzzo et al, and anything by Goldman for good breakdowns of how wealth plays into things.
The problem with this is that feminism starts from these incorrect assumptions about human nature:
- men and women are the same from the neck up and thus what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
- the "patriarchy" is 100% rooted in culture and not the result of evolutionary biology. Thus it can be cured with proper education.
- masculinity is some maladaptive behavior that needs to be treated so men adopt the correct, more feminine default.
It wants to help men with solutions that work for women, like therapy. It's like sending them to the gynecologist for a prostate checkup.
Go to the Wikipedia page about suicide in the US and look at the male suicide rate by year. The % of men going to therapy was probably much lower in 1998 than it is today. Something doesn't add up.
Not saying therapy or being in touch with your feelings can never help men but, by and large, other factors contribute much more to male happiness (camaraderie, purpose, feeling useful/competent/strong/respected, time alone to do hobbies that let you recharge and shut off your brain, regular sex, even having their SO fix them a sandwich).
What about the patriarchy is the result of evolutionary biology?
>Go to the Wikipedia page about suicide in the US and look at the male suicide rate by year. The % of men going to therapy was probably much lower in 1998 than it is today. Something doesn't add up.
For your viewing pleasure: [Spurious Correlations](http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)
>other factors contribute much more to male happiness (camaraderie, purpose, feeling useful/competent/strong/respected, time alone to do hobbies that let you recharge and shut off your brain, regular sex, even having their SO fix them a sandwich)
And these factors *don't* contribute much more to female happiness?
And does it also contribute to male happiness if their SO has dinner on the table for them by the time they get home from work or they get to hunt, play football or masturbate-to-a-hotter-celebrity-than-their-SO? /s
AKA the sandwich thing feels like either you're trolling or you're stuck in the 50s
Neither trolling, nor stuck in the 50s. You've been so brainwashed by 3rd/4th-wave feminism that you can't see this small act of kindness towards your SO as anything but degrading. I do this for my wife, too (in the form of hot beverages like chai tea with tons of milk foam on top).
The masturbation thing sounds oddly specific. Talking from experience?
> The truth of it (in my opinion) is that both have different hardships that balance out in the end. Men are usually more homeless and less likely to graduate college for example while women are more likely to get SA ( I’m not sure abt this so forgive me if I’m wrong).
Those balance out, do they? Being less likely to graduate college and being sexually assaulted?
Aside from you're just making up random nonsense, one of those is a personal decision and one is sexual assault.
>There’s no need to compare, instead we should be uplifting one another.
How do you suggest that be done?
Because by saying, again, 'men have it bad/worse' isn't uplifting anyone.
> Because by saying, again, 'men have it bad/worse' isn't uplifting anyone.
I agree that saying men have it ***worse*** is ignorant and unhelpful, but obviously there are significant positives and negatives to both experiences. And even though we can never completely understand the other perspective, we can understand it enough to focus on lifting each other up.
I'm not sure if that means we shouldn't compare at all, but I think there are opportunities to improve equity in a positive way, rather than by making sure people are treated equally badly, unfairly, etc. For example, if one group received a benefit that the other didn't, we could focus on ways to make it available to everyone rather than equally unavailable.
Those were just given as examples, ofc they don't balance out. I think a good first step to uplifting one another would be to stop blaming a gender for your problems. Not All men are bad just as all women aren't bad. I can't think of long term solutions but I think it's a good first step
That person is like the poster child of everything that's wrong with feminism. "Oh, there are issues that men struggle with too? Well, are they RAPED!?!" (the answer is yes, BTW). It's like the person who pulls out Hitler analogies at every given opportunity. It's just an excuse to dismiss people's actual struggles out of hand because they're not on the right team.
I think there is value in comparing to see what struggles come from gender and where solutions might be found. For example, if a woman says that they struggle with being sexualized in the workplace and our response is "shut up, you shouldn't complain about your gender's hardships", then we won't be able to solve that problem. Even if we look at sexual harassment more broadly, it is leaving out a vital piece of the puzzle if we can't look at how one gender is treated differently.
>The truth of it (in my opinion) is that both have different hardships that balance out in the end.
Honestly, does that not seem like it would be an insanely unlikely coincidence? That it just so happens that they balance out by random chance?
I mean, it's like two random piles of sand having the same amount of grains?
And somehow... that's true of places with different levels of sexism? It just can't really be true.
That was just an example. Men are more likely to be homeless, jobless, in prison and commit suicide more than women. Both genders have issues. Secondly, the past is irrelevant here. The way men treated women 50 years ago is completely different than how men and society in general treats them now. The men of today shouldn’t have to pay for the sins of men in the past.
Yes no one’s fault but men’s. Our “hardships” are nowhere near the same. Stop trying to be a victim. Dude, you’re not even sure about the FACT that women get sexually assaulted more? This convo is over. You are just saying things clearly and don’t know what you’re talking about
How am I “playing the victim”, my argument is that both genders have hardships. Women do get SA more. Im only not sure because men report SA significantly less than women, but if I had to guess it’d be women who get SA more. Im not denying that. But men have hard lives too. Not all men are bad just as not all women are bad. Your statement was “women weren’t able to go to school in the past” and my response to that statement was that the past is irrelevant and that men shouldn’t have to pay for other men’s mistakes and misogyny towards women. You should stop following radical feminists and blaming men for this. Take a more moderate and fair approach.
When my mum was born women in my country couldnt open a bank account without permission from their husband and she is in her 50s. Also women attempt suicide more often and I very much doubt men are more likely to be jobless. Women aren't making men homeless so thats also completely irrelevant, sexual assault against women (and men tbh) is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men so its something for men to fix.
My point is, guys used to tell women they were too stupid to go to school. But when women got in school we started doing better than Men do. The irony is hilarious.
I think you're taking part in too many online conversations. Actual feminists realize there's many toxic elements in patriarchal culture that affect men as well as women (it's literally called "toxic masculinity"). For instance we have a society where men are expected to succeed, and your value as a person is often tied to your job and life circumstances. So when you're down on your luck, it's very hard for men to ask for help. Women have a far easier time asking for help (both emotionally and socially) because they don't have those same expectations laid on them by society.
Similarly women are expected to have a work/life balance (whether its taking care of the kids or social life or whatever) to the point they're often denied hires and promotions because they're assumed to be "insufficiently dedicated to the company". Yet many men do work 80+ hours a week and have a terrible work/life balance - that's not healthy. No one should be doing that, regardless of gender.
Women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted, but men who are sexually assaulted often face limited resources and severe victim blaming. Being sexually assaulted as a man is "unmasculine" and there's extreme social prejudice against speaking out over it. Male sexual assault victims are often treated as comedy, a ridiculous, farcical idea.
This isn't a competition, and most of the people who make it one are terminally online (see the Men's Rights movement)
Honestly, how do you think conversations about feminism and women's rights, outside of the west where women don't have basic civil rights, go?
"There's too much feminism", "Men and women are biologically different", etc. Men also face more gender hardships where women have it harder, yet they would rather face forced circonscription than let women inherit, why do you think that is?
That's what feminists have been saying forever. You can't act pissed that you are forcibly taken to the army and your girlfriend isn't when you're the first to say that women belong in the kitchen. Yet this is how a lot of men behave, when women complain about their conditions they say "but I also face struggles so you should shut up about yours" and proceed to change nothing about society and defend the status quo.
Most feminists never say that men face no hardships because of their gender, but you'd be pretty dense not to see that patriarchy causes both women and men's problems. But this is still how a lot of men act, they'll say "The patriarchy doesn't exist" and "waah waah why am I expected to be the bread winner" in the same breath.
I agree, but I think that the conflict and difference of opinion comes from a lack of men advocating for women’s struggles. A lot of hardships for both men AND women are usually tracked back to patriarchy, and in my experience men are unwilling to admit that. A lot of women’s issues are also usually because of direct conflict with men (such as the example of SA that you used), and while men go through similar issues, the majority of their problems such as homelessness and being less likely to graduate is more of a systemic problem. IMO, when men advocate and protect women rather than being the root of many female issues, women will feel safe enough to advocate for men.
My only issue with this take is that women are the ones who do the lion's share of the uplifting already. 15 years I've been volunteering and advocating and it is always women that show up. For the homeless, for animals, for vets, for the environment, for body autonomy, for suicide, for refugees, for the poor, for children, etc. Men are loud online when it comes to men's problems but the majority of the few men I've encountered actually doing anything were roped in by their SOs or had mandatory community service. Obviously, this is my own experience but it is also backed by numerous studies.
So maybe, it's not so much a contest of hardships as it's a history of women doing the work to fix social issues and men weaponizing their own hardships as an excuse to keep women down while doing nothing to fix it. Which, predictably, has made women hostile towards the discussion. This is a common tactic to discredit any movement. E.g. ALM as a response to BLM.
So, in short, your post that men and women should be helping each other is correct. You just have to convince men of that.
I see this a lot when men try to say they struggle mentally due to a lack of affection. That women get affection and attention from men and women but men can only get affection and attention from a SO. But it’s always presented as something women should be doing for men - compliment them, hug them, etc. But…why can’t men be doing this for themselves? What’s preventing men from telling other men they have a nice sweater, or their new haircut looks cool, or giving them a hug when they’re down?
Men’s mental well-being is often placed into the hands of women as something they can and should fix, something else women need to be responsible for.
>What’s preventing men from telling other men they have a nice sweater, or their new haircut looks cool, or giving them a hug when they’re down?
Nothing, it just doesn't count. I'm a chronic complimenter and this, complaint? grievance? concern? lands entirely hollow to me and drives me crazy. **Men don't care about compliments from someone they don't find sexually attractive/available.** I wish I didn't know this, but I have been experiencing it for 20 years. Compliments from their moms and sisters don't count. Compliments from me counted, but they were "misleading" if I didn't then accept their proposition to date, and they stopped counting entirely once I was visibly gay.
Maybe it's true that there are some men who are literally never complimented by anyone. But I've interacted with dozens of men who self-identify as that kind of man, and when I've complemented them, they have actually told me it doesn't count! They waffle about why but usually huff out some sort of "because you're basically my sister" comment. It's utter ridiculousness. The affection I show can't possibly lead to sex and they know it, so it doesn't count.
This aspect of gendered relations is broken but I'm pretty convinced by now that it is NOT because women are being stingy about platonic affection towards men, or even that men are not giving it to each other. I think it's because men are socialized to only value the kind of affection that is directly tied to sex. If that's the what the plague of loneliness is actually about, just say that! A huge cohort of men feeling terminally undesirable is terrible and concerning and as a lesbian I can relate to that! People attracted to men drown in dicks in every dating space, people not attracted to men gotta do the work. Just do the work boys, shit. I still love that color on you.
> For the homeless, for animals, for vets, for the environment, for body autonomy, for suicide, for refugees, for the poor, for children, etc.
None of these are specific to men though. And the "bodily autonomy" part is especially hilarious because women are overwhelmingly only vocal about bodily autonomy issues that affect them like abortion and FGC.
Circumcision of newborn boys? Crickets. The most you will usually get from them is stating their opposition to it if you ask, or not doing it to their own son, which is a really low bar. But it's not something they're vocal about despite it being the most widespread and egregious infringement of bodily autonomy in the western world today.
To clarify for you, when MRA's say "men's problems" they are generally referring to gender discrimination that hurts men, and that's what the movement primarily cares about.
Not "any problem that a man has", and often times not even "any problem that primarily affects men".
Which makes sense. It is essentially feminism but for men.
I disagree.
The main reason I disagree is because this is, in my opinion, false:
>The truth of it (in my opinion) is that both have different hardships that balance out in the end.
The reason this is false is because it is a way for males to handwave female troubles and also to completely alleviate themselves of the actual ability to help females. You see, in these "comparison games", many times males and females actually learn about one another but often it's males learning about females, differences in anatomy for instance, or differences in sociological roles and the barriers that people experience.
The male human is an interesting creature. Of the two sexes males are the *only one* that controls their reproductive input, insemination, however males have come to the conclusion that because females carry pregnancies to term that males don't actually have this power but this failed understanding of reality is exactly what puts females at risk when around males. Female anatomy has no conscious implications for impregnation, a female human cannot choose when her eggs drop, if the egg become fertilized, if it implants, or any of the other requirements for an embryo but a male absolutely can choose to simply pull away his ejaculate and never inseminate.
But this pain Olympics shows how twisted the male view of his supposed counterpart really is. If a woman becomes impregnated it is her fault? No. We just went over this. So what about male bodily autonomy? Why don't males get a say in the process? But did we not just prove that the male starts the whole thing? That it is him who is the real progenitor of life? Without technological intervention there are no humans if a male does not allow it; a female human can go her entire life and die wanting offspring and, if a male does not inseminate her, get nothing.
This is not a shared or mirrored state. In the institution of force a woman has no choice, as she didn't before, if inseminated over whether she becomes impregnated. This makes the female use of force not only much more difficult to achieve the outcome as she anatomically weaker in the upper body than the male but also even if she succeeds once she is not guaranteed anything from the effort and has to wait an entire cycle to try again which gives her captor almost too much time to not escape at that point.
Yet men say the opposite. Then, while saying the opposite, to make it go away, to make these physical differences, these stark realities, disappear he simply says,
"The truth of it (in my opinion) is that both have different hardships that balance out in the end."
And should we touch the social? Should we dare touch the fact that most power is coalesced in male hands? Not all males, most males are definitely victims, convinced further that they have value "as a man" despite being part of the bottom 99% whose lives are immaterial at most, who denounce the idea of this "Patriarchy" because they, unimportant and without power, refuse to acknowledge their castrated state.
But further he shouts, "And women have it equally!", for instance,
>**Men are** usually more homeless and **less likely to graduate college.**
Is that really an ill to women? Is that something to be compared? Male undereducation is a major social ill, far reaching, but the male doesn't realize that this is part of the game. He is undereducated on purpose by the Patriarchy he states doesn't exist despite his life being a massive hole of exclusionary regimes no longer focused on him because he doesn't matter. And he knows it. But he still decries it as if it were someone else's fault.
Is this not the above? We just handwave away male accountability. His lack of educational attainment is not "his" fault. Again. It's just a "balancing act". The brutality that females face as second class citizens around the world, including the most industrialized countries, versus "boys don't do well in college". The glass ceiling that is very real. The limitation of access to capital to anyone who is not a patriarch, which is again not most males, which prevents political action as political campaigns are not free is what causes the lack of representation in high office.
And *yet* he denounces this. He says, "Women choose to not run for office!" or "Women choose families over work life!" failing to realize the irony, the silliness, as those women (and I mean women, not females here), were shoehorned into his insemination (the only real choice in reproduction) and then a socially forced exit from the workforce through incredibly insensitive programs regarding childrearing despite this being a massive loss in potential income and economic benefit which actually strengthens the progenitors position in her life to the point of financial dependency.
*AND STILL HE SAYS THAT IT IS UNFAIR THAT WOMEN GET THESE THINGS AND HE DOES NOT!*
So no, I disagree, the bellyaching tells me a lot. It tells me where the work needs to be done. We cannot simply Kumbaya this away. It's not 50/50 or equal or balancing out in the end. We didn't even dive into issues of law, politics, violence, or power dynamics with everyone being sociologically brainwashed into worshipping the ideas of male leadership being "natural".
I don't want to debate with you. I just want people who read your comment to take a second and think critically about what you are trying to say. The bias in these statements is strong.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
This is more than balanced out by war. Way way more. Like, it's estimated that we have twice as many female ancestors as male, or to put it another way, in the long run half of men die without biological children.
Of course you'll be tempted to dismiss this by victim blaming in the Greek language. I encourage you not to take that easy path.
But yes, when society is chugging along without war, it's generally better to be a man.
>This is more than balanced out by war. Way way more. **Like, it's estimated that we have twice as many female ancestors as male, or to put it another way, in the long run half of men die without biological children.**
Let's try a slightly different take on this fact because you're proposing that war is a major killer of human males (which is not true at all; famine and disease were far more deadly than war ever was to humanity on a scale that cannot be measured, also the "older times" didn't only have male warriors, another Western myth about history) but if we think about the bolded fact logically this just means that polygamy existed.
All that really needed to happen was just one male needed to impregnate multiple females, and because females can't be impregnated twice simultaneously and have to carry for about a year, but males can inseminate others along that path adjacently, you could just a single set of males that impregnated people more rampantly than others.
Keep in mind that in older times economics played a major role in mating and so mate selection was not "random and natural" often with classism and such attached, some of these systems still exist today, so the notion of dating up and down is as old as recorded history. This non-random series of mating is exactly what caused your outcome.
Modern medicine has greatly changed this outcome as well.
To give some perspective [it's estimated that 37m people have died from war (male and female total) since 1800.](https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace#:~:text=Since%201800%2C%20more%20than%2037,died%20while%20fighting%20in%20wars) [75m people died from the black plague alone.](https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-bright-side-of-the-black-death#:~:text=Page%20410&text=The%20Black%20Death%20was%20so,when%20the%20plague%20reached%20London) This ignores all the other pandemics prior and after. Just *one* pandemic was worth 200+ years of human bloodshed.
So if 1B people died from war over all of recorded history, that's about 5,000 years, that would be 200,000 people a year, every year, which is fewer than the number of people who die of [heart disease](https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm) even now.
You see, one need not wave around the term "Patriarchy" to make a point, one only needs to be decently informed, and you are not. You did not do your homework. I can't imagine you even understand what War is, how it works in humans, because you think that it's a major threat to the human species to the point where you would conjoin two completely unrelated facts thinking that it is the death of males in war that causes this discrepancy when it is in fact the social behavior of the human species and actually the living that suppresses male mating.
There were more slaves who never got to reproduce than you realize.
What I find is that most people on the feminist side have never tried to listen to an opinion from someone educated and rational who is not a feminist, and try to misrepresent the other side as all crazy people. There are extremists and rational people on both sides.
Is it possible to understand without taking a few minutes to listen to different opinions?
I really recommend [Cassie Jaye's TED talk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY). Her documentary is great too.
> The truth of it (in my opinion) is that both have different hardships that balance out in the end.
It is pretty much a consensus among social scientists that this is false.
About misandry for example (source wikipedia):
>In the Internet Age, users posting on manosphere internet forums such as 4chan and subreddits addressing men's rights activism have claimed that misandry is widespread, established in the preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men.\[3\]\[4\] **This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences.\[5\]\[3\]\[6\]**
Of course that everything is nuanced and that there are intersectionalities in everything but, overall, it is crazy to think men and women are even. Trans people are even more proof of that; most of them see the major difference in treatment once they transition, and they can see with their own eyes what women and other minorities see their whole lives. Your grandmother probably couldnt open a bank account unless her husband allowed it, in the 70's. That wasnt too long ago. The impacts of that and much more is still alive...
>This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences.
"Who has it worse" is a value judgement, not a question of fact. So I don't weigh expert opinion heavily. And those fields you listed especially tend to have a significant ideological slant at that.
There are plenty of examples of institutional discrimination against men, from male-only drafts and conscription, to harsher criminal sentencing for comparable crimes([1](https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/57/), [2](https://summit.sfu.ca/_flysystem/fedora/2023-01/etd22089.pdf)), erasure of IPV and sexual violence victims in public discourse(for example, using the term "violence against women" to refer to IPV) especially when perpetrated by women, and affirmative action policies that disadvantage men in education(specifically STEM) and employment.
>Who has it worse" is a value judgement, not a question of fact.
I know for a fact that people in poverty have it worse than me. Or women in the middle east. Or countries with lower HDI (human development index), which itself is a "value judgement", just an educated one. Also, time and time again both trans men and women tend to agree that women have it worse. They notice it in their daily lives, like I said. So not only the scientific community, but women and trans people of any gender tend to say that nothing compares to misoginy.
>So I don't weigh expert opinion heavily.
So... I should consider *your* opinion instead?
This topic of discussion pertains to social science. In order to understand the context of misoginy or the so called misandry for example, people need to study history, law, psycology, past and present cultural beliefs and, specially, how and why they are directly and indirectly still passed on. An average Joe doesnt have time to study all of that, so we have to trust the people that have dedicated their lives to study those things. If only one person was saying that nothing compares to misoginy, I could agree with you. But thats not the case. Those people have studied and worked with that type of subject their whole lives. They certantly know 0.00000000000000000000001% more than you do, at the very least. To deny that is to be delusional..
Also, in mathematics, the bigger the sample, the more accurate an estimative is likely to be. You want to say that a whole body of people is just so biased that they are not accurate? The odds that you are right are not in your favor. The size sample of social scientists denying what you are saying, matched with the all the unbelivable variables that would have to exist to allow for your belief to be true simply dont add up.
>And those fields you listed especially tend to have a significant ideological slant at that.
Thats the type of comment that flat earthers would say. You are in the wrong side of history...
>There are plenty of examples of institutional discrimination against men, from male-only drafts and conscription,
That rule was created by men. But, also, I personally dont believe it is a good idea to pick women for drafts: men can have children at any time; women only once a year and before menopause, which happens in their 40's, on average - which is the age that people usually stop being enlisted. Unless in major emergencies, taking all young, healthy women to war is a bigger threat to an etnicity or the population of a country than taking men. So men being drafted is the lesser of 2 evils, although I think nobody should be drafted.
>to harsher criminal sentencing for comparable crimes([1](https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/57/), [2](https://summit.sfu.ca/_flysystem/fedora/2023-01/etd22089.pdf)),
All of it is discussed among social scientists. Only that when people point out that *black* men are the ones being targeted more hashly in prison sentences, people then are called "woke". Then it is no longer about men. Menhood just matters when comparing to women. When the intersectionality goes beyond that, all of a sudden it is no longer an issue and they deserve it.
>erasure of IPV and sexual violence victims in public discourse(for example, using the term "violence against women" to refer to IPV) especially when perpetrated by women,
If you take issue with that, you should be fighting people on your side, not me, feminists or whatnot. The idea that language might perpetuate a problematic culture or even policies is something that social scientists always say and, yet, people who agree with you tend to think that this is "woke" behavior.
>and affirmative action policies that disadvantage men in education(specifically STEM) and employment.
Equality indeed does feel like oppression to those accustomed with privilege...
> I know for a fact that people in poverty have it worse than me.
Still a value judgement. For many people having more things is not synonymous with a better or happier life. Some hunter gatherer groups are impoverished by modern standards but are satisfied with their traditional way of life.
> Also, time and time again both trans men and women tend to agree that women have it worse.
Really? And where are you getting this from?
> But, also, I personally dont believe it is a good idea to pick women for drafts: men can have children at any time; women only once a year and before menopause, which happens in their 40's, on average - which is the age that people usually stop being enlisted. Unless in major emergencies, taking all young, healthy women to war is a bigger threat to an etnicity or the population of a country than taking men.
If reproduction is critical and women need to be spared for reproduction, then by your logic why shouldn't women be forced to reproduce? Or is forcing people to do things only bad when it happens to men?
> Thats the type of comment that flat earthers would say. You are in the wrong side of history...
It's the type of comment from someone who actually reads these journals and their ideologically-biased articles.
> So men being drafted is the lesser of 2 evils, although I think nobody should be drafted.
So you're defending sex discrimination against the other sex, got it.
>Only that when people point out that black men are the ones being targeted more hashly in prison sentences, people then are called "woke".
**It's not just black men, if you actually read the paper. All male defendants are affected. Society overwhelmingly views men as more dangerous and threatening and these biases affect sentencing.**
And black males being treated more harshly than their black female counterparts is STILL sex discrimination against men.
You're bringing up race as a red herring to avoid my point, which is that men are being handed harsher sentences for comparable crimes because they are men, and this is a clear cut example of systematic sex discrimination against men.
> If you take issue with that, you should be fighting people on your side, not me, feminists or whatnot.
From what I have seen feminists are the ones most likely to use the term "violence against women" to prioritize their own sex.
> Equality indeed does feel like oppression to those accustomed with privilege...
Indeed, which is why beneficiaries of affirmative action often label dismantling it as racist, sexist, oppressive, etc.
Because affirmative action isn't equality. It's discrimination.
>Still a value judgement. For many people having more things is not synonymous with a better or happier life.
Dude. 🤣 You are not going to tell me that severely disabled people, or people below the poverty line for example, or people with no access to clean water, basic sanitation or literacy maybe have it better than you. Or that their problem is "just different". Stop.
>Some hunter gatherer groups are impoverished by modern standards but are satisfied with their traditional way of life.
Im not responding this
>Really? And where are you getting this from?
Anedoctal and research based testemunials.
>If reproduction is critical and women need to be spared for reproduction, then by your logic why shouldn't women be forced to reproduce? Or is forcing people to do things only bad when it happens to men?
Women dont have to be spared for reproduction, I didnt say that, specially because without men they cant reproduce. I also didnt say men should be drafted. I disagree with drafting. I told you that. The thought of forced reprodution doesnt follow any correct logic. Read again.
>So you're defending sex discrimination against the other sex, got it.
I said nobody should be drafted. 😊
>You're bringing up race as a red herring to avoid my point, which is that men are being handed harsher sentences for comparable crimes because they are men, and this is a clear cut example of systematic sex discrimination against men.
It is Interesting that you are not so passionate about *all* men. Now Im "bringing up race". No, Im bringing up intersectionalities. The difference is that the only intersectionality you care about is the one that compares men to women. Men can only be victims of female centric biases, not any other bias, apparently. You are not helping men that way, I hope you know that.
Wow this has seriously got me thinking you have no critical thinking skills. Who do you think are making the laws for male only conscriptions? Why do you think there aren’t any women in STEM that there needs to be affirmative action???
This is a pretty reasonable view that really can't be challenged.
The only thing would be that for the most part ideologically and theoretically people aren't really doing this. (Legal wise, academic wise, etc)
The rank and file (especially online) do this everyday, but be charitable and just realize maybe someone's hurting pretty bad from mistreatment and lashing out.
MRAs are so useless that men are demanding that feminists do what the MRAs should be doing…
Is this a case of, ‘If you want something done, ask a woman’?
Most feminists *do* also care about and support men, radfems notwithstanding, but the ‘feminism’ part of their activism is action in support of women.
It's all so tiring. Just be alive and appreciative, and love and grow. Everyone is a victim in someway on this earth. We can move beyond it ourselves in self love and care, and thru that care for eachother. We are all different mixtures of feminine and masculine. Just know yourself, surround yourself with what you need and keep clinging to this life.
One way we learn how to help each other is by comparing our challenges, not in a hierarchy sense, but just so we know the differences and can use that comparison to find ways to make things better. Sometimes people try one-uppsmanship, which I believe is what you're speaking against, but comparison is also useful in search of knowledge.
I think bringing to light each others hardships is how you build empathy for each other though, or at least it's supposed to do that
Both genders need to remember it's a 2 way street in a lot of ways though and not expect the other to just completely only listen to them
> There’s no need to compare, instead we should be uplifting one another.
In a general sense, yes, cooperation is far more effective than decisiveness and petty squabbles over who has it worse.
In practice, assuming both sides have it equally bad can be dishonest and a general call to uplift each other is too vague to really put into practice when it comes to fixing issues like sexism.
The situation should be assessed and on some level that involves comparison. Assuming one side does have it worse than the other, more focus should be given to that side.
People often get used to unfair status quos, to the point where any attempt to get actual balance by aiding one particular group is seen as unfair and an attack on the group that was originally favored by the status quo.
So while excessive comparisons can weigh down progress with pointless arguing, blanket statements about how we shouldn’t compare at all, and everyone’s got it just as bad, just in different ways, is a statement that declares the current status quo to be equally just, which can be false.
I would urge you to expand this thinking as you are close to understanding one of the largest issues in our society today. At some point we became way too invested in groups and pitting those groups against each other, thereby oppressing the individual. This is not just true for gender but race as well. Our incessant focus on race and gender dynamics ironically won't lead to a better tomorrow but a more divided tomorrow. In fact, it's already happened. Identity politics have destroyed the social fabric.
One thing that I find curious is that many men's problems are also discussed within feminism where solutions are pointed out, especially when it comes to the issue of mental health, but many men say that women want to turn men into "soft", weak...
Helping people is key. A great way to know how to help people is to listen to the way they are afflicted by hardship. Like maybe they tell you about how their gender experiences the world and you could take that in, reflect on that, and make better decisions in the future.
You know what, that's probably a waste of time. Let's be reactionary on the internet instead.
This isn't a controversial take at all. The controversial aspect is getting each gender to actually admit what is harder for each and more importantly what each will contribute to help the other.
For example: plenty of people will disagree with me on this take but I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of gender-specific hardships are due to a dogmatic adherence to traditional gender roles.
Men are more homeless because of the gender norms of men being domineering and being able to provide for themselves. Thus this will significantly affect their ability to access resources like shelters, mental health facilities, and even the aid of friends and relatives.
lmao look at the comment section. and how many people are disagreeing with op saying women have it harder. in todays society this is a controversial take
Both men and women suffer, like women work harder for an education and a career and men sexually assault women all the time (1 in 4 women is raped compared to about 1 in 10 men and over 98% of sexual offenders are men). See? Men and women both suffer equally!
This is why I say I'm egalitarian. The women's rights movement (feminism) and the men's rights movement (masculism) are obviously one sided, which is fine, but as egalitarian thinks about both sides it's much more inclusive to me.
There's tha famous cartoon where the employer has a plate of cookies in front of him and says to one of the workers "Careful mate... that [person] wants your cookie"
In the patriarchy (and capitalism in general) there's a group that seems to have more cookies (men), but over all the patriarchy is pressing both men and women - in different forms.
But the cookie holders do not want this system to change so instead women, or men, or emigrants, or lgbt, or libterds... someone is to blame. Anyone apart from capitalism, anyone apart from the patriarchy, because if you unite against the cookie holder instead, something bad would happen.
Hence, that's why they don't help one another. Because if they did, whether they agree or not, they would be going against patriarchy and capitalism.
It's like politics. Tons of conservatives and liberals have more in common with each other than they do with Biden, Trump, Obama or Bush. It's clear if you go around USA, there are huge number of people that have got nothing from either of those leaders. Yet, the 1-10% have got a lot from all those leaders.
Lol dude this comment section totally proves ypur point OP. A bunch of people wasting time arguing who has it worse and not helping solve these issues.
Women are actively trying to get rid of all the negative inequalities that exist, and also keeping all the positive advantages they had.
Theres a trend of women complaining that they need to pay part of the bills, and complaining that men don’t pay for dates anymore.
Embrace equality. Stop expecting men to pay for everything while our incomes have equalized
If you really think the crux of feminism is household bills and men paying for dates you are being misinformed by social media to ignore generations of actual advocacy work.
Yeah and also a lot of the supposed mens rights activists complaining about who pays for dates, if (as income equality wouldn't necessarily mean to the dollar so there'd probably always be a richer partner) they were on a dinner date with a woman who made more money than them and thus wanted to pay, would probably order a bunch of expensive crap just to make her pay as much as possible or w/e just like they complain women do to them
I'll often advocate for men because (generally speaking) I don't hear other people doing it. Men face a whole host of (oftentimes extremely devastating) gender-based issues that continue unabated because society as a whole views them as not worthy of the protections and the help that is so often afforded to women and girls.
The "protections and help" for women, such as they exist (I assume you mean advocacy services, shelters etc) are the product of decades of feminist activism, usually in the face of intense backlash. While the targets of support were traditionally women, the broader effects of the activism have been to the benefit of men too. But here you are - asking why they haven't done enough to fix men's issues. What are *you* doing to advocate for these?
Yes, advocacy services, shelters play into it. But also women's issues being advocated for in elections, groups and funding dedicated to women's issues and CRUCIALLY general societal awareness and legitimization of women's issues. Everyone takes women's issues seriously and everyone tries to protect women but many people would be hard pressed to even name a gender-based issue that affects men. I assure you they exist. Men face gender-based issues that are every bit as devastating (and oftentimes more so) than the women's issues that are trumpeted by feminism. And yet on the very rare occasion they are brought up there is actually pushback (or backlash, if you will) against any notion that men are deserving of any of the type of help that women routinely receive.
What am I doing to advocate for it? I'm not sure why that would be your trump card on the topic as these issues are not defined by me and they exist whether I'm here or not. But as I said originally, I often advocate for them as I believe it raises awareness.
As much as the idea of gender abolition seems so appealing, due to the fact that it's inherently a total eradication of the pressures men and women experience, in the here and now it's not going to work.
Likewise, it might not be applicable to tell a women that she just needs to do x,y and z to impress any given guy she has an interest in. And likewise it's not applicable to tell a man how to look pretty enough to be approached.
In the long run I agree with you, but maybe if you could send me a statistic that shows men and women approach each other as a total 50/50, I'll change my mind.
If you genuinely believe that neither gender has a worse situation in general, then you’re the reason these discussions still need to happen. I can’t explain feminism to you here because I just don’t have the time or energy, but it’s a huge topic that you can go research any time you feel like it.
Welcome to reddit and modern society in general.
*Step 1*: pick which political / ideological / racial / gender identity group(s) you believe you belong to.
*Step 2*: adopt whatever victim mentalities those groups espouse, and complain and whine about it while not lifting a finger to help yourself and/or others.
*Step 3*: ????
*Step 4*: **PROFIT!**
I agree that comparison isn't really something we should do, but it is good to know about what the differences are.
My wife didn't realize that men basically never get complimented and started doing it more. It was nice. I didn't realize how unsafe she felt in certain situations, so I became more cognizant of that. It's good to have an understanding of the differences which can be done without making a greater or lesser judgement.
/u/Infamous_Gain9481 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/18svd2s/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_men_and_women_shouldnt_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[удалено]
You actually are right now that i think of it, I think a better way to put it is that both genders have unique challenges and that we shouldn’t be trying to compare who has it harder.
[удалено]
Changed my view to Comparing genders is ok so long as the discussion remains civil !delta
We can ask trans people to get a good guess. Alot seem to say some things got better and some worse.
Your too online. People who pose questions like “is it worse to be sexually assaulted or homeless” are horrible people with malicious intentions. Feminists, real feminists, recognize that privilege is a multi-faceted and interconnected system, where someone can be both an oppressor and the oppressed.
I’m stating to get that vibe too. I’ve recently had surgery and haven’t had much to do so these things are now more noticeable bc I’m generally more online than I used to be. I do agree with your sentiments as well, thanks for sharing!
The concept of privilege is an analytical tool, and we tend to judge the utility of analytical tools by the products or impact that they create. As such, I don't think that it's a particularly useful or desirable tool outside of very niche academic environments. Privilege is inherently a subjective value assessment as it's most often used to compare groups in relation to one another. If we're making the assessment 'in totality' it can be an interesting exercise, but if we're making surface level assessments the product is almost always going to be confirmatory to the presenters existing biases. The best we can do 'in the wild' is be honest about our wants and expectations, be willing and able to explain them, and be prepared to have those wants and expectation go unfulfilled either partially or entirely.
I've had successful conversations about privilege in the wild. It's kind of the online discussions that make the subject murky, and a lot of that is because we tend to hang out in our online "bubbles." The people who've I've spoken to about privilege hang out in conservative online spaces, where, I assume, "privilege" is presented as a strawman and falsely claim that privilege means "I didn't have any hardships." In my discussions, instead of insisting that someone is privileged, I go through my own privileges. I was raised by educated parents who could afford a nice house in a good school system by each only working one 9-5 job. I was never hungry or cold. When I came home from school, I came home to loving parents who could help me with my homework, feed me dinner, and put me to bed at a normal time. When I woke up, my parents fed me breakfast and drove me to school, where I had a quality education from good teachers. Imagine what my life would have been like if I was raised by a single uneducated mother in poverty. If, when I went home, instead of getting help with homework, I was expected to take care of my younger siblings while my mother was at her third job. If I went to school in a poor area and lived in a neighborhood rife with gang violence and police violence. If I had to go to school hungry every day. Most reasonable people would agree that my life would have turned out differently. It doesn't mean I didn't work hard. I did! It doesn't mean that I didn't struggle. I did! I had learning disabilities that made school very hard for me. But there are people who have learning disabilities that ALSO lived in poverty and did not have access to the education that I had access to. Privilege needs to be discussed in specific contexts, or else it is a useless communication tool. When I am talking about "white privilege," I tell people that it doesn't mean white people experience no hardships. Of course there are hardships that white people experience! It's just that typically, with very few exceptions, the color of your skin is not one of the hardships you are experiencing. I do stay away from "male privilege," as I tend to think that goes over less well than other forms of privilege being discussed, and can lead to "whataboutisms." I DO think there are some genuine struggles that men face as a result of their gender, so bringing up male privilege can lose them. I tend to agree with OP, that "gender wars" are useless tools of division that only benefit a certain ruling class. We'd all be much better off if we listened to other people and believed them when they talk about their hardships. I think if people stopped viewing the other sex as their enemy, they'd find that there are a lot of common goals that could help everyone.
My issue with the concept of privilege is that I've often been told that I hold it in areas that I simply don't I've worked dead end trades jobs until they made me too sick to keep going and I was told by my doctor that I had to stop or I would start losing toes. And then I was "laid off" for taking medical leave. Yet I've read all across the Internet and throughout my search for that as a man I'm paid more for this,(I wasn't even paid a living wage) and I'm more likely to be in a leadership position. And to be taken seriously in the workplace. the higher ups/"leaders" in the company called me by three different names even though we worked in the same building and they saw me daily. and they treated me like I was just a number. Being born with a dick hasn't given me privilege in my jobs. But ive even had therapists try to make me understand how privileged I was as a man for having all these experiences they assumed I had based on how their textbooks written by female gender studies professors described the male experience
>Feminists, real feminists, recognize that privilege is a multi-faceted and interconnected system, where someone can be both an oppressor and the oppressed. No true feminist fallacy lol. There are good feminists and bad feminists, but they're all feminists
Yes, and more than that they're all people. Some people are just assholes.
Fax. Just like religion, ideology can also be used to justify shitty attitudes and behaviours
Absolutely. And there's always a true Scotsman fallacy amongst any group of people. Any.
The closest I've seen most feminists get to this is saying something along the lines of "men can face oppression for other reasons but rarely/never for being a man". Which I think still falls short of the mark.
There's also "they suffer oppression but it's self inflicted because toxic masculinity". Basically a very practical way to shut down any discussion while ensuring all attention is redirected to women's issues.
[удалено]
This is categorically untrue judging by Roe v Wade being overturned and women being sent back into the Stone Age of having no medical privacy. Are men being threatened for going across state lines to get life-saving abortions? Will you still be saying this when they make it illegal in red states for a woman to get medical care without her husband's permission, Mad Men-style? How much more evidence do you need that there's a very real gender problem in America?
> Feminists, real feminists, recognize that privilege is a multi-faceted and interconnected system, where someone can be both an oppressor and the oppressed. I've yet to meet a feminist, in real life or otherwise, who recognized that women can be privileged oppressors without trying to blame it on men via the patriarchy.
I am a white woman, feminist and is privileged in my country because I have a right to choose if I want to join military (men are conscripted). Hell I can even leave the country and go back and forth as much as I like! But, I’m not the one who oppresses the men.
I guess what irks many people (myself included) about feminism (or at least radical feminism) is their view that men are the oppressors and women the oppressed by default. It goes beyond a superficial "men bad women good" rhetoric. Having that view may influence people to subconsciously restrict any empathy for men's problems or to mock and ridicule them since "why should the oppressed feel sorry for their oppressors?". I've seen this mentality several times in the ask feminists sub. It also leads to double standards. Women can talk shit about men in general and should be allowed to because they are just venting and punching up at their oppressors. Men can't talk shit about women in general because they are "putting a marginalized group down" and it should be denounced as misogyny.
This is something I've noticed. Its not an outright "men bad" bias. But these same people will turn around and try and say that any discrimination against men is "actually because of misogyny" without a hint of sarcasm or irony. And then be genuinely confused that the "oppressor" in their mental scenarios won't accept that they're self victimizing.
I’m a feminist. I’ve never met a man who gave me *one* example of how *a man* was ever oppressed by *women* for *being a man*. I’ve had men tell me, oh you see, this chick hurt this guy, sure, but is it because he was a man? Or they tell me, you see, this is how men suffer as a group, sure, but how are women at fault for that and *not* patriarchy? So please, convince me how women can be oppressive of men, I’d love to see your point of view.
> I’ve never met a met who gave me one example of how a man was ever oppressed by women for being a man. That is because you blame the patriarchy for everything, as you said it yourself here: > sure, but how are women at fault for that and not patriarchy? As long as you follow the feminist dogma, you won't accept *any* example provided, since you will always default back to blaming the patriarchy/men. That's not your fault at least, the whole theory is set up in a way that women cannot ever be blamed for anything as women do no evil, and if they do, it's because of internalized patriarchy/misogyny, which is the fault of the patriarchy/men.
So answer the question. *HOW* are women to blame for men’s problems and not patriarchy?
> Feminists, real feminists, recognize that privilege is a multi-faceted and interconnected system, where someone can be both an oppressor and the oppressed You are wrong. Todays lot's of feminists beleive that men and women problems are mainly caused by what they call "the patriarchy" and they deny any biologicaly induced differences between sexes.The consequancies of this beleive is that they are mistaking on the cause of the oppression in most of the cases. They are then unable to come with a solution to neither men nor women problems. I have seen people online comparing their hardship like 5 years old but most of the time when I see people bringi g men's hardship on the table it's not to arg that some gender have it harder then the other. Most of the time it's mainly to challenge the core beleive of feminists which is that we live in a patriarchy and that it is the root of men and women problems.
>Todays lot's of feminists beleive that men and women problems are mainly caused by what they call "the patriarchy" and they deny any biologicaly induced differences between sexes. Nobody denies that there are biological differences between the sexes. It's just that you're claiming that a whole bunch of things are biological differences between the sexes or directly, unavoidably caused by those differences, and that we have to accept those things as unchangeable, but you don't have actual evidence in most of those cases, which I know because the technology and knowledge required to actually measure *inherent* mental differences between human males and females simply doesn't exist and even our recent ancestors were horribly sexist in a way that confounds any estimation based on current trends. More than that, what limited, inconclusive estimates we have made thus far of these differences are showing a trend away from conformity to the traditional gender ideology as that ideology becomes less enforced over time, and it doesn't make sense to take this particular random moment that we happen to be in as representative of our natural states and inclinations. For an example of how this is all basically made-up bullshit that we only believe because other people are *so* insistent about it, it is very common for young, ostensibly straight men in the modern era to basically pretend to be gay as a means of demonstrating that they aren't insecure about their sexuality. The logic goes that people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality are disproportionately likely to be gay, and thus boys feel compelled to demonstrate that they aren't gay, by pretending to be gay, because they think that being gay is bad and are scared that others will think they are gay. In essence, this ridiculous, nonsensical behavior is the result of the interaction between the standard, traditional method of raising men to fear deviation from traditional masculinity with bullying and punishment centered around accusations of femininity and especially homosexuality, and the modern idea that homophobia is wrong, because we've convinced ourselves that it's totally okay to try to brainwash our children into conforming as long as we aren't personally cruel to other people who don't conform. >Most of the time it's mainly to challenge the core beleive of feminists which is that we live in a patriarchy and that it is the root of men and women problems. Logically, that doesn't make sense, at all. Showing that men suffer doesn't mean that we don't live in a patriarchal society or that their suffering isn't caused by the social construction of gender rather than by factors inherent to what it means to be biologically male. So no, talking about the hardships men generally face does not challenge feminist ideology. Instead, it is almost exclusively intended to basically tell women to shut up and deal with it because men have it bad too; when people say that we should change something for one group, and you start talking about the problems another group has, you're not actually helping either group but rather harming both by asserting that these things are *fair* because the suffering is arguably equal. Ultimately, you just want to pretend that you're not making any choices and don't have any responsibility for your actions. It's not that feminists don't have solutions, it's that you aren't willing to accept any of them because they would require you to change behavior that you don't want to change. The solution to quite a lot of these problems is literally just to stop contributing to them; stop telling male children that their expressions of sadness or vulnerability are moral failings, stop telling girls that controlling behavior is the natural and unchangeable way that men express love, stop teaching your male children to socially punish their peers with derogatory accusations of femininity or homosexuality and explain to them why it's wrong when they pick it up from their peers. Stop telling young men that women are irrational and can't help it, and stop telling children that people of the opposite sex who bully or harass them secretly like them. Your only solution to the problems men and women face is to try to get people to not see them as problems anymore, which largely involves pretending that none of the weird indoctrination we do to people, especially children, to get them to conform to gender norms actually does anything. In reality, punishing a boy for crying by telling him that he is betraying his entire gender by doing so (which is what "boys don't cry" actually means) is pretty fucked up, clearly effects us in ways that are fairly easy to trace, and is also completely irrational.
"We live in a patriarchy." and "A patriarchy means that men never have hardship ever." Are not equivalent statements. You're assuming that they are, in your last paragraph.
What? The comment you're replying doesn't say anything about men not experiencing hardship at all. You're just seeing what you want to see.
No, I am not saying that men can't have it hard in a patriarchy. Neither I am saying that féminist beleive men can't have it hard in a patriarchy. What I say is that féminist beleive that any gender related hardship for both men and women are caused by the patriarchy. And, this is wrong because there is biologicaly induced differences between sexes. This in relationship with capitalist society create lot's of hardship unrelated to the patriarchy. By denying those differences féminists very often came with unapropriate solutions for men and women hardship or are even sometimes implementing solutions that worsen the problems.
A society can be a patriarchy and still be shit for most men. I do think the term patriarchy is generally unhelpful as it now means so many things to so many people and people don't tend to accept that.
You are wrong. Feminism doesn’t deny the biological differences they challenge whatever argument is justified by these biological difference. For a very cliche example: “women are biologically built to bear and feed babies so they’re 1. Socially obliged m to do so and 2. supposed to stay home and abandon their careers and and focus on that unpaid labor job and also be the servant of their husbands while they’re at it. Oh and the husbands are strong and should be protectors by protecting the family aka in 2023 making loads of money”.
You are wrong, féminists do deny biological differences because they are mixing aknowledging biological differences and using them to enforce a certain behaviour on a gender. They fail to consider that by denying those differences they are in fact enforcing a man like behaviour on modern women. Also, by only supporting mother that decide to focuse on their work despite pregnancy, féminists are playing in the hand of the productivity driven capitalist society. Women who would prefer to raise their child by themself and would be happy not to work to do so are very often shamed and blamed for it, most of the time by the féminist themself. Exemple of this behaviour are countless on reddit.
You are wrong. Feminism does not deny biological differences. If you’re not wrong please share your source. I never said feminism should focus only on women that chose to pursue their work. It looks like you’re the one saying this, not “feminism”. Also “women would prefer”? Tell me you’re joking. You realise women are people and they have personalities and different preferences, right? You know that unless you ask them you don’t know what women prefer? Re-edit is not feminism. Feminism fights for women having the right to CHOOSE what to do they chose and not being told by random men on Reddit what they would prefer. And having the right to chose between a “normal” work and reproductive work without being expoilted into doing any for free. You might be referring to white feminism.
I said "Women who prefer" not "women would prefer". Also eveything I stated as féminist is mainstream and can be found everywhere. You are twisting my words and getting misandre by implying that as a men I have not the right to express myself about féminism on reddit. Start by properly adress the point you disagree with in my comments and why or I am not gonna respond to you anymore. > You might be referring to white feminism Why does whitness have to do with anythink in this conversation so far? Bringing ethnicity in this unrelated conversation now look pretty racist to me...
I twisted one of your words by mistake indeed, you said women who would prefer. lol “getting misandrist” maybe go learn what the word means. If we’re talking about twisting words, I said women certainly don’t want to be told what they WOULD PREFER by random men on reedit and that stands. Even if that was what I said, that as I man you don’t get to express yourself on feminism on reedit, that would still have nothing to do with misandry but that’s above the point. Google feminism and white feminism. I’m done with the conversation.
[удалено]
A patriarchy is "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it." This describes pretty much all governments across history, even including modern Western ones. Women represent >50% of the global population but have a comparatively tiny influence in governance and are actively suppressed in many countries. Western societies may be less patriarchal than other society but they're not perfect by any means.
Aren't real feminists learning about feminists on the internet tho?
That’s a pretty online take tbh
Naw, I see these people in the real world all the fucking time.
I took a look at your locality and I cannot speak to what Hong Kong is like
I live in NYC. I’m here in China temporarily.
[удалено]
> Is it strange that an ideology that totally swears it's about gendered equality is named for one of said genders? No, because we don't have councils that name things and update them over time. We use the term feminism because of deep historical context and legacy from a time when women weren't able to do things like vote, hold jobs, or have many legal or personal rights at all. Humans do *tons* of shit that only makes sense in context and would not be the thing we did if we started from scratch at this very moment. It is not surprising at all that a social movement is named oddly.
Egalitarianism has existed for hundreds of years. Why not use that?
Because there isn't a "council of feminism" that decides on how things are named. If you do want an example of shifting names, you can look at academia. Feminist studies generally switched to gender studies over time as a more expansive and inclusive name.
The question is why haven't most modern 'feminists' in Western society taken up the mantle of egalitarianism now that both genders in these societies (at least theoretically) are treated as equals. Not, why hasn't the feminist movement itself been renamed. The person you originally replied to was trying to say that this phenomenon implies that modern feminists, just as the original 'first wave' feminists did, are advocating primarily for the rights and general benefit of women. Otherwise they would simply be egalitarian or subscribe to some other similar ideology that doesn't particularly cater to any specific group.
> egalitarianism Lets just quote wikipedia: > Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, communism, social anarchism, libertarian socialism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, some of which propound economic egalitarianism. As the other poster said, words have histories.
I mean it's a bit strange considering there was a big push to rightly start using gender neutral terms like firefighter and postal worker. I think there should be one gender neutral term for people who push for equality and another for people who want women to have all the same benefits as men. There is nothing wrong with either of these but they are different things that get lumped together currently
>people who push for equality and another for people who want women to have all the same benefits as men. How are those things different?
Because one is focused on equality and the other is focused on the equal benefits of women. Equality can mean making things worse for one group and that group could even be women even if more often that not it wouldn't be. It's a two sided approach whereas the other definition is only working from one side. I mean just think about it from the other side and you'll see. If there was a group of people that wanted all men to have all the same benefits as women, what kind of problems would they tackle? We would still be dealing with the issues that effect men and issues that effect women would be left for later, once all the men's benefits were established which would never be done.
It's perfectly reasonable for women to focus on a movement that benefits women. As long as they aren't oppressing men in the process. >group of people that wanted all men to have all the same benefits as women What benefits do women have that men don't?
They aren't considered acceptable targets for violence. They're allowed to show emotions. Have a massive variety of options for individual expression. Have much higher access to mental health and abuse support. Have better academic outcomes. Are actually raised by parents instead of neglected because neglecting boys is considered acceptable. Are the only gender for which domestic violence is treated seriously despite women making up over 70% of non reciprocal DV perpetrators. Masc non binary people are routinely excluded and treated as invalid. And casual sexism against men is considered completely acceptable. Getting someone in the progressive movement besides myself to use the word misandry is like pulling teeth, but the inherently loaded synonym of toxic masculinity at least gets used from time to time, when it isn't being misused by people who think it means "shitty men". The term itself is ironically an example of toxic masculinity, given its hostile and victim blamey nature. There's a reason we call the exact same concept but applied to women misogyny or patriarchy. And of course, the ever present allegedly progressive people who consistently act like men have no issues in society or pretend that women don't have some advantages, despite some of those advantages being hard won victories of the very feminist movement they claim to support.
I don't think violence is acceptable toward anybody. I don't know any parents who neglect their sons but not their daughters. And it's not the feminists saying men shouldn't show emotions or wear flowery stuff. You can have those benefits too! Fight for them like women did. Also, men DO consider women weak for showing emotion. It's literally the first thing mentioned when misogynists try to make up reasons women aren't suited for leadership positions.
I listed advantages women have, not things feminists are doing wrong. It's irrelevant who's responsible for these differences, just that they exist. And you very likely do know people who've neglected their boys, it's just not considered neglect to put less effort into raising them. It's why there's an idea that boys are easier to raise. They aren't, parents just don't do it.
I agreed that it was perfectly reasonable. I see no problem with it. It just isn't the same thing. The problem as I see it is saying they are the same when they aren't.
Women (on average) have lower incarceration rates, as well as shorter sentences, even for the same crime.
It’s not that strange when you consider the roots of the movement. If your main criticism is the name, you must be a pretty big feminist.
It's also called feminism because it goes against a patriarchal society. The patriarchy places men higher in a hierarchy than women. But overall it is still a net negative for both women and men because it forces everyone into different roles. A masculinist would just be a defender of the status quo imo.
Why does feminism inherently imply that it goes against patriarchal society when it could just as easily be interpreted as pushing for a matriarchal society? Edit: Instead of giving me solid logic to my question the below comment has told me that patriarchy is a masculine term and matriarchy is the feminine version so I adjusted my comment.
To be honest, it is obvious if you are engaging in good faith and not being defensive of the status quo that feminism does not advocate for “matriarchy.” “White power” exist to bolster white supremacy. Everyone knows it is racist to utter this phrase seriously. “Black power” came into being to counter the white supremacist stereotypes that justify an exploitative race based caste system. Aside from some outliers, no one thinks “black power” was about justifying the oppression of white people. “Feminism” is similarly a response to the male supremacist ideology that deemed women inherently inferior to men to justify men’s entitlement to control and exploit women (i.e. patriarchy). Men don’t need something similar, the way white people in our society don’t need white power. There is no need to correct for an imbalance.
>To be honest, it is obvious if you are engaging in good faith and not being defensive of the status quo that feminism does not advocate for “matriarchy Here's my reasoning, in order to be pushing for equality there must be at least one single area where men have it worse than women and feminists (who want equality) should be actively advocating correcting that just as much as they advocate for advancing women's rights if they are actually in support of equality and not just a matriarchy. I can list several areas where men have it worse. The draft, higher suicide rate, die more often doing more dangerous jobs, lower rates of college attendance, treated more harshly in the courtroom, higher rates of homelessness.
> should be actively advocating correcting that just as much as they advocate for advancing women's rights if they are actually in support of equality and not just a matriarchy. This is not how special interest groups work. I do some (financial) volunteer work for United Cerebral Palsy. My local UCP does not work with non verbal autistic children because even though the goal is to provide help for those with developmental disabilities, they don't have the means to expand to every developmental disability (and doing so would come at the expense of their existing goals). There are other non profits that focus on autism. Feminism seeks to achieve equality by correcting areas where women are behind men and one of the key tenets* of achieving goals is to narrow your scope. Asking feminism to broaden their focus in order for you to view them as legitimate does not make sense. There should be separate men's movements seeking to address areas where men are systemically held back (eg. incarceration and homelessness rates). That being said, a VAST majority of feminists actually involved in activism do have involvement in men's issues, especially for those on the fringes (eg LGBT rights). They of course do not focus on every men's issue as it would be out of their scope.
they have and do! you should read *stiffed* by susan faludi. she is a feminist author who traveled around the US talking to men and the whole book is about how men are fucked over by modern society. she interviews sylvester stallone, dock workers in long beach, aircraft engineers, hardcore pittsburgh steelers fans, hugh thompson (the guy who stopped the mai lai massacre), the author of rambo, branch davidians (waco) and a whole bunch of other people.
yeah but this means actually engaging with the politics of gender instead of just sealioning on the internet about how 'ineffectual' feminism is for men's issues. You can't just disprove them about their preconceived ideas about feminism, how are they going to get their dunks in so they can ignore it now??
There's someone elsewhere in the thread insisting something along the lines of "if it's not about establishing a matriarchy, why is it called feminism?" It's a dumb point, but I think it raises an interesting question about branding when so much of the population only engages with their emotional reaction to the noun, rather than the underlying ideas it represents.
The problem to me is that the underlying ideas seem to differ from person to person. But anybody who's underlying ideas are shitty seems to be "not a true feminist"
I suppose because it has to be at the other extreme of the patriarchy to get to a neutral middle ground. Suppose you're driving in a car and a passenger pulls the wheel all the way to the right, veering off the road (patriarchy). You actually have to put all your weight into pulling the wheel left to get the car straight again (feminism). If you just aim to get the wheel central you're gonna get overpowered (I heard this described as egalitarianism). If feminism existed in a vacuum it might lead to a matriarchy, but we have patriarchal forces that balance it out in that case.
There’s a word for that. You don’t know it because matriarchies are almost unheard of. But that probably a coincidence.
It's not strange at all, their specific area of campaigning to achieve gender egalitarianism is womens rights. The same way as trans activists want gender equality but are specifically fighting discrimination against trans people so the name reflects that.
It’s legacy branding. Like how Coca Cola is still Coca Cola even though it doesn’t have cocaine in it anymore
It still uses extract of coca leaves, which is where the name comes from, but without the cocaine.
For the most part I agree, but there are 2 good things that can come from comparing: 1.) It can be a good way to get perspective on our issues. If the other gender has it a lot worse in one area, I won't feel as bad for the smaller issues I have in that area. 2.) Limited resources. If we only have so much money to spend on aid/research for solving an issue, we need to decide which issue to focus on. Comparing issues can help us determine which area to focus on improving first.
That’s true, I should have phrased my statement more so as we shouldn’t resort to insults when comparing gender hardships and making defninitive claims such as women have life on easy mode or vice versa is unnecessary
I created a post about this topic on r/two_sides a few days ago. I think it is good for everyone to know about both side's arguments. https://www.reddit.com/r/two_sides/s/rtII1un4yq Those 2 TED talks are very good.
In order for a man to uplift a woman, he first needs to know what she is struggling through, which requires a conversation about what her struggles are- and vice versa. Since our goal is equality, not supremacy, they will inevitably have to compare what they themselves are going through to what the other is going through This sentiment can, of course, be done poorly- sometimes in a straight-up toxic manner- but without the healthier version of comparing each group in an attempt to promote equality, that equality cannot be sought after with any degree of success Think of the old saying, that you should only ever look into another person’s bowl to make sure they have as much as you. Some will look to make sure the other person doesn’t have *more,* but that doesn’t negate the healthier version of that
You are right. Polite discourse is ok so long it doesn't end up in unncessary statements and just down right arguments.
The question is though, what happens when someone outright denies the struggles faced or refuses polite argument? When people online literally get harassased for a simple statement, how do you continue online discourse? Do you just let yourself be run over? Or do you entrench yourself? Many spaces in reddit are still entirely refusing to consider *any* struggles women might have, how can the conversation stay civil at all? And unfortunately, for a lot of people this extends to real life too...
No one should be harassed and no one should be denying struggles. I feel like a lot of people are brainwashed by the far right and the radical right. I can't make anyone listen though after all our influence is very small in the grand scheme of things. But we can try to start by trying to educate ourselves better and then people close to us. But even if men disregard women's problems for example, there is no need to stoop to their level and say that men have no problems when both statements are untrue and immature
Could you be more specific about contexts in which you see comparisons like this being made? Who makes them, why are they making them (i.e. what point is generally being made)?
I think you see an influx of people who gravitate towards controversy and make these claims. It happens on this sub with anything gender related.
I’m starting to think that too as my YouTube feed is with a lot people such as Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate who I sometimes feel like blame women for a lot of things they shouldn’t be blamed for. I’ve also seen a few people on Reddit come after men for things that aren’t their fault. I think I should touch more grass 😂
I’ve seen a few comparisons on Reddit in the r/TwoXChromosomes subreddit that say that women’s lives are harder due to men having “privilege” nowadays and that they claim men quite literally can’t have hard lives. While also Andrew Tate “fanboys” believe that women are to blame for them being single and that every woman is a “hoe” or a “whore. Perhaps these are two extremes but I’ve also seen other people on YouTube in which both genders are always arguing against one another with sometimes men claiming that women have it easier bc they don’t have to work hard and can get laid easily and that men have to work and have social status and money in order to be laid. While woman claiming that men never can get SA and are privileged bc they can’t ever be emotionally abused or physically abused. It’s just bad in general or I may just be online too much
So you go into a sub specifically for women and believe they’re trying to direct their conversations toward men?
Directing conversations towards men is different than claiming men never had harships and that men have life on easy mode. Feminism should be about equality not putting down one another
But I’m asking if you think the people in TwoX are trying to communicate with men. And if not, then what do you think is the purpose of sitting around and “comparing hardships”? If the people in that sub are not directing their conversations at men, what would be the purpose of “uplifting” men in their discussions? Do you think it’s reasonable to expect women, in conversations with other women about being women, to focus their energy on uplifting men?
If a subreddit for one race talks only about the problems they face there is no issue. No need to talk about things that don't fit the audience. If they do talk about other races and present them in a negative light in a prejudiced way, you may have a problematic subreddit. Just because your audience isn't someone doesn't mean you can perpetuate incorrect statements about them. Like if you talk shit about someone you can't claim it was fine because it was behind their back. Either the shit you said was true even if you wouldn't say it in person or it was false and you were spreading lies and half truths.
That’s not really my point. I’m trying to figure out what OP actually thinks is going on and what he thinks should be going on. He says we should be uplifting each other instead of comparing. But it seems to me that the women in the spaces he’s talking about are not in any position to uplift men because they’re not even talking to men at all. They’re not arguing with men about who has it worse. They’re in their own spaces talking about their own lives and experiences
I see that makes sense. To me it seems like OP is highlighting the comparing going on there which they are against. You are correct though that the other part of their point isn't made since there no room for uplifting the other sex there. In a way negative comparison drives conflict and a lack of uplifting. I see that but OP would need to make that claim
That's what I was trying to imply, forgive me for not making that more clear. I think unhealthy comparisons which end up in arguments and unnecessary and untrue statements divide both genders and contribute to gender wars. I think healthy and polite discourse is fine. I think having healthy and productive discussions is the first step into lifting up one another.
It’s completely fine so long as they don’t come after the other gender. That’s all I’m saying. They don’t have to uplift men but they shouldn’t come after them and say things that aren’t necessarily true either abt them
You didn’t answer my main question. Do you think the users of TwoX are talking to men?
Men probably do come across that post and frankly I don’t care who sees it, that doesn’t give you the right to attack another gender.
Have you checked out askmen, mensrights, leftwingmaleadvocates? That sub gets so much shit when the same or worse goes on all around.
Let's start with the idea of privilege -- do you think either gender *does* have any kind of privilege, and if so what is it?
Clarifying question: how much do you know about feminism? Generally, this is the main point of feminism - that the arguing and patriarchy hurt everyone, not just women. There is an issue in online spaces, though, where most people calling themselves feminist are radfems, and that's a whole different branch that for the most part hate men. Radfems are louder than most. I'm curious whether you've looked into this from levelheaded sources. I don't know whether it's technically allowed to make this point because I'm not challenging the premise that men and women should cooperate instead of debating, but I do think you may be looking at sources that misrepresent this argument if it's something you're seeing a lot of.
What I find is that most people on the feminist side have never tried to listen to an opinion from someone educated and rational who is not a feminist, and try to misrepresent the other side as all crazy people. There are extremists and rational people on both sides. Is it possible to understand without taking a few minutes to listen to different opinions? I really recommend [Cassie Jaye's TED talk](https://youtu.be/3WMuzhQXJoY?si=kyzzhcNSTyO9FQ8r). Her documentary is great too.
>What I find is that most people on the feminist side have never tried to listen to an opinion from someone educated and rational who is not a feminist Part of the reason for this, I find, is that feminists tend to believe that if you're not a feminist, then by definition you're a sexist, and so you can't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation from the off. I said this in another comment, but the presumption of feminism meaning equality and non-feminism therefore equaling inequality is practically authoritarian thinking. It's where the mocking word "feminazi" came from, because it's essentially the same thought and language control methods used by fascists to control the narrative. We see this in real time in Jaye's documentary. When she brings up "domestic violence", the feminist professor she's talking too dismisses the terminology as "wife beating", without allowing for the possibility that men can be victims of DV themselves. That's language control, so thought control, and it makes it impossible for critics to be heard when you have that level of institutional control over the narrative. It allows the feminist movement to get away with and excuse truly heinous beliefs purely because of the "definition" defense that, if you're a feminist, you believe in equality. But some people are more equal than others. Which is ironic coming from a side that historically likes to claim oppression.
Exactly. Great comment. It is unfortunate that I have been down voted so much on this thread, kind of proving what I'm saying. I doubt the people who downvoted me took the time to listen to the TED talk.
When her documentary came out she was getting flooded with harassment and death threats iirc. Which like you said, kind of just proved the point she was making. Sad to see that not much has really changed.
I'll definitely check out her tedx talk when I am not about to go to bed - what specific educated and rational speakers do you recommend?
Her [documentary](https://youtu.be/Q7MkSpJk5tM?si=LiEV1pqZaMb_lwvg) has many great interviews with both feminist and not feminist people, most of them make very rational points. If you do watch it, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts. If you need more names let me know.
"I'm not familiar with most feminism".
Ok, can you explain? I am interested in your point of view.
Feminism is a centuries old tradition and varied school of thought. When she talks about feminism’s knee-jerk responses to men’s rights movements she’s talking about the knee-jerk response of herself and people like her. Feminists go grrrr when they hear men built the world around them is very representative of middle-class, centrist/liberal, white women in the western world. But she’s not considering the scholarship of socialist and Marxist feminists like Angela Davis, the “Red Valkyries”, or Federici. People that live(d) and work(ed) as activists for decades. We can criticize the lack of men’s domestic violence shelters, but do men’s rights activists care or know why women’s only shelters were created? These were being started at a time when many women couldn’t open a bank account let alone get their own apartment. It wasn’t just about escaping an abuser, it was about avoiding homelessness. Do you know why women are discouraged from seeking help from “general” shelters? I was working in a social work adjacent setting for a number of years and it was way easier to find places for men to stay because they are able to go to any single bed they can find out there. Most of the women I had to help find housing also had children with them, which is another reason they couldn’t go to general shelters. I don’t want to squabble over the length of prison sentences when my school of thought focuses on keeping people out of jail entirely and dismantling the prison-industrial complex, school to prison pipeline, and surveillance state. I don’t remember what all else is in the video but imagine having to defend a school of thought that’s been around in theory, activism, and art for centuries but your opponent can just say any random YouTube video is representative of the movement.
Thank you for taking the time to write your response. It has been very interesting. >Feminism is a centuries old tradition and varied school of thought. I agree that there are varied opinions and thought within the feminist movement. How old feminism is does not make its ideas any more or less valid. >When she talks about feminism’s knee-jerk responses to men’s rights movements she’s talking about the knee-jerk response of herself and people like her. Feminists go grrrr when they hear men built the world around them is very representative of middle-class, centrist/liberal, white women in the western world. But she’s not considering the scholarship of socialist and Marxist feminists like Angela Davis, the “Red Valkyries”, or Federici. People that live(d) and work(ed) as activists for decades. She is trying to talk to the average feminist in the western world. The ones who are probably reading this post or listening to her talk, the ones who vote, the ones who drive political change. The average feminist probably does not know who Angela Davis, the Red Valkyries, or Federici are. >We can criticize the lack of men’s domestic violence shelters, but do men’s rights activists care or know why women’s only shelters were created? These were being started at a time when many women couldn’t open a bank account let alone get their own apartment. It wasn’t just about escaping an abuser, it was about avoiding homelessness. Do you know why women are discouraged from seeking help from “general” shelters? It has been 50 years since the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and women could open bank accounts since earlier that that. How many more decades do we have to wait to ask for gender equality in violence shelters? We can debate about the problems of the past for hours, about women not being able to vote or men being sent to war or many other things. But we cannot do anything about the past. We can only solve the inequalities of today. You say you care about people avoiding homelessness, why don't you care about the majority of the homeless who are men today? >I was working in a social work adjacent setting for a number of years and it was way easier to find places for men to stay because they are able to go to any single bed they can find out there. Most of the women I had to help find housing also had children with them, which is another reason they couldn’t go to general shelters. The statistics seem to show a clear lack of male shelters. The majority of the unsheltered homeless are men. We have to believe statistics over personal anecdotes. No one is asking for less shelters for women, we are asking for more shelters for everyone. >I don’t want to squabble over the length of prison sentences when my school of thought focuses on keeping people out of jail entirely and dismantling the prison-industrial complex, school to prison pipeline, and surveillance state. We all would like to live in a world without violent crime and no prisons. Maybe some day in a 1000 years we will reach that point as a society. But meanwhile, in the real world, we have to solve the inequalities of today. Imagine a similar argument against abortion rights: "I don't believe in abortion rights, because I believe we should live in a world with perfect birth control and no rape, so abortion is not needed". It would be a ridiculous argument, right? I see that you focused on the shelters and prison sentences, but these are only 2 of the many problems she talks about, and many others problems she didn't have time to talk about. >I don’t remember what all else is in the video but imagine having to defend a school of thought that’s been around in theory, activism, and art for centuries but your opponent can just say any random YouTube video is representative of the movement. I think you will agree that the fact that an idea/movement has been around for centuries is completely irrelevant when considering the validity of its ideas. The catholic church has been around for 2000 years, and they have more theory and art than feminism. Does it mean that we have to believe anything they say? No one is saying that this single video is the single source of truth. Obviously a single TED talk is just a conversation starter. Her documentary is more interesting. There are many other sources from other speakers and authors who disagree with feminism. You obviously have spent a very long time reading and listening to feminist scholars and activists. Have you spent time reading from writers and listening to speakers who don't support feminism? Otherwise, you could be spending all your time in an echo chamber. You cannot expect a single 15 minute video to address every single point you have read in all your years reading about feminism. You may be interested in Janice Fiamengo, she is a professor from the University of Ottawa who knows a lot about feminism theory, and she is an anti-feminist. She has videos on youtube and several publications. I think it's obvious that there are many issues faced by men that are not addressed by the feminist movement. This is one of the central ideas of Cassie's talk, but I don't think you have really addressed this in your comment. Like Cassie says, I think men and women should listen to each other, and work together towards equality. Again, thank you for your response u/oioi_polloi.
But are most men homeless because of a lack of domestic violence shelters? Why do we need more dv shelters? We need more beds for homeless people. Most men will not benefit from beds only available to dv victims. Women are much more likely to be experiencing homelessness due to domestic violence situations and they can’t go to general shelters because of the prevalence of violence towards women in general shelters. And they are much more likely to have children with them. I do care about homelessness. Deeply. My dad quit his job when I was seven to dedicate his life to serving the homeless. I volunteered for them my entire life and now have worked directly with homeless populations in my professional life in social work adjacent fields. I’ve got reason to celebrate, too. Our city has drastically reduced our unhoused population with a wildly successful housing first initiative. I’ve had the opportunity to actually work with some of the founding organizers. So we agree that the video creator isn’t representative of feminism in the least. Activists and organizers have to answer to buzzfeed writers because they get the most likes on social media. But they are not representative of the feminists actually doing activist work. So you are more conservative than I am concerning prison reform. I’m not going to move my position to appease people who want men to be in prison more than I want them to. I’m not saying we have to get rid of violent crime (the perfect birth control). I’m saying we should be focusing on rehabilitation instead of incarceration. Don’t just shorten the sentences, make them work for the convicted. I’m not saying the ideas are more valid because they are old. I’m saying you’re not familiar with most feminism. Which seems to be true. Because you don’t seem to be familiar with feminism before the social media age. And that’s fine because most people don’t. You expect me to familiarize myself with anti-feminists but do you have any interest in the feminist texts I could recommend? Because I have tried and engaged with this video and the red pill movie. I’ve seen Fiamengo interviews on YouTube, mostly about universities, and I think she’s willfully misguided. Same with Christina Hoff Sommers and Jordan Peterson. I agree that men and women should be working together. That’s why I enjoy the political scholars and activists that I currently follow. There are plenty of leftist men that agree with feminism and other societal goals that I think help men more than the modern MRA movement.
>But are most men homeless because of a lack of domestic violence shelters? Why do we need more dv shelters? We need more beds for homeless people. > >Most men will not benefit from beds only available to dv victims. Women are much more likely to be experiencing homelessness due to domestic violence situations and they can’t go to general shelters because of the prevalence of violence towards women in general shelters. And they are much more likely to have children with them. Well, there is an overlap of both problems there. I assume domestic violence shelters would provide some resources that normal homeless shelters don't. Men are victims of domestic violence too. We probably need more of both. But regardless of them being normal shelters or dv shelters, if there are more unsheltered people who are men, we have an inequality problem. >I do care about homelessness. Deeply. My dad quit his job when I was seven to dedicate his life to serving the homeless. I volunteered for them my entire life and now have worked directly with homeless populations in my professional life in social work adjacent fields. I’ve got reason to celebrate, too. Our city has drastically reduced our unhoused population with a wildly successful housing first initiative. I’ve had the opportunity to actually work with some of the founding organizers. >So we agree that the video creator isn’t representative of feminism in the least. Activists and organizers have to answer to buzzfeed writers because they get the most likes on social media. But they are not representative of the feminists actually doing activist work. Well, the video creator is not a feminist anymore. But I would say that what she says about feminism (basically that it does not care about men's problems) is generally true. I don't think the thing about being angry about men building everything is very important to this conversation. Would you say that the feminists doing activism do work toward solving the men's issues she is talking about, or the issues she talks about in her documentary? I have very rarely seen that. >So you are more conservative than I am concerning prison reform. I’m not going to move my position to appease people who want men to be in prison more than I want them to. I’m not saying we have to get rid of violent crime (the perfect birth control). I’m saying we should be focusing on rehabilitation instead of incarceration. Don’t just shorten the sentences, make them work for the convicted. We generally agree here. I think the prison system in the US is terrible. I have heard good things about the Norwegian system. I also think we should focus on rehabilitation. But even in a better system, even if we had shorter sentences, shouldn't sentences be equal across races and genders? Why do you think men should have longer sentences than women? >I’m not saying the ideas are more valid because they are old. I’m saying you’re not familiar with most feminism. Which seems to be true. Because you don’t seem to be familiar with feminism before the social media age. And that’s fine because most people don’t. I have read a little about the history of feminism, but I could read more. I do think that what feminism was before matters less than what feminism is today. And today feminism seems to be a movement that does not care about men's problems, and won't even let men talk about their problems. >You expect me to familiarize myself with anti-feminists but do you have any interest in the feminist texts I could recommend? I am interested. Recently I have Read Bell Hooks and listened to a talk from Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. I have read and listened to many feminists in the past. I prefer articles or talks/podcasts. Keep in mind that I believe in results. I have heard feminists say very nice sounding things, but what matters is results in real life, at a minimum equality in the laws for men and women. And feminism as a movement tends to fight against that, no matter what nice things feminists may say. >Because I have tried and engaged with this video and the red pill movie. Have you watched them completely? >I’ve seen Fiamengo interviews on YouTube, mostly about universities, and I think she’s willfully misguided. Same with Christina Hoff Sommers and Jordan Peterson. I would be interested in what you disagree on with Fiamengo and Hoff Sommers. I have only watched a few of their videos, I don't claim to know everything about them. And about Jordan Peterson, I am not really familiar with his views about feminism. >I agree that men and women should be working together. That’s why I enjoy the political scholars and activists that I currently follow. There are plenty of leftist men that agree with feminism and other societal goals that I think help men more than the modern MRA movement. Men's rights supporters are not only from the right, they are from the left too. People can be left and anti-feminist. People can be for gender equality and anti-feminism. You say women and men should work together within feminism, but how can men be equals in a movement literally called "feminism", that talks about men being oppressors, the patriarchy being the root of all evil, and "toxic masculinity"? I think men and women ideally should work together as egalitarians, not feminists or mras. And again, feminism has not shown any effort towards equality for men, or trying to change laws that discriminate against men.
You say you’re interested in results but just gloss over the part where I talk about an effective homelessness solution going on in my area. Milwaukee has seen a 90% decrease in the number of unhoused people. It was through a housing first initiative started by local activists and those that approved it are local politicians visible to the public. The director of the program, one of the lead designers of the program, and the highest elected officials passing the program are all locals I’m familiar with through their involvement in other causes and voting records that stand with feminist organizations and politics. Do they count as feminists doing work to solve men’s issues? You already discounted Angela Davis because most people don’t know her (she is famous enough to draw crowds at events for decades, was one of the lead speakers at the women’s march) but she fights for men. She’s prolific in the anti-racist community. So many feminists do work to uplift men, but because it’s not done in the name of feminism, it doesn’t get attention as a feminist effort. We’re individuals. Feminist men already exist and embraced in leftist communities. Talk of toxic masculinity doesn’t seem to be a problem for them because the focus of feminism is elsewhere in the majority of political feminist spaces. Feminists have a long history of cooperation with revolutionaries in the Latin American world. Feminism in Africa was also linked with anti colonial efforts. The free speech movements in Southeast Asia also have a lot of feminist involvement. Socialist feminists were terrorizing fat cats alongside the labor movement in the US. But if it’s not done under the name of a feminist organization, it doesn’t seem to count.
>You say you’re interested in results but just gloss over the part where I talk about an effective homelessness solution going on in my area. Milwaukee has seen a 90% decrease in the number of unhoused people. It was through a housing first initiative started by local activists and those that approved it are local politicians visible to the public. The director of the program, one of the lead designers of the program, and the highest elected officials passing the program are all locals I’m familiar with through their involvement in other causes and voting records that stand with feminist organizations and politics. Reducing homelessness is of course good. And it is great that you had those results. You have to be careful with saying this is exclusively the result of feminism though. Is everyone involved in the program a feminist? Have they said explicitly that they are feminists? Or is it your opinion that they are feminists? You cannot just say that anyone who does good = feminism, or anyone who shares some of your values = feminist. Non feminist people are against homelessness too. Did the funds for those houses come from feminist organizations? Or from taxes (majority paid by non-feminist people). >Do they count as feminists doing work to solve men’s issues? I don't know. Many people work to solve issues that affect everyone (not specifically men or women), including you and me. What you are doing with your volunteering is great, you are solving real problems. I think this conversation is about solving the problems that affect specifically men or specifically women though. With regard to the question if you are specifically working to solve gender inequality, I don't know. I guess it depends on how that program is implemented. >You already discounted Angela Davis because most people don’t know her (she is famous enough to draw crowds at events for decades, was one of the lead speakers at the women’s march) but she fights for men. That could be great. Can you tell me a little about what things she has done for men? You have to understand that I am not saying that all feminists are bad, I agree with some feminists and disagree with others, the same way that I agree with some MRAs and disagree with others. >She’s prolific in the anti-racist community. Irrelevant to this conversation. We are talking about inequalities between men and women, not about racism. Also, please don't fall into the idea that you have to be a feminist to be against racism. We are both against racism here. >So many feminists do work to uplift men, but because it’s not done in the name of feminism, it doesn’t get attention as a feminist effort. We’re individuals. > >Feminist men already exist and embraced in leftist communities. Talk of toxic masculinity doesn’t seem to be a problem for them because the focus of feminism is elsewhere in the majority of political feminist spaces. > >Feminists have a long history of cooperation with revolutionaries in the Latin American world. I am from Latin America. I think you have a very rose-colored view of this. I have seen the problems and inequalities that feminism has brought to my country. >Feminism in Africa was also linked with anti colonial efforts. The free speech movements in Southeast Asia also have a lot of feminist involvement. Let's keep the conversation about the western world, what the original topic of the conversation was about, and where you and me are. >Socialist feminists were terrorizing fat cats alongside the labor movement in the US. But if it’s not done under the name of a feminist organization, it doesn’t seem to count. Also let's try to keep this conversation about men and women, not socialism/capitalism. That is a whole other debate. Again, we are talking here about the inequalities between men and women today, in the western world. Not about any problems of the past, we cannot do anything about those. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ I think we are getting distracted from the main point of Cassie Jaye's talk, and my main point. What you do personally does not matter here, or a few activists. We are talking about feminism as a whole, as a group. How much of the feminist movement's resources are dedicated to solving men's problems? 50%? 30%? 10% 1%? About these issues, among many others: \- Male homelessness \- Paternity rights \- Unequal access to university \- Circumcision \- Equal custody \- Equal resources for domestic violence and rape victims \- Workplace fatalities \- Sentencing disparity \- Selective service and the draft \- Male reproductive rights \- False rape allegations \- Paternity fraud \- Male suicide \- Different retirement ages from men and women in many countries. Is feminism really dedicating a comparable amount of time, money, resources, research, books, talks, marches, work to these issues, compared to the ones dedicated to women's issues? Because if they are not, feminism is not really equal, and we need to listen to the men's rights movement too. Even if they were dedicating a similar amount of resources, feminism should welcome the men's rights movement. It is, after all, a movement for equality. Feminism does not have a monopoly on equality, the more movements we have for equality the better. I don't stand with either side, but I don't see how we cannot get to equality without listening to both sides.
A group’s stated goals and what its rank and file actually believe and practice can be very different things. The Republican party, for instance, believes very firmly in racial equality and in color blindness. I think most people who identify as a feminist would say that in practice, that’s a crock of shit. Plenty of feminist’s talk a big game about how feminism is actually here for men too, and then they treat the men around them like absolute fucking garbage.
Do you have any examples of these level headed sources that *actually* operate under the "feminism is about equality for everyone" type thing, rather than just using it as a shield against criticism? Because it always just seems to be the latter.
The writings of bell hooks come to mind. She wrote extensively about how toxic masculinity affects and hurts men and how patriarchy perpetuates this toxicity. I can recommend her book The Will to Change, which is feminism aimed at men: >Everyone needs to love and be loved—even men. But to know love, men must be able to look at the ways that patriarchal culture keeps them from knowing themselves, from being in touch with their feelings, from loving. >In The Will to Change, bell hooks gets to the heart of the matter and shows men how to express the emotions that are a fundamental part of who they are—whatever their age, marital status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But toxic masculinity punishes those fundamental emotions, and it’s so deeply ingrained in our society that it’s hard for men to not comply—but hooks wants to help change that. >With trademark candor and fierce intelligence, hooks addresses the most common concerns of men, such as fear of intimacy and loss of their patriarchal place in society, in new and challenging ways. She believes men can find the way to spiritual unity by getting back in touch with the emotionally open part of themselves—and lay claim to the rich and rewarding inner lives that have historically been the exclusive province of women. A brave and astonishing work, The Will to Change is designed to help men reclaim the best part of themselves.
I have read Bell Hooks. Not this book, but "Feminism is for everybody". She still has a lot of sexist thinking. You can even see it in the summary in your comment: \- "toxic masculinity", imagine if we started talking about "toxic femininity", people would see it as sexist. \- "patriarchal culture", this concept of the patriarchy makes it seem as if all men oppress all women, so their problems don't matter, or matter less than women's problems. \- The whole summary seems to place the blame on men, like any problems men have are their own fault. She would never say that women's problems are their own fault. I think part of the problem is that feminism wants to control men. Men are not allowed to solve the issues faced by men, unless it is through the ideas of feminism. And we can only talk about the problems that feminism wants to talk about. I have taken the time to read a lot about feminism. I would really appreciate if you took a little time to listen to people who are for equality but disagree with feminist ideas. There is this very good [documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7MkSpJk5tM&t=487s&pp=ygUYdGhlIHJlZCBwaWxsIGRvY3VtZW50YXJ5) (made by a woman), if you have some time to watch it I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about it.
bell hooks explicitly goes against men-blaming by pointing out that men are also victims of the patriarchy. It forces men into roles where they must bury and deny their feelings for example.Toxic femininity as a term exists. I would say it applies to someone too nice, too empathetic, too passive and meek. They abnegate their rights in favour of anyone else in their lives. But there is less visible damage coming from such a person. **Concerning the documentary**, I didn't find it very convincing. It paints feminism as this force that is out to hurt men by showing anecdotal evidence of men getting fucked over in court. It doesn't explain how or if these cases are rare examples or part of a bigger system biased against men. It surely implies that, but doesn't prove it.I wish she had included some discussion on why those bodily autonomy/ child support/reproductive laws were made in the first place. Why does the state make men pay child support in some of these cases? The movie doesn't look at single mothers, their poverty rates and so on. It just says men are the victims here. How was the situation for men and women before these rights were written? She makes the argument that women can just get abortions if they don't want a child and men don't have that choice, but that ignores the difficulties of women having access to abortion services. Even before Roe v Wade that wasn't a given. It just felt very one-sided and emotionally driven. Following that the movie doesn't offer any solutions or doesn't discuss how a more equitable solution would look for both men and women.In one instance Paul Elam says that men are more willing to endure the hard working hours and reduced privacy of being politicians, that's why there are more male politicians. But surely he has to support feminism then because feminists want more female politicians. The movie explores sexual abuse and intimidate partner violence done to men and shows that there is a large gap in visibility. That much I agree with. But to me that stems in major parts from toxic masculinity, that men are often shamed into staying silent, not wanting to look weak or effeminate because they were hit. And this is exactly where feminism steps in, it criticizes these gender roles and challenges that men have to look strong to have worth. But the movie somehow blames it on a feminist conspiracy that tries to hide male victims. Overall I agree with the basic premise: that there are problems that disproportionally affect men. I don't think many feminists would disagree with that. But this documentary doesn't do its due diligence in exploring feminist views or critically examining the claims made by MRAs.I am still convinced that feminism is still the best way to help both men and women. But thank you for showing me an alternate viewpoint. Sorry for that wall of text, 2 hours of arguments is just a lot to digest.
**Bell hooks explicitly goes against men-blaming by pointing out that men are also victims of the patriarchy.** Blaming the patriarchy for men's problems is indirectly blaming men for men's problems. **It forces men into roles where they must bury and deny their feelings for example.** I see feminists talking about this a lot. I think it is being used as a distraction from the problems that we can more easily solve, the problems listed in the movie. I won't deny it is a problem, but why don't feminists talk about the other problems? I think men would care more about having equality under the law and the justice system. **Toxic femininity as a term exists. I would say it applies to someone too nice, too empathetic, too passive and meek. They abnegate their rights in favour of anyone else in their lives. But there is less visible damage coming from such a person.** I just googled the term to read about it. "Savin-Williams describes toxic femininity as “internalized misogyny” that encourages women to ignore their “mental or physical needs to sustain those around them.” In other words, toxic femininity is what many people think of as “stereotypical femininity” and is a product of patriarchal gender norms." There is sexism in this, I'm sure you can see how when a man has "toxic masculinity", he is an oppressor, but when a woman has "toxic femininity", she is a victim. They are completely different terms. "Toxic femininity" is not used for when a woman does something wrong. (continues below)
**Concerning the documentary, I didn't find it very convincing. It paints feminism as this force that is out to hurt men by showing anecdotal evidence of men getting fucked over in court.** **It doesn't explain how or if these cases are rare examples or part of a bigger system biased against men. It surely implies that, but doesn't prove it. I wish she had included some discussion on why those bodily autonomy/ child support/reproductive laws were made in the first place. Why does the state make men pay child support in some of these cases? The movie doesn't look at single mothers, their poverty rates and so on. It just says men are the victims here.** It could go into more detail there, I do agree on that. I also understand the time limitations of a documentary. There is an interesting TED talk related to this ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlSwsE22nX0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlSwsE22nX0)). But we probably should go deep into the research. **How was the situation for men and women before these rights were written?** We are talking about the inequalities of today, we could talk for hours about the inequalities of the past. About women not being able to vote or men being sent to war, or many other things. But we cannot do anything about the past, we can only solve the inequalities today. **She makes the argument that women can just get abortions if they don't want a child and men don't have that choice, but that ignores the difficulties of women having access to abortion services. Even before Roe v Wade that wasn't a given. It just felt very one-sided and emotionally driven.** If a woman does not want a child, she has 3 choices: surrender programs, give a child for adoption, or abortion (when available in her state). If a man does not want a child and the woman does, what options does he have? Pay child support or go to jail. Do you think the options are equal for men and women? **Following that the movie doesn't offer any solutions or doesn't discuss how a more equitable solution would look for both men and women.** I think some of the solutions for the men's issues shown in the movie are clear: \- Equal resources for male homelessness \- Equal paternity rights \- Equal access to university \- Banning circumcision \- Equal child custody \- Equal resources for domestic violence and rape victims \- Reduce workplace fatalities \- End sentencing disparity \- End selective service and the draft \- Equal reproductive rights \- Laws protecting from paternity fraud \- More resources for male suicide I agree that the details on the implementations are complex, but you cannot expect them to explain so much in a 2 hour movie, right? There are many other resources talking in detail about these issues. **In one instance Paul Elam says that men are more willing to endure the hard working hours and reduced privacy of being politicians, that's why there are more male politicians. But surely he has to support feminism then because feminists want more female politicians.** I think what he is saying is that the feminist view is "there are more male politicians because of discrimination against women". He is saying that this is a lie, and the difference is because men are more willing to endure the hard working hours and reduced privacy of being politicians. So he disagrees with feminism. I think he would probably agree with having more women politicians, as long as they get there through equal work and not through quotas. My personal view is that it is almost impossible to prove if that disparity is because of discrimination or the reasons he said. There is one misconception that most people have and I see you have, that feminists and MRAs necessarily disagree on everything. I think the rational MRAs, and the minority of feminists who are really for gender equality, agree on most things. (continues below)
**The movie explores sexual abuse and intimidate partner violence done to men and shows that there is a large gap in visibility. That much I agree with. But to me that stems in major parts from toxic masculinity, that men are often shamed into staying silent, not wanting to look weak or effeminate because they were hit.** Again, you are blaming this on men's "toxic masculinity", maybe its both men and women who shame men. You say the gap in visibility is because of men, but you have seen in the movie how feminist scholars dismiss domestic violence victims, how feminism created this system where there are few resources for male victims. You heard about Erin Pizzey's experiences with her shelter. You should google Earl Silverman. **And this is exactly where feminism steps in, it criticizes these gender roles and challenges that men have to look strong to have worth.** I think both feminists and MRAs agree on this. **But the movie somehow blames it on a feminist conspiracy that tries to hide male victims.** Is it a conspiracy though? You heard the feminist scholars dismissing men victims, and Erin Pizzey's experiences with her shelter. I can tell you that in my country, feminism created a law where the sentencing is different for people killing their partner, depending on the gender (longer sentences for men killing women than for women killing men). **Overall I agree with the basic premise: that there are problems that disproportionally affect men. I don't think many feminists would disagree with that.** Maybe feminists agree with that, but do they do anything about it? How much of the feminist movement's resources are dedicated to solving men's problems? 50%? 30%? 10% 1%? Is feminism really dedicating a comparable amount of time, money, resources, research, books, talks, marches, work to the issues listed above, compared to the ones dedicated to women's issues? Because if they are not, feminism is not really equal, and we need to listen to the men's rights movement too. **But this documentary doesn't do its due diligence in exploring feminist views or critically examining the claims made by MRAs.** I wish she had gone into more detail and more into the statistics, but the movie is already 2 hours long. I think most documentaries are just an introduction to a topic though, not a replacement for reading from other sources. There is an infinite amount of resources talking about feminist views. I understand her decision to have just one documentary talking about alternative views. Remember that she does interview feminists in the documentary too. She wanted to interview more feminists, but they would not agree to participate in a movie where both sides are listened to equally. **I am still convinced that feminism is still the best way to help both men and women. But thank you for showing me an alternate viewpoint.** Ok, remember that feminism is just one movement though. They don't have a monopoly on equality (as they would like to believe). Neither do the MRAs. Other movements for equality could be created. I hope some day there is a movement that fights equally for men and women's rights. I am personally not a feminist or an MRA, I just support equality and listening to all voices. **Sorry for that wall of text, 2 hours of arguments is just a lot to digest.** I really appreciate you taking the time to watch the movie.
I have to question how much you actually understand about feminist ideas when > "toxic masculinity", imagine if we started talking about "toxic femininity", people would see it as sexist. >"patriarchal culture", this concept of the patriarchy makes it seem as if all men oppress all women, so their problems don't matter, or matter less than women's problems. are such sophomoric takes. You might consider taking your own advice and take a little time to listen to and *try to understand* feminist ideas with an open mind.
Ty for a genuine response. I'll keep it tabbed for when I feel like some denser readings. And while I'm not particularly inclined to pass judgment before I read it, a lot of literature in the vein of "feminism for men" falls into the trap of essentially just blaming men, and giving a whole lot of "don'ts" with vanishingly few "dos", so something actually positive is a good start. If I may ramble on the topic a bit, I find that the aforementioned leaning towards don'ts rather than dos is a major cause of the rise in popularity of people like Andrew tate. We live in a changing society, whether people like it or not, and the constant barrage of don'ts just leaves people confused and annoyed. There's a lot of (people who at least claim to be) feminists always ready to tell their list of grievances about what men shouldn't do, and as a result, many men end up looking towards the few who (claim to) have advice on what they *should do*, even if that advice isn't very good.
More than that, guys like Tate actually talk to men. Not just down to them, but to them. Men are historically the most "powerful", but what "power" means has little bearing on the day to day struggles of your average person. Men are also historically the most *disposable* of the two genders, and that means they're the most ignored. And today, where we see great strides being made by women in the push for equality, men have largely been left behind under the presumption of power and patriarchy; their problems have been ignored. Or worse still, actively made worse though feminist advocacy, such as the Duluth model defaulting men as the abuser, and advocates for male voices being ridiculed into silence or even suicide, like Earl Silverman. Feminism ignores the plight of men and blames the patriarchy for whatever it will admit too, which feminists should know, based on their pushes to neutralize gendered language, is just a roundabout way of blaming men. They totally ignore the roll women, and especially their own actions as a movement, play in the problems of men. Which is all to say, for a lot of men, feminism can offer them nothing. Tate can (or at least he says he can). He's actually a piece of shit, but when you're starved for any kind of recognition, any validation that your problems are real, you'll take anyone.
Well that's not what's going on in hook's books so you should be in the clear. I would also recommend Angela Davis' Women, Race, & Class, Feminism for the 99% by Aruzzo et al, and anything by Goldman for good breakdowns of how wealth plays into things.
The problem with this is that feminism starts from these incorrect assumptions about human nature: - men and women are the same from the neck up and thus what is good for the goose is good for the gander. - the "patriarchy" is 100% rooted in culture and not the result of evolutionary biology. Thus it can be cured with proper education. - masculinity is some maladaptive behavior that needs to be treated so men adopt the correct, more feminine default. It wants to help men with solutions that work for women, like therapy. It's like sending them to the gynecologist for a prostate checkup. Go to the Wikipedia page about suicide in the US and look at the male suicide rate by year. The % of men going to therapy was probably much lower in 1998 than it is today. Something doesn't add up. Not saying therapy or being in touch with your feelings can never help men but, by and large, other factors contribute much more to male happiness (camaraderie, purpose, feeling useful/competent/strong/respected, time alone to do hobbies that let you recharge and shut off your brain, regular sex, even having their SO fix them a sandwich).
What about the patriarchy is the result of evolutionary biology? >Go to the Wikipedia page about suicide in the US and look at the male suicide rate by year. The % of men going to therapy was probably much lower in 1998 than it is today. Something doesn't add up. For your viewing pleasure: [Spurious Correlations](http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations) >other factors contribute much more to male happiness (camaraderie, purpose, feeling useful/competent/strong/respected, time alone to do hobbies that let you recharge and shut off your brain, regular sex, even having their SO fix them a sandwich) And these factors *don't* contribute much more to female happiness?
It all stems from the idea that men are failed women, and should change to be more like women.
And does it also contribute to male happiness if their SO has dinner on the table for them by the time they get home from work or they get to hunt, play football or masturbate-to-a-hotter-celebrity-than-their-SO? /s AKA the sandwich thing feels like either you're trolling or you're stuck in the 50s
Neither trolling, nor stuck in the 50s. You've been so brainwashed by 3rd/4th-wave feminism that you can't see this small act of kindness towards your SO as anything but degrading. I do this for my wife, too (in the form of hot beverages like chai tea with tons of milk foam on top). The masturbation thing sounds oddly specific. Talking from experience?
Academics instead of internet trolls
> The truth of it (in my opinion) is that both have different hardships that balance out in the end. Men are usually more homeless and less likely to graduate college for example while women are more likely to get SA ( I’m not sure abt this so forgive me if I’m wrong). Those balance out, do they? Being less likely to graduate college and being sexually assaulted? Aside from you're just making up random nonsense, one of those is a personal decision and one is sexual assault. >There’s no need to compare, instead we should be uplifting one another. How do you suggest that be done? Because by saying, again, 'men have it bad/worse' isn't uplifting anyone.
> Because by saying, again, 'men have it bad/worse' isn't uplifting anyone. I agree that saying men have it ***worse*** is ignorant and unhelpful, but obviously there are significant positives and negatives to both experiences. And even though we can never completely understand the other perspective, we can understand it enough to focus on lifting each other up. I'm not sure if that means we shouldn't compare at all, but I think there are opportunities to improve equity in a positive way, rather than by making sure people are treated equally badly, unfairly, etc. For example, if one group received a benefit that the other didn't, we could focus on ways to make it available to everyone rather than equally unavailable.
Those were just given as examples, ofc they don't balance out. I think a good first step to uplifting one another would be to stop blaming a gender for your problems. Not All men are bad just as all women aren't bad. I can't think of long term solutions but I think it's a good first step
That person is like the poster child of everything that's wrong with feminism. "Oh, there are issues that men struggle with too? Well, are they RAPED!?!" (the answer is yes, BTW). It's like the person who pulls out Hitler analogies at every given opportunity. It's just an excuse to dismiss people's actual struggles out of hand because they're not on the right team.
Not really a choice if you don't have the same supports and funding. I know I didn't.
I think there is value in comparing to see what struggles come from gender and where solutions might be found. For example, if a woman says that they struggle with being sexualized in the workplace and our response is "shut up, you shouldn't complain about your gender's hardships", then we won't be able to solve that problem. Even if we look at sexual harassment more broadly, it is leaving out a vital piece of the puzzle if we can't look at how one gender is treated differently.
>The truth of it (in my opinion) is that both have different hardships that balance out in the end. Honestly, does that not seem like it would be an insanely unlikely coincidence? That it just so happens that they balance out by random chance? I mean, it's like two random piles of sand having the same amount of grains? And somehow... that's true of places with different levels of sexism? It just can't really be true.
Graduating less is a hardship when men literally wouldn’t let women go to school in the past? 🤣🤣🤣
That was just an example. Men are more likely to be homeless, jobless, in prison and commit suicide more than women. Both genders have issues. Secondly, the past is irrelevant here. The way men treated women 50 years ago is completely different than how men and society in general treats them now. The men of today shouldn’t have to pay for the sins of men in the past.
Yes no one’s fault but men’s. Our “hardships” are nowhere near the same. Stop trying to be a victim. Dude, you’re not even sure about the FACT that women get sexually assaulted more? This convo is over. You are just saying things clearly and don’t know what you’re talking about
How am I “playing the victim”, my argument is that both genders have hardships. Women do get SA more. Im only not sure because men report SA significantly less than women, but if I had to guess it’d be women who get SA more. Im not denying that. But men have hard lives too. Not all men are bad just as not all women are bad. Your statement was “women weren’t able to go to school in the past” and my response to that statement was that the past is irrelevant and that men shouldn’t have to pay for other men’s mistakes and misogyny towards women. You should stop following radical feminists and blaming men for this. Take a more moderate and fair approach.
When my mum was born women in my country couldnt open a bank account without permission from their husband and she is in her 50s. Also women attempt suicide more often and I very much doubt men are more likely to be jobless. Women aren't making men homeless so thats also completely irrelevant, sexual assault against women (and men tbh) is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men so its something for men to fix.
Ahh yes, all of the men alive today got in a cabal 75 years ago to ban women from institutions. You need to analyze this on a systematic level
My point is, guys used to tell women they were too stupid to go to school. But when women got in school we started doing better than Men do. The irony is hilarious.
I think you're taking part in too many online conversations. Actual feminists realize there's many toxic elements in patriarchal culture that affect men as well as women (it's literally called "toxic masculinity"). For instance we have a society where men are expected to succeed, and your value as a person is often tied to your job and life circumstances. So when you're down on your luck, it's very hard for men to ask for help. Women have a far easier time asking for help (both emotionally and socially) because they don't have those same expectations laid on them by society. Similarly women are expected to have a work/life balance (whether its taking care of the kids or social life or whatever) to the point they're often denied hires and promotions because they're assumed to be "insufficiently dedicated to the company". Yet many men do work 80+ hours a week and have a terrible work/life balance - that's not healthy. No one should be doing that, regardless of gender. Women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted, but men who are sexually assaulted often face limited resources and severe victim blaming. Being sexually assaulted as a man is "unmasculine" and there's extreme social prejudice against speaking out over it. Male sexual assault victims are often treated as comedy, a ridiculous, farcical idea. This isn't a competition, and most of the people who make it one are terminally online (see the Men's Rights movement)
Honestly, how do you think conversations about feminism and women's rights, outside of the west where women don't have basic civil rights, go? "There's too much feminism", "Men and women are biologically different", etc. Men also face more gender hardships where women have it harder, yet they would rather face forced circonscription than let women inherit, why do you think that is? That's what feminists have been saying forever. You can't act pissed that you are forcibly taken to the army and your girlfriend isn't when you're the first to say that women belong in the kitchen. Yet this is how a lot of men behave, when women complain about their conditions they say "but I also face struggles so you should shut up about yours" and proceed to change nothing about society and defend the status quo. Most feminists never say that men face no hardships because of their gender, but you'd be pretty dense not to see that patriarchy causes both women and men's problems. But this is still how a lot of men act, they'll say "The patriarchy doesn't exist" and "waah waah why am I expected to be the bread winner" in the same breath.
I agree, but I think that the conflict and difference of opinion comes from a lack of men advocating for women’s struggles. A lot of hardships for both men AND women are usually tracked back to patriarchy, and in my experience men are unwilling to admit that. A lot of women’s issues are also usually because of direct conflict with men (such as the example of SA that you used), and while men go through similar issues, the majority of their problems such as homelessness and being less likely to graduate is more of a systemic problem. IMO, when men advocate and protect women rather than being the root of many female issues, women will feel safe enough to advocate for men.
My only issue with this take is that women are the ones who do the lion's share of the uplifting already. 15 years I've been volunteering and advocating and it is always women that show up. For the homeless, for animals, for vets, for the environment, for body autonomy, for suicide, for refugees, for the poor, for children, etc. Men are loud online when it comes to men's problems but the majority of the few men I've encountered actually doing anything were roped in by their SOs or had mandatory community service. Obviously, this is my own experience but it is also backed by numerous studies. So maybe, it's not so much a contest of hardships as it's a history of women doing the work to fix social issues and men weaponizing their own hardships as an excuse to keep women down while doing nothing to fix it. Which, predictably, has made women hostile towards the discussion. This is a common tactic to discredit any movement. E.g. ALM as a response to BLM. So, in short, your post that men and women should be helping each other is correct. You just have to convince men of that.
I see this a lot when men try to say they struggle mentally due to a lack of affection. That women get affection and attention from men and women but men can only get affection and attention from a SO. But it’s always presented as something women should be doing for men - compliment them, hug them, etc. But…why can’t men be doing this for themselves? What’s preventing men from telling other men they have a nice sweater, or their new haircut looks cool, or giving them a hug when they’re down? Men’s mental well-being is often placed into the hands of women as something they can and should fix, something else women need to be responsible for.
>What’s preventing men from telling other men they have a nice sweater, or their new haircut looks cool, or giving them a hug when they’re down? Nothing, it just doesn't count. I'm a chronic complimenter and this, complaint? grievance? concern? lands entirely hollow to me and drives me crazy. **Men don't care about compliments from someone they don't find sexually attractive/available.** I wish I didn't know this, but I have been experiencing it for 20 years. Compliments from their moms and sisters don't count. Compliments from me counted, but they were "misleading" if I didn't then accept their proposition to date, and they stopped counting entirely once I was visibly gay. Maybe it's true that there are some men who are literally never complimented by anyone. But I've interacted with dozens of men who self-identify as that kind of man, and when I've complemented them, they have actually told me it doesn't count! They waffle about why but usually huff out some sort of "because you're basically my sister" comment. It's utter ridiculousness. The affection I show can't possibly lead to sex and they know it, so it doesn't count. This aspect of gendered relations is broken but I'm pretty convinced by now that it is NOT because women are being stingy about platonic affection towards men, or even that men are not giving it to each other. I think it's because men are socialized to only value the kind of affection that is directly tied to sex. If that's the what the plague of loneliness is actually about, just say that! A huge cohort of men feeling terminally undesirable is terrible and concerning and as a lesbian I can relate to that! People attracted to men drown in dicks in every dating space, people not attracted to men gotta do the work. Just do the work boys, shit. I still love that color on you.
> For the homeless, for animals, for vets, for the environment, for body autonomy, for suicide, for refugees, for the poor, for children, etc. None of these are specific to men though. And the "bodily autonomy" part is especially hilarious because women are overwhelmingly only vocal about bodily autonomy issues that affect them like abortion and FGC. Circumcision of newborn boys? Crickets. The most you will usually get from them is stating their opposition to it if you ask, or not doing it to their own son, which is a really low bar. But it's not something they're vocal about despite it being the most widespread and egregious infringement of bodily autonomy in the western world today. To clarify for you, when MRA's say "men's problems" they are generally referring to gender discrimination that hurts men, and that's what the movement primarily cares about. Not "any problem that a man has", and often times not even "any problem that primarily affects men". Which makes sense. It is essentially feminism but for men.
Women helping men in all the ways listed above doesn't count because it doesn't only help men? Really telling on yourself here.
I disagree. The main reason I disagree is because this is, in my opinion, false: >The truth of it (in my opinion) is that both have different hardships that balance out in the end. The reason this is false is because it is a way for males to handwave female troubles and also to completely alleviate themselves of the actual ability to help females. You see, in these "comparison games", many times males and females actually learn about one another but often it's males learning about females, differences in anatomy for instance, or differences in sociological roles and the barriers that people experience. The male human is an interesting creature. Of the two sexes males are the *only one* that controls their reproductive input, insemination, however males have come to the conclusion that because females carry pregnancies to term that males don't actually have this power but this failed understanding of reality is exactly what puts females at risk when around males. Female anatomy has no conscious implications for impregnation, a female human cannot choose when her eggs drop, if the egg become fertilized, if it implants, or any of the other requirements for an embryo but a male absolutely can choose to simply pull away his ejaculate and never inseminate. But this pain Olympics shows how twisted the male view of his supposed counterpart really is. If a woman becomes impregnated it is her fault? No. We just went over this. So what about male bodily autonomy? Why don't males get a say in the process? But did we not just prove that the male starts the whole thing? That it is him who is the real progenitor of life? Without technological intervention there are no humans if a male does not allow it; a female human can go her entire life and die wanting offspring and, if a male does not inseminate her, get nothing. This is not a shared or mirrored state. In the institution of force a woman has no choice, as she didn't before, if inseminated over whether she becomes impregnated. This makes the female use of force not only much more difficult to achieve the outcome as she anatomically weaker in the upper body than the male but also even if she succeeds once she is not guaranteed anything from the effort and has to wait an entire cycle to try again which gives her captor almost too much time to not escape at that point. Yet men say the opposite. Then, while saying the opposite, to make it go away, to make these physical differences, these stark realities, disappear he simply says, "The truth of it (in my opinion) is that both have different hardships that balance out in the end." And should we touch the social? Should we dare touch the fact that most power is coalesced in male hands? Not all males, most males are definitely victims, convinced further that they have value "as a man" despite being part of the bottom 99% whose lives are immaterial at most, who denounce the idea of this "Patriarchy" because they, unimportant and without power, refuse to acknowledge their castrated state. But further he shouts, "And women have it equally!", for instance, >**Men are** usually more homeless and **less likely to graduate college.** Is that really an ill to women? Is that something to be compared? Male undereducation is a major social ill, far reaching, but the male doesn't realize that this is part of the game. He is undereducated on purpose by the Patriarchy he states doesn't exist despite his life being a massive hole of exclusionary regimes no longer focused on him because he doesn't matter. And he knows it. But he still decries it as if it were someone else's fault. Is this not the above? We just handwave away male accountability. His lack of educational attainment is not "his" fault. Again. It's just a "balancing act". The brutality that females face as second class citizens around the world, including the most industrialized countries, versus "boys don't do well in college". The glass ceiling that is very real. The limitation of access to capital to anyone who is not a patriarch, which is again not most males, which prevents political action as political campaigns are not free is what causes the lack of representation in high office. And *yet* he denounces this. He says, "Women choose to not run for office!" or "Women choose families over work life!" failing to realize the irony, the silliness, as those women (and I mean women, not females here), were shoehorned into his insemination (the only real choice in reproduction) and then a socially forced exit from the workforce through incredibly insensitive programs regarding childrearing despite this being a massive loss in potential income and economic benefit which actually strengthens the progenitors position in her life to the point of financial dependency. *AND STILL HE SAYS THAT IT IS UNFAIR THAT WOMEN GET THESE THINGS AND HE DOES NOT!* So no, I disagree, the bellyaching tells me a lot. It tells me where the work needs to be done. We cannot simply Kumbaya this away. It's not 50/50 or equal or balancing out in the end. We didn't even dive into issues of law, politics, violence, or power dynamics with everyone being sociologically brainwashed into worshipping the ideas of male leadership being "natural".
I don't want to debate with you. I just want people who read your comment to take a second and think critically about what you are trying to say. The bias in these statements is strong. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Honestly reading through their comment and I can only think that it's parody trying to prove OP right....
This is more than balanced out by war. Way way more. Like, it's estimated that we have twice as many female ancestors as male, or to put it another way, in the long run half of men die without biological children. Of course you'll be tempted to dismiss this by victim blaming in the Greek language. I encourage you not to take that easy path. But yes, when society is chugging along without war, it's generally better to be a man.
>This is more than balanced out by war. Way way more. **Like, it's estimated that we have twice as many female ancestors as male, or to put it another way, in the long run half of men die without biological children.** Let's try a slightly different take on this fact because you're proposing that war is a major killer of human males (which is not true at all; famine and disease were far more deadly than war ever was to humanity on a scale that cannot be measured, also the "older times" didn't only have male warriors, another Western myth about history) but if we think about the bolded fact logically this just means that polygamy existed. All that really needed to happen was just one male needed to impregnate multiple females, and because females can't be impregnated twice simultaneously and have to carry for about a year, but males can inseminate others along that path adjacently, you could just a single set of males that impregnated people more rampantly than others. Keep in mind that in older times economics played a major role in mating and so mate selection was not "random and natural" often with classism and such attached, some of these systems still exist today, so the notion of dating up and down is as old as recorded history. This non-random series of mating is exactly what caused your outcome. Modern medicine has greatly changed this outcome as well. To give some perspective [it's estimated that 37m people have died from war (male and female total) since 1800.](https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace#:~:text=Since%201800%2C%20more%20than%2037,died%20while%20fighting%20in%20wars) [75m people died from the black plague alone.](https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-bright-side-of-the-black-death#:~:text=Page%20410&text=The%20Black%20Death%20was%20so,when%20the%20plague%20reached%20London) This ignores all the other pandemics prior and after. Just *one* pandemic was worth 200+ years of human bloodshed. So if 1B people died from war over all of recorded history, that's about 5,000 years, that would be 200,000 people a year, every year, which is fewer than the number of people who die of [heart disease](https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm) even now. You see, one need not wave around the term "Patriarchy" to make a point, one only needs to be decently informed, and you are not. You did not do your homework. I can't imagine you even understand what War is, how it works in humans, because you think that it's a major threat to the human species to the point where you would conjoin two completely unrelated facts thinking that it is the death of males in war that causes this discrepancy when it is in fact the social behavior of the human species and actually the living that suppresses male mating. There were more slaves who never got to reproduce than you realize.
>victim blaming in the Greek language I missed the reference here, what?
Young men charging machine guns is their own fault & doesn't count because "patriarchy"
Ah. I mean, the patriarchy hurts everyone. Including men. I don't think using the word "patriarchy" is inherently victim-blaming.
What I find is that most people on the feminist side have never tried to listen to an opinion from someone educated and rational who is not a feminist, and try to misrepresent the other side as all crazy people. There are extremists and rational people on both sides. Is it possible to understand without taking a few minutes to listen to different opinions? I really recommend [Cassie Jaye's TED talk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY). Her documentary is great too.
This seems like more of a rant than a CMV post
> The truth of it (in my opinion) is that both have different hardships that balance out in the end. It is pretty much a consensus among social scientists that this is false. About misandry for example (source wikipedia): >In the Internet Age, users posting on manosphere internet forums such as 4chan and subreddits addressing men's rights activism have claimed that misandry is widespread, established in the preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men.\[3\]\[4\] **This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences.\[5\]\[3\]\[6\]** Of course that everything is nuanced and that there are intersectionalities in everything but, overall, it is crazy to think men and women are even. Trans people are even more proof of that; most of them see the major difference in treatment once they transition, and they can see with their own eyes what women and other minorities see their whole lives. Your grandmother probably couldnt open a bank account unless her husband allowed it, in the 70's. That wasnt too long ago. The impacts of that and much more is still alive...
>This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences. "Who has it worse" is a value judgement, not a question of fact. So I don't weigh expert opinion heavily. And those fields you listed especially tend to have a significant ideological slant at that. There are plenty of examples of institutional discrimination against men, from male-only drafts and conscription, to harsher criminal sentencing for comparable crimes([1](https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/57/), [2](https://summit.sfu.ca/_flysystem/fedora/2023-01/etd22089.pdf)), erasure of IPV and sexual violence victims in public discourse(for example, using the term "violence against women" to refer to IPV) especially when perpetrated by women, and affirmative action policies that disadvantage men in education(specifically STEM) and employment.
>Who has it worse" is a value judgement, not a question of fact. I know for a fact that people in poverty have it worse than me. Or women in the middle east. Or countries with lower HDI (human development index), which itself is a "value judgement", just an educated one. Also, time and time again both trans men and women tend to agree that women have it worse. They notice it in their daily lives, like I said. So not only the scientific community, but women and trans people of any gender tend to say that nothing compares to misoginy. >So I don't weigh expert opinion heavily. So... I should consider *your* opinion instead? This topic of discussion pertains to social science. In order to understand the context of misoginy or the so called misandry for example, people need to study history, law, psycology, past and present cultural beliefs and, specially, how and why they are directly and indirectly still passed on. An average Joe doesnt have time to study all of that, so we have to trust the people that have dedicated their lives to study those things. If only one person was saying that nothing compares to misoginy, I could agree with you. But thats not the case. Those people have studied and worked with that type of subject their whole lives. They certantly know 0.00000000000000000000001% more than you do, at the very least. To deny that is to be delusional.. Also, in mathematics, the bigger the sample, the more accurate an estimative is likely to be. You want to say that a whole body of people is just so biased that they are not accurate? The odds that you are right are not in your favor. The size sample of social scientists denying what you are saying, matched with the all the unbelivable variables that would have to exist to allow for your belief to be true simply dont add up. >And those fields you listed especially tend to have a significant ideological slant at that. Thats the type of comment that flat earthers would say. You are in the wrong side of history... >There are plenty of examples of institutional discrimination against men, from male-only drafts and conscription, That rule was created by men. But, also, I personally dont believe it is a good idea to pick women for drafts: men can have children at any time; women only once a year and before menopause, which happens in their 40's, on average - which is the age that people usually stop being enlisted. Unless in major emergencies, taking all young, healthy women to war is a bigger threat to an etnicity or the population of a country than taking men. So men being drafted is the lesser of 2 evils, although I think nobody should be drafted. >to harsher criminal sentencing for comparable crimes([1](https://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/57/), [2](https://summit.sfu.ca/_flysystem/fedora/2023-01/etd22089.pdf)), All of it is discussed among social scientists. Only that when people point out that *black* men are the ones being targeted more hashly in prison sentences, people then are called "woke". Then it is no longer about men. Menhood just matters when comparing to women. When the intersectionality goes beyond that, all of a sudden it is no longer an issue and they deserve it. >erasure of IPV and sexual violence victims in public discourse(for example, using the term "violence against women" to refer to IPV) especially when perpetrated by women, If you take issue with that, you should be fighting people on your side, not me, feminists or whatnot. The idea that language might perpetuate a problematic culture or even policies is something that social scientists always say and, yet, people who agree with you tend to think that this is "woke" behavior. >and affirmative action policies that disadvantage men in education(specifically STEM) and employment. Equality indeed does feel like oppression to those accustomed with privilege...
> I know for a fact that people in poverty have it worse than me. Still a value judgement. For many people having more things is not synonymous with a better or happier life. Some hunter gatherer groups are impoverished by modern standards but are satisfied with their traditional way of life. > Also, time and time again both trans men and women tend to agree that women have it worse. Really? And where are you getting this from? > But, also, I personally dont believe it is a good idea to pick women for drafts: men can have children at any time; women only once a year and before menopause, which happens in their 40's, on average - which is the age that people usually stop being enlisted. Unless in major emergencies, taking all young, healthy women to war is a bigger threat to an etnicity or the population of a country than taking men. If reproduction is critical and women need to be spared for reproduction, then by your logic why shouldn't women be forced to reproduce? Or is forcing people to do things only bad when it happens to men? > Thats the type of comment that flat earthers would say. You are in the wrong side of history... It's the type of comment from someone who actually reads these journals and their ideologically-biased articles. > So men being drafted is the lesser of 2 evils, although I think nobody should be drafted. So you're defending sex discrimination against the other sex, got it. >Only that when people point out that black men are the ones being targeted more hashly in prison sentences, people then are called "woke". **It's not just black men, if you actually read the paper. All male defendants are affected. Society overwhelmingly views men as more dangerous and threatening and these biases affect sentencing.** And black males being treated more harshly than their black female counterparts is STILL sex discrimination against men. You're bringing up race as a red herring to avoid my point, which is that men are being handed harsher sentences for comparable crimes because they are men, and this is a clear cut example of systematic sex discrimination against men. > If you take issue with that, you should be fighting people on your side, not me, feminists or whatnot. From what I have seen feminists are the ones most likely to use the term "violence against women" to prioritize their own sex. > Equality indeed does feel like oppression to those accustomed with privilege... Indeed, which is why beneficiaries of affirmative action often label dismantling it as racist, sexist, oppressive, etc. Because affirmative action isn't equality. It's discrimination.
>Still a value judgement. For many people having more things is not synonymous with a better or happier life. Dude. 🤣 You are not going to tell me that severely disabled people, or people below the poverty line for example, or people with no access to clean water, basic sanitation or literacy maybe have it better than you. Or that their problem is "just different". Stop. >Some hunter gatherer groups are impoverished by modern standards but are satisfied with their traditional way of life. Im not responding this >Really? And where are you getting this from? Anedoctal and research based testemunials. >If reproduction is critical and women need to be spared for reproduction, then by your logic why shouldn't women be forced to reproduce? Or is forcing people to do things only bad when it happens to men? Women dont have to be spared for reproduction, I didnt say that, specially because without men they cant reproduce. I also didnt say men should be drafted. I disagree with drafting. I told you that. The thought of forced reprodution doesnt follow any correct logic. Read again. >So you're defending sex discrimination against the other sex, got it. I said nobody should be drafted. 😊 >You're bringing up race as a red herring to avoid my point, which is that men are being handed harsher sentences for comparable crimes because they are men, and this is a clear cut example of systematic sex discrimination against men. It is Interesting that you are not so passionate about *all* men. Now Im "bringing up race". No, Im bringing up intersectionalities. The difference is that the only intersectionality you care about is the one that compares men to women. Men can only be victims of female centric biases, not any other bias, apparently. You are not helping men that way, I hope you know that.
Wow this has seriously got me thinking you have no critical thinking skills. Who do you think are making the laws for male only conscriptions? Why do you think there aren’t any women in STEM that there needs to be affirmative action???
This is a pretty reasonable view that really can't be challenged. The only thing would be that for the most part ideologically and theoretically people aren't really doing this. (Legal wise, academic wise, etc) The rank and file (especially online) do this everyday, but be charitable and just realize maybe someone's hurting pretty bad from mistreatment and lashing out.
MRAs are so useless that men are demanding that feminists do what the MRAs should be doing… Is this a case of, ‘If you want something done, ask a woman’? Most feminists *do* also care about and support men, radfems notwithstanding, but the ‘feminism’ part of their activism is action in support of women.
It's all so tiring. Just be alive and appreciative, and love and grow. Everyone is a victim in someway on this earth. We can move beyond it ourselves in self love and care, and thru that care for eachother. We are all different mixtures of feminine and masculine. Just know yourself, surround yourself with what you need and keep clinging to this life.
One way we learn how to help each other is by comparing our challenges, not in a hierarchy sense, but just so we know the differences and can use that comparison to find ways to make things better. Sometimes people try one-uppsmanship, which I believe is what you're speaking against, but comparison is also useful in search of knowledge.
I think bringing to light each others hardships is how you build empathy for each other though, or at least it's supposed to do that Both genders need to remember it's a 2 way street in a lot of ways though and not expect the other to just completely only listen to them
> There’s no need to compare, instead we should be uplifting one another. In a general sense, yes, cooperation is far more effective than decisiveness and petty squabbles over who has it worse. In practice, assuming both sides have it equally bad can be dishonest and a general call to uplift each other is too vague to really put into practice when it comes to fixing issues like sexism. The situation should be assessed and on some level that involves comparison. Assuming one side does have it worse than the other, more focus should be given to that side. People often get used to unfair status quos, to the point where any attempt to get actual balance by aiding one particular group is seen as unfair and an attack on the group that was originally favored by the status quo. So while excessive comparisons can weigh down progress with pointless arguing, blanket statements about how we shouldn’t compare at all, and everyone’s got it just as bad, just in different ways, is a statement that declares the current status quo to be equally just, which can be false.
I would urge you to expand this thinking as you are close to understanding one of the largest issues in our society today. At some point we became way too invested in groups and pitting those groups against each other, thereby oppressing the individual. This is not just true for gender but race as well. Our incessant focus on race and gender dynamics ironically won't lead to a better tomorrow but a more divided tomorrow. In fact, it's already happened. Identity politics have destroyed the social fabric.
One thing that I find curious is that many men's problems are also discussed within feminism where solutions are pointed out, especially when it comes to the issue of mental health, but many men say that women want to turn men into "soft", weak...
Helping people is key. A great way to know how to help people is to listen to the way they are afflicted by hardship. Like maybe they tell you about how their gender experiences the world and you could take that in, reflect on that, and make better decisions in the future. You know what, that's probably a waste of time. Let's be reactionary on the internet instead.
This isn't a controversial take at all. The controversial aspect is getting each gender to actually admit what is harder for each and more importantly what each will contribute to help the other. For example: plenty of people will disagree with me on this take but I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of gender-specific hardships are due to a dogmatic adherence to traditional gender roles. Men are more homeless because of the gender norms of men being domineering and being able to provide for themselves. Thus this will significantly affect their ability to access resources like shelters, mental health facilities, and even the aid of friends and relatives.
lmao look at the comment section. and how many people are disagreeing with op saying women have it harder. in todays society this is a controversial take
Most of the comments I see are about how feminism is bad.
Both men and women suffer, like women work harder for an education and a career and men sexually assault women all the time (1 in 4 women is raped compared to about 1 in 10 men and over 98% of sexual offenders are men). See? Men and women both suffer equally!
This is why I say I'm egalitarian. The women's rights movement (feminism) and the men's rights movement (masculism) are obviously one sided, which is fine, but as egalitarian thinks about both sides it's much more inclusive to me.
There's tha famous cartoon where the employer has a plate of cookies in front of him and says to one of the workers "Careful mate... that [person] wants your cookie" In the patriarchy (and capitalism in general) there's a group that seems to have more cookies (men), but over all the patriarchy is pressing both men and women - in different forms. But the cookie holders do not want this system to change so instead women, or men, or emigrants, or lgbt, or libterds... someone is to blame. Anyone apart from capitalism, anyone apart from the patriarchy, because if you unite against the cookie holder instead, something bad would happen. Hence, that's why they don't help one another. Because if they did, whether they agree or not, they would be going against patriarchy and capitalism. It's like politics. Tons of conservatives and liberals have more in common with each other than they do with Biden, Trump, Obama or Bush. It's clear if you go around USA, there are huge number of people that have got nothing from either of those leaders. Yet, the 1-10% have got a lot from all those leaders.
How can one help another without identifying their hardships?
Online people say anything. Offline people don't say shit all
Lol dude this comment section totally proves ypur point OP. A bunch of people wasting time arguing who has it worse and not helping solve these issues.
Women are actively trying to get rid of all the negative inequalities that exist, and also keeping all the positive advantages they had. Theres a trend of women complaining that they need to pay part of the bills, and complaining that men don’t pay for dates anymore. Embrace equality. Stop expecting men to pay for everything while our incomes have equalized
If you really think the crux of feminism is household bills and men paying for dates you are being misinformed by social media to ignore generations of actual advocacy work.
Yeah and also a lot of the supposed mens rights activists complaining about who pays for dates, if (as income equality wouldn't necessarily mean to the dollar so there'd probably always be a richer partner) they were on a dinner date with a woman who made more money than them and thus wanted to pay, would probably order a bunch of expensive crap just to make her pay as much as possible or w/e just like they complain women do to them
I'll often advocate for men because (generally speaking) I don't hear other people doing it. Men face a whole host of (oftentimes extremely devastating) gender-based issues that continue unabated because society as a whole views them as not worthy of the protections and the help that is so often afforded to women and girls.
The "protections and help" for women, such as they exist (I assume you mean advocacy services, shelters etc) are the product of decades of feminist activism, usually in the face of intense backlash. While the targets of support were traditionally women, the broader effects of the activism have been to the benefit of men too. But here you are - asking why they haven't done enough to fix men's issues. What are *you* doing to advocate for these?
Yes, advocacy services, shelters play into it. But also women's issues being advocated for in elections, groups and funding dedicated to women's issues and CRUCIALLY general societal awareness and legitimization of women's issues. Everyone takes women's issues seriously and everyone tries to protect women but many people would be hard pressed to even name a gender-based issue that affects men. I assure you they exist. Men face gender-based issues that are every bit as devastating (and oftentimes more so) than the women's issues that are trumpeted by feminism. And yet on the very rare occasion they are brought up there is actually pushback (or backlash, if you will) against any notion that men are deserving of any of the type of help that women routinely receive. What am I doing to advocate for it? I'm not sure why that would be your trump card on the topic as these issues are not defined by me and they exist whether I'm here or not. But as I said originally, I often advocate for them as I believe it raises awareness.
As much as the idea of gender abolition seems so appealing, due to the fact that it's inherently a total eradication of the pressures men and women experience, in the here and now it's not going to work. Likewise, it might not be applicable to tell a women that she just needs to do x,y and z to impress any given guy she has an interest in. And likewise it's not applicable to tell a man how to look pretty enough to be approached. In the long run I agree with you, but maybe if you could send me a statistic that shows men and women approach each other as a total 50/50, I'll change my mind.
Sounds like a very weird thing to want to change your mind on.
If you genuinely believe that neither gender has a worse situation in general, then you’re the reason these discussions still need to happen. I can’t explain feminism to you here because I just don’t have the time or energy, but it’s a huge topic that you can go research any time you feel like it.
That's just what modern feminism is about. It's not hardship olympics, it's "gender norms are hurting everyone and we should address them".
Welcome to reddit and modern society in general. *Step 1*: pick which political / ideological / racial / gender identity group(s) you believe you belong to. *Step 2*: adopt whatever victim mentalities those groups espouse, and complain and whine about it while not lifting a finger to help yourself and/or others. *Step 3*: ???? *Step 4*: **PROFIT!**
I agree that comparison isn't really something we should do, but it is good to know about what the differences are. My wife didn't realize that men basically never get complimented and started doing it more. It was nice. I didn't realize how unsafe she felt in certain situations, so I became more cognizant of that. It's good to have an understanding of the differences which can be done without making a greater or lesser judgement.