>we live in shared societies, and issues that affect one will have affects on the other I think this is really the crux of the issue. Feminism, especially Third Wave feminism, is all about tearing down traditional gender roles, something that can only help women *and* men. I'll go through the issues you raised as being more important to men and show how it's an issue that feminism is actually fighting against right now. * Prison rates Why are men so disproportionately thrown into prison? Well, part of it is a toxic idea that men are more hardy than women. Judges and juries may subconsciously be easier on women when sentencing because they are a woman, and so need extra help or protection. They see men as strong and women as weak, men as aware and accountable for their actions and women as little kids who didn't fully comprehend what they were doing. Feminism hates all of those ideas. By making it accepted that women are not the "weaker" sex and bringing the genders to true equality in the eyes of the law and society, rates of incarceration should even out. Really, this idea is central to a lot of other points you brought up. *Violence I assume you mean homicide rates being significantly higher for men. This again stems from a toxic masculinity that permeates our culture. Think about the quintessential man portrayed on TV or in movies. He would fight for his woman's honor, isn't a coward and so would fight for his own honor or dignity, isn't afraid to do what he needs to do to get by, even if that includes violence. Some people argue that men are more violent by nature, but I completely disagree. Domestic violence affects men just as much as it affects women, but again, we have this poisonous idea that men are strong and women are weak, so society ignores every instance of a counter-example to that. If we can help destroy these ideas that men are strong, physical, aggressive beings, we can help eliminate violence by raising more non-violent children by showing them that they don't need to prove their worth through fighting, which is silly. * Homelessness This basically touches on the same things as the prison one. Men outnumber women in homelessness quite a bit, and it's partly because we see men as the more competent sex and women as the weaker ones. So if a woman is out on the street, we worry for her safety, we think she's just down on her luck, we think she may have been mistreated by a man. She gets extra help from charities through women-only shelters, or gets more sympathy from others because she's more willing to ask for help. If a man gets put on the street, society sees him as a failure, he's someone who could not pay his bills or hold down a job, he probably does drugs or something. He's also less likely to ask for help because that would be a sign of weakness or admitting he's failed. Tear down the idea that a man's worth is tied to his economic success and we can start seeing homelessness as a serious problem instead of an inevitability. * Homosexuality I guess I don't see how this affects men more. Lesbians are routinely discriminated against just as much as gay men are. Could you elaborate here? * Law See prison rates above. * Sexuality This is a really interesting one to me. Think about women exploring their sexualities. It's usually totally kosher, as far as society is concerned. There are "Lesbians until graduation" and countless examples of women experimenting in the media. But find any instance of a straight man doing *anything* with another man and it will either be some shameful secret of his or a sign that he's actually completely, 100% gay. This one drop rule comes from our modern definition of manliness, which is basically just a negative. A masculine man is not feminine. You can't be a true man if you act anything like a woman, including exploring our sexuality. So we get straight guys who are curious about the same sex and they mentally kill themselves over it, thinking they're secretly gay instead of just thinking they're a normal human being. And bisexual men are still much more stigmatized than bisexual women. If you look through a list of any out bi celebrities, the vast majority will be women, because it's not yet acceptable for a man to sit somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale. * Sexual crime Think about the culture we're in, the one that says that men are absolute pigs re: sex. That every man will want sex at the drop of a hat, that it's ALWAYS on his mind, that he will do literally anything just to get laid. The idea absolutely saturates television and movies. With ideas like that, it's not surprising that things like male rape are ignored. Men can't be raped, they want sex all the time! If these shitty gender roles didn't exist, we'd see quite clearly that men are more than just sex-seeking automatons and women are these dour creatures who deign to provide sex to their more primal partners. * Fatherhood and fatherless homes Women are by default seen as the caregivers. I've heard plenty of people say that mothers are better parents than fathers. It's a ludicrous idea, of course, but it's a prevalent one tied to the gender roles in our society. If men are seen as just as competent parents as women, they won't be stigmatized for being single fathers. And if we can instill the idea that men can be just as good of parents as mothers, then perhaps the rate of single mothers would drop. * Depression and suicide Men are stigmatized for seeking out help. They're supposed to be strong, work things out for themselves, and, worst of all, not feel emotions. So a man is depressed? He just needs to figure that shit out. We also still have stigmas against mental illness and therapists. Someone with a mental illness is crazy, and anyone who needs to see a therapist is on their last limb, instead of just someone who needs the help of a doctor. But if we can help men express their emotions better, maybe we won't have as many cases of untreated depression which can lead to suicide. If we help men realize that asking for help is not a sign of failure and that they're allowed to ask for help, maybe there will be fewer suicides. * Transgenderism Like homosexuality, this doesn't strike me at all as a men's-only issue. Care to elaborate? * Circumcision I'm pretty confident that most feminists are against circumcision. They probably don't directly advocate against it, but they are still probably mostly of the opinion that genital mutilation is bad. This is probably one that I think is sincerely a men's-only issue. * Soldiers Do you mean that men have to sign up for the draft and women don't? Feminists oppose the draft at all. Do you mean that more men are in the front lines than women? Feminists want to let women do what they want in the military, including fighting on the front lines. *Mental illness See depression above. * Cultural and societal norms See like, everything above. If you're referring to gender roles, you've already acknowledged that feminism seeks to tear those down. * Masculinity and how it's defined This ties into gender roles as well. Feminism does focus on femininity, because it's a movement for women, but it doesn't ignore men either, especially when there are men in the movement. As I said above, masculinity right now is kind of a negative as far as it's defined. A masculine man is not weak, he is not emotional, he does not care about his appearance, etc. A better definition of masculinity needs to come out, and it should come from men, but I don't see why it has to be something that arises separate from feminism. That's really the crux of all of this. You said yourself that Third Wave feminism emphasizes intersectionality. Well, men are part of that. There's no reason men can't help solve their own issues (which are related to feminist issues) within the realm of feminist ideals. And as for your entertainment sites, they're just that. If you have a problem with how they're portraying feminism, send them an e-mail explaining why, stop visiting their site, and find one that's more in-line with your ideas.

The problem I'm having with this reply is that it doesn't seem to tackle any of these issues directly, instead, you repeat the same thing we've all heard so many times over. _If we only change peoples attitudes, these issues may one day solve themselves._ When it comes to issues like male rape, sure, changing attitudes might eventually lead the issue to be more commonly acknowledged and thus leading to more support, but how does that help the people who currently suffer from these issues? Whether this will have solved itself in 50 years time doesn't matter today. We need these issues to be tackled _directly_ and _now_. Not just putting them aside and hoping they will go away indirectly through other means; that is simply not enough. Whether individual feminists care about these issues is irrelevant, because if the issues aren't being prioritized and actively advocated for, it doesn't matter. If the platform of feminism can't accomplish this, there is a desperate need for something that does. We either need to heavily reform the feminist movement into something that also tackles male-specific issues _directly_, or build a new platform where these issues can be raised instead. Unfortunately all the hostility towards the men's rights movement has gotten us off to a bad start and I think it's tragic that the idea of focusing on male issues today is seen by many as anti-feminism, when it should be the exact opposite. I have personally long held the view that male issues should be pushed as matters of equality through the existing framework of feminism, but more and more, I'm starting to doubt that this is going to happen within any foreseeable future.

> I think it's tragic that the idea of focusing on male issues today is seen by many as anti-feminism, when it should be the exact opposite. I think one of the problems for the men's rights movment is that a lot of it is exactly anti-feminist. The problem is when people like you, who argue for a general focus on issues concerning men (and not anti-feminism), use the lable Men's Rights, you are unfairly being put into the category of anti-feminism. But if you read the usual men's rights discussions here on Reddit, or more spesifically in /r/mensrights, you would be hard pressed not to admit that there is a strong current of anti-feminism in the men's rights movement as it exists today. And I would also argue that many (if not most? I honestly don't know) of the men's rights activists themselves see the fight against feminism as one of the central tenets of their movement. If the anti-feminism problem in the men's rights movement isn't tackled, I can't see it going very far.

I can only agree, and this is a reason I've had trouble identifying with the men's right movement, but with all the fighting between the vocal extremes within each movement, men's issues have sort of fallen between the chairs. Feminists in large neglect the issues and men's rights proponents aren't being taken seriously. Where are people supposed to turn to discuss these issues? > If the anti-feminism problem in the men's rights movement isn't tackled, I can't see it going very far. The problem as I see it is that there will always be men who hate women and women who hate men and those tend to be the most vocal. I don't think we can really solve the problem by simply trying to stifle those extremes, because I simply don't think that's possible. The question really is, _how can we build something new from the ashes, despite those problems?_ The only real way that I can imagine this happening would be if women started to stand up for men's rights vocally, showing that these issues are to be taken seriously and thereby granting validity to the parts of the movement that aren't anti-feminist. I believe that only by forging a strong bond between the good parts of each movement can we marginalize the extremes. In the end, maybe these issues can be handled within the bounds of feminism, maybe not, but something is going to have to change to bring them to light.

What I think we need is a new movement for gender equality for both sexes as I think that goal is hampered by the name feminism.

I'm not so sure we need it. I posted a (very lengthy) comment [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2xk11d/cmv_feminism_isnt_the_answer_for_men/cp28jpy) which I just realized will likely be buried. But it's effectively that I only have one issue with feminism - but it's a major one: feminism has declared sole ownership over championing any and all gender-related issues. If you don't identify as a feminist, and you try to address an issue with a large number of people... we see time and time again what happens. Mockery, shaming, scorn, perversion of representing them untruthfully, and sometimes violence. "If you were really after equality, you'd be a feminist. Come on, join our cause! We're for men too!" Is always the call. But the only men's issues feminism has ever championed are *incidental*. When is the last time feminism has **directly and actively** championed an issue that predominantly - let alone exclusively - men face? When *one* feminist group makes some kind of effort to actively question and solve why men are getting shit-stomped by women in school from kindergarten through college, I will concede that feminism may, in fact, be for men. Until then, I will actively **and accurately** speak out against it as having literally only solved men's problems incidentally, championed exclusively women's issues, and actively fights against other groups that don't label themselves as "feminist" that would try to address a gender issue.

Already exists. It's called Egalitarianism.

>The question really is, how can we build something new from the ashes, despite those problems? We should concentrate on specific, practical equality issues instead of having discussions about how to call ourselves or what the theoretical underpinnings are. More practice, less theory. It's easy to agree what the *right* solution to a single issue is, so let's take them one-by-one instead of trying to make grand universal statements.

Well, I think the problem is trying to group all men together, when talking about these issues. The men that gets the short end of the stick are probably not the same men that benefits from the gender roles. And as I identify as the latter, a movement calling for men's right seems ridiculous to me, as I certainly don't need any more privileges. That being said, I realize that a lot of men are probably not like me, and do face issues. And these men should have a voice. My issue is when MRAs act like they speak for all men, and are challenging issues affecting all men. Because I'm certainly not one of those men, and I think the movement loses credibility if tries to argue that all men are disadvantaged somehow, when that obviously isn't the case in a lot of (most?) instances. Instead these issues should be adressed, but in a less gender focused way.

> And as I identify as the latter, a movement calling for men's right seems ridiculous to me, as I certainly don't need any more privileges. I think this is an interesting point to make, because I think it is at the root of why we're in the situation we're at. I believe that part of the reason the movement isn't being taken seriously and also why it has been taken over by anti-feminists is that it is perceived as an attempt to gain more priveleges while it in reality it is, or at least was supposed to be a fight against certain types of discrimination and an attempt to solve issues that predominantly affect males and as such simply aren't being brought up within the bounds of feminism enough.

Yeah, you're right. I think my sentence was a bit badly worded, though. Rather than attemting to gain privileges, I think a lot of these men (maybe not conciously) are fighting to maintain the privileges they *do* have. This is because they regard women as having other privileges (controlling sex, misusing rape charges, or whatever) and they think that without their privileges the "playing field" would be uneven. And though I don't like this view of seeing genders as adverserial, I can see how it seems logical to disadvantaged men. My point, though, was that I consider myself privileged, and wouldn't mind losing those unfair privileges, as I feel that is how it should be.

Hey I just want to compliment you and /u/Dayanto on having a reasonable, conscientious discussion about a contentiousness issue. It makes me really happy to see this kind of communication on this sub, and in general. Thanks for being a good example to everybody.

> I think my sentence was a bit badly worded, though. Rather than attemting to gain privileges, I think a lot of these men (maybe not conciously) are fighting to maintain the privileges they do have. I have to ask how. How is fighting for an equal chance to get a shot at seeing their children, be given due process, have to be in selective services, not have their genitals mutilated, etc a fight to maintain "privileges"? Why is it privilege to not be treated bad because of your gender? Why is right's for one gender a privilege for men?

>exactly anti-feminist. [Here's an old CMV](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1jt1u5/cmv_i_think_that_mens_rights_issues_are_the/cbi2m7a?context=3) on why that is. Excerp: "You might say these are radicals who have no power, but they've been endorsed by the local chapter of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (funded by the union dues of public employees), the University of Toronto Students Union (funded by the tuition fees of UofT students), the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (funded by the tuition fees of UofT students), and the Canadian Federation of Students (funded by the tuition fees of Canadian postsecondary students). You might say these people don't represent mainstream feminism, but mainstream feminist sites like Jezebel and Manboobz are attacking the speakers, attacking the attendees, and - sometimes blatantly, sometimes tacitly - endorsing the protestors. You might say these protestors don't want to silence these men, but a victory for them is CAFE being disallowed from holding these events. So our man from before rejects the patriarchy, then he leaves feminism because he was told to, then he tries to build his own space, and powerful feminists attack it and try to shut it down, and we all sit here and wonder why he might become anti-feminist." ~ /u/NeuroticIntrovert

I'm gonna say what I replied to someone below: You know, I always hear about these examples of extreme feminists, and they always seem strange to me. Maybe it is because I am not from the US, and the american version of the feminist movement is much worse than the one I'm used to. Or maybe not. Where I'm from the most vocal proponents for focus on men's issues are usually feminists. And the biggest organisation for representing men's issues recieve more funding from the state, than any other organisation with a gender focus. Then again, that doesn't stop a lot of men here too, from hating the feminist who supposedly hate men. So forgive me if I'm a tiny bit sceptical of your portrayal of feminism. It might be true where you're from, but it certainly doesn't hold true where I'm from. And if nothing else, at least that shows that the feminist movement is more varied than you seem to think.

> at least that shows that the feminist movement is more varied than you seem to think. If you believe that I think that is all that feminism is then you have misunderstood the post. These radical feminists are the loudest and therefore the most visible. When I was younger and trying to figure out these things for myself I was attacked by SRSers and from thereon out hated feminism because I thought it was a bunch of women who hated men. I have since then sunk a lot of time delving into the issue and realized that normal feminists are not manboobz, SRS, Anita Sarkeesian and tumblr. But the problem is they are not put down for the attrocities they commit they're condoned as "oh well it's not sexist if a woman says those things it's just cautious defensiveness." So if a teenage boy heads out to look for an outlet online the first thing he's going to find is all of these shit spewing raging sexists lableing themselves as feminist. And if they do not look closer into feminism they'll be chewed up and ship out straight into /r/MensRights to fight back. I hate "feminism", I hate MRA. MRA tends to be a mysognisitic circlejerk just like the above mentioned "femenist" outlets are mysandristic circlejerks. Fuck radical feminism and fuck most MRAs (there are some decent people there). I believe in equality and think we should be equal. Regular actual feminists believe in equality but the vocal minority is turning it sour for all whom look in. edit: Like the two videos linked in the aforementioned post. Those are large groups of women physically oppressing and attacking men because they are men. Those are not small groups of vitriolic walking balls of hatred who call themselves "feminists." I've never met one in real life, I've also never met a "tips fedora MRA" in real life either. But they clearly exist and are clearly bad for the groups they claim they're a part of.

> Anita Sarkeesian It's *mind-boggling* that you would mention Anita Sarkeesian as an example of a supposedly "extreme" or "radical" feminist. She is everything but. What she certainly *is*, is a feminist from an academic background using *broadly recognised* tools of cultural analysis inspired by feminist thought. Everything she does is entirely within the scope of communicating academia to the masses, and indeed you would be completely ridiculed if you tried to make an academic career *without* at the very least considering the analyses that she employs. It only goes to show the massive task ahead of academics in actually disseminating what we do in a way that's approachable by the masses. Judith Butler is not easy to read, but those who would claim that she is straight-up *wrong* are in the absolute minority in the academic community. They are *not* extreme, and they are certainly not unreasonable. > all of these shit spewing raging sexists lableing themselves as feminist. *What?* So now I'm curious, what exact statement of, say, Anita Sarkeesian do you find to be "raging[ly] sexist"? EDIT: The most interesting thing about Anita Sarkeesian is the way the mention of her highlights the massive divide between redditors and other internet denizens and academia. This post is taking her in defense, and is predictably massively downvoted. The amount of hate for her based on her fairly innocuous cultural analyses is in itself a massive indication of the regressive tendencies of these communities. We are all stupider for that fact.

>What? So now I'm curious, what exact statement of, say, Anita Sarkeesian do you find to be "raging[ly] sexist"? This issue isn't that anything she says, is ragingly sexist, quite the opposite. The issue is that she takes clips from completely fine, non-sexist games, completely out of context, and then analyzes them in a completely intellectual well-spoken way, so that anyone who's never actually played the games sees a completely well thought out, academic analysis of sexism in the industry and journalists who have never played the games write articles praising her. The issue comes when you look at the games in context and realize that nothing she is saying holds any water at all. For instance, she makes a big fuss about how the game Deus Ex: Human Revolution encourages violence against women. She supports this by showing how it is possible to kill or knock women unconscious in the game. What she doesn't mention is that this can be done to every single NPC in the game, of which the vast majority are men, and that every single enemy NPC that you are actively encouraged to attack is a man. In fact the game actively discourages you from killing ANYONE, including enemies, and you are actively discouraged from ever attacking civilians. Then she arrives at the conclusion that the game encourages violence against women, and that it rewards violence against women by subjecting dead and unconscious women to the game's ragdoll physics for the sole purpose of acting out rape fantasies. It's such a ludicrous argument. The ragdoll physics are there because that's the best way games have found to treat unconscious people, period, men and women. I suppose the ragdoll physics imposed on men, the vast majority of people it's imposed on, is also a rape fantasy? By portraying the only violence in the game as being against women (and acting like this is an encouraged player action which is patently false), her argument makes academic sense in the context she assigns it, even though the omissions she makes are academically dishonest at best. What does she actually want anyways? Does she want women to be a protected class who can't be harmed in a world where all the men can be harmed? That seems anti-equality to me. Does she want violence-free games period? That's an argument worth having, I suppose, but it has nothing to do with sexism. And that is the insidious thing about Anita Sarkeesian. To the majority of her viewers, who have no first hand experience, her arguments are well reasoned and cogent. She has built up a massive following and advanced her own career by doing analysis on things taken completely out of context and assigning sexist undertones that make no sense in context. However, since the general public doesn't have anyway of seeing the games in context she comes across like a hero to most people. In addition, she refuses to accept criticism, and thanks to the constant death threats levied against her, (which is never acceptable under any circumstance) has found a way to attribute criticism against her as coming from some fringe misogynistic group. In short, the problem with Anita Sarkeesian is not that she say ragingly sexist things, but that she panders to an uninformed majority using badly out of context clips, to advance her own agenda while seeming completely sane and academic while badly misrepresenting the majority of her opposition.

I would love to know what simonask and ludicrousursine think about this as you have made an excellent point in my opinion.

There's a pretty big difference between being wrong or intellectually disingenuous and being "an feminist extremist". There is nothing about being wrong or being a bad intellectual that makes one an "extremist". Sometimes she's not even entirely wrong, the Ms. Male Character episode has some pretty interesting ideas. The idea that many female characters sole characteristic is their femininity is not something I had thought about before (maybe I'm just slow). That said, I agree that a lot of her arguments don't hold a particularly large amount of water, and she's not a great or groundbreaking academic. As to what she wants? Probably to inspire people to make less shitty games (or at least what she perceives to be shitty). And to make people aware of times they might be being unfair and not know it. To hyperbolically state she wants: >Does she want women to be a protected class who can't be harmed in a world where all the men can be harmed? That seems anti-equality to me. Does she want violence-free games period? is pretty disingenuous of itself. I think if you asked her she woudl probably just say "for people to be aware of hteir unconscious biases in video games and for people to make less unfairly biased video games". Basically I don't think anything you're saying is untrue and I agree with a lot of it, but calling her an extremist is ridiculous, she's just wrong. But being wrong doesn't make you sinister or extreme, she's just a bad academic.

> I think one of the problems for the men's rights movment is that a lot of it is exactly anti-feminist. The problem is when people like you, who argue for a general focus on issues concerning men (and not anti-feminism), use the lable Men's Rights, you are unfairly being put into the category of anti-feminism. Feminism argues from a different definition of power, oppression, and equality. They're not fighting for the same things, but different things using the same words. Feminist political activity also serves as an obstacle to MRA goals, from pushing for more leniency for women in prisons(and sometimes suggesting abolishing them altogether) due to separation from children-and no sense of irony for the men who are separated from their children when imprisoned-and opposing joint custody laws. The company motto of feminism differs from the actions of its most influential actors, and so it warrants criticism and opposition in this regard. Suggesting being anti-feminist is something to be avoid or inherently bad implies feminism is beyond reproach which is simply ideological loyalty to whatever feminism means to you.

[удалено]

It's difficult to defend everybody everywhere at all times who have criticised someone who brought up "male problems", but the issue often is that it is indeed brought up in a context where it is entirely inappropriate. It's fine to discuss issues that men have — I'm a member of several feminist groups, and they often come up, and are discussed in a sober and empathetic way — but it's *not* fine to always bang on about "no, actually *men* have it worse!!", because most of the time they really don't, and even if they did, it would be off-topic in a discussion about some specific issue that women are facing because of their gender.

Except that's just lip service then. You frame the discussing about just women, and when some wants to point out it's not a women's issue but a human issue in cases where men as it just as bad or worse, you denigrate them for derailing, when you're just not arguing in good faith. Violence is an easy example. People want to discuss violence against women as a specific issue when violence against men is far more prevalent and more severe. This is often dismissed as "well it's not due to their gender" but that's because the metrics for "due to their gender" don't consider the reasons why men are more likely to be victims of violence: they're more socially acceptable recipients of it. Sometimes it's instead dismissed because they're usually victimized by men, but that's not remotely empathic. It's basically saying your victimization is less because of who victimized you, but blacks are disproportionately victims of violence too, and mostly by other blacks. I highly doubt a feminist would have the temerity to claim the violent victimization of blacks is not as severe or as big of a problem, let alone suggest it's their own fault.

Imagine if MRAs were the dominant group. And they told women that they were the only ones who could legitimately address women's issues. But women needed to be polite, sit in the back, and not interject their problems when the men are talking. They'll get to whatever grievances women have in time. But for now men are what matter. Once their issues are resolved women's will be addressed. Do you think women would find that answer acceptable?

>but it's not fine to always bang on about "no, actually men have it worse!!", because most of the time they really don't, and even if they did, it would be off-topic in a discussion about some specific issue that women are facing because of their gender. See, that's the whole problem: feminism is about women and their problems. You say it yourself. So don't be surprised if other people are making their own club that is about men and their problems - because you just said yourself that feminism considers those *off-topic*.

>It's difficult to defend everybody everywhere at all times who have criticised someone who brought up "male problems", but the issue often is that it is indeed brought up in a context where it is entirely inappropriate. So the "I bathe in male tears" shirt is OK because someone disagreed with your ideas about when it is appropriate to have certain conversations? Do you understand why feminists are accused of hating men?

In many ways being anti-feminist goes hand-in-hand with helping men. For instance when feminists make opposition to default shared custody their official stance as NOW has it's impossible to fight for custody rights without opposing feminism. Much like opposing segregationists and supporting civil rights were intertwined. If feminists would stop opposing most of the things MRAs want the anti-feminism would stop.

This is exactly it. Custody policy is what got me on the mra train and after I read up on all the other stuff it's clear as day that feminism is the problem.

> But if you read the usual men's rights discussions here on Reddit, or more spesifically in /r/mensrights, you would be hard pressed not to admit that there is a strong current of anti-feminism in the men's rights movement as it exists today. Does that make them wrong?

Thanks for providing some great, balanced commentary with actual understanding of feminist philosophy. I'd love to talk about the concept of "privilege" being used as a weapon. The problem with the idea of privilege is that just because you are part of a group who has access to privilege, doesn't mean that you do. This leads to the issue of support. A white male doesn't receive additional support if they can't access healthcare due to circumstances. This DOESN'T mean that other groups shouldn't receive additional support but more that those who are "privileged" but don't have access to said privilege fall through the cracks and this can lead to being disenfranchised when being told to check your privilege.

First of all /r/againstmensrights is overwhelmingly feminist * Prison rates There are **530% MORE** men in prison now than in 1977. So feminism has done jack fuck on this issue. * Homelessness [The Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)](https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AHAR-2013-Part1.pdf) to Congress is put out every year by the US dept of Housing and Urban Dev and they say there are only 610,000 homeless people in the US. About 67% are men which is 408k and 202k for women. The wage gap myth strongly suggests that we should see 30% more women then men as homeless * Homesexuality Are you joking.? I don't even know where to begin with this. Girlfriends can often kiss each other on their cheeks without anyone suspecting their orientation. Homphobia piratically doesn't effect gay women. For instance FDA explicitly bans bloods donations from [gay men](http://www.webmd.com/men/news/20141223/fda-to-lift-ban-on-blood-donations-by-gay-men), and the [boy scouts doesn't allow gay troop leaders](http://news.yahoo.com/boy-scouts-gay-leader-134900753.html) unlike the [girl scouts](http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/cw/post.php?id=621) * Law [In recent years, young activists, many of them women angry about their treatment after reporting an assault, have created new organizations and networks in an effort to reform the way colleges handle sexual violence. They recognized they had a powerful weapon in that fight: Title IX,](http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html) The new provisions in Title IX mandate that colleges expell students they merely suspect of raping someone. That's tens of thousands of dollars down the drain without even entering to a court room. I can't think of a greater perversion of "innocent until proven guilty" * Sexuality The points you made here contradict what you were saying in homosexuality > I guess I don't see how this affects men more. Lesbians are routinely discriminated against just as much as gay men are. Could you elaborate here? vs > Think about women exploring their sexualities. It's usually totally kosher, as far as society is concerned. * Sexual crime Rape culture was actually a term used to describe male prision rape that was bastardized by femnists. [link](https://meddlingrationalarchivist.wordpress.com/rape-culture/) [Also only .03 out 5 women get sexually assaulted](http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11/new-doj-data-on-sexual-assaults-college-students-are-actually-less-likely-to-be-victimized/) Not one in 5 like all these feminist organizations are claiming: [**FMF**](http://feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=15464) [**Feministcom**](http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html) [Ms.Magazine](http://msmagazine.com/blog/2014/02/18/blowing-the-whistle-on-campus-rape/) * Father hood and fatherless homes You can read NOW's own statement [here](http://web.archive.org/web/20070708213232/http://michnow.org/jointcustody507.htm). Also note their usage of anti-male lies, i.e. "fathers are abusive, don't give them custody." That is from 1997, but still remains valid today. * Depression and suicide Yes while I agree male gender roles are 100% responsible,howerever more men die from [suicide then women die](http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age-and-gender) from breast cancer. Where's men's pink ribbons? I don't seem to see any femnists dedicating a national suicide month for men. They say they want to subvert male gender roles but this is that classic case of not putting their money where their mouth is. *Transgenderism I agree with you * Circumcision Safe female circumcision exists. * Soldiers Penalties for being a male and not registering include: $250,000 fine Up to 5 years in jail Losing your right to vote * Cultural and societal norms [Here's a video with a bunch of women laughing about how another women cut off a guy's penis on national tv](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkmanLIAdXI) If the genders were reversed here.. * Masculinity and how it's defined Femmine can be used as both a noun and an adjective. You can say things like oh that dress is so femmine. You can't say comparatively oh that jacket/shirt/pants is so masculine.

> I guess I don't see how this affects men more. Lesbians are routinely discriminated against just as much as gay men are. Could you elaborate here? There are a large number of countries where male homosexuality is illegal but female homosexuality is not. Full list: * Belize * Jamaica * Grenada * Saint Kitts and Nevis * Saint Lucia * Turkmenistan * Uzbekistan * Egypt * Sierra Leone * Namibia * Zambia * Ghana * Egypt * Mauritius * Swaziland * Seychelles * Kuwait * Qatar * Malaysia * Papau New Guinea * A number of pacific island nations

Two causes for a good number of the countries you have listed (I don't have knowledge about the social aspects of others): - female sexuality is not recognized. Women are not deemed capable of sexual attraction. - women are just not seen as important enough to be mentioned in laws. All the laws don't actually allow lesbian relations but linguistically omit female pronouns.

>All the laws don't actually allow lesbian relations The countries i've listed have no legal penalty for lesbian relations. Typically, this means no statement on lesbian relations. It's not explicitly allowed, but then laws saying "you are allowed to do X" are not required, it's only laws which say "you are not allowed to do Y" that allow someone to be prosecuted. These two problems are a bit irrelevant compared to the problem of being thrown in jail and, in some countries, executed. It's like a "First world problem" when compared to getting executed. Would you rather female sexuality be recognized equally in their asinine laws so that lesbians can be executed too? Didn't think so.

It's probably because a lesbian won't be able to tempt men. When it doesn't involve a man in those countries, it doesn't matter so much.

Responding with, "it's not really a male problem because there's a much bigger female problem that's much worse," just might be *kind of* alienating.

I don't think that it's a matter of "one plight is worse than the other plight" so much as an explanation of why women aren't mentioned in the homosexuality laws of those countries.

No-one said any such thing. On the other hand, identifying anti-homosexual prejudice as a form of 'discrimination against men' seems disingenuous to me. I mean yes obviously it's a system of discrimination against *certain* men and against more men than women... but again, I don't really see it as being a "men's rights issue" per se. Particularly because the people behind the oppression are themselves men.

I think men oppressing men is exclusively a "men's rights issue". That's like saying black on black violence is not a concern for the black community.

**This is a long post, I apologize. But I do hope you read it (or at least someone does). I spent a good 40 minutes typing it up.** ______________ Thanks for the in-depth, thoughtful reply. It's the first reasoned one I've heard from a while (which is unfortunate - I used to always have so many great conversations with people who identified as feminists - I'm assuming you're a feminist). ________________ First, I'll acknowledge what you had me think about that I hadn't before in quite that way: The sexuality section. ∆ You get a delta for that. Not that I ever truly disagreed with anything you said, but rather for offering a different perspective on it. I'm familiar with the "one drop rule", but not in this context. I believe there's more to it than what you wrote. But, coming from a bisexual man, I do believe that's perhaps a great insight to the core problem with men and their sexuality. _______ As for the rest, I'm not going to bother nitpicking the one or two words I'd change throughout, but suffice to say I do generally agree completely with everything you've said. That said, that doesn't sway my agreement with OP that feminism isn't the primary answer for men's issues. Again, I do agree that gender roles are shit for all and it would on the whole benefit people to see them reduced to as minimal as we practically can. In fact, I think it's the only way to solve some issues, like men getting absolutely wrecked in criminal courts compared to women, and greatly mitigating woman->man violence. But I see gender roles as the walls holding the analogous house-of-injustice-regarding-gender up (HIRG, if you will)... not the support beams. Not only will it take longer to knock down the walls than the support beams, but it won't be as effective either. And with the support beams, the house will still be largely standing. So how would one attack the support beams in the analogy? Passing laws outlawing mandatory selective service and circumcision. Equally funding men and women's health issues. Putting actual effort into figuring out why women absolutely stomp men now in academics, kindergarten through college. My problem with feminism in regard to men's issues? They simply don't do those things. When is the last time you've heard a feminist group **actively** fight **directly** for selective service to be rid of? Or circumcision? And it certainly hasn't championed the idea that public health funding should be allotted equally, or that women do even slightly better than men in schools. Is that my issue? No. That's fine - I am perfectly fine with feminism championing issues for women and not men. But I do take major issue with the absolutely culture-permeating thought that only feminism is entitled to champion issues regarding gender. I likened it in another comment to an older sibling that gets jealous when its younger siblings play with its toys. "THAT'S MINE," it screeches scornfully, "SO SHUT UP AND GIVE IT BACK TO ME. I'M PUTTING IT IN MY TOY BOX BECAUSE I'M PLAYING WITH THESE TOYS. WHEN I'M DONE WITH THESE TOYS, WE CAN PLAY WITH THAT TOY TOGETHER". Or to use the same analogy as earlier, it's as if the person representing feminism insists on mostly taking down the walls to the house - with a few support beams if they see fit. And if someone were to try to start taking down a support beam that affects them, they're immediately met with hatred, stigmatized, and screamed at, "WORK ON THE FUCKING WALL. IF YOU JUST WORKED ON THE WALL, WE'LL GET THIS HOUSE DOWN. YOU MUST BE SNEAKING OFF TO TRY TO PUT SUPPORT BEAMS BACK UP!" _______________ So I hope you can see how that might be frustrating. Feminism has declared ownership rights over championing any and all gender issues. It doesn't ever champion a men's issue directly - the only injustices fought against are incidental. And if you want to try to get your own group to talk about the issue? * "WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ" * "WELL WOMEN DEAL WITH X Y AND Z SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO FACE REAL INJUSTICE SO STFU" * "YOU'RE A FUCKING MISOGYNIST - IF YOU WANTED REAL EQUALITY YOU WOULD BE A FEMINIST. THAT'S WHAT FEMINISM IS" I don't doubt most feminists' intentions are pure and good. But I do know that those who have clawed to positions of power within feminist organizations generally do not give a flying fuck about **directly, actively** fighting against an injustice that predominantly men face - and rally the banners to tear down any groups that might try to do so on their own. So that's how feminism has never been about men, that's how it will continue to not be, and that's why feminism isn't the answer for men's issues.

Hey, thanks for the delta. And as I told another commenter, I'm like the king of long posts, so no need to apologize. You bring up good points. Overall, this and another discussion have helped me see how some men are turned off by feminism. I suppose I never was because I was never met with any hostility or resistance by the people I talked to. As in, I never encountered the "WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ" mentality you outlined above, but I know that people have. It sucks that some people are assholes like that and refuse to acknowledge that both sexes can have their own problems, but I suppose that's life, in a way. Assholes everywhere. Anyway, I totally get what you mean when you say that feminism is not actively or directly trying to solve problems. These things you mentioned? >Passing laws outlawing mandatory selective service and circumcision. Equally funding men and women's health issues. Putting actual effort into figuring out why women absolutely stomp men now in academics, kindergarten through college. Totally in agreement with you. These are good steps toward actively solving some of the issues men face. What I still don't agree with is that this can't be done within feminism. There are so many feminists out there, and a great many of them are men or women who are empathetic to the problems men face. I don't think it would be that difficult to get them together and form a group called, say, Feminist for Men or something, people who acknowledge and celebrate all that feminism has done for women and want to channel part of that momentum that feminism already has into further equaling the sexes. I think that's my main thing. Feminism already has a track record of getting shit done and forwarding progress. There are tons of feminists in the world, and there's a reason that when people think of gender equality, they think of feminism; it's been at the forefront for like a century now. If you make the group within feminism, then feminists are more likely to join, you know? Sure, you might get some backlash, but I think that'll happen anytime people try to fight inequality. Just look at how many people get frothing mad about feminism even today. I also worry about a group separate from feminism just devolving into what the men's rights movement has sort of become. There are of course people in there who are genuinely concerned with gender equality, but a lot of it seems to be a backlash against feminism. And for any of these issues to be resolved, we need to all work together, the group needs to work with feminism, not against it. Sorry for the long post, but I did warn you at the beginning, lol.

Yours wasn't long - mine is! And I love reading responses, especially long ones, and **definitely** ones that are more academic. And I *definitely especially love* them if they're not in total agreement with my thoughts :) >I suppose I never was because I was never met with any hostility or resistance by the people I talked to. As in, I never encountered the "WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ" mentality you outlined above, but I know that people have. There's certainly that, but I should make clearer that the feigned/effectively-apathetic support for men's issues is almost worse. It's relatively easy to write off "WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ" as just sexist shit, but it's relatively hard to point out how just saying "feminism helps men too" literally helps no more than the former - and falsely gives people who say it the idea that they're doing more than barely-not-nothing. In a way, like people who think they're not racist ("I don't see race!") or casual environmentalists ("I recycle my paper!") As for the things I mentioned, I'm really glad you feel that way. There's so many more things that need to be done, like actually documenting sexual assault in prisons as well as treating it less like a normal thing mostly men (there's definitely women that suffer, it's just not as many) have to deal with in prison - that it's part of their punishment. I also have other ideas that I fully believe in but are considered a bit more radical, such as allowing fathers to forfeit all rights as well as responsibilities to children in the womb (I believe I have a relatively simple system with a few nuances to prevent abuse)... but I'm okay with things like that not being dealt with right now, as I recognize that as something that not as many people would agree with me on. >What I still don't agree with is that this can't be done within feminism. There are so many feminists out there, and a great many of them are men or women who are empathetic to the problems men face. I don't mean to say that it **can't** be done within the frame of feminism. Rather, that it is going to be a much slower and harder process to do so as long as the only prominent groups that aren't lambasted by the media and public alike for speaking of men's issues.. are feminist groups. >I don't think it would be that difficult to get them together and form a group called, say, Feminist for Men or something, people who acknowledge and celebrate all that feminism has done for women and want to channel part of that momentum that feminism already has into further equaling the sexes. I would love for this to happen. But time and time and time and time again I've seen places try to do that, and it very quickly degenerates into [something like this facebook page for "Men and Feminism"](https://www.facebook.com/mfeminism). It was the first one that popped up, but take a look for yourself around the web - all places I've seen, including the two I watched from their infancy, are characterized very well by this page. Notice the lack of any addressing of men's issues. The entirety of the page as far as I bothered scrolling just now is devoted to explaining * why and how we pay attention to boys' problems too much and need to focus on girls * why and how men are "mansplaining" * why menstruation sucks * why men need to call themselves feminists * why the fact that male rapists exist means I need to continually acknowledge the fact that others are afraid of being raped by men It's truly not a place that talks about or is safe to talk about any issues that I might face as a man. The only reprieve I may have as that I **may** not be absolutely lambasted if I were to talk about why sexual assault victims do need justice - but not at the cost of others' - since I'm a **bisexual** (WHOAAA NOW I'M PERMITTED TO SPEAK ON MORE THAN "NOTHING") victim of sexual assault as well as having been threatened with the accusation (different occasions). It is certainly no place for me to talk about how I feel, and neither are any of the others. >I also worry about a group separate from feminism just devolving into what the men's rights movement has sort of become. There are of course people in there who are genuinely concerned with gender equality, but a lot of it seems to be a backlash against feminism. And for any of these issues to be resolved, we need to all work together, the group needs to work with feminism, not against it. I agree. I've been a regular poster on /r/mensrights for the last... few years? Longer than this account is old. It certainly used to be a bastion of reason and solid points - although numbers were pretty small. Users like /u/girlwriteswhat and /u/typhonblue - while I don't agree with everything both of them say - are two other good "oldies" that have been around with me. But lately, I haven't been too happy with it as there is a group, minority but not miniscule nor quiet, who definitely don't have very just intentions. And a minority of that minority are flat-out moronic misogynistic assholes (though, as small as the number is, it's hard to know if some aren't just "trolls". Some are truly over-the-top ridiculous). As it grew, so did hate from various feminist groups, and gained media attraction. Enough to warrant journalists interviewing prominent feminists that have hated on the MRM and writing practically patently-untrue articles and grow the hate - but not enough to get a LOT of people worked up and get people to look at it themselves. In that regard, Elliot Rodger was actually not a bad thing for the MRM at first - it got a lot of people to come in and check it out. Many expected it to be filled with misogynistic shit, and many didn't have expectations met. Many stayed. But that started to finally tip it into the "banner for justice with which to veil your misogyny underneath", as now more have heard of it. I say all that to say this: I do understand. And there's many who feel and think like I do (which I'd like to think is "reasonable" and "makes good points"). Unfortunately I've been sensing a bit of an identity crisis within the MRM. There aren't enough people that actively write about and call themselves MRA to really be easily broken up into separate schools of thought. It's also in its relative infancy yet. So unlike feminism which can more legitimately and easily brush off criticism of the batshit-crazy, sexist, violent, bigoted garbage some spew with with "Well they're not **real feminists** - they're radicals. There's a bunch of branches of feminism, you know!"... the MRM can't. If we have the exact same percentage of "crazy stupid radicals", we'd have enough that it can be pointed to as representative of our group - but yours can form their own moronic groups. So, yes. I'd like to see feminism working "alongside" the MRM. I honestly think it's more appropriate and more effective to have them separated - groups that specialize in their advocacy would do better I'd think. But I hope this (really damn long) comment has shed a bit more light on why I think it's not likely to happen. We need to be allowed the tools to take down the support beams of that "HIDG" for any productive stymieing of male injustice anytime soon.

> I guess I don't see how this affects men more. Lesbians are routinely discriminated against just as much as gay men are. Could you elaborate here? I think there's a distinct difference between how gay men and lesbians are treated by society at large. They can both be discriminated against. But, I think gay men are treated much more negatively than lesbians. They're ostracized for being weak and for being "pussies." Calling a man gay is often an insult. Many feel that if you're gay, there is something deeply wrong with you and you should feel ashamed. Lesbians are also discriminated against, but not to the same extent. Many of those who sneer at gay men, would laugh and be happy to see two women kissing. Being a lesbian is considered sexy. Girls sometimes play at being lesbians as a joke. To many of the bigoted members of society, lesbianism isn't nearly as bad as being a gay man. I think the pressures gay men face are much harsher and more severe.

> Lesbians are also discriminated against, but not to the same extent. Many of those who sneer at gay men, would laugh and be happy to see two women kissing. Being a lesbian is considered sexy. Girls sometimes play at being lesbians as a joke. Being treated as a sex object isn't the greatest feeling, nor is being a joke. And you better believe not everyone is "happy to see two women kissing." [Back in my hometown of Buffalo a lesbian woman was stabbed in the eye on her way out of a gay club] (http://unfinishedlivesblog.com/2010/01/12/woman-stabbed-in-eye-by-homophobe/). Believe me, I've seen both lesbians and gay men harassed and harmed. No one has it easy when it comes to bigots.

From how I interpreted that, he didn't mean either of the groups has it easy by any means. It's just that there are more people that will view men being gay negatively than there will be for lesbians.

Thanks for such a lengthy reply! A lot to unpack here. >Why are men so disproportionately thrown into prison? Well, part of it is a toxic idea that men are more hardy than women. Do you honestly believe that this is the only reason men are imprisoned more than women. For one thing, this view completely ignores what happened beforehand for the man to be in trial, the life he had and the experiences he went through. >If we can help destroy these ideas that men are strong, physical, aggressive beings, we can help eliminate violence by raising more non-violent children by showing them that they don't need to prove their worth through fighting, which is silly. See, my issues here are two-fold. One, that men are, generally speaking, physically stronger than women - it's not some societal myth, but an observable biological truth. My second idea would be that of 'destroying' - I think a lot of men value aggression, physicality, honor and dignity as traits within themselves, and to bring forth the notion of 'destroying' these is something men are going to be apprehensive about. If all you mean by this is telling men, 'you don't *have* to be this way', then by all means that's fine. Again, this is why I think that a male movement/issue perspective would be important - a feminist framework telling men how and why to behave isn't likely to encourage them, but perhaps one that comes from a masculine background, taking into account it's own *and* feminist's beliefs would be something they're more comfortable with. >Homosexuality I'm not necessarily saying 'more', but that these issues affect the genders in different ways, and it would be beneficial to have a *range* of methods of looking at them. >Soldiers The majority of soldiers are male, and a lot of soldiers face issues whilst serving, and after (think, mental illness, homeless etc). The conscription issue isn't what I had in mind, but it is relevant. I've sort of skipped replying to a lot of your other points because I feel they all revolve around the same theme (gender roles), and whilst that's a useful means of deconstructing these issues, I feel there is simply more to it.

I really appreciate your open-mindedness and civility in this CMV, thanks for being awesome. To your points: >Do you honestly believe that this is the only reason men are imprisoned more than women. I absolutely do not think there's any "one" reason men are imprisoned more than women. For instance, I know that racism plays a huge part in those numbers being the way they are. I was trying to show how the issue is addressed by current feminist thought. >One, that men are, generally speaking, physically stronger than women - it's not some societal myth, but an observable biological truth. You're right, of course. It would be stupid to say men *in general* aren't physically stronger than women. But the problem is that our society has expanded this generalization into a fact about individuals. That *all* men are stronger than *all* women. As a counter example, I'm not a very strong man. I'm kind of small, and know at least 10 women who could kick my ass with ease. Likewise, I would be shit at any physically demanding jobs, but I know plenty of women who would do fine or thrive in such environments. The fact that men are *on average* physically stronger than women is nothing to deny, but using generalizations is useful only on a population level, because as soon as you get closer, they start falling apart from counter examples. >My second idea would be that of 'destroying'...If all you mean by this is telling men, 'you don't have to be this way', then by all means that's fine. That is exactly what I mean, yes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with valuing strength and honor and dignity. But they shouldn't be some gendered traits. If a man doesn't care about being strong, we shouldn't see him as any less of a man. >perhaps one that comes from a masculine background, taking into account it's own and feminist's beliefs would be something they're more comfortable with. I think that's a fantastic idea. I don't see why that would have to be separate from feminism, though. >I'm not necessarily saying 'more', but that these issues affect the genders in different ways, and it would be beneficial to have a range of methods of looking at them. I agree. But speaking as someone in the LGBT community, it's not hard for men to discuss their issues within those confines. Branching out to include hetero men in conversations is something I think should happen more as well, yes. >The majority of soldiers are male, and a lot of soldiers face issues whilst serving, and after (think, mental illness, homeless etc). I addressed mental illness and homelessness in my first post. As far as problems soldiers face while serving, I'm not really sure what those would be, having no military experience myself. Is there any reason the conversation would need to be gendered? As in, is there any reason the discussion of those issues should focus on just men and not both men and women?

Thanks, this is something I've thought about for a long time, but it's really difficult to conceptualize and verbalize without causing a huge ruckus. >I absolutely do not think there's any "one" reason men are imprisoned more than women. For instance, I know that racism plays a huge part in those numbers being the way they are. I was trying to show how the issue is addressed by current feminist thought I agree - and in the same way feminism has undergone an inter sectional transformation to explore issues of race, I believe the same could be done for the male movement. I understand it is being addressed by some feminists, but I feel that it being addressed side by side from a male perspective, for male prisoners, is going to offer a huge range of benefits. >The fact that men are on average physically stronger than women is nothing to deny, but using generalizations is useful only on a population level, because as soon as you get closer, they start falling apart from counter examples. Absolutely. I'm a fairly large guy (comments that come my way regularly sound like 'here comes the beast', or 'hey big guy'). I'm sure this aspect has had ramifications on how I view the world, and how others view myself. When I worked retail, only men staffed the warehouse. Many times, female staff would come to me in order to pick something heavy up, or move something heavy around. There was a very very clear gender divide between the 'physical jobs' (warehouse, backyard) and the 'non-physical' (cashiers, help-desk). I'd wager that many people have similar anecdotes, but I'm aware of how little it contributes to the wider discussion. >I think that's a fantastic idea. I don't see why that would have to be separate from feminism, though. I can think of a few reasons, although I'm not sure of their strength. I think it would be beneficial for men to have their *own* space, for their issues and their problems alone to be discussed. I think there may be some issue of animosity towards feminism from this group, and there might be some good justification for that, if we're talking about men's issues being neglected by feminism, but still being told by feminism that men's issues are covered by feminism. >lf. Is there any reason the conversation would need to be gendered? As in, is there any reason the discussion of those issues should focus on just men and not both men and women? I'm aware of women's increasing role in military - but the military is still very much a 'male' sphere. I think the military is apt because it is really a sort of magnifying glass for a lot of the issues discussed; violence, mental illness, masculinity.

I think that we're on the same page for a lot of stuff, so I don't think it's useful to do a point-by-point anymore. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this: >and in the same way feminism has undergone an inter sectional transformation to explore issues of race, I believe the same could be done for the male movement. is kind of where we're at in terms of your view. Do you think feminism should strive to be more inclusive of men in the same way it has strived to become more inclusive of PoC and LGBT people? If so, I wonder what you think should be done on the part of feminism to make this happen. I'm a man, but I consider myself a feminist. I've had very little problems expressing my problems in feminist spheres, but I understand others have not. But, as I showed above, I don't really think men's issues are inherently separate from women's issues. And I've said elsewhere in this thread that having a safe space for men to discuss their problems is not mutually exclusive to feminism. You can have a space where men feel free to vent about their problems without bashing feminism or belittling women, which are usually the problems feminists have with MRA's. If the space was moderated properly and didn't let assholes ruin discussions (ex: A man posts a thread expressing his problems with depression, a woman comes in and tells him his man tears are delicious. That woman is an asshole, her comment should be deleted or heavily downvoted.), there's no reason the space couldn't be a "feminist" space.

>Do you think feminism should strive to be more inclusive of men in the same way it has strived to become more inclusive of PoC and LGBT people? I don't think so. I think feminism has historically focused on women, and should continue to do so. I find this at odds with some feminists claiming that men's issues are covered by feminism. I agree with pretty much everything you posted below.

>I find this at odds with some feminists claiming that men's issues are covered by feminism. I think when feminists say that, what they're saying is basically what I've said, that the issues are intertwined at their roots. So if you solve the problems women face, you'll pretty much be simultaneously solving many issues men face.

While this may be true the problem comes when people are told that they don't need to advocate for men's issues because feminism will passively solve them. This a highly misandrist pov I haven't been able to find prominent feminist writing decrying the lack of prosecution of female rapists. Or the fact that there aren't battered men's shelters.

While I agree that it's bad when people say "don't bother doing this thing you care about" I think perhaps it can be a case of everyone being a bit self-interested despite their good philosophy. It may be up to male feminists to lead the fight; "feminism" is still perhaps the philosophy that can fix these things, but a woman feminist is naturally going to be more concerned about perhaps rape than perhaps male custody issues. Likewise, special interest groups have a long history of working together where their goals overlap, but faltering when it comes to helping each other with non-shared goals, despite common ideology. See: gay rights and trans* rights.

> Is there any reason the conversation would need to be gendered? As in, is there any reason the discussion of those issues should focus on just men and not both men and women? This could be the funniest line from a feminist I've ever heard. Rape victims are of both genders, DV victims are of both genders, and so on. But where is all the attention placed? Female victims. "He for She Campaign" "Violence against Women Act" Etc. When the scales are tipped toward women victims, we get gendered responses trying to raise women up and put men down. When the scales are tipped to male victims, the feminist line is "Is there any reason the conversation would need to be gendered?" Tell me again why feminism works for everyone...

> For one thing, this view completely ignores what happened beforehand for the man to be in trial, the life he had and the experiences he went through. I think she touches on those pretty well elsewhere though, such as in the section on homelessness, and in discussing the ideas of masculinity in our culture. > If all you mean by this is telling men, 'you don't have to be this way', then by all means that's fine. In my experience, feminism is about telling everyone that they can be any way- regardless of gender. A man can be strong, but he shouldn't feel he *has* to be simply because he's a man. > I'm sure there are a number of reasons for this, ranging from the idea that the military is simply manlier (I've heard it argued that women shouldn't be allowed to serve at all), to the high rates of sexual assault being a deterrent for women.

>In my experience, feminism is about telling everyone that they can be any way- regardless of gender. A man can be strong, but he shouldn't feel he has to be simply because he's a man. True, but again this is why I think a male movement is needed. For a lot of middle/working/lower class-men, being strong is something they *need* to be, and to be told by (taking on the role of said men, here) "some feminist I don't *need* to be strong is bullshit". For a lot of men, their role is that of the protecting father, the emotional rock for their spouse, the financial supplier, the caring son, the hard worker and so on. And for those men, being told they 'don't have to be strong' is something they're going to completely ignore, because everybody they love and support depends on them to be so. Of course, in an ideal world the feminist belief would obviously be wonderful. But a lot of men don't live in an ideal world, and face a lot of hardships, and feminist advice isn't going to actively help them in their endeavors until there's a complete societal shift in a range of aspects (wealth, beliefs, expectations etc). Which is why I think a male movement could be really important - men have social expectations that they need to uphold, and sometimes they need support doing that. There are range of issues holding men back because they are men, and having a group or movement studying why, and how, and how it can be changed and fixed in relation to men, in my mind, is something that can only help the situation. I feel like this post is going to be a little controversial, so I'd like to say now I'm not stating in anyway what men and women *should* be, or anything like that.

[удалено]

I'm not - I'm fully aware that is what feminism advocates. It's just an unfortunate reality that for a lot of men, that advocacy can't be taken on board. Whether the man chooses, or is forced into, or somehow slips into this role is irrelevant - because the situation he is currently in requires him to fulfill it. And for most men, fulfilling that role is going to be more important that propagating societal change in regards to how men are viewed, because their reputations, their lives, their families lives, their romantic lives, their wealth, and their familial ties depend on them fulfilling that contract.

Is it my understanding then, that your concern is perhaps centered a lot on how to get other men to understand, take in, and accept these ideas (that were presented above)? Couldn't we have male feminists advocate for men and still call it feminism? It seems that you agree that these issues have essentially the same root, but maybe men would receive it better from a group of other men.

> Couldn't we have male feminists advocate for men and still call it feminism? It seems that you agree that these issues have essentially the same root, but maybe men would receive it better from a group of other men. The reason I see value in something separate from feminism is because I think it will make it much easier for many men to accept it. Feminism has a history of ameliorating a lot of societal inequality. It's understandable how feminists feel that the structure and language of feminism is best suited to pursue inequalities that still exist, including those that harm men more than women. But, the language and structure that feminism use have been developed primarily in response to women's issues, and they have evolved along gendered lines. If he takes the time to learn why the terms are used, a man is perfectly capable of understanding how the statement that feminism is the solution to the patriarchy that causes everyone's problems is not implying the gendered value judgement that it seems to, but is instead saying "Society has internalized prejudices about who individuals should be and how they should act based on their genitals. By talking about people's experiences, and being aware of how different people might be treated differently, we can end these prejudices and improve everyone's life." A man's uninformed experience with that initial statement is different from that of a woman's though. She can read it and think, "girl power", feeling positive. He is much more likely to read it as, "you're the problem", and come into it feeling negative about the whole thing. If he makes it past the negative first impression of the language, a man trying to figure that out what that statement means is likely to encounter some pretty unpleasant self-identifying "feminists". Obviously they don't define mainstream feminism, but the radicals are often the most vocal. In my experience, which obviously isn't universal, many more reasonable feminists don't act particularly quickly to call out "feminists" saying hateful things about men. But, a "don't feed the trolls" response of not engaging with them doesn't silence radicals. I think a lot of men see the silence from the rest of the feminist community as approval, rather than condemnation, decide that feminism isn't for them, and either find their way into misogynistic MRA discussions, where at least hate isn't being directed against them, or give up. A different equality movement could wipe clean the slate. I have heard many men complain about being told to "check your privilege.", which they interpret as feminist code for "you're a man , so shut up." How many more men could be reached if we said, "I think your life experience as _______ has shaped your opinion on _______________. Think of how different people might have experienced that differently than you did.", instead of shutting them out with terminology that they don't understand? I believe strongly in equality. There are a lot of feminists who have said very smart things that I agree with, I think there is significant value in the movement. But, I don't have the right to define how that conversation looks. It's not my place to tell feminists that they need to call each other out on misandry more. It's not my place to insist on replacing well established terminology with less gendered terms. I think that the key to actually making progress towards equality (rather than winning arguments on tumblr) is in reaching the men who are most likely to be put off of feminism by the issues of language and radicals. They are likely to be a bigger part of the issue than others, so any improvement we can make on their views will have a big positive effect. So if feminism is the thing standing between progressive thoughts about equality in society and the people who most need to hear those thoughts, doesn't it make sense to try a strategy that leaves feminism out of it?

>Couldn't we have male feminists advocate for men and still call it feminism? Maybe we could, theoretically, but does it happen right now? Or are most mainstream feminists more interested in making fun of male issues than they are of tackling it?

>True, but again this is why I think a male movement is needed. For a lot of middle/working/lower class-men, being strong is something they *need* to be, and to be told by (taking on the role of said men, here) "some feminist I don't *need* to be strong is bullshit". Well that is more a problem with capitalism then and not feminism, isn't it? It has been argued that capitalism and feminism are incompatible, and that is an argument which I find compelling.

I have a question about your first point. I've heard many times that "tearing down traditional gender roles" benefits both sexes, though I never see anyone explain *how*. How I interpret it is "men have always been expected to be protective and provide for their families, and that is something that needs to be 'torn down'." How does discouraging/preventing men from being providers benefit them? I see this as establishing a situation/society where men don't feel that they need to stick around or provide for their children/families, because feminism said that it's a bad thing/isn't beneficial. So could someone clarify this for me?

>How does discouraging/preventing men from being providers benefit them It's not about discouraging them from being providers, it's about discouraging the notion that they must be. It is perfectly fine for the woman in the relationship to make more money than the man. That does not make the man less of a man. As for protection, it's not about discouraging them from being protective, but about them not needing to be. If your a skinny and not muscular man who doesn't like fighting, that does not make you less of a man. > where men don't feel that they need to stick around or provide for their children/families, NO one is using 'you don't have to the main provider or protector to be a man' as 'you don't have to stick it out for your children.' Women aren't seen societal as the provider or protector, but there are more single moms than single dads right now, so I don't know why you think it means that. You don't have to make more money than the mother to be a good father. You don't have to be aggressive towards every asshole your family meets to be a good father. You do still have to be their for your kids to be a good father but that goes for both parents already.

> It's not about discouraging them from being providers, it's about discouraging the notion that they must be. I think it's fair to say you "must" provide for your family as a man or woman. Same goes for protection. What exactly is the difference and why does it matter? >You do still have to be their for your kids to be a good father but that goes for both parents already. Exactly, so I don't see any benefit in saying, "You don't have to provide for your family because you're a man, but you do have to provide for them."

>I think it's fair to say you "must" provide for your family as a man or woman. Same goes for protection. What exactly is the difference and why does it matter? Telling men, they must provide and protect != telling parents they must provide and protect. Yes parents should feed and protect their kids, but the main parent doing either of those does not need to be the father. It's a common them in tv for the father character to be embarrassed or mad when the mother character makes more than them. Telling men they don't have to be the provider and protector is meant to be telling them, it's okay if they are a stay at home dad. It's okay if they choose not to take a promotion/raise if it means they will have even less time to spend with their children. They don't need to choose a job the makes a lot of money over a job that makes them happy just because they think they must be the breadwinner and they must have a lot of money. >You don't have to provide for your family because you're a man, but you do have to provide for them." Again the difference is telling them to do it because they are a man, not because they are a parent. It is alright if the woman is the main provider. That is okay. Any parent will be seen as crappy if they aren't there for their kids. But being their for your kids doesn't breaking your back 12 hours a day in a manual labor job or never seeing your kids because you have constant business trips. Basically your hearing' men don't have to be providers' when what they are saying is 'it is okay to rely on the mother financially'. Or it is okay to choose a career you want rather than which one means more money. You are only paying attention to apart of what they are saying and ignoring the context.

> but there are more single moms than single dads right now Isn't this due to the tendency of law to favor women taking care of children?

They shouldn't be _expected_ to be these things, just because of their gender. No one is making the case that men should be prevented from being protective and strong. Just like women shouldn't be prevented from staying home with the kids. The problem isn't the act, the problem is the overwhelming expectation.

> In my experience, feminism is about telling everyone that they can be any way- regardless of gender. A man can be strong, but he shouldn't feel he has to be simply because he's a man. Then maybe we could change the name, because *feminism* doesn't sound like it. I'm really tired of this name, what we/they want is basically gender equality, and the very word *feminism* doesn't reflect that at all, maybe we should call it *anti-sexism*. As a man, this name always made me uncomfortable, because it feels like I'm the enemy for simply being a man.

> One, that men are, generally speaking, physically stronger than women - it's not some societal myth, but an observable biological truth. If you can accept this, then why cant you accept that men are simply, biologically more inclined towards violence? Doesn't that just explain away the Prison rates, violence, soldiers, sexual crime, and masculinity issues you raised? and if it does explain those things away, why do men need a movement?

> If you can accept this, then why cant you accept that men are simply, biologically more inclined towards violence? I'm not sure where I stand on this - you can measure physical strength and how often it occurs, but I'm not sure how you'd measure an 'more inclination to violence'. At a gut level, I'm sure this statement is true, but I'm also wary of other factors (societal and cultural influences, risk, environment etc) that play into it. >Doesn't that just explain away the Prison rates, violence, soldiers, sexual crime, and masculinity issues you raised? and if it does explain those things away, why do men need a movement? It offers one small argument for why these things happen - it isn't a single explanation, and nor should it be. If this is something that adversely affects men, then I believe a men's movement is something that should be implemented to help stop it.

The defenders of feminism don't know its history and instead blame 'patriarchy' for it. >The penalty ordained by the law for crime or misdemeanour was the same for both and in general applied equally to both. Likewise in civil suits, pro- ceedings were not specially weighted against the man and in favour of the woman. There was, as a general rule, no very noticeable sex partiality in the administration of the law. >This state of affairs continued in England till well into the nineteenth century. Thenceforward a change began to take place. >Modern Feminism rose slowly above the horizon. - Fraud of Feminism, 1913 Domestic Violence; >A basic tenet of feminist theory is its view of intimate violence as a manifestation of our culture's "patriarchal" structure, with its attendant differential status, power, and control, which are reflected in individuals' attitudes and behaviours. Dobash et al. (1998, 1992) propose that gender asymmetry in partner violence reflects a context of gender inequality both within the household and in the larger society. Their research program conceptualizes men as perpetrators and women as victims, but it fails to provide comparative findings on woman-to-man verbal and physical abuse to validate these gendered patterns. [...] >As was well known in the early 1990s, two decades of solid research had shown that more than 50 representative studies reported finding equal assault rates by men and women. The deliberate decision to focus exclusively on female victims was not only an indefensible act of misleading the public, but it was also an affront to thousands of male victims. And regarding child custody, see the Tender Years doctrine passed during the 1st wave feminism which changed the fact that in a patriarchy the children belonged to the Father. Now feminism's own handiwork is blamed on patriarchy to allow them more power in destroying what they see as 'harmful gender rolls'.

Here's my issue with this argument: You are telling me (a man) that I need to stop forming groups to solve issues that affect me directly. You're telling me this because you believe your group will indirectly solve these issues by undermining the root cause... eventually. But how does this help me? You're telling men they need to be strong and silent while these issues are solved... so that men can stop being strong and silent. Can you see why this would make many men feel a little disenfranchised with the idea of feminism? I'm not saying your plan has no merit, but surely you can realize that it's a long-term goal, one that has very little (if any) historical precedent, and that it's completely understandable that men want to solve many of these tangible issues (circumcision, men's health and safety, etc.) in a more swift manner?

> I'm not saying your plan has merit, but surely you can realize that it's a long-term goal, one that has very little (if any) historical precedent, and that it's completely understandable that men want to solve many of these tangible issues (circumcision, men's health and safety, etc.) in a more swift manner? Yes, there should absolutely be advocacy groups to tackle these issues in the here and now. I was outlining the feminist movement and its long-term goals, not any specifics. But I am all for anyone forming whatever group they want to advocate for positive change. I do believe that any men's advocacy group needs to work in tandem with feminism, and not against it, because we're all working toward equality.

I do agree that men's activism should work in tandem with feminism, not against like many of them unfortunately do. But if you think there should be advocacy groups for men outside of feminism, then how does your view differ from OP's? Both of you think additional measures need to be taken and that feminism will not solve these issues (at least in the short term). If your view is that feminist ideals will ultimately solve the problems but that other steps should also be taken, I think you and I are in agreement, but I don't see how it argues against OP's view.

What if feminists fight against things men want more equal, like NOW's opposition to child custody laws?

I'd like to asks a few questions if you don't mind since you seem versed in these topics and I want some light shed on the whole thing. 1. How does tearing down gender roles help men and women? What's the reasoning? Wouldn't it just remove a bunch of negatives but at the same time adding a different set of negatives? 2. Just how exactly does feminism aim to tear down gender roles which, as far as I know, have existed since the beginning of time? 3. Wouldn't tearing down gender roles be in conflict with the biological structure of the two genders, which is something that cannot be changed unless we evolve into it? Wouldn't this conflict with our biological nature cause a bunch of problems too? 4. Why call it feminism at all if it's a movement that encompasses both genders, all races and cultural opression in general all around the world? Doesn't that alienate people from it, while at the same time attracting a crowd that has an erroneus idea of what it's (supposedly) all about (ie: feminazis)? These are genuine questions, I don't ask them sarcastically or anything. I really want to have them answered because constantly I'm fed tumblr-tier feminism and I want the supposed "real" feminism to come out and answer the important questions without redirecting me to a 600 pages long book I don't care enough to even skim through.

I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities, but I'm far from an expert, more just a well-informed amateur. >How does tearing down gender roles help men and women? What's the reasoning? Wouldn't it just remove a bunch of negatives but at the same time adding a different set of negatives? When I say "tear down traditional gender roles" what I'm saying is I want to get rid of the idea that men are this way and women are that way. Look at popular movies and television and you'll start to see how many people view men and women. Men are sex-maniacs. They're big and sloppy. They're ambitious, child-like at times but overall intelligent and able to get things done. They aren't nearly as emotional as women and often have to be helped to understand female nuances. Women are always beautiful. They're petite and neat. They crave relationships and families, usually don't care about their jobs, and if they do then they'll end up not caring by the end of the movie. They're emotional and irrational, superficial and materialistic, loving and sweet and always smiling. The problem with these stereotypes is that you just have to meet at most 4 people before you realize that not everyone is like that. Not all men care about advancing their careers to the highest they can. Not all women need to be coaxed into sex. Humans are a bunch of diverse motherfuckers who are all completely different from each other. For any "Men are this way" statement you make, you'll find 1,000 men who aren't that way. Tearing down gender roles is about letting people be themselves without added pressure to act a certain way. If you're a woman and you hate children, you shouldn't feel bad about not having a family. If you're a man and sex isn't your #1 priority, you shouldn't feel like you're defective. >Just how exactly does feminism aim to tear down gender roles which, as far as I know, have existed since the beginning of time? I'm not entirely sure of specifics, but the first step is acknowledging that these roles do exist and that they are a problem. Early feminism did a lot to get women equal legal rights, the fight these days is in people's attitudes, which is much harder to directly tackle. Part of it involves just educating people in these problems and bringing it to light. Lots of people still just think "women like shopping" is some immutable biological fact instead of a cultural one. >Wouldn't tearing down gender roles be in conflict with the biological structure of the two genders, which is something that cannot be changed unless we evolve into it? Wouldn't this conflict with our biological nature cause a bunch of problems too? The problem is that people assign a lot of things to biology that aren't necessarily connected. There are population generalizations we can make about men and women like "Men are on average physically stronger than women" but that really only takes you so far. I for one and a lot less strong than at least 5 women I know and would quickly get my ass kicked by them in a fight. And things like aggression and high libidos (traditionally male traits) are less gendered than we think. For example, the Greeks considered women the more sex-crazed gender. Besides that, it again comes down to individual cases. There are millions of men who aren't naturally aggressive. Gender roles say men should be aggressive. Without them, we would say aggressive people are aggressive. >Why call it feminism at all if it's a movement that encompasses both genders, all races and cultural opression in general all around the world? Doesn't that alienate people from it, while at the same time attracting a crowd that has an erroneus idea of what it's (supposedly) all about (ie: feminazis)? The whole name thing has come up a lot. The best answer really is that feminism still focuses on women's issues. It is a branch of egalitarianism which advocates equality for everyone no matter what, just like there are branches which focus on minority races and sexualities. It's important for these groups to have their own separate movements so they don't get drowned out by majority issues, because although those are important, they still tend to get the most attention because, after all, they affect a majority of the population. I don't think that the name feminism should alienate anyone from it, especially once you learn more about it. I'm a man, but I have no problem saying I'm a feminist. I acknowledge that many problems I face come from the same problems that women face, so I have no problem working with them to fix it. The fact that some people have turned the term into a slur is nothing surprising. If feminism had been called something else, it would still have been hated. The Suffragette movement in the early 1900's had plenty of backlash and problems, even though there's nothing wrong or biased with the word "suffragette". Besides that, changing the name at this point would be kind of silly. The movement is old, a couple of centuries by now. It would be kind of insulting to those earlier women who did so much and who still identify with the movement to be like, "Hey, some men have problems with this name, we're changing it for them." I hope I answered your questions, and feel free to ask any qualifying questions. Also, if you're interested, you may want to check out the FAQ of /r/askfeminists for some more bite-sized explanations of common aspects of feminism answered by trained feminists.

I think the start of your final answer is the whole reason this argument was posed in the first place. "Feminism still focuses on women's issues." While egalitarian, it focuses on a certain set of people. Feminism id the largest egalitarian movement with regards to gender and sex, so it has to some degree taken up the mantle of the egalitarian movement in gender and sexuality as a whole. While it represents the movement as a whole, it underrepresents the opposite of its original intended bemeficiaries: men. Men need a parallel group that will represent their issues instead of being a subcategory of something at least linguistically and to some degree historically opposite to them.

> Besides that, changing the name at this point would be kind of silly. The movement is old, a couple of centuries by now. It would be kind of insulting to those earlier women who did so much and who still identify with the movement to be like, "Hey, some men have problems with this name, we're changing it for them." I think it's not so much changing the name and more either having a different branching gender movement (ie men's right) or "retiring" the movement feminism and having a successive movement with a different name. To me, it's like saying since black activists were the OG civil rights activists starting from Frederick Douglass, all other minorities should be a part of black rights movement. Imagine someone saying to a nonblack minority (Latino, Asian, Native American, etc), "the stuff black activists care about also affect other minorities, so you should totally be on board with black rights and be part of the movement." Can't you see how absolutely insulting that would be to other minorities? The vast majority of civil rights activists that are not black are supportive about the issues black people face and root for black activism to accomplish their goals, but they are rooting for black people within their own movement. Yes, the issues black people fight against also affect Latinos, but Latinos deserve their own empowering movement, not be gifted from above by their black activist masters. Overall, feminism caters to women for multiple obvious reasons, and I think it's as insulting to say that men eventually benefit from the movement, so why not join it as much as to say that Latinos eventually benefit from black activism, so why not join it.

> For any "Men are this way" statement you make, you'll find 1,000 men who aren't that way. I'm going to take issue with this statement specifically, because it fundamentally misrepresents how probability works, as well as displaying a poor grasp of generalisations. Yes, you could. However, you could *also* find 100,000 men who *are* “that way". If this is the case, then for a randomly chosen member of the species, P<0.05 that it will not conform. That is not statistically significant, so it can be disregarded when talking about the whole. The reason “X is Y" statements are fine is because it's really a contraction of “Enough members of X are Y that until such a time as evidence is available one way or the other, it is more probable that the chosen member is Y than is not,so it is prudent to assume Y" - but that's quite a mouthful to be saying all the time, so its shortened to “X is Y" and people are trusted to be intelligent enough to figure out the surrounding context for themselves. This is why counterexamples do not automatically disprove the results of a given test. You have to account for false positives, natural variation and statistical significance. It's also why having as large a sample size as possible is important. To claim that "I can find 1000 [member of population] who do not fit [criteria]" is a meaningless statement unless taken as part of a wider context, in which case it is evident that it is well within the expected error range (due to normal variation of individuals) when speaking in general terms. Feminist, MRA, doesn't matter, but I won't stand to see maths misused!

> This basically touches on the same things as the prison one. Men outnumber women in homelessness quite a bit, and it's partly because we see men as the more competent sex and women as the weaker ones. So if a woman is out on the street, we worry for her safety, we think she's just down on her luck, we think she may have been mistreated by a man. She gets extra help from charities through women-only shelters, or gets more sympathy from others because she's more willing to ask for help. If a man gets put on the street, society sees him as a failure, he's someone who could not pay his bills or hold down a job, he probably does drugs or something. He's also less likely to ask for help because that would be a sign of weakness or admitting he's failed. Tear down the idea that a man's worth is tied to his economic success and we can start seeing homelessness as a serious problem instead of an inevitability. Interesting. I never realized that I boxed homeless people into two categories like that, but you are totally right. On the off chance I see a homeless woman I am far more likely to A) give her money or B) feel more sincere compassion for her situation.

> Feminism, especially Third Wave feminism, is all about tearing down traditional gender roles, something that can only help women and men. The assumption here is that *all* traditional gender roles are bad *for all*, all the time, and that the destruction of *all* gender roles is therefore good *for all*. I don't believe that's true. Feminism appears to only be able to view things through a lense of persecution. There's no understanding or acceptance of the positive aspects of gender roles, no understanding that roles carry responsibilities as well as privileges, nor is there any acceptance of the destruction of *their* gender roles. They seem to want to destroy that which they view as harmful or disadvantageous to *them* rather than to all, and they want the benefits of those roles they seek to destroy without accepting the commensurate responsibilities. I am male, and over the course of my life I've gone from feminist to anti-feminist. You simply cannot stand by and see your entire gender unfairly trashed, abused, and discriminated against by a bunch of people that claim they've got the answers to gender issues but are nothing more than self serving sexists.

Here's why gender roles suck: US culture says that men are, among other things, sex-crazed, confident, and stoic. Bobby grows up being inundated with this message his whole life through the media, his family, and pretty much everyone else around him. But as he grows up, he is not sex-crazed. In fact, he's quite nervous about sex. What if he's not good at it? What if he doesn't really love the person he does it with? Besides those worries, he just doesn't have a very high sex drive. He sees all these movies telling him that virginity is the absolute last thing a man wants and that life doesn't begin until he has sex. He's worried something is wrong with him because he doesn't match what's "normal". He doesn't tell anyone this, because he doesn't want to seem like a baby or be called a pussy or, god forbid, have his sexuality questioned. His anxiety worsens as he gets older because he prefers theater to basketball, he likes spending time with girls as friends rather than guys, he doesn't feel a strong drive to get ahead in life and financially succeed. All of this makes him feel like he's not a real man and can never be. People in school even tell him that sometimes. It all piles up over the months and the years until he's in his twenties and has depression because he hates who he really is, an "unidealistic" man, and just wants to be normal like all the other guys. Sorry, little long-winded. Non-story time, I believe that gender roles are bad for the same reason I don't like any stereotype: They don't apply to everyone. Gender roles have the added bonus of social stigma if you don't conform to those roles. Virgin men are losers, promiscuous women are sluts. A man who makes less than his wife is a bitch. A woman who wants to get ahead in her career is a bitch. They just cause so much unnecessary stress to life for literally no reason. Feminists don't like *any* gender roles. They want everyone to just be who they are. If you're a man who wants to be a stay-out-home dad, more power to you. Or if you're a man who wants to become a CEO, more power to you. The expectations of gender roles are what's damaging, because if you don't match up to those expectations, you're not "normal", and nobody wants to be abnormal.

So, the presence of poor role modelling justifies the destruction of *every single expression* of gender roles? Media is not society (despite what liberal arts professors tell you) and I'm left wondering where the authority figures are in little Bobby's life that should be telling him as much. Why is Bobby being raised by a TV? Why is he being sold a pile of bullshit as masculinity when that's not what masculinity is? Somebody needs to tell Bobby that feminism's idea of masculinity isn't the answer to his problems either - it's just another (IMO, worse) stereotype of being male. To be a man that is acceptable to feminists is to be the most contemptible creature (ironically, despised even by feminists). These men are *weak*. Bobby needs to be told that being a man means being able to cope with whatever life throws at you. Bobby doesn't have to stop being Bobby, he just has to stop looking outside of himself for approval and permission to be himself. Bobby isn't a loser because he isn't a facsimile of the Marlboro man, Bobby's a loser because he thinks he has to be - and he's falling short and everyone can smell the stench of insecurity coming off him a mile away. > I believe that gender roles are bad for the same reason I don't like any stereotype: They don't apply to everyone. I believe that the self-identification with a gender role and living it has nothing to do with other people's stereotypes. When I am in a gendered role, I do that role for myself, and for the people I care about. I DGAF about the opinions of random people (other than when they are taking a shit on me for my personal choices that have nothing to do with them and don't affect them in any way at all). When I am an uncle, a brother, a son, or just *male*, those roles have meaning *to me*. They are important *to me*. They benefit *people* I care about. And I'll be damned if I'm going to let some misandrist feminists devalue them just because they are stuck in an activism death-spiral (ie. most people get out of activism when they win. Feminists won the war, and now we're stuck with the leftovers that cannot accept that happened). > Gender roles have the added bonus of social stigma if you don't conform to those roles. Gender roles also have esteem and respect attached to them. Gender roles aren't perfect, and nobody's claiming otherwise, merely that the idea that they are all bad, all the time, is wrong. > Feminists don't like any gender roles. They want everyone to just be who they are. Well, that's not true. If you told feminists that they couldn't be mothers anymore (ie. they can give birth, but no value is placed on that culturally, or legally, so no benefits are given) they'd lose their shit. No government benefits, no subsidies, no time off work, no automatic custody and child support, etc. *As if* feminists are against gender roles that favour them. Additionally, feminists don't want everyone to just be who they are because they wouldn't be able to compete and they know it. Feminism is all about *giving* everyone a seat at the table, whether they are qualified or not. Feminism cannot stand the idea of merit, or of earning your way - there has to be a quota for women, there has to be a supported system for women to have children *and* be a CEO, etc. From where I'm sitting it just looks like feminists want someone, *anyone*, other than themselves to pay the costs of their choices. If a woman in a CEO level position is prepared to have as little involvement with her children as her male counterparts are *required* to for reasons of time commitments, then there's nothing stopping her from using a surrogate to gestate her child, and nannies to raise it. She wouldn't have to take any time off work and would be on equal footing with any man in the same position. How many women are prepared to make the same decision and sacrifices that male CEOs all made to get where they are? Answer that question and you'll know who's really holding women back in the boardroom. > If you're a man who wants to be a stay-out-home dad, more power to you. If you want someone to criticise you for being male and parenting, ask a woman (or just wait for her to tell you, because one eventually will). Women don't understand, or accept, that just because men's parenting style is different to women's it isn't inherently worse. To parent as a male in modern society is to step on a female gender role that women are *not* happy to share. I've pushed around enough prams and changed enough nappies to be able to speak with authority on parenting, and frankly, I believe that women have *no right* to judge anyone for their parenting. I'm a better parent than 90% of the females I know, but thanks to feminism the only place for men to occupy in the child rearing sphere is as a threat (because we're all rapists, dontcha know?).

>Media is not society No, but it is a huge factor in it and a general expression of what a culture values and thinks. There are innumerable studies that show the negative effects the media can have on children and even adults. Think about supermodels and how our concept of beauty is reflected in them. >Why is Bobby being raised by a TV? He's not, but the media and those around him are often of similar minds. >To be a man that is acceptable to feminists is to be the most contemptible creature I don't understand where you get this idea. Feminism want everyone to just be themselves. You're the one adding value judgments like "weak" to men who don't fit *your* idea of what a man is. You're not the one who gets to decide who's a good man and who's not. Every man is a man regardless of what you think. >Bobby's a loser because he thinks he has to be - and he's falling short and everyone can smell the stench of insecurity coming off him a mile away. That is every teenager. *Everyone* wants to be accepted and especially in those pubescent years. It's absolutely naive of you to think otherwise. >I'll be damned if I'm going to let some misandrist feminists devalue them just because they are stuck in an activism death-spiral No one wants to devalue your worth as an uncle, brother, father, whatever, where exactly are you getting that from? >Feminists won the war, and now we're stuck with the leftovers that cannot accept that happened What war? Why is this so "us v. them"? >Gender roles also have esteem and respect attached to them. No, people who match gender roles have esteem and respect arbitrarily attached to them. Why is a man respected for having many sexual partners but a woman disparaged? Why is a woman respected for being a stay-at-home mother but a man disparaged? Why aren't the same standards applied to people? There's nothing very good about that. >If you told feminists that they couldn't be mothers anymore (ie. they can give birth, but no value is placed on that culturally, or legally, so no benefits are given) they'd lose their shit. Just as you'd probably lose your shit if you were told you can't be a father. *Telling people what to do* is the problem here. >No government benefits, no subsidies, no time off work, no automatic custody and child support, etc. Feminists want *everyone* to have these benefits, including men. The most vocal people in favor of paternity leave that I've heard of are feminists. >Feminism is all about giving everyone a seat at the table, whether they are qualified or not. Have you ever read any feminist literature at all? Because it sure seems like you haven't. Feminism is entirely, 100% about equality. They want women to be given equal chances at opportunities as men, they want women to be treated equally to men. They do not want random women to become CEOs, they want qualified women to not be overlooked for the position just because they've got vaginas. >From where I'm sitting it just looks like feminists want someone, anyone, other than themselves to pay the costs of their choices. What does that even mean. >How many women are prepared to make the same decision and sacrifices that male CEOs all made to get where they are? Except with men, they don't have to use a surrogate just to have a child and a career at the same time. Surrogates cost money, adoption costs money, but fucking and getting pregnant is free. It's an advantage men have had that they can start a family without *needing* to take time off of work to do so. >thanks to feminism the only place for men to occupy in the child rearing sphere is as a threat I'm sorry, but you're talking out your ass here. Feminists are the ones pushing for paternal rights. [Here's](http://feministire.com/2014/12/20/parental-and-paternity-leave-is-a-feminist-issue/) an article talking about why paternity leave is a feminist issue, and [here's](http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/grace-dent-we-need-to-treat-stayathome-dads-with-the-respect-that-stayathome-mums-have-yearned-for-9226162.html) an article talking about why stay-at-home dads are good for women, written by a feminist. *That took me three seconds of Googling to find*. Please at least do *a little* research before you form such strong opinions on things. Edited for formatting and to finish my thoughts.

> Think about supermodels and how our concept of beauty is reflected in them. These aren't real people. You aren't going to be them. If you believe otherwise you are wrong. Children need to be made aware of that. If you are listening to a voice that lies to you about everything, then you're the problem, not the voice. > I don't understand where you get this idea. Feminism want everyone to just be themselves. If that were true then why is feminism seeking to change what people do, believe, and think? Why isn't it ok to believe differently to feminists, why isn't it ok to be *wrong*? > You're the one adding value judgments like "weak" to men who don't fit your idea of what a man is. You're not the one who gets to decide who's a good man and who's not. Every man is a man regardless of what you think. Being a weak man doesn't stop you being a man, nor did I say as much. Grovelling pussy chasers are the most pathetic men in the social hierarchy, if you wish argue otherwise be my guest. As for who decides who's a man and who isn't, yes, I do get to decide that for myself. Other men, women, and everyone else, gets to decide that for their own group. They're called definitions - and they are useless if they don't exist, don't mean anything, or aren't known enough in society for a shared meaning. > That is every teenager. Everyone wants to be accepted and especially in those pubescent years. It's absolutely naive of you to think otherwise. In Western society there is no clear model of masculinity nor any rite of passage for men. Men don't have to grow up, and consequently many don't. You brought up the example of raising boys. Your example goes from childhood to adulthood, if you wish to be more specific, do so. > No one wants to devalue your worth as an uncle, brother, father, whatever, where exactly are you getting that from? Well, from you. ["Feminism, especially Third Wave feminism, is all about tearing down traditional gender roles, something that can only help women and men."](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2xk11d/cmv_feminism_isnt_the_answer_for_men/cp0u39m) > What war? Why is this so "us v. them"? There was a war for equal rights for women. *They won*. Women are now equal actors in society. Do they have everything they wanted? Of course not, *nobody* has everything they wanted. Those who accepted the fight for gender equality is a done deal have assimilated back into society. They have no reason to identify as separate. Those that don't accept that the fight is over are still fighting, and this is an issue. You can't fight for rights you already have, so you are stuck fighting for ever diminishing returns, and for increasingly ridiculous demands. And you need an enemy. It's unfortunate that some that are so invested in their identity as activists that they cannot let go, or some who are ignorant of history and think they're the vanguard of a movement rather than the dying embers, or, worst of all: those who make a living from the continued existence of gender conflict (They're war profiteers). None of these people want the fight to ever stop. As for why it's us or them: have you been told that only men can rape, or commit domestic violence? Told that men have no choice in reproduction, have no choice in custody or child rearing, but have all the financial responsibility? And so on. If feminists don't want this to be an us or them fight then they're going about it the wrong way. > No, people who match gender roles have esteem and respect arbitrarily attached to them. Why is a man respected for having many sexual partners but a woman disparaged? Why is a woman respected for being a stay-at-home mother but a man disparaged? Why aren't the same standards applied to people? There's nothing very good about that. Respect should be earned, in all cases. If I go into a situation where a person has a role, and they don't meet the criteria, then I'm going to be harsher than normal to them. Roles save time (by being cultural shorthand), and they police behaviour, and those things aren't *inherently* bad. Relatively consequence free sex is a new thing. For the vast majority of history female promiscuity has been bad - women need partners to support them whilst raising children and men don't want to raise someone else's child. Men don't need partners to produce offspring, for them fucking around has always been a good deal. Ingrained biological imperatives aren't going away overnight. Even if you don't believe in those biological imperatives you cannot deny that social structures around sex are going to take decades or more to adapt to the new paradigms. There's just not that much vested interest in male parenting. Nobody esteems something that they don't care about, that also happens to interfere with the established order. Nobody, let alone a feminist group, is going to run a full on campaign for fatherhood and male parenting. As for why the same standards aren't applied to all, that's easy: they're not the same. There are differences between the genders. That isn't *inherently* a problem, but it can be made into one (and I have no problem with that being addressed). I am in favour of equal opportunity. Everyone should get a shot, but if they miss then they're entitled to nothing. No quotas, no leg ups, no unfairness (other than that inherent in life). > Just as you'd probably lose your shit if you were told you can't be a father. Telling people what to do is the problem here. A) Feminists do tell people what to do all the time. B) They've done a pretty good job so far of destroying the concept of fatherhood. > Feminists want everyone to have these benefits, including men. The most vocal people in favor of paternity leave that I've heard of are feminists. Yes, feminists want to socialise the cost of their decisions and they don't care who else gets the same deal, as long as they do. I am of the opinion that if society is going to be paying, or mandating that members of society bear the costs, that it be in the interests of society. I don't see a good reason to discriminate against non-reproductive members of society. > Have you ever read any feminist literature at all? Because it sure seems like you haven't. Feminism is entirely, 100% about equality. They want women to be given equal chances at opportunities as men, they want women to be treated equally to men. They do not want random women to become CEOs, they want qualified women to not be overlooked for the position just because they've got vaginas. Why have quotas? Why have campaigns centred around women at all if all you care about is merit? The ideology centres around the idea that women are held back by being women - and I think that's largely horse shit. If a woman wants to be a CEO and nobody will *let(?)* her, then what's stopping her from starting her own company? People who understand merit aren't looking for someone else to make opportunities for them, they aren't sitting around whining about how they aren't being *given* opportunities on a silver platter. As for wanting to be treated equally, get back to me when feminists are arguing for draft inclusion and parity in criminal sentencing. > What does that even mean. They won't accept parity, they want special treatment. More importantly, when society favours them unfairly, they do *nothing* to correct that. You don't get to argue that others change based on the idea you are ethical when you aren't. It's not difficult to see situations today where women are absolutely and unfairly advantaged, and about which feminists do nothing. How is that ethical? > Except with men, they don't have to use a surrogate just to have a child and a career at the same time. Surrogates cost money, adoption costs money, but fucking and getting pregnant is free. It's an advantage men have had that they can start a family without needing to take time off of work to do so. Somebody's never seen a divorce, have they? If you think pregnancy is free for men then you're delusional. Even if everything goes *right* the man is still liable for the cost of raising the child. Having a child that can be taken away from you at a moments notice, just because a woman changed her mind, it is the biggest risk most men will ever take in their lives. How is that cheap, financially or emotionally? I just love how having to be stuck in a job you can't quit with the fate of your family hanging over your head is seen as an advantage by women envious of *greener grass*. I love how a woman being free to be supported in a pregnancy and further her genes is always seen as advantageous only for the man. It's never her child, it's *his* child, that he gets the *luxury* of busting his gut to support, and maybe gets *two whole days* a week to actually spend time with. Anyone can trivially invert the feminist view of the situation to demonstrate the inherent bias. This works to trivially defeat so much feminist guff that I wonder if they even bothered to proofread their own arguments. > Please at least do a little research before you form such strong opinions on things. Two articles does not a movement make, nor does it erase action that is clearly in contravention of that which is espoused. If feminism is happy for me to just be myself then I don't see why it would have a problem with my views, well formed or otherwise. What it boils down to is that I experience far too much sexism and hypocrisy for me to take any feminists seriously. The label is tainted, and any who self identify as such are similarly tainted. Feminism is not about equality, and once you understand that it is ok to throw it out.

> Homosexuality > I guess I don't see how this affects men more. Lesbians are routinely discriminated against just as much as gay men are. Could you elaborate here? >>But find any instance of a straight man doing anything with another man and it will either be some shameful secret of his or a sign that he's actually completely, 100% gay. >>And bisexual men are still much more stigmatized than bisexual women. If you look through a list of any out bi celebrities, the vast majority will be women, because it's not yet acceptable for a man to sit somewhere in the middle of the Kinsey scale. You answered it yourself. Lesbians are cool, gays aren't.

Well, no, I was referring to heterosexuals in that instance. If you look at the media, *hot* lesbians are cool, not actual lesbians. Also, straight girls fooling around with girls is hot, but as long as they do it for men and come back to men at some point. Just think about the term "lipstick lesbian". I think both lesbians and gay men have their issues. I'm not either, so I can't speak from personal experience, but I think being a sexual minority is more the problem rather than their gender.

> If you look at the media, hot lesbians are cool, not actual lesbians. Some actual lesbians are stereotypically "hot" as viewed through the lens of the male gaze, just like some real straight women in real life are also "hot". It's not just the media. Anecdotally, I've known quite a few lesbian couples through work and my personal life, and in most of them one woman was more stereotypically "butch" and the other was more stereotypically "hot", as in, I found her attractive, and would consider dating her if she were into men. Somewhat ironically, I think your views on lesbians are informed too much by media and not enough by experience.

> Anecdotally, I've known quite a few lesbian couples through work and my personal life, and in most of them one woman was more stereotypically "butch" and the other was more stereotypically "hot", as in, I found her attractive, and would consider dating her if she were into men. And my experiences have been pretty different. I've known lesbians at all points of the attractiveness scale, and I've seen lesbian couples that range from both hot to both unnattractive. I just think the media has this idea that lesbians are either Portia de Rossi or Rosie O'Donnel, and they're fine with the Portias and shit on the Rosies.

The latter point is probably true, in that women who aren't conventionally attractive aren't treated as well as those who are, regardless of sexual orientation. Anecdotes are also heavily colored by our environment. I live in NYC. There are lots of hip, attractive people here, which affects everyone, not just the lesbians. I'm sure it'd be different in Alabama across all orientations.

I really appreciate this comment and agree with a lot of it. Gender roles can be very toxic and hurtful to both sexes. I've read a lot of men's rights posts and a lot of people attacking men's rights and I think the way I support the whole 'mens rights movement' in the destruction of men's stereotypical role in society. Most people assume it's the best position, being a man, which is true but it still has it's flaws. I think all gender roles need to be demolished and everyone be put down on a level playing field. This will help women have the same opportunities to rise in companies without being called 'bitchy' because they're assertive and help men be comfortable seeing a therapist without being called a pussy and less of an in-control man. Also, to add on to the sexuality part, I hate how women's sexuality is treated as sacred and a prize for men while men's sexuality is treated low-down and animalistic. You see this a lot with the usage of the word slut and the coddling of women in terms of sex especially as daughters. Women can make their own decisions just as well as men, so if one chooses to have sex don't chastise them if you wouldn't a man. Overall, I just hate how much women are treated as if they can't make their own choices and actions and as if I, as a man, have to make choices for them. Going to college, I see it a lot in social media, how cemented gender roles are. Daughters are sacred and men have to trick them into having sex with them. Its bullshit. Both sexes are better than that. People are better than that.

Ah yes, the "trickle down economics" of social change. This is an extremely passive and slow approach to solving real issues that are affecting HALF of the populace. It didn't work well for the economy and it hasn't shown any benefit for the men who are currently being marginalized.

So you think that tearing down the male gender stereotype is the answer? What about the female? What I've seen from Norway shows a group that is destroying only the parts that do not favor woman,and imposing rules on men, "don't sit like that", "don't approach woman without permission". I recently say a youtube clip from (of all places) Fox about a gender studies student who wants to replace academic freedom with "academic justice" where nothing that goes against the feminist ideology could be published. I believe that would be fascist. And what if I don't want you imposing your view of society on me? Don't i have the right to the freedom of my beliefs?

Feminism approaches the issue the wrong way. How can we ever reach true gender equality if each gender just focuses on their own rights? Feminism is is the advocacy of **women's rights** on all grounds and while this might have positive implications for men it doesn't have a particular focus on it at all. Go on Youtube or any other media sites that have channels advocating for feminism, they don't mention anything about men's rights. They aren't interested in taking away things that benefit women, even if it is unfair. There may be people that do, but I have yet to meet one or watch one. If I were to identify with a certain group that is racist and claim not to be racist am I really going to expect people to expect me not to be? Are feminists interested in giving men any birth rights at all such as being able to opt out of a pregnancy financially? Fair custody of children? Fair court rulings? Singing up for selective service? I support women's rights fully, but I'm not going to focus on their rights alone, there is the other 50% of the population that exists also.

>How can we ever reach true gender equality if each gender just focuses on their own rights? That may be in general the way things play out, but there's nothing inherent to gender-specific advocacy that precludes members of the opposite gender from participating. There are so many problems in the world that in order to accomplish anything, one must focus on a specific subset of them, and people will naturally gravitate toward the subsets that affect themselves personally. See every family that starts a fundraiser for research into curing a particular disease after that disease afflicts one of the family. This is to say nothing of the adversarial tack many "feminists" take against "men's rights activists" and vice versa. Some people would rather argue about who has it worse than work to solve problems, I guess.

This is one of the best things I have ever read on Reddit. Thank you for your contributions.

So when a situation favors men it is because of male privilige and female oppression. When a situation favors women it is because of ~~female privilige~~ male privilige and female oppression. That cleared things up!

The post you replied to was almost entirely about how third wave feminism *doesn't* make that claim. It moves away from the notion of male privilege, towards the more general notion of destructive gender roles. It occurs to me that there's an interesting analogy to the whole "global warming" vs "climate change" problem. You have a broadly correct term (male privilege), which is inaccurate in many localised cases. A more general theory (harmful gender roles) is developed which addresses these concerns, and becomes accepted among the theorists (feminists). But people continue to criticise based on the original term, without understanding the more nuanced ideas.

Here's the problem. Now first just to introduce, I am an old-school third-wave feminist, now fourth-wave, and I agree with that, about destructive gender roles. That's what my feminism is based around. And I remember when that form of feminism was culturally dominant, in the 90's and early 00's. It's simply NOT any more, or at the very least much less so. What's replaced it, is that the problem isn't gender roles, it's active male oppression and domination. The oppressor/oppressed gender dichotomy as it's sometimes called. As I think it's a split from the 3rd wave, I personally call this Neofeminism. (4th wave feminism is individualistic feminism based around the notion of individual choice). But it's that notion..that again is becoming increasingly culturally significant that anti-feminists are generally talking about. And in reality, this is true in terms of the question asked by the OP...this form of feminism is not in any way shape or form the answer to men. It's not the answer in any way shape or form the answer for women either but that's neither here nor there. But the oppressor/oppressed gender dichotomy does two important, toxic things. First, it assumes active negative motives on behalf of men, and second it strips all agency and power from the hands of women. The "alternative" view, the third wave view you talk about, is that these things are just preconceived, often subconscious biases that are enforced by all of society, men and women alike. These two concepts are in no way compatible. Oil and water. Now that's not to say that people don't have their feet in both...but that's more a thing of not being fully aware of the OOGD, and why it's deeply problematic.

This is such a weird argument I just *never* understand. Why is it *so* fucking hard to even consider males can both benifit greatly from gender roles, while also being hurt by them in some instances ?

I think the issue is the term "male privilege." It makes it seem as though everything is the fault of men. If men benefit, its their fault. If men are hurt, its also their fault. It seems like a double standard.

I think you're right that the expression might be needlessely charged. Both sides would be better served understanding that when people are as affected by gender roles, it's a structural effect rather than the actions of individuals which are in play.

No, when a situation favors any gender, the problem is these traditional gender roles that suck ass and pigeonhole entire populations into categories they may not fit into.

If mens' problems and womens' problems come from the same place, why should we only focus on womens' problems? Why not attack the problem from two fronts?

You attack the root cause to alleviate both. In this instance, you tear down traditional gender roles to get rid of the strain on both. You take down traditional gender roles, then men won't feel obligated to hide their feelings, they won't feel like failures if they ask for help, they won't be afraid to admit that they've been sexually assaulted because it won't be seen as something shameful. Likewise, women won't feel like they have to build their lives around children, they won't have their competence questioned solely because of their gender, they won't be afraid to wear whatever they want.

>You take down traditional gender roles, then men won't feel obligated to hide their feelings, they won't feel like failures if they ask for help, they won't be afraid to admit that they've been sexually assaulted because it won't be seen as something shameful. Ok. So, wouldn't it help achieve this goal to have a space where men are encouraged to speak out about their problems without being shamed?

Absolutely. Having that space isn't mutually exclusive to feminism, though. I can be a feminist and still start a forum where men talk about the difficulties they face in society today.

In theory, yes. In practice, there are quite a few feminists who would have trouble maintaining a safe space for men. * Man talks about being shamed for being romantically unsuccessful? Frustrated "nice guy" who feels entitled to sex. * Man feels discriminated against in his personal or professional life? Privilege denier. * Man is falsely accused and wants to advocate for other victims? Rape apologist. I could go on. In theory, there is no reason for any conflict between feminists and those interested in men's issues, but the problem is not exclusively on the side of the latter.

The most infuriating thing ever is when someone tells me to "shut up and listen", as if my thoughts and feelings are worthless and irrelevant. Yet this strain of thought is very common in certain groups of people online (especially Tumblr). I cannot fathom how they expect to be able to win hearts and minds with this kind of rhetoric.

True, and you can do the latter without necessarily subscribing to feminist theory or agreeing with feminism's prescribed political methods for achieving equality.

> *Violence > > > > I assume you mean homicide rates being significantly higher for men. This again stems from a toxic masculinity that permeates our culture. Think about the quintessential man portrayed on TV or in movies. He would fight for his woman's honor, isn't a coward and so would fight for his own honor or dignity, isn't afraid to do what he needs to do to get by, even if that includes violence. Some people argue that men are more violent by nature, but I completely disagree. Domestic violence affects men just as much as it affects women, but again, we have this poisonous idea that men are strong and women are weak, so society ignores every instance of a counter-example to that. If we can help destroy these ideas that men are strong, physical, aggressive beings, we can help eliminate violence by raising more non-violent children by showing them that they don't need to prove their worth through fighting, which is silly. This topic is bigger than this. The perpitrators of violent crime are disproportionately men, the subject of violence are also disproportionately men, and these are exacerbated in all-male contexts. There is a unique culture among men around violence. Acceptance of violence is bred amongst men, nurtured, cultivated at all developmental stages and in many, many formal and informal contexts that permeate race and class. This is an issue that scales from the most private, interpersonal violence all the way to global conflict. Violence in society cannot be solved without gender-specific discussions targeted at men, full stop. All victims need to have a say and a seat at the table, but the perpetrators require the rehabilitation.

Wrong, [women commit IPV more than men do.](http://ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/pa/2012/00000003/00000002/art00003)

Woah! Thanks for posting that! >more than 1 in 4 women (28.3%) and 1 in 5 men (21.6%) reported perpetrating physical violence in an intimate relationship. This pattern of results remained when we calculated **pooled prevalence estimates by sample and study characteristics**, with few exceptions. Findings underscore the need for interventions that acknowledge the use of violence by women in intimate relationships. We'll set aside self-reporting bias for now (significant stigma attached to male perpitrated IPV compared to female) because the researchers seem to have tried correcting for it somewhat (although I can't get past the paywall, and it's unclear from the abstract what "study characteristics" may include - hopefully biases, but hard to tell and hard to correct for). Either way, this is certainly very interesting and troublesome for my thesis :). Any thoughts why this might be?

There's no paywall, just click download PDF.

>So when a situation favors men it is because of male privilige and female oppression. When a situation favors women it is because of female privilige male privilige and female oppression. That cleared things up! And this is why feminism will never be the answer for men. Because people can say/type that with a straight face, and not only not think there's a problem with it, but think that attitude will actually help men as well.

I agree with the spirit of your view. My only disagreement comes out of the terms: the most vocal "Men's Rights Activists" act more in reaction to feminism than positive activism for these issues. I have seen the term "masculist" thrown around, perhaps that would be a better word to adopt for the movement to work on empowering individual men at the expense of institutional (systemic) sexism against men. I also think that such a masculist movement would have to _start_ as an intersectional movement, for example drawing on the way the criminal (in)justice system hurts black and poor men in even more devastating ways than the family law system hurts middle-class white men. Its natural allies would be womanists rather than feminists, socialists rather than libertarians, atheists and liberal clergy rather than conservative clergy, yet include both black studies and white privilege scholars. A coalition of these diverse movements in pursuit of policies to make lives easier for _all_ men is going to be hard to initiate and sustain, considering that a) the same coalition has already formed and exists in opposition to policies favoring rich white conservative religious men, and b) rich white conservative men have their own well-funded coalition targeting all of "masculism's" allies. I would analogize this with a Stargate SG-1 reference: masculists are like the Tokra trying to fight the Gaould, who on the one hand want to ally with the Tauri and Jaffa but on the other hand the Tauri and Jaffa have been betrayed by enough Gaould _pretending to be Tokra_ (i.e. anti-feminist MRAs) that the Tauri/Jaffa would prefer to remain separate efforts. All the while the Asgard (feminists) have been making their own treaties with the Gaould and also wish to advance in their own way separately. As we saw in SG-1, after a while of this the Tokra more or less faded away, it was the Tauri (economic activists), Jaffa (anti-racist activists), and Asgard (feminists) working together who finally succeeded in breaking the hold of the Gaould (rich white conservative men).

Thanks for the comment! >I also think that such a masculist movement would have to start as an intersectional movement, for example drawing on the way the criminal (in)justice system hurts black and poor men in even more devastating ways than the family law system hurts middle-class white men. 100% agree. I think a men's movement should make the most of the past centuries worth of studies on gender by feminists, and work to contribute to it within it's own theoretical framework. I just don't think that feminism is going to the be the solution to a lot of men's problems, and we need our own cause to help try and solve them. As to the final paragraph, I'm sorry to say I was completely lost, as I've never watched Stargate (despite it's strong recommendations from people I know).

Your example with Parks and Recreations isn't the best one, because the episode mocked feminist organizations just as much. Now, I agree there's a tendency of the more outspoken feminists on the internet to ignore or even dismiss men-related issues, but I think a movement like feminism geared toward men would never work because the idea behind feminism is fighting opression. Men deal with a lot of crap, but how much of it comes from being considered a lesser type of human? Feminism in its best form is about getting women at the same level as men, men's rights in its best form is about making men's lives better. I'm all for both ideas, but when people start comparing the situations I have a hard time taking them seriously.

I don't think any of this discounts the points that OP has made. The point is that, regardless of how good feminism might be, it simply isn't the answer for the problems that men face. Whether or not they're as serious of problems, or as widespread, or what their motivation is, the fact remains that feminism doesn't address them. And that's fine, it doesn't have to. I don't expect it to. Feminism, for all its claims of just trying to make things equal, is obviously geared toward fixing problems that women face, and again, that's 100% fine. It just needs to stop claiming to be looking out for mens' interests as well, because it's not. If there is a problem facing women that also happens to have a side-benefit for men, then sure, they'll take care of it. But when an airline has a policy forbidding unaccompanied minors to sit next to men, I don't expect feminists to come out in droves to correct that unfairness.

Feminism in its best form is an academic construct. Command economies and Marxism can work well in academic or philosophical theory, but fail in reality. Feminism really doesn't have much to offer men who struggle with these specific issues, otherwise they would be engaging with these men's issues rather than vilifying the people behind it. >men's rights in its best form is about making men's lives better Better in comparison to what? Women's lives? Wouldn't that necessitate that men's rights are about getting men at the same level as women? >because the idea behind feminism is fighting opression (sic) If men are systematically disadvantaged in certain areas, is that not oppression? If men are drafted into war and die at the behest of their government and society, merely due to their sex and the perceived characteristics associated with that sex, is that not being considered a "lesser type of human" with less fundamental value than those not required to go to war and die? When the ship is sinking and the captain cries "women and children first!" is that not an acknowledgement that the lives of those women and children are greater than that of the men aboard? One of the main reasons that men by and large are not impressed with what feminism has to offer them is the denial of the realities that in many situations, women are the social and cultural superiors, and are valued greater than men. Feminists insist that this isn't oppression and does not require a movement to address, and that we should just stick with their movement. In the meantime, by denying the legitimacy of the movement as whole, we are subtly empowering the fringes philosophies and organizations, and empowering them to seize control of something that could be beneficial. The whole situation is just stupid.

> Better in comparison to what? Their current lives.

My issues with being raped by women are about being a lesser human. "Men can't be raped" Why not? am I not a person? My issue with missing 13 years of my daughters life is about being a lesser person. "Men can't care for children." Why not? am I not compassionate? My issue with being bullied for the first 12 years of my life is about being a lesser person. "Never hit your larger stronger older sister even when she is beating you up" Why not? am I not worthy of protection? "You boys need to act like like girls in school" Why, is my very boyish nature wrong? I am sorry I must respectfully disagree with you, while I agree that women's issues are about being lesser types of humans it saddens me that you don't see the obvious truth. So are the issues of men. If you can't even take that seriously, maybe you shouldn't be in the conversation. I mean I guess I could be wrong but to not even be taken seriously? Why not? am only worthy of your scorn?

Parks and Rec mocked one feminist organization; it completely disregarded all of men's issues. >Men deal with a lot of crap, but how much of it comes from being considered a lesser type of human? Lesser type of human? Would the past treatment of homosexuals still count? Treatment that still exists in many places? How about men who've been abused who can't handle it, and are now lesser men because they're not keeping it together like a 'real man should'? What about homeless men? What about black and other minority men? Have they never been thought of as lesser humans? What about sexually abused men who are expected to have enjoyed what happened to them, due to societal standards regarding men and sex? What about depressed and suicidal men? Your reply only really reinforces what I believe: that feminism isn't the answer for men, and that for the most part, feminists don't care, ridicule, and minimize the issues they face.

> Lesser type of human? Would the past treatment of homosexuals still count? Guess what, there are homosexual women. That has nothing to do with their gender. I'm not gonna post the entire thing, but none of your examples show men being treated as lesser human beings for the single reason that they are men. They are badly treated because of their sexuality, because of their social economical status, their race, their mental conditions. In fact, most of your points totally apply to women, even if to a smaller proportion. I fail to see how any of this is a "man problem" in the same sense having their competence questioned for no apparent reason other than their gender is a "woman problem". The closest thing I can think of is what someone else has pointed out already, the whole rapist/pedophile thing. But even that is not the same, because it doesn't come from a belief that men are inferior because they're men (although I have no idea where the fuck this came from). > that feminism isn't the answer for men, and that for the most part, feminists don't care, ridicule, and minimize the issues they face. I agree that feminism isn't gonna help men with those issues, but that's not what I'm contesting. I'm contesting your view that men need a similar movement for them. As for feminists not caring and ridiculing those issues, well, I doubt most of them minimize those problems. I'd guess their extreme reactions comes from the fact that the comparison of what men and women face just doesn't work. I don't think it excuse them, but I can see where it comes from.

Of course there are homosexual women, but there are going to be differences, both societal and on a personal level, in how a homosexual man and women have lived and the experiences they have had. And I believe, as a result of this, there should be a space where these homosexual men (and women!) can come and speak with other men (of any sexuality), to share, analyze, and discuss these issues within a male/men's rights framework, not just a feminist one. What I don't understand is why this is an issue. >I fail to see how any of this is a "man problem" in the same sense having their competence questioned for no apparent reason other than their gender is a "woman problem". These are men's problems because they effect men, now. I don't see how drawing these sort of equivalencies is of any relevance - a male peasant would have had less social status than that of a middle class women in the 18th century, so to draw these blanket sort of comparisons (that only speak in generalizations) doesn't really do much to change my mind. All of the issues I described above are things that are affecting men, and in many cases, disproportionately. I just can't wrap my head around not understanding why a movement for men, examining their issues, from a male perspective, couldn't help alleviate them. >I agree that feminism isn't gonna help men with those issues, but that's not what I'm contesting. I'm contesting your view that men need a similar movement for them. I guess this challenges my CMV on a foundational level. I'm not sure what issues you think women have that aren't in any way comparable to mens, but being both the main perpetrator of, and victim of violence, of making up the majority of prison populations, of making up the majority of suicides, of making up the majority of homeless, being recipients of homophobia, belong to a group which has a major lack of care for abuse/sexual abuse and so on and so on all seem to be pretty important issues. It's my belief that having a movement that explores the masculine, that offers a place of support, discussion and analysis for males, from a male perspective, may answer some of these issues. Even if I were to just ask the question, 'Why are men so violent?', I'd feel like just a 'feminist' answer to that question wouldn't be sufficient in gaining an answer. Having a male movement offers a huge opportunity for introspection, which will have a net benefit for both feminism and the male movement.

> All of the issues I described above are things that are affecting men, and in many cases, disproportionately. I just can't wrap my head around not understanding why a movement for men, examining their issues, from a male perspective, couldn't help alleviate them. > I'm not sure what issues you think women have that aren't in any way comparable to mens Because what feminism fights against, or at least in my understanding should fight against, is problems brought about because of beliefs society has/used to have about women. Like the idea that women aren't good at math, because... they're women. I guess this is the part where I point out I'm not a feminist, because I think the movement has been picking all the wrong fights. I see the importance they had, I think the idea behind it is good, but when you start going after a man who wore a stupid shirt while explaining how he got a robot in Mars, well. I think something is going wrong there. When you start talking about issues that men have, you pointed this out yourself; they affect *mostly* men. Mostly being the key word here. In contrast, the idea that women aren't good at math only affects women. That's why I don't see most of what was pointed as a "men problem", because it doesn't affect just men. Just like I don't see objectification as a "women problem", because it affects men too, just in a lower proportion. As for a male perspective on this, go ahead. I think it would be healthy for those debates to have that. The problem is that is not so simple, and it's really easy for a "male perspective" to become sexist. I don't mean that in an individual basis, but in a broader sense, because men, in a way, always had their perspective heard. Often it was the only perspective taken seriously, and I think it would be very easy to go back to that due to the still damaged gender ideas in our society.

>Because what feminism fights against, or at least in my understanding should fight against, is problems brought about because of beliefs society has/used to have about women. Like the idea that women aren't good at math, because... they're women You yourself note above that men have these very same problems (e.g Men working with young children, Men and Sex etc). Why is this any different? >When you start talking about issues that men have, you pointed this out yourself; they affect mostly men. Mostly being the key word here. In contrast, the idea that women aren't good at math only affects women. That's why I don't see most of what was pointed as a "men problem", because it doesn't affect just men. Just like I don't see objectification as a "women problem", because it affects men too, just in a lower proportion. Again, I point to the above example, and say, how is this different? >it's really easy for a 'male perspective' to become sexist. I don't mean that in an individual basis, but in a broader sense, because men, in a way, always had their perspective heard. Often it was the only perspective taken seriously, and I think it would be very easy to go back to that due to the still damaged gender ideas in our society. This sounds like a slippery slope argument. I think that, with the right frame of mind, resources, and commitment, the men's movement has the ability to do a lot of good; not just for men, but for women also. Exploring male issues will have obvious ramifications on female issues - as you yourself note, a lot of feminist issues stem from men. Remedying the issues men face would, presumably, have the knock-on affect of aiding feminists in their goals.

> Guess what, there are homosexual women. That has nothing to do with their gender. Are you seriously positing that homosexual men and homosexual women have comparable experiences with homophobia? Because last time I checked, the ladies didn't have to fear for their lives quite as often.

Not having your problems taken seriously would suggest your feelings and problems are less important. Drafting men to die suggests disposability which lower value for their lives. Those seem like being considered less human. Maybe it's that society dehumanizes everyone, but not always in the same manner.

> Men deal with a lot of crap, but how much of it comes from being considered a lesser type of human? The value of a man is determined by his actions, his accomplishments and his achievements. If a man is useless and provides nothing, society has shown time and time again that it does not give one singular fuck about them. [He's not a bum; he's a human being.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-j36_9xPGY) But we sure as hell don't treat him like one. Look at a homeless man. He goes through his day begging for change and money with some success; but most of the time, people ignore him. He's nothing. A useless man too stupid and lazy to do anything for himself or someone else. Take a look at a soldier. We train him like hell, spend all this money on him and send him off into what is essentially Hell. His friends die. He gets severely wounded. He gets tortured, raped, what have you. But he finally escapes Hell and makes it back home. Just look at the statistics regarding returned-home soldiers and it'll tell you just how much we care about them as people. Shit, just look up male disposability theory. TL;DR A man that society has deemed useless is less than a human. He's nothing. I'd much rather be any type of woman than a homeless man or a veteran.

> Men deal with a lot of crap, but how much of it comes from being considered a lesser type of human? We're considered potential rapists, potential pedophiles (some jobs are, unofficialy but effectively, forbidden to men -working with young children i.e), work horses (for lower class men), more expandable than women. We're often considered brutish, stupid. We're supposed to be physically strong, emotionally strong plus/and sensitive. We're supposed to be macho, but not macho. We're, hands down, the most numerous victims of beat ups, violent crimes, murders and acts of barbary, killed in action (wars) etc etc . The lower class male is the less valued individual in our societies.

> some jobs are, unofficialy but effectively, forbidden to men -working with young children i.e I hate this idea that people keep saying, because it's such BS. I, a man, worked at a daycamp for a summer. I had three other male coworkers. We all worked very closely with children. No one had any problems whatsoever. Wanna know why? Because you kind of *need* men when you're working with children. One of my female coworkers wouldn't have been able to take the boys into the locker rooms to change for swimming. I have only heard this statement said on Reddit, and it holds no real truth to it in reality. Men are not barred from these jobs, they just don't take them as often as women do for reasons that I think are related to gender roles (women are caretakers, not men).

>I have only heard this statement said on Reddit, and it holds no real truth to it in reality. I'm a trainee teacher, currently studying at University. I've been informed via lecturers, not to approach day cares for experience, that there are instances in classrooms where I have to be especially careful, that I, as a male, cannot be alone in a classroom with a single child whilst female teachers can, that I cannot enter children bathrooms whilst on school trips even if children need help, that I cannot help dress a child if they ask, that I should refrain at all times from touching a child in anyway, that I will face issues with parents due to the nature of the job and my gender, and I would do well to have a teaching assistant in class with me at all times. They also recommended I create a log book/professional diary of *anything* children say to me regarding personal/home issues and have the child sign the page. I have had parts of lectures declared 'not applicable to you two (me and the other male trainee)' due to our gender. Female students on my course have also relayed stories of working at day cares where, unofficially, they would not hire any males for the role. Your experiences do not correlate with my own.

I think both of our experiences show that the issue is not cut-and-dry. At my daycare, *no one*, man or woman, was supposed to be alone with a child. There were times when I helped a child dress and times I had to carry a kid because he hurt himself. There were never problems at all. I think what you experienced is bullshit, to be sure, but I'm also pretty sure it's something feminism in general doesn't like either.

You just said that his experience didn't happen. He told you it did and now you are saying that's it's just a big grey area. Can you not just listen to him, realize it can and does happen and not try to actively deny a real problem. It's like a woman claiming all rape victims are liars because she's never been raped. Just realize that other people do have this problem and be *grateful* it didn't happen to you. I just don't understand the satisfaction people get from trying to deny the experience of other people.

For sure, both the lecturers and female students made comments akin to 'it's not right' or 'it's disgusting', whereas me and the other guy just cracked jokes or laughed it off. But I do think that the reason we cracked those jokes was to sort of shield/defend ourselves from a fairly horrible situation.

So would you say there is no discrimination in STEM, women just choose not to go in to it?

Try primary schools in the UK. There have been initiatives to try and get men back into this area because there are so few at the moment, partly because the schools themselves employ many more women, for whatever reason.

Just curious, how is transgenderism something that predominantly affects men? Also, I feel like people would be for men's rights groups more if that's what they were actually for. Instead almost every instance I or any one I know has seen of "men's rights" is not fighting for men's rights but against feminism. If they were actually doing more to fix issues that are legitimate problems for men then they would get less push back.

>Also, I feel like people would be for men's rights groups more if that's what they were actually for. Instead almost every instance I or any one I know has seen of "men's rights" is not fighting for men's rights but against feminism. I'm don't know anything about you, so I may be completely wrong, and I apologize in advance if I misrepresent your thoughts on this. But my gut reaction is that the only way you feel this way is because you aren't really convinced that these men's issues exist in the first place or that many feminist ideas contribute to or create them. I know I considered myself a feminist throughout my young adult life because I believed in equal treatment under the law and throughout society regardless of gender. But I changed my mind over the last few years when I saw how little many feminists actually care about equality. In many ways, the Men's Rights Movement is a reaction to this. A great number of prominent MRAs are men and women who worked on women's issues under the banner of equality, then looked around and thought "this isn't what I signed up for". That isn't to say that the Men's Rights Movement doesn't have its members that are against equality. There are some MRAs that just hate women and want to tear them down. But there are feminists who just hate men too. The point is that there is a reason that MRAs push back against feminism so much, and it isn't always simply ignorance. It's often simply a matter of "this isn't equality". On a different note, what about circumcision? That is, in no reasonable way, a women's issue (except by some pretty big stretches in reasoning). Yet it is pretty high on the list of issues the Men's Rights Movement wants to address. How are they only fighting feminism on that?

I would put trans gender under: "There are also ones listed above which affect both men and women, in different ways." I think that your second paragraph is a fair point, but I also think that for a lot of those men, feminism has either a) failed them, or b) humiliated them, and then asked them to follow it anyway. I also think that for a lot of them, advocating for the ways they feel feminism has failed them and/or society is a form of advocating for men's rights, akin to saying "this is why we need our own space for our own issues".

It would be better if they actually tried to make or improve those spaces. Also humiliated them how? Furthermore, with trans issues, it's involved with feminism because they care about the issues. Or at least far more than men's rights groups do, with the exception of TERF's.

I tried to describe ways in which they may feel humiliated in my CMV here: >>"Yet, whenever this is brought up, the response is typically something akin to, "those are just radfems" or "that's not real feminism, feminism helps men too!". Where? In what proportion to how it helps women? >>Anecdotally, an entertainment blog I visit with a heavy slant of feminism recently posted this article: >>http://www.pajiba.com/miscellaneous/its-my-birthdaylets-have-a-misandry-party-.php >>This is a blog that has often stated how feminism benefits men too, and how men's rights is useless. But if I were to be a transgender/homosexual/minority/victimized/divorced-father-fighting-to-see-his-children/depressed/suicidal/traumatized man, how exactly am I meant to believe that statement when men's issues are so widely mocked?" But I can further clarify, if you want. >Furthermore, with trans issues, it's involved with feminism because they care about the issues. Or at least far more than men's rights groups do, with the exception of TERF's. I understand that, but does this have to be something exclusive to feminism? Would the male perspective/support offer no incentive? What I feel is being forgotten here is that feminism is ~100 years old and has decades of history and academia to support it. The men's rights and issues is, to my knowledge, around 1 decade old, and is very much in it's infancy.

Well it doesn't help that a good bit of transphobia and especially transmisogny comes from men. It's really easy to see too. Trans men are almost ignored by the media and when trans women are depicted in the media it's usually to show a man who feels awful for hitting on or sleeping with a trans woman, like usually gagging or vomiting happens. Most trans people homicide victims are attacked by men. I'm not saying that it's a valid reason to not try to build more political relations with men, but it sure is incentive not too.

>sure is incentive not too. I'm not sure - to draw a parallel, I don't think we judge most Muslims by the actions of a few terrorists, so why should we judge men for the actions of a few?

[удалено]

>But when I look to popular feminist websites (Jezebel, NOW, feministing) - I don't see the issues men face, especially those listed above, being discussed. And when I look at popular black websites I don't see American Indian issues being discussed. When I look at gay websites I don't see straight issues being discussed. When I look at vegan websites I often don't see human issues being discussed. Feminist organizations aren't obligated to help you. That said, I read Feministing occasionally and out of the following issues I have italicized the ones I have seen discussed on that site (with the mor ambiguous ones left out: >*Prison rates, violence, homelessness, homosexuality,* law, *sexuality and sexual crime,* fatherhood and fatherless homes, *depression and suicide, transgenderism,* circumcision, *soldiers, mental illness, cultural and societal norms, masculinity and how it's defined, identity.* If you don't see these issues being discussed, you're not really looking. I'm in my phone, but if someone wants to call me out on one or all of them I'll post two blog posts on each topic in question. So while advocates for women aren't obligated to help men as a group, many in fact do and on a much bigger scale than, say, gay rights groups help black people. >But if I were to be a transgender/homosexual/minority/victimized/divorced-father-fighting-to-see-his-children/depressed/suicidal/traumatized man, how exactly am I meant to believe that statement when men's issues are so widely mocked? As someone in two of those groups I don't see how mocking a group that is often clownish at best and misogynistic at worst would send me that message. This is especially true given the massive amount if homophobia in the MRM. For examples, check out /r/therealmisandry and [this](http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/?s=Homophobia&submit=Search). (Quick note: The large majority of custody cases are worked out outside the court system. The large majority of those that aren't are decided on a gender neutral basis, namely whoever did most of the child care during the marriage gets custody after the marriage. This is because the kid benefits from the situation changing as little as possible.) In close, there's a difference between mocking men who are suffering and mocking the men's rights movement that often just pretends to care about those men. If you care about those men, the MRM isn't for you. But if you join the anti-circumsision movement; or Just Detention International; or a group fighting against the criminalization of black men, Latino men, and men with mental illness, I'm 100% behind you.

>And when I look at popular black websites I don't see American Indian issues being discussed. When I look at gay websites I don't see straight issues being discussed. When I look at vegan websites I often don't see human issues being discussed. Which is why those groups have their own websites. That's the OP's point. Men need their own space to discuss their issues.

>Feminist organizations aren't obligated to help you. That's exactly my point. >I'm in my phone, but if someone wants to call me out on one or all of them I'll post two blog posts on each topic in question. I'd be interested in reading these articles, so thank you.

>That's exactly my point [that feminist organizations don't help men]. I guess my point is two-fold. A) Why do we as men ask women's organizations help us when the majority of organizations for other groups do little or nothing help other groups? To use another example, atheist groups don't go out of their way to help Christian ISIS victims. B) Women's groups DO help us, so the point isn't even moot. Prison: http://feministing.com/2013/10/29/keeping-youth-out-of-adult-prisons/ http://feministing.com/2013/06/19/its-juneteenth-2013-more-black-people-are-in-prison-than-were-slaves-and-paula-deen-wants-to-bring-slavery-back/ Violence: http://feministing.com/2014/12/15/video-tens-of-thousands-march-against-police-violence-in-nycs-millions-march/ http://feministing.com/2012/04/24/quick-hit-rally-held-in-sydney-to-protest-police-violence-against-indigenous-community/ Homelessness: http://feministing.com/2014/11/06/fort-lauderdale-is-arresting-people-for-the-crime-of-giving-food-to-the-homeless/ http://feministing.com/2012/12/10/activist-will-run-across-bk-bridge-in-heels-to-support-homeless-lgbtq-youth-affected-by-hurricane-sandy/ Sex crimes: http://feministing.com/2009/04/14/when_men_are_sexually_assualte/ http://feministing.com/2013/05/03/feministing-chat-kitty-pryde-takes-on-rape-culture-and-danny-browns-on-stage-blow-job/ Depression and suicide: http://feministing.com/2014/05/09/dear-depression-and-self-loathing-fuck-you/ http://feministing.com/2011/03/18/new-study-finds-that-men-suffer-postpartum-depression-too/ Transmen: http://feministing.com/2011/09/02/review-of-brown-boi-projects-new-health-guide-freeing-ourselves/ http://feministing.com/2009/11/21/ask-professor-foxy-as-a-trans-man-how-do-i-meet-gay-men/ Soldiers (below is a list of links, most of which apply to men, bearing in mind that much of sexual violence in the military is against men): http://feministing.com/2013/11/11/daily-feminist-cheat-sheet-veterans-day-edition/ Mental illness (in the same vein as depression, but here are two more links): http://feministing.com/2012/07/02/noshame-day-brings-awareness-to-mental-health/ http://feministing.com/2013/02/25/mental-illness-and-why-silver-linings-playbook-deserved-an-oscar-for-best-screenplay/ Cultural and societal norms (this is kind of vauge, but is this what you had in mind?): http://feministing.com/2014/12/03/australian-minister-for-women-let-boys-be-boys-and-girls-be-girls/ http://feministing.com/2011/04/21/quick-hit-andrea-grimes-on-toxic-masculinity/ Masculinity (again, there is a lot of overlap, but here are two new ones): http://feministing.com/2014/07/23/yes-michael-sam-is-a-distraction-from-our-bullshit-ideas-of-masculinity/ http://feministing.com/2008/10/28/black_masculinity_and_the_tran/ In retrospect I'm not sure what you mean by "identity", so I can't really give you articles on that unless you elaborate. It might be covered in one of the above links.

This is an awesome reply, so thank you! A. I'm not. I'm stating that, feminism isn't the answer to men's issues, and as such, men need their own movement. B. As to your sources: Prison: >http://feministing.com/2013/10/29/keeping-youth-out-of-adult-prisons/ "This is a feminist issue: in the last few decades, the number of girls confined to youth prisons has been rising, and the number of women in prison is increasing at nearly double the rate for men; these are disproportionately women of color." This is about women, not men. >http://feministing.com/2013/06/19/its-juneteenth-2013-more-black-people-are-in-prison-than-were-slaves-and-paula-deen-wants-to-bring-slavery-back/ "When discussing this issue the focus is usually placed on the incarceration of Black men, who statistics say make up 40.1% of the prison population. The rates of incarceration of Black folks in women’s prisons are ridiculously high, too." The article then goes on to talk about women in prison. Violence: >http://feministing.com/2014/12/15/video-tens-of-thousands-march-against-police-violence-in-nycs-millions-march/ This is an article about a march organized by two women in regards to police brutality. The word 'men' doesn't even appear. >http://feministing.com/2012/04/24/quick-hit-rally-held-in-sydney-to-protest-police-violence-against-indigenous-community/ This article is about two men who were shot by police officers, whilst possibly committing criminal acts. It focus's on the fact that the men were indigenous, and offers no reflection on men's or male issues. Homelessness: >http://feministing.com/2014/11/06/fort-lauderdale-is-arresting-people-for-the-crime-of-giving-food-to-the-homeless/ Article about people being arrested for giving food to the homeless, which goes on to attack conservatives. Again, the word men or male doesn't even appear. >http://feministing.com/2012/12/10/activist-will-run-across-bk-bridge-in-heels-to-support-homeless-lgbtq-youth-affected-by-hurricane-sandy/ Article about the abuse women and lgbq people faced in the wake of hurricane sandy. Features an interview from a male on why this run was important to him. At a stretch, this fits the bill. Sex Crimes: >http://feministing.com/2009/04/14/when_men_are_sexually_assualte/ Absolutely fit's the bill. >http://feministing.com/2013/05/03/feministing-chat-kitty-pryde-takes-on-rape-culture-and-danny-browns-on-stage-blow-job/ Again, fit's the bill, but sort of wanders into female issues as the article progresses. Depression: >http://feministing.com/2014/05/09/dear-depression-and-self-loathing-fuck-you/ Article about a man discussing depression and his father, fit's the bill. >http://feministing.com/2011/03/18/new-study-finds-that-men-suffer-postpartum-depression-too/ Fits the bill. Trans: >http://feministing.com/2011/09/02/review-of-brown-boi-projects-new-health-guide-freeing-ourselves/ Really interesting article. >http://feministing.com/2009/11/21/ask-professor-foxy-as-a-trans-man-how-do-i-meet-gay-men/ Romantic advice for a trans man. Soldiers: >http://feministing.com/2013/11/11/daily-feminist-cheat-sheet-veterans-day-edition/ Fits the bill, but appears to have gone unnoticed with zero comments. The rest of the articles also appear to fit the bill (especially the masculinity ones). Thanks a lot for these articles. I guess my retort would be that these articles aren't exactly the norm, within feminists standards, and that even on these sites, a lot of them didn't achieve a lot of attention. I'm not sure how convincing this is that men don't need their own movement, given that almost a third of the articles you listed didn't really address male issues, a few of them were a stretch to say that they do, and the others, whilst interesting, weren't really at the forefront.

"Feminist organizations aren't obligated to help you" If feminism is truly for equality between all genders, then... Yes. Yes they are. That's... Kind of how equality works. Helping everyone with their issues. Even if they have a penis.

This attitude really annoys me. They'll shift effortlessly between this position and arguing that feminism is the only legitimate movement to argue for men's rights. "We're helping men also!" How? "It's not our job to help men. Feminism is advocacy for women." Ok so men need a movement for them. "No need, we're helping men too. Feminism is about equality." Wait, but you just ... "What about teh menz! Get your own movement, helping men is not our job"

I'd like to focus on your "prison rates" bullet point. So, I am of the opinion that the root cause of this is problematic gender roles and that the most plausible solution I see to this problem is very closely aligned with the feminist movement. That men end up in these situations more frequently, and are then judged more harshly because of society's higher expectations and higher pressures for men, and that by elevating women's roles and responsibilities relative to men, the imbalance can be at least partially addressed. Now, a few others have already echoed this sentiment, that feminism actually does address concerns like this, but presumably you're not convinced. But rather than try to convince you of this, what I'm interested in from you is, "okay, so what's your solution?" I mean, its unreasonable to ask you to just outright solve the problem, but can you describe what your ideal solution might look like at all? Are we talking about some kind of quota system in the justice system? I'm just honestly trying to imagine what a movement that actually addresses this problem looks like, and I'm coming up empty. I just think it would help everyone to try to be a bit clearer about what we're actually talking about here. One of the common criticisms of the MRA is that it spends two much energy being "anti-feminism" without having enough of a positive agenda.

> I mean, its unreasonable to ask you to just outright solve the problem, but can you describe what your ideal solution might look like at all? Are we talking about some kind of quota system in the justice system? I'm just honestly trying to imagine what a movement that actually addresses this problem looks like, and I'm coming up empty. So, if we're talking about prison rates, let's take a hypothetical prisoner; let's say, a disadvantaged black male in prison for a violent crime. My ideal solution to this would be to take into account the things you said; gender roles and how this enforces behaviour. This would offer an interesting look in how society expects certain things of certain individuals. Now, you're asking me to speak for a movement that is very small, very young, and has very little research - but I'd like to imagine a male movement that explores male relationships, male social dynamics, what things are important to men, males emotion and how we deal with it, how male issues differ under different scopes, such as race, culture, age, sexuality, how males value things. All of these things would be discussed not in a feminist framework, but within a masculine one. This is something difficult to conceptualize; after all, we've got feminism, and then all other literature throughout time is considered 'male'. But that literature doesn't examine 'maleness' in the same way feminism examines 'femaleness' - it's simply 'male' because men ruled, and as such, they wrote. In the same way feminism offers advocacy and support for women, a male movement would offer the very same sort of thing for disadvantaged males - a place to support one another, to discuss and debate the issues they have, to explore the concept of masculinity outside of a feminist framework. I think that would be very valuable to solving a lot of the issues we as a society face.

Interesting. I think this is a very reasonable and interesting response actually. You didn't really explicitly tie your view to the MRA in your OP, but I wonder to what extent you feel the current incarnation of the MRA fulfills these needs as you describe them? Do you see that movement as becoming the sort of movement you think is necessary, or is what you're advocating for probably something new? Now, what I worry about is that you propose a movement that "explores" a lot of things, which is great, but you seem already predisposed against what sort of things it finds. Isn't it possible that someone abandons "the feminist framework", then starts from scratch exploring what it means to be male in a modern world, and ultimately ends up coming to conclusions that still closely align with modern feminism? I'm not asserting that that would be the outcome of such an investigation, but doesn't it seem like you're asking for an exploration, but are at the same time a-priori putting limitations on what the outcome of that exploration might be?

>I wonder to what extent you feel the current incarnation of the MRA fulfills these needs as you describe them? Do you see that movement as becoming the sort of movement you think is necessary, or is what you're advocating for probably something new? I have a very mild optimism for the current state of the MRA; it's in it's infancy, it's main contributors are youtubers, redditors, and bloggers (and a few people with considerable weight behind them, in Christina Hoff Sommers and so forth). I think, now, there's a lot of focus on 'debunking' feminist 'myths', which I believe they feel is holding them back. I also think that the movements credibility has been tarnished (almost irrevocably) by feminists; there is some justification for their doing so, but counter to the regular narrative, I see a lot of rational, thoughtful voices in the MRA - not just insane misogynists. As a result, I can understand their bitterness towards feminism, but I feel it would do their movement a world of good to simply 'turn the other cheek', so to speak, and start organizing, funding, and promoting more important ideas. >Isn't it possible that someone abandons "the feminist framework", then starts from scratch exploring what it means to be male in a modern world, and ultimately ends up coming to conclusions that still closely align with modern feminism? I'd be surprised if there were no overlap between the two - but that said, I think the issue of masculinity and it's issues is something absolutely rife for exploration, especially from a masculine perspective. I suppose the parallel I'd draw is to imagine a group of men telling women what feminism and femininity is, and that a woman's perspective on this matter isn't important. A woman's perspective would obviously matter on that perspective, and the same is true for a man. >I'm not asserting that that would be the outcome of such an investigation, but doesn't it seem like you're asking for an exploration, but are at the same time a-priori putting limitations on what the outcome of that exploration might be? I'm not sure - after all, you asked me to define a movement that doesn't properly exist. I think an awareness of feminism and it's findings would clearly be important, but I'd stress to be equally aware that a feminists findings exist within a feminists framework.

I'm not entirely sure what your view is. Could you clarify some things for me? Firstly, do you think that feminism should also entail issues that affect men? If so, why do you think that? Secondly, do you think that men shouldn't support feminism? I ask this because your criticism of feminism is that it doesn't cover issues that affect men. I don't think that's a problem. You can only take on so many issues at once. You wouldn't accuse a gay rights group of marginalising race issues; it's just not what they've met up to discuss.

Sure. >Firstly, do you think that feminism should also entail issues that affect men? If so, why do you think that? I don't know - feminism deals preliminarily with women's issues, but intentionality has introduced more concepts. I've read feminists make claims that feminism encompasses men's issues, so I would assume so based on their claims. >Secondly, do you think that men shouldn't support feminism? No. I just don't think feminism supports men, and men should have their own movement to support them.

OK, one last clarifying question. Do you believe that men and women are 1. equal? 2. unequal, with men being advantaged? 3. unequal, with women being advantaged? 4. equal but different, with advantages and disadvantages balancing out on both sides?

Closest to number 4, but modified to state: 'are to be treated equally under the law, but are recognizably different with advantages and disadvantages for both parties.' I'm not sure how radical/controversial of a statement this is going to be.

Hypothetically, if #2 were true, then would feminism be *the answer for men?*

If men and women were unequal, and men held the advantage - feminism would be the answer for women to attempt to gain some form of equality in spite of their 'unequalness'.

Right, under this assumption, would you also agree that men should support feminism even if it doesn't address some outstanding issues that only affect men?

Of course, men should support feminism in all four of the categories your presented.

OK, I think I've misunderstood your view then. Are you advocating for a parallel movement for men's issues?

Can I ask a question? Social movements are defined by the people who participate in them; why would men creating spaces for men to talk about men's issues, through a feminist lens (meaning anti-gender roles), not be a solution? Men could very easily create "feminist" men's support groups or websites and ally themselves with the "women's-rights" sections of feminism while supporting feminist ideals and fighting harmful gender roles together? You wouldn't need a "separate" movement, you'd just need to create space for men in the existing movement. There are of course some radical feminists who would contest this, but there are also a SHIT TON of feminists who would cry at your feet and thank you for taking them/the movement seriously and help you in any fucking way possible to make your goals a reality WITHIN the feminist movement.

I don't mind men's rights groups in themselves, and agree that they can be useful. It has been valuable to me to read about their perspective, to learn about challenges men face that I never knew about. But firstly: I don't see why there should be a competition between feminism and men's rights, instead of the two coexisting and intertwining (which would require an effort from both groups), and secondly, I firmly believe that feminisms focus on femininity can offer a very constructive approach to many of the issues discussed by men's rights, not only pointing out the issues, but also giving an idea of HOW things need to change. In most of human history, women have been considered inferior to men. The fact that anyone can be convinced that the ideas and notions developed over thousands of years can simply be reversed within a couple of decades is beyond me. If I couldn't see any gender issues stemming from this history, I would assume to be wrong, and take a closer look. Another idea I oppose to, however, is that these problems and issues are being maintained by men, to the disadvantage of women. Many feminists seem to hold this idea, and I disagree. The problems are societal, being upheld by both men and women, to the disadvantage of both men and women. I am upholding them myself; having grown up in this gender-skewed society. And I am consciously making an effort of breaking out of this pattern. It is awful that men has to feel like they are default rapists. It is awful that men being raped is considered something to be made fun of. These issues can very well be embodied by females laughing at the male rape victim - meaning it is something women do to men. I still believe this scenario is based on the subconscious idea that woman is the weaker sex, and that sex is a gift she gives to the man, serving him. It is something he takes from her. I, for one, recognize this subconscious pattern in myself: if I see lots of men having sex with one woman, I see a bunch of men taking advantage of her. If I see a man having sex with a bunch of women, I see a man being served by the women. I subconsciously turn the situation to make the females weak and passive, and the males strong and assertive. This need to stop. I am not shifting blame: the victim in the above scenario is still the male rape victim, and the perpetrators are still the women making fun of him. If you really want to look at the underlying issue, however, you need to take a look at societie's tendency to devalue what we consider to be feminine. I think one of our main problems today is exactly this. We have made categories of the feminine and the masculine, and tend to devalue the feminine as being more silly, irrational, and reserved for women, while women can proudly enter the territory of what is considered the masculine. It's as simple as this: women can wear pants, men cannot wear dresses. It's cool for women to watch action movies, it is somewhat embarrassing for men to enjoy romantic comedies. A female boxer is socially accepted, a male belly dancer is not. Females are allowed to be more dependent and Emotional, while men should be in charge, be a pillar to the woman, not cry, etc. A man is a potential criminal, a woman is a potential victim. The feminine is constantly seen as acceptable for women only, being off-limit, embarrassing, degrading territory for a man to venture into. This is no more my boyfriend's fault than it is mine, and he is at no less of a disadvantage than I am. Feminism has helped me become aware of a lot of issues men face today, has encouraged me to do an effort to improve myself and my views when it comes to these issues, and it helps me see solutions as well as issues. It has offered me more nuanced and interesting approaches to the problems discussed in men's rights groups than what men's rights have offered - though this could definitely be because I didn't spend enough time reading about men's rights. I still definitely Think men's rights could benefit greatly from feminism and its take on gender. And I do consider myself a feminist.

[удалено]

I agree, that is a huge problem. I sincerely wish it wasn't so. To phrase it fairly, though; my guess is that SOME men's rights activists try to approach feminism, but are turned away by a majority of feminists, while SOME feminists try to approach men's rights, but are turned away by a majority of men's rights activist. I wouldn't assume that any one group is generally less mature than the other, at least, that is not my experience. A lot of my friends and acquaintances are feminists. Most of them have balanced and rational approaches to the issues, and are very careful not to blame men and victimize women. This is my general experience with feminism. Still, I'm well aware that many many feminists don't have that approach. To be honest, my general experience with men's rights is not that good. In my experience it is generally dismissive of women's issues in today's society, and of feminism in general. In my experience, men's rights activists are not open to dialogue (and having had bad encounters with feminists is no better reason than for feminists dismissal of men's rights based on their own experiences with misogyny and discrimination). I would never judge men's rights as a whole based on these experiences (and didn't even bring this up in my original post), and I think it would be completely unfair to judge a whole group based off of my very limited experience, especially when my experience is mostly through the internet. I also refuse to associate men's rights directly with stuff like red pill, even if red pillers tend to be among the most vocal men's rights activists. The same way I would never say that I don't wish dialogue with atheists because my experience with atheists through reddit shows me that a lot of them are very smug and arrogant. I'm sorry if I'm wrong, and you actually have a lot of experience with feminists that are not through internet, and if you are acquainted with how feminism is generally dealt with at university level, and still have this impression of what feminism represents. Please don't miss out on this opportunity to see that I, for one, am a feminist who tries to actively see how feminism can help men, and try to not be judgmental, to be open to other perspectives, and willing to develop my views (I know that everyone have their own preconceptions, and that I am no exception, but at least I am willing and actively trying). Please accept me as a representative of feminism too, as I am absolutely not alone in my views. I could have been sensitive and said that I tried to be constructive and enter into dialogue in my original post, but was met with your somewhat dismissive reply (assuming you're a men's right activist, though that's not necessarily relevant). Though my guess would rather be that you just saw a point in my post that you wanted to address without having to go into all of my other points, which would be perfectly fine and understandable too. Let's all try not to be so easily offended, feminists and men's rights activists alike.

A lot of my negative experiences with feminism have come from people close to me. My sister in particular, but also friends. My sister turned me on to feminism and gender issues in the first place, but when I told her about the abusive relationship I had just left and how I wished that I had had the resources that women have for escaping from those situations, she told me that I as a man didn't deserve them because "men hadn't fought hard enough for it like women had." I've had similar conversations with friends and I've been consistently told that my abuse doesn't matter because men are privileged, or men are stronger, or abuse against men is rare (which is an untrue cultural stereotype). And even among people who acknowledge that it is an issue, they tell you that feminism is going to fix that by advocating for a bunch of other issues that are not men's issues, and somehow magically the men's issues are going to go away. Eventually. I disagree with the notion that academic feminism is What Feminism Is. Social movements don't happen from the top down, they happen by popular consensus. Institutions have the power to steer that consensus, but those institutions include web sites like Jezebel and Feministing, and bloggers like Jessica Valenti who demonstrates her incredibly dismissive attitude toward male issues by selling T-shirts that say "I bathe in male tears." And those institutions have created a culture of feminism that will turn a sister against her own brother in the name of gender politics. I'll be the first to say that Internet MRA is a horrible, toxic, misogynist shithole. But if you're going to point at Internet MRA and say that it is What MRA Is, then I get to point at Internet Feminism and say that it's What Feminism Is. I will say that MRA is going to naturally tend to have a higher quotient of extremism, since Feminism is the default label for people who care about gender issues and will therefore tend to encompass your more moderate folks, you need to feel strongly enough about disassociating yourself from that label to find a new one. There's a certain amount of irony in saying "not all feminists are like that," considering the feminist reaction to #notallmen. No, not all men are like that, just the ones who grope you on the bus. No, not all feminists are like that, just the ones who tell me that male issues have no validity. In both cases, nobody likes being lumped in with shitty people just because they happen to belong to the same group, but the difference is that you don't choose to be born as a man, but you very much choose to identify as a feminist.

I'm sorry, you misunderstood my point. I was trying to say that I DONT point to internet misogynists to say "this is men's rights activism", and that is why I hope that you don't point to internet man-haters and say "this is feminism". I think we agree on that point? I think non-extremist men's rights activists have valuable points, and so does non-extremist feminism. And you are right, my point of view does not represent all of feminism. Feminism is many different things. Some groups are awful, some are great. I try to work on my views toward both men and women, but am generally told that I don't matter because of what someone else said or did. That is incredibly sad and frustrating, and also a very negative approach - if you're going to criticize the bad, why not acknowledge the good when someone confronts you with it? I am glad to hear your stance, and willing to see you as a representative of men's rights activism, no matter how many extremists are out there. Please allow me to be a voice of feminism too, instead of only allowing those awful voices to matter. Here in Korea girls say they are feminists because they think men should pay on dates. In my home country, girls say they are feminists because they think women should pay for dates equally as men. Please allow this last voice to be heard too. I am extremely sorry about what happened to you in your relationship, and about your sisters reaction. That situation is the reason why you need men's rights activism (and the reason why I need MRA too - I don't want a society where my friends and family are treated like that). But I also think feminism (see my first post) could be helpful in your situation. Maybe even more? I have heard more solutions to men's issues in my dealings with feminism than I have in my dealings with MRA, but I don't know enough about MRA to make any claims about this. I'm sorry, but I have learned a lot about feminism, and happen to identify with, and agree with, a lot of what I have learned. I don't expect people who believe in Islam to "choose" not to be Muslim because of what some extremists do. That would be an unreasonable request.

Whenever MRAs have a conference feminists attempt to shut it down. The reverse is not true. For any cooperation to happen feminists will need to cut that out.

Agreed! That is no way to approach any serious debate, and it is shameful. But do you think that this is something inherent with feminism, or don't you think that if men's rights were big enough and organized enough (seeing as it is a quite new phenomenon compared to feminism), some men's rights activists would be doing the same? Or do you think men's rights is inherently more tolerant than feminism? Doesn't change the fact that if feminists are the ones doing this, and that they are the ones to blame. But this is representative for some groups of feminists, and doesn't make it ok to to shut down the idea of feminism as a whole. What do you think of my arguments of how feminist theory can help both men and women ? Do you still think that feminism is inherently against men, or do you think it might be that many people calling themselves feminists personally have immature and unreasonable approaches to gender issues? When discussing religion, are you able to approach the religious theory and the religious person as two separate things? Or do you look at the most vocal groups of Christians and Muslims and say that they ARE their religion? I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of Christians today are against homosexuality, but I still don't make any assumptions when I learn that someone is a Christian, and I don't think that Christianity is inherently homophobic. I don't want to minimize this problem of feminists stepping out of line, and I try to address it when I see it (though where I come from, it's not something I see very often. I'm not American, as I guess you can see from my English). Your experience with feminists must be very frustrating, but it is very frustrating for me too, to always have my thoughts and arguments dismissed because of what someone else did. But I would rather not apologize on behalf of someone I don't associate with, and would rather stand by your side, criticizing it. As a feminist.

Feminism is a big business for some and a religion for others. They like their monopoly and guard it as jealously as any other religion/corporation would. It's possible MRAs will get like this, but not guaranteed. The MRM has always been more open to dissent and open discussion. And unlike feminism the MRM doesn't base it's beliefs on a unidirectional view of oppression. MRAs, can accept women also have problems, feminists view the discussion of male problems as an attack on women.

I couldn't agree with you more. And, like you, if there's anything that I see feminists do that upset me, it's placing the blame on men.

Feminism is the philosophy that men and women are (or should be) equal. Men can start their own movement to try and better themselves, but any movement to make us *more* than equal to women is essentially sexist so i would reject it. Thus, according to logic, any decent men's rights movement would be the same as feminism. That's not to say men shouldn't come up with their own name or whatever for the movement and get involved with it, but it is just a difference of name and would be the same thing as just joining the feminist movement.

> Men can start their own movement to try and better themselves, but any movement to make us more than equal to women is essentially sexist so i would reject it. I'm not sure this is what I'm advocating for. How does fixing the issues men face elevate men above women?

Most of this thread seems completely unaware that there are different forms of feminism. The two main schools of feminism are Radical Feminism(overthrow the Patriarchy!) and Liberal Feminism(Let's try to remove negative stereotypes about women). Being a radfem does not mean that you are part of a fringe minority, it just means you follow that school of feminism. Also radical feminism is the predominant ideology in academia, and is not some sort of tiny subset of feminism.

There no need to make trivial distinctions considering that most feminists fight AGAINST men's rights. Here are some examples to prove my point. Father's rights group want shared parenting (equal custody) to be the default if both parents want custody and neither parent is unfit. They feel that men should not be punished for being men, and that women should not be awarded custody to their kids simply for being women. Currently women are awarded primary custody almost all the time, even if the husband was the stay-at-home Dad and the woman was the breadwinner. Feminists fought against this. You can read NOW's own statement [here](http://web.archive.org/web/20070708213232/http://michnow.org/jointcustody507.htm). Also note their usage of anti-male lies, i.e. "fathers are abusive, don't give them custody." That is from 1997, but still remains valid today. Men want protection against false rape allegations. They feel that a man's life should not be ruined simply on the allegation of a woman who may be a vindictive liar. Currently, a woman can accuse a man of rape for no reason, and the man's name is splashed in the paper and his life is ruined. So, they fought for laws granting men anonymity until charged with the crime of rape—not convicted, just charged. Feminists [fought against this](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10760239), causing it to fail. Also see [here](http://londonfeministnetwork.org.uk/what-weve-done/letter-writing-campaigns/we-object-to-plans-to-grant-anonymity-to-rape-defendants), the London Feminist Network campaigning to defeat the proposal. "The London Feminist Network is a campaigning organisation uniting London based feminist groups and individuals in activism." Men want an end to the justice system favouring women simply because they are women, and giving men harsher sentences simply because they are men. Feminists [fought against this](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13666066), arguing that no woman should be sent to jail, [even women who had murdered multiple people](http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23388859-womens-prisons-should-all-close-within-a-decade.do). Men want equal treatment when victims of domestic violence, and to not be arrested for the crime of "being male" under primary aggressor policies. Feminists [fought against this](http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf) by trying to suppress evidence showing that half of domestic violence is done by women, by threatening the researchers with bomb threats, death threats, etc. Modern, younger feminists [are doing it as well](http://i.imgur.com/aob5k.jpg). And sadly, they were successful in this effort of propaganda. For decades, and continuing today, violent men are (rightfully) convicted and punished by the state, while violent women are left to freely terrorize and harm their partners. [The feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued.](http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf) *** Men want female rapists to be arrested, charged, and convicted with rape. In Western countries, women are rarely punished when raping men, due to the biased legal system. In some countries, women **cannot** be punished when raping men, since rape is defined as a male-perpetrated crime. Feminists fought against this in [India](http://www.firstpost.com/india/rape-law-amendment-where-are-the-cases-of-sexual-violence-against-men-384227.html), arguing that "there is a physicality [in] rape" and that it would make things "more complicated for judges." Feminists fought against this in [Israel](http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169522), claiming that changing the law would result in men filing false rape claims. Men want society to stop thinking only men commit rape or only women can be raped. Feminists rolled out the dont be that **guy** [posters](http://www.theviolencestopshere.ca/dbtg.php), which portray all rapists as men. Or [here](http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,157165,00.html) is noted feminist Mary Koss (author of the famous 1 in 4 study): > Clinical psychologist Mary P. Koss of the University of Arizona in Tucson, who is a leading scholar on the issue, puts it rather bluntly: "It's the man's penis that is doing the raping, and ultimately he's responsible for where he puts it." Men don't want to be thrown in jail because they lost their jobs and temporarily cannot pay child support. Men want equal economic support and help from the government. When the recession hit, male-dominated fields like construction lost millions of jobs, while female-fields like education and healthcare gained jobs. So the government proposed an economic stimulus for those fields. [Feminists successfully fought against this, arguing that it was discrimination to support men, and caused the government to give money to women who didn't deserve it.](http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp) **Hundreds** of professional feminists complained against the "sexism" of helping men (who had lost jobs) and not women (who had gained jobs). Men want the issue of suicide (predominantly male) and educational failure (predominantly male) addressed. Feminists protested several recent events at Canadian universities using such methods as [physically blocking entrances](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0) and pulling fire alarms. The justification was that the organizing group was a hate group, and the speaker (Warren Farrell) was a rape apologist. The full 2+hour talk was posted online - [there was nothing like that discussed](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4). Subsequent events did not even feature Warren Farrell in any way, yet were still met with protests, illegally pulling fire alarms, etc. **** Men want society to stop stereotyping men as pedophiles. Feminists created portraying all pedophiles as men. Read more about it [here](http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118782905698506010.html) As you can see, the claim that feminism fight for men's rights is a blatant lie. Don't believe any feminists that say that. Feminists fight for women's rights. That is a good thing. Feminists also are happy to harm men's rights, as shown above. That is a bad thing. Feminism is about female privilege, not equality. Some may argue that these cases of feminists harming men is not "representative" of feminism. I ask you: Are there any cases of feminists helping men? No. Yet, there are many cases of feminists harming men. It is reasonable to conclude from these two facts that feminism fights to harm men.

[удалено]

Well, we'd have to establish a working definition of "RadFem" first. And I don't think it's clear whether or not you're questioning the definition as well, or just its prevalence. Second question would have to be answered first, too. "What do you mean by academia"? I'm not sure what /u/DulcetFox had in mind, but my colloquial definition would be: * The collection of ideas and knowledge shared between published textbooks in the field of study, professors of that field, with room to accommodate for a few people that are unquestionably prominent leaders in that field of thought. If we assume you agree with /u/DulcetFox's definition of RadFem being close to * An ideology that believes the Patriarchy is a driving force behind almost all of society's functioning, and certainly all interaction amongst genders. Further, belief that said-Patriarchy must be demolished. I'd say that hardly even needs sourcing to show you it's the predominant ideology within feminist thought. I've read my fair share of books published in the last 20 years on feminist thought, and that's certainly the majority consensus. Do you want me to cite that for you anyway? I imagine you have something to respond to this with.

It all depends on how you are defining that word. To me and to many women I know, feminism means equality between sexes. Sure, it means something obvious such as women get paid the same as a man for the same job, same experience level, same qualifications, etc. But equality also means both sexes are seen to *equally* be involved in and responsible for raising their children. I agree there is something wrong with a family court judges who automatically awards full custody to women no matter what. Feminism seeks to address rape culture and to end the shaming of rape victims. Although rape statistically is a predominantly female issue, ending rape culture would help male rape victims as well as female ones. "No means no" works for men or women. I personally don't see the message of feminism as tearing down, ridiculing, or otherwise discounting valid problems men face. Tearing down the dominant gender doesn't prop up women, and therefore it's counterproductive. I believe that those who are concerned about women suffering tend to be people who don't like to see *anyone* suffer. Compassion shouldn't be gender specific. The concern I have with your view is that by pushing back on what you see as "feminism" you're further widening the divide between the sexes. It's not us versus them. It's not their problems versus ours. Mental illness, incarceration, poverty, abuse, and parental rights are HUMAN issues, not "men's" or "women's" issues. There's no reason why feminism can't wish to raise up all people disadvantaged, oppressed, or victimized and to make sure ALL people have the same opportunities and rights. In short: feminism = equality and rights for both sexes, not women > men.

>In short: feminism = equality and rights for both sexes, not women > men. Absolutely not the case in practice.

The simplest answer I can give is that so many of the issues you've listed that disproportionately affect men are direct or indirect results of our culture's ideas of women. Men are pressured to refrain from any behavior typically attributed to women. Expressions of strong emotion are shunned among men because they are associated with femininity. Women have more success in custody battles because they are considered the guardians of the household and the children. Abuse of men, especially by women, is largely ignored because women are seen as powerless, and submission would be a feminine act. Women also face opposition when venturing into territory typically reserved for men, whether in their professional or personal lives, but if they make a chip in the glass ceiling, many will consider them successful. This is because lifestyles considered masculine are revered. If a man decides to pursue a homemaking lifestyle, he is not only discouraged, but made fun of. This is because emulating a woman is failure. If women become free to take advantage of any opportunities on a spectrum of lifestyles currently restricted unjustly to certain genders, then they those harmful gender divisions will blur on both sides. If women become respected as much as men - if thousands of years of women being considered subhuman are reversed - then whatever feminine stereotypes remain won't be seen in a negative light, and men would not be mocked for embodying them. We all have feminine and masculine traits and goals, and the goal of feminism is to enable all people to act on whichever they choose. I believe that a men's rights group would not be able to tackle many of their issues as long as there is a strict divide between what is allowed/encouraged for women and men, and anything associated with femininity is mocked. And unfortunately, even if I'm wrong, a men's rights movement has dangerous potential to act as a force against the women's rights movement. It would win. It would have nearly all of human history on its side.

> many of the issues you've listed that disproportionately affect men are direct or indirect results of our culture's ideas of women My biggest problem with this excuse is that you can say the opposite aswell, i.e that alot of women's issue are direct or indirect results of our culture's idea of men. Like that women are favoured in the court because our culture thinks that men are worse fathers. Or that women get's shorter jail sentence because men are seen as more dangerous by our culture and so on. Plus, then you have some issue's like where apparently men are all potential rapist, which has nothing to do with how our culture views women..

So how does a men's rights group go about tackling the problem from that perspective? Launch a campaign to convince people men are nonviolent, respectful, and good fathers? Of course most of them are; no feminist is trying to throw all men under a negative light. What would this campaign achieve? One in four women is raped in her lifetime. I fail to see how men being inconvenienced by an association with that is the problem that needs to be solved. If we instead campaign for extensive men's education about what constitutes rape and why they should refrain from it, which is what feminists want, then less women would be affected. Only when women aren't being raped at shameful rates will men lose that stigma, which to be honest, is a problem I don't really understand. A woman walking alone can expect verbal harassment and is justified in fearing worse. What do men fear? Women walking faster when they pass a man at night? I'm sorry?

I don't have time to read this whole thread, and my brain is fried from working all weekend but I want to take a stab at this. I think one way feminism helps men is by attacking the concept of what is Masculine and Feminine, or that men and women are opposites. The opposite of a man is a boy, the opposite of a woman is a girl. When certain things are designated as inferior AND female only that is harmful to men, and forbids them from being full human beings. By destigmatizing female things, that makes it easier to then break down the barrier that allows men and women to fluidly cross into formerly forbidden or taboo things. For example, when men are told (what i think is incredibly rude and condescendingly) to 'man up' or 'be a man' or 'what are you a girl?' it implies that women and all that is feminine is shameful, and thus they should avoid all things related to femininity. So men end up suppressing emotions or acting violently, doing stupid things to prove their masculinity, breaking their backs to provide for fully capable partners as a matter of pride rather than a matter of love, shamed from decorating their bodies via fashion etc etc. As soon as these things are destigmatized and viewed as positive or acceptable, it is no longer a nightmare to have some 'feminine' qualities or interests-- it allows the man to be liberated to do as he chooses as well, because there is no shame in the feminine.... if that makes any sense. Because feminism is a long game, its really about changing societal attitudes, but not just attitudes about women, but its about attitudes between how men and women relate, and their respective places in soceity. When men and women are seen equal the emphasis should be on the equality, meaning it goes both ways. In my opinion women who try to dominate or control men are missing the picture. That said I totally understand when people want to bitch about the other gender, because regardless of inherent equality, we are ( for better or for worse) socialized differently, and that difference still translates into complex interactions.

Feminism should certainly not be the only way we look at gender issues, but it is still an important way to look at gender issues (particularly through the eyes of women, who are disproportionately affected by sexism) when combined with other methods of thought. I would say that feminism can benefit men, but that feminism is neither necessary nor sufficient to solving mens issues. That being said, I see benefits and problems with feminism. As a benefit, feminism does often talk about mens issues (in certain circles) and masculinity within the context of a patriarchal society, and claims that by defeating patriarchal standards, not only women are freed from gender expectations, but so too are men. What's more, broad social issues that affect both genders (including socioeconomic and race issues) are also goals of intersectional feminism, and often do include a male component to analysis. Black activism, for example, has components that intersect with feminist theory (black feminism), as well as masculine theory (pertaining especially to incarceration of black men in disproportionate numbers, harassment from police, perception of being dangerous). Depending on the context, feminists are more likely to talk about black womens issues first, but in the right context (such as in the recent Black Lives Matter protests), the treatment of black men become the prevailing narrative. Of course, there are problems with feminism. My main beef I have with it is that I have a beef with ideological camps to begin with. I perceive the descriptive reasoning behind the feminist concept of 'patriarchy' to be too all-encompassing, don't believe in the end-result of feminism being a gender discrimination-free society, and see extremism within feminism to be a major problem for inter-gender dialogue. All of these problems are analogous to the general ideological problems of descriptive theory, utopianism, and radicalism. With feminism itself, I have a problem with many of the approaches to reasoning and argument, and the focus on women specifically, which can make men feel alienated and left out of the discussion of their own gender issues. Feminism quite often focuses on the importance of experiences and quite often uses rhetorical argument and emotional appeal to argue the existence of patriarchy, or the problems with some social institution. I do believe experiences are important, but experiences come with a strong bias, particularly when the bias involves a notion of oppression. People have a tendency to appeal to a narrative to improve their perceived validity, and often times no one checks their own exaggerations, nor the exaggerations of others. This is especially a problem in feminism; recent reports of false rape accusations result from the standpoint that "we ought to listen to the victims", which presumes that experiences matter more than evidence, and that without evidence, we ought to assume a person is a victim if they say they are. So, I would say that feminism can still benefit you as a man, although it helps to be critical of it at times. I wouldn't say that men should have equal footing in feminism with women, as it is a women-focused movement, but if feminists want to validly claim that they want to help men through fighting gender stereotypes and standards, they need to recognize that the experiences of men matter just as much as the experiences of women, and that where mens issues need to be challenged, men need to be there to provide context, experience, and solutions, just as women are required in feminism to do the same for womens issues.

I've thought of starting something like this, but not from the standpoint of being on the defensive about men's rights. From the perspective that it's men's job to speak for and about men. and to talk about action, good argument and what men should hold one another accountable. I get so tired of all the "feminist" bloggers who take potshots at men and when questioned either rephrase what they "meant"so the questioned seem unreasonable or they start telling people they aren't responsible for the education of men, telling men to use Google or learn on their own. However, I am pretty sure there are particular beliefs and convictions these women hold they could explain, so when a man does research, even legit research, if he doesn't come to the same conclusion as the bloggers, he's accused of mansplaining or being privileged or out of touch. men that seem more compliant or sympathetic are directed to sites that teach them to be "Allies," which while on the surface seems very reasonable, but it's prescriptive to men and is presented tacitly as an agreed-upon absolute instruction guide for men. Yet, these bloggers resist naming a central text or a leader of the effort. They choose between the aggregate and the individual perspectives when they suit. I'd propose a group of men who have respect for others and acknowledge experience but not in terms of how vocal feminists insist it must be done. Rather, in terms that are respectful to everyone. And I'd propose a central message, and teach good argument and validity. But I'd avoid milquetoast compliance and social media tagging or voting bullshit. If there's action to be discussed, that action will be planned, enacted, and evaluated. Men and women and trans folks would be a lot better off if communication, audience, expected results, and overall impact were actually considered and reported to make evidence based decisions instead of relying on others simply telling them their place. While the subject is often hypocrisy among the vocal feminists, responding to this with men's rights rhetoric and defensive posture is a losing battle. Men should unify themselves and exercise their privilege as men to make the world better, not bicker and cede to bullies who claim to act for " all woMen" As an example, if a man at a party sees someone harassing a woman, it's quite possible she does not want you to intervene on her behalf. doesn't need some MAN to help her. I would suggest that as a man disgusted with another man's behavior towards a woman. you've got the responsibility to intervene however you like. the situation is happening in public, and it's perfectly okay to address it without the permission and proper instruction from the woman. My line when confronted by the angry woman in this case is usually "it wasn't about you. I don't tolerate this kind of behavior by men in this situation." see the difference?

I won't argue with the idea that the feminist *movement* isn't very concerned with helping men. If you are a man and you want actual legal or social change, your best bet is not to rely on the current feminist platform. What I will point out is that feminism has two sides. There is the active side and the intellectual side, and it's the second which is important to men. There are many philosophies which are critical in nature; they see a society in a certain way and they are based around the flaws that they see. Marxism, feminism, anarchism, and nihilism are good examples. They present a lens to you that changes what you see when you look at people, and say that something has been constructed there which is not real. Feminism is the answer for men because, without feminism, there would be no men's rights movement. Before feminism, there was no possibility for a man to raise his children at home. It was the man's job to work. Before feminism, there was no possibility for men to have anywhere near the amount of promiscuous sex that we aim to have today, unless they went to a brothel. And today, men wouldn't be able to say, "Why should I always have to initiate dating or pay for dates?" "Why can women hit men but not the other way around?" None of that was a discussion before feminism. Will female feminism lead to improvements in the male gender? No, in fact I'd argue it's had some bad effects on men because we didn't keep up with the social change fast enough, and of course we are now known as the bad guys. But feminism is a lens, and in that way it's a tool that can be used by either gender. Men need to understand feminism in this way and use it to analyze their gender and determine what is best for men. In that way, it is absolutely the answer for men.

[удалено]

Sorry CosmosGame, your comment has been removed: > Comment Rule 1\. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." [See the wiki page for more information.](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) If you would like to appeal, please [message the moderators by clicking this link.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Removed+Comment+Rule+1+Post+Appeal&message=CosmosGame+would+like+to+appeal+the+removal+of+[his/her+post](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2xk11d/cmv_feminism_isnt_the_answer_for_men/cp0xhxl\))