This video is extremely slow and not concise, so you'll have to excuse everyone for not making it through your 1k view video from 2 years ago from a guy who advertises himself as a mathematician first. (Not to completely knock the guy, he at least has done a decent amount of research on what different sects of ideologies exist in relation to feminism, seems to recognize imaginary arguments (Blank Slatism) and is quick to throw away conspiratorial thought)
Does not define feminis as a "belief in gender equality", reasons:
1 Feminists reject gender equality, and is anti-equality (hes apparently only going to elaborate on this 20+ minutes in, but at least he knows gender-essentialist feminists are their own bag of worms and tries to narrow the topic to not-quite-blank-slatists)
2 Surveys show low amount of people define themself as feminist but large suport gender equality
2 does not really follow as an argument to dismiss feminism as a belief in gender equality, there's multiple ways of considering yourself a gender equalitist, in fact, I would say most people consider themselves to view everyone as equal, so gender equalitist becomes a very useless term very quickly due to the sheer amount of different worldviews on what that involves (like this video!). Numbers also don't exist in a vacuum, we have to consider stuff like the 2014+ conservative movement to argue against feminist ideas, I would personally argue that youtube was a popular space of discourse that had a lot of misrepresentation of feminist principles and end-goals through snappy clips of 'triggered feminist owned' videos.
Also as of 2020, 61% of American women defined themselves as feminist, I wouldn't compare that to schizophrenia??? but of course he says this without actually saying the number of people who identify themselves as feminist
Alright now that we spent 18 minutes talking about what intersectionalist feminism isn't, we are given a list of 'mumbo-jumbo jargon' that he attributes to cult behavior
That's weird considering I think you could make a list like this for most academic fields,
Claim: there's no recognizion that females engage in violence as well (19:00)
Tarana Burke has said MeToo is a survivor's movement
This is by a law professor who studied feminist legal theory writing a long justification for acknowleding women's acts of violence, this seems like a defacto case of the word contemporary (and is the first thing to come up on a search on 'feminist acknowledging women violence men')
Philosophy Tube, did not discover that her girlfriend didn't perform violence against her when she transitioned and is still a feminist as far as I'm aware
could probably go on, especially because the closer you get to blank slatism you get, you'll see that it only makes sense to acknowledge female violence but I think it's established that being a feminist doesn't neccessitate not believing in female violence. Well that's annoying I had to provide all that evidence, and all he said for you to accept his terms is "there's very little recognizion that females engage in violence as well", when in the description he even cites #MeToohas been pathologizing masculinity as harmful.
Claim: This is mumbo-jumbo, because it is not scientific, this is the mumbo-jumbo jargon of a cult 19:40
Jargon is the specialized vocabulary of any profession, trade, science, or hobby, he has not specified anything that makes it cultish, and thinking soft-sciences has to have hard-science jargon just sounds like stem-brain (courtesy of smbc)
Claim: Misandry & Hate is perpetuated by mainstream feminists (goes on to name 'very well known people') 21:20
Judy Bindland(?) sorry i tried googling variations to make sure i got the name right, but I couldn't find any feminist by this name
Suzanne Moore who whined in 2016 how her movement isnt actually that popular, and I don't know why we're mentioning RADFEMs in the first place when we already acknowledged that we wanted to throw these accusations at all of feminism
"many many other examples", enlightening..
I think this is an appropriate time to use his own excuse of "drops in a small small ocean" exception
Claim: Sexist discrimination against men exist in the education system
He'll back this claim later I guess (Addendum after the fact: he didnt)
Claim: Feminism suppresses science that goes against its narrative
Example: 5 decades of domestic violence science suppressed, this is called Gender Symmetry Estate
Research on partner violence consistently shows that women are more likely to be victims of severe physical violence, including injury, hospitalization, or death, compared to men. Studies have also consistently found that men are more likely to be the perpetrators of partner violence. These gender differences are supported by extensive empirical evidence and have been replicated across multiple studies and various countries. (CDC, WHO, NIJ, and various various scholarly journals are not just fake - There's also a very very good paper critiquing Straus and others' papers, you can read through and be the judge. paper's author also recognizes violence can go both ways, and woah woah hold on a sec, there's even substiation of feminism as being misrepresented?? This paper seems like a pretty open and shut case.)
Claim: The reason for the Gender Pay Gap is because men and women have different occupations and different choices, in lifestyles they have different patterns, and this reason is being suppressed
And do you think maybe we should prioritize so that jobs on both sides of the spectrum feel an inclination towards have decent pay? Why do we act like education, and nursery has so little value for instance
Also this isn't suppressed, and wasn't in the year he posted this, it's readily available. (There's an argument that people like Hillary Clinton misunderstood these studies or the real solution to them, but they have mostly been corrected over the years) occupational segregation should be addressed basically. You'd also think he'd link to things that are suppressed considering it'd be hard to find. idk, consider your evidenceless claim dismissed
Bonus Claim: Gender pay gap reportings are forced by governments
Gender pay gap reporting refers to the practice of collecting and disclosing data on the difference in average earnings between men and women within an organization or across a particular industry or sector, I don't see an issue with this being enforced.
Claim: the Patriarchy is a conspiracy theory because the leader in some countries and universities and police departments are women
I'm sorry.. But this is a clear misunderstanding about what Patriarchy is claiming.
the concept of the patriarchy asserts that societies are organized in a way that systematically privileges men and grants them greater power, authority, and control over resources compared to women. It suggests that this power imbalance is not merely a result of individual choices or preferences, but rather a result of deeply ingrained social, cultural, and institutional structures. This dominance is not limited to individuals but extends to systemic patterns and norms. It's argued that it perpetuates gender inequality by reinforcing traditional gender roles and expectation, and that it does this because it leads to disparities in opportunities, resources and decision-making power.
It posits women as being objectified and treated as commodities way more often. It argues that the on-the-book laws and cultural nroms perpetuate these unequal power dynamics. It does not imply that all men benefit equally from this system or that women are devoid of agency or power, and modern patriarchy theory generally recognizes that men suffer too under patriarchy (see former paper that I said was a slamdunk)
Claim: They believe in gynocentrism
radfem shit, again I thought we were here to shut down feminism as a whole, especially when the next sentence is "Feminism is Anti-Egalitarian", says it's an empirical fact
Claim: Women are given privilege in the legal system, not given the same responsibilities as men
Decidedly full of shit down to any level. What do you want me to say, he made it the fuck up. How is there 20 minutes left
Claim: Feminism sees men as disposable. People only cared when girls were suffering that one time when boys also suffered and in greater amounts
Feminism acknowledges men as being seen as disposable in current society and is one of the movements trying to work towards getting rid of that, it just so happens that feminism believes patriarchy's traditional-values teaching is the source of this. This also doesn't make sense if we take his claim that feminism is a minority belief seriously.
Claim: Feminists deny Due Process
Consider your evidenceless claim dismissed
Claim: Feminism is excusing and downplaying perpetrated violence
see https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.006
Claim: The science on this matter is reasonably clear
you just said it'd been denied for 4-5 decades
Claim: and yet female perpetrated violence is downplayed and male domestic violence is overplayed
This could easily be argued to be part of patriarchial society, but there's still no source despite such large claims
Claims: These gender gaps exist 30:00
I agree. I think I've heard about the existence of almost all of these. But he's also just saying things without sourcing anything.
So consider your evidenceless claim dismissed.
Claim: No feminist is advocating for anything to be done about these gaps
Just..
Claim: Feminism is neither liberal, because it treats women as children
didnt even elaborate how this time, let alone name real examples
Claim: Undermine due process
doesnt elaborate how
Claim: Suppress freedom of speech because they say that they are being sexistly oppressed and use that to shut down free speech
I don't think they challenge the 1st amendment, but while I have you, Paradox of Tolerance
Claim: expanding state power
feminism is when you want the state to do its job I guess
Claim: Sex work is considered a form of oppression under patriarchy
There is a very loud SWERF group in feminism but I think most feminists already have come around to see that it's best for it to be legalized and protected
Claim: Mobbing/Vigilante Methods/Cancelling is illiberal Paradox of Tolerance, and while there are obviously instances where I disagree with mob-rule type decisions, people generally rile up to hold others accountable - I don't agree with
retributive justice and hope society in general comes around, but that is not a feminism issue.
Claim: Authoritarian Control & Obedience
cant name a single policy that furthers this narrative
Claim: Feminism is not leftwing because Marxist-connected feminism is on the decline
I have no fucking idea whether or this is the case, outside of intersectional feminist spaces almost all critique Capitalism as part of what needs something done with
Claim: There's actually a lot more women doing super great, it's just that men are the top 0.01% while there are way more women below them [in like the top 10% i guess?] and Theresa May was a conservative prime minister
I don't see how the first part would make feminism not left wing, but yeah there can be conservatives that think they're feminist despite ignoring big feminist ideas I guess
and like all feminists, after boldly spewing out bullshit you pat yourself on the back and walk off, smug in your "fixing" of a perceived wrong, and certainly not staying around to have it be challenged.
I read it and thought you made some salient points. There's aspects I disagree with and I think we could have an interesting discussion around them. But I don't have the patience to create multiple comments with sources that you have, I've done it all before and really don't want to get down in those reeds. I didn't watch the video either, so I'm going to assume that the video itself was poorly structured.
"There's also a very very good paper critiquing Straus and others' papers"
"And do you think maybe we should prioritize so that jobs on both sides of the spectrum feel an inclination towards have decent pay? Why do we act like education, and nursery has so little value for instance"
In regards to this point. I wholeheartedly agree that education and nursery should offer more pay, but I think there is different value other than financial. It is also worth noting that the market decides the price. There is only costs in teaching and nursery etc. I really don't think it is reasonable to expect their pay to be comparable to companies that make mobile phones (for example) at costs of around £700.00 a pop (that people willingly pay), this isn't so much a decision on what fields are worth more but on market demand, that women make most of the contributions to.
"Gender pay gap reporting refers to the practice of collecting and disclosing data on the difference in average earnings between men and women within an organization or across a particular industry or sector, I don't see an issue with this being enforced."
I do, average pay doesn't really give indication as to the factors. My company (in an attempt to close the gap) a few years ago put my team on the same pay. I thought this was great as it resulted in a pay rise. However, we where we were put on the same pay. My colleague, who had worked her way through the levels and was on more money than men due to the fact she had worker harder was now being paid the same as me who hadn't put that effort in. This wasn't fair on her. I don't believe the mere fact of measuring averages is an effective way of measuring fairness.
I could touch on more of your points but - from your response - it does seem like your responding to a poorly constructed video and I don't have the time or inclination to discuss these fully.
Thank you for your input, however. I found it an interesting read.
Assuming your colleague had gotten raises through merit, it's obviously silly to roll that back, I would've thought that they'd account for raises given that it wasn't actually implied that they had to act on this, just disclose the difference, and this reminds me I'm probably foolish in imagining such a thing would just be itself in a vacuum (ie not fuck up things that are kinda encouraging people to do their job better)
Could you give me the title of this specific paper
Sorry for the long wait, "Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist" (literature review) by Johnson MP. in 2011, which was a year before
I use this paper most of all to show what feminist academics thought even 10 years ago, since the video seemed to still have these misconceptions, and they mostly argue against Straus for misrepresentations and ill conclusions of others' works and beliefs.
Your second study doesn't seem to support the point based on its abstract, from point a to f
First Study: References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Updated Annotated
is a bit of a mess, as most of the things citing it doesn't really use it for the purpose of saying "women are as physically aggressive as men", and it for some reason brings a child-abuse study(?), a bunch of anecdotes, and an internet survey from the middle of a sociologist's book (not paper) up in its first part, but this put me down a further rabbithole of Gender Symmetry discussion which I hadn't delved into before, 12 and I'll admit it at the very least doesn't seem like a settled debate, so I retract what I have to say about Gender Symmetry itself since idk anymore
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that these aspects may skew the statistics on perpetration rates between men and women.
I fully agree, (think my wall even says so) but from any not-radfem feminist perspective, this seems to be parts we acknowledge, it's just also viewed as caused by Patriarchal society as it previously stood and perpetuated by how it currently stands
Thanks for your input as well, it forced me to learn a little more about what I don't know
I wasn't basing an argument around him but the hypocrisy that we want men to be emotionally vulnerable, until they have politics we don't like the it is fuck them.
That is what I was highlighting, not that I like Jordan Peterson, as I hate his politics, but If you want men to be vulnerable, it can't be just men who align with what the left inherently agrees with. It has to be extended to everyone
I am not prepared to let go of my left-wing values the way most of the people claiming to be left-wing have been doing. I am an egalitarian, and I am not prepared to treat men as less deserving of human rights, of care and consideration, of protection against discrimination, and so on.
But yeah, if you are on the left and care about men, you often have to carve your own way and swim against the stream of normalized misandry. But that's why we have this community.
I'm starting to realize that even in the localized leftist communities we're involved, we need to start creating spaces where men can freely talk about these issues in a leftist environment. Unfortunately, we don't have much power to be open with it in our own communities due to how they'll react. Even more dangerous when they're brainwashed by ideas of men that make them automatically distrustful of men, even at the start.
You're good bro. Having emotional depth means you are capable of a larger spectrum of experiences that other men can't relate. Embrace it, because you can feel a level of joy looking at a sunset or exhilaration driving a sports car on a track or extasy eating a perfect steak, at higher orders of magnitude more than other men.
Imagine the difference between us and you is that you are straight up raw dogging everything, while everyone else feels muted as if covered by a condom.
Dude, you know, killing an entire town because you couldn't wait in a line to get your milk like everybody else is not entirely a healthy thing, nor any of your "health" pipes are.
Jokes aside, your original post gives me a feeling that the very idea of not suppressing your emotions all of the time for the sake of masculinity is not yours, really. You mentioned your friends and family, who do seem to exert the macho behavior in unhealthy ways.
Get in terms with yourself first and foremost, because you're the person you spend most of your time with one way or another. Allow yourself to feel anything and carefully analyze when and why you feel, then try to understand whether you want to have that kind of reaction to things at all. Personally, I have always found honest writing helpful, because it makes you go through things in details, which makes it invaluable when dealing with emotions and reactions.
Also, being constantly talked down to or annoyed or belittled or simply experiencing any kind of stress is a very prominent contributing factor to feeling like you're not right. In some cases, it may help to find another group of people to regularly communicate with, finding comfort in some different pattern of behavior, one that makes you feel good and like you belong. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to ditch other groups - just make sure you experience the opposite of what depresses you on a regular basis. I can't find any examples, but the Internet is surely full of understanding and caring people that you can probably try and bond with to have a good time together, with your thoughts being really far away from anything that makes you feel like you're "not masculine enough".
Lastly, try your best to calmly persevere when it makes sense to. Suggesting a person to do some sports for the sake of their own benefit is one thing, which you absolutely can politely decline if you don't care because you're the one living with the consequences, but making a person feel uncomfortable because of the emotional range they experience is plainly moronic (again, unless the person really needs some help, but shaming is no help).
Life isn't static. Who knows, maybe you'll manage persuade everyone around you to be more mature and welcoming and understanding, or even notice yourself changing and becoming in more direct control of your emotions, ending up chuckling looking back at your today's self - I know I did.
So, cheer up, Dude. You seem like you got this, and believe in you.
You’re fine, there’s a lot of toxic ideas out there that men should be cold and unfeeling. But that is absolutely silly. Emotional sensitively is an incredible gift. Check out the resources around highly sensitive people, that might help you like it helped me.
Not in the sense that they don’t feel anything, but that they are a lot better at handling them
I think this is an important distinction. You don't want to become unfeeling, but you do want to become more in control of your feelings. That's a sign of maturity (tho many adults don't really manage to get there).
I’ve tried meditation, therapy, healthy eating and a better sleep schedule but nothing works.
This takes time. Stick with it for a few years and you will see improvement. It's not easy to grow and change, so give yourself time, and don't give up.
Life isn't easy for most of us. Just keep at it. Build healthy habits and over time you will see improvement.
I also recommend reading Stoic philosophy. Not the pop-culture unfeeling stuff. But the stuff about knowing the difference between what's in your control and what's outside of your control.
You also want to regulate your feelings. It's not helpful to e.g. let your anxiety drive you into a frenzy, or your depression drive you to harm yourself. Emotional regulation (not suppression) is an important skill.
if your anxiety is running crazy it's doing so for a reason
Often that reason is you keep dismissing the part of yourself whose entire purpose is to protect you from danger
What do you expect it to do but get worse? You're ignoring the alarm bell, all it can do is ring louder and harder.
"regulating" that signal is the exact wrong response, even in extreme cases. You need your fear and anxiety to regulate itself to be properly tuned to the danger you need to be aware of, which means more communication with your self, not less.
Emotional regulation (not suppression) is an important skill.
Wholeheartedly disagree. This is an unhealthy attitude to take.
Regulating your own actions is an important skill, and seeing and understanding how those actions relate to those emotions, that as well.
But your emotions are part of you, they are a part that deserves to be listened to and respected, and nothing in your response indicates you put in effort to do that.
Which makes sense. We, as men, are not at any point given the time or space to do so, and are often just physically beaten if our emotions are ever a problem for other people. It makes sense that repression and controlling them becomes the go-to for most
Adding on,.what we're talking about here is emotional regulation. This isn't the same as controlling emotions, nor doing away with them. More like managing the volume so you can actually listen to them.
You could even take out the word emotion and simply talk about self-regulation. @PostalDude if that's the case, it's not just whether you've tried meditation or therapy. On top of sticking to them because it can take time, the type of therapy matters. DBT is a specific modality which offers a lot of tools for self-regulation. This doesn't mean dispensing with other approaches; but it's a good place to start. Person-centered therapies might be subsequently useful and perhaps EMDR if you suspect a trauma element (just some examples. Not prescriptive).
From there understanding the effects of culture is good and so is looking at (real) Stoicism. But the latter is almost a later stage step, in that you want to be in the right frame of mind to properly apprehend it.
Emotional reactions to stimuli are healthy and natural. The key is developing an emotional awareness that allows to understand your emotional reactions. That's the only healthy way to control them, the alternative being the kind of suppression/repression that's been so toxic for men for the last century or more.
This is a great example of the negative effects on men from our current patriarchal system. Men are suppose to be these unfeeling machines who only have a single emotion anger. This anger is valuable since people can wield it for their own personal gain either politically or economically so they keep up these narratives. But all humans are complex with many different emotions and likely you are feeling some other emotions as anger since you don't have good words to describe them. I have this same problem with labeling emotions so I have been trying to label emotions twice a day now. Set an alarm and look at feelings wheel to describe what you are feeling. It may seem dumb but its a skill that needs practice and if you are like me you never learned this as a kid.
Also try to consume some counterculture media to see other descriptions of masculinity or manhood. This could be feminist, queer, kink positive, high fantasy, scify, ttrpg etc. since they will allow show alternative values and cultural expectations. These will show that there are different ways to be a man and that our current system is just one possible example. Once you start seeing this you will notice many different positive male role models even in some more typical media. Queer Eye did a great episode at a fraternity who were feeling the same things as you.
This may seem like a lot of work but the payoffs within your own life will be worth it. Removing other peoples expectations of what you should be and living based on your own expectations is freeing. Any future partners will be appreciate, as well as your friends even if they don't know it yet. You will be happier since you can focus on what makes you happy not what others want think will make you happy.
To deny that a patriarchal system exists is naive. A one sentence response to a 3 paragraph comment is woefully weak and inadequate and does nothing but make it seem like you're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "No! No! I'm not listening!"
I don't have a problem with the rest of the comment, but the feminist terminology is grating.
'Patriarchy' is commonly defined as "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it" (as per r/AskFeminists.) This is simply not the kind of society we live in. In Western countries at least (and most others as well) women are represented at all levels of government, and there are no systemic barriers to participation.
Ah ok we're just getting hung up on semantics, not a huge deal. There are lots of theories and definitions, I didn't subscribe to /r/Feminism on the other site and I don't intend to here so I'm not sure what definition they endorsed. I'm referring to the existing systems that try to define masculinity as emotionless and stoic, sees their role as bread-winner and disciplinarian, obsessed with sex to the exclusion of everything else. The systems that say "boys don't cry" and "man up" when things are hard, those are systems exist in the west and are absolutely part of "patriarchy" or whatever phrase we agree to use.
It's not just semantics. Terms such as "patriarchy", "toxic masculinity", and "male privilege" habitually come with a load of negative messaging about what it means to be a man. That is toxic and we should avoid that.
I prefer terms such as "harmful gender expectations" as it puts the locus of the problem in society rather than the nature of men. Young men growing up deserve better than to be demonized for their gender and to be driven into the arms of toxic figures like Tate.
I just don't have time to do a proper response right now. I think pretty much everything you've said is incredibly helpful and I can only speak for myself here, but I hope you stick around.
Except one thing. Blaming it all on the patriarchy. I'm pretty sure that it's not your intent, but I think this is not a good thing to do, especially when speaking to a vulnerable man. I'm sure you have your definition of what the patriarchy is and that it clarifies why what you said is perfectly reasonable, but from the perspective of a vulnerable man hearing "patriarchy" this and "toxic masculinity" that (which to your credit, you didn't say the latter), rationally or not leads many to start seeing masculinity itself as problematic. Which for vulnerable men, especially those with anxiety issues leads to self loathing and a lot worse problems down the road.
Frankly, I think, when trying to help vulnerable men, you should make sure to keep feminist ideology out of it. Otherwise you risk making things worse, not in a big hit, but in a death of a thousand cuts kind of way.
If you live in an oligarchy, does that make you an oligarch? Are you responsible for what the oligarchs do? If not, then why does the same not apply to patriarchy?
Contrary to your perspective here, I think it is useful to examine the social context, including how gender is systemically wielded to reinforce power structures that were designed to support the lifestyles of a select few. Living in a patriarchal society doesn't mean you inherently benefit simply by being a man. It's more about putting you into a box so you behave as expected and perform the roles pushed onto you. Having narrow definitions of masculinity or femininity and strictly defined gender roles (no crossing over!) are a big part of building and maintaining those boxes for everyone.
This post above particularly emphasized the value of breaking out of those expectations:
Removing other peoples expectations of what you should be and living based on your own expectations is freeing. [...] You will be happier since you can focus on what makes you happy not what others want think will make you happy.
Contrary to your perspective here, I think it is useful to examine the social context, including how gender is systemically wielded to reinforce power structures that were designed to support the lifestyles of a select few. Living in a patriarchal society doesn't mean you inherently benefit simply by being a man. It's more about putting you into a box so you behave as expected and perform the roles pushed onto you. Having narrow definitions of masculinity or femininity and strictly defined gender roles (no crossing over!) are a big part of building and maintaining those boxes for everyone.
This is a great definition. It shows how these hierarchical systems are set up to support just a few. Everyone else gets just enough to survive but only by sacrificing a portion of their selves. They are suppose to feel lucky since they are not at the bottom.
men do not benefit just from being men, they have to claw and compete and struggle to get to those positions of power, and usually once they they stop other men from getting in
It's the implication that this is a male issue, and that females would and do behave at all in any way better when in those same positions that we take issue with.
They don't, they wouldn't have, it's insanely sexist to believe otherwise, and insisting on using terms like "patriarchy" when we definitely don't live in one in western society and haven't for at least a century is incredibly problematic, especially when speaking to a victim of geocentrism and using it to dismiss his valid feelings.
power structures that were designed to support the lifestyles of a select few
Exactly. It's not men in general that have been in power, but a select few men and women. It is then incorrect to use the terms patriarchy and patriarchal systems (as commonly understood) to describe our society. Because there are plenty of men at the bottom too, even more so.
that "and women" part does not get said often enough
Most of these institutions were created by monarchies to keep the monarchies in power. The last monarch of any real note was a woman, and had decades of ruling time under her belt. This, however, still gets blamed on "patriarchy" and men as a whole, as if the men being subjugated were responsible for their own subjugation.
It's an extension of the hyperagency society forces on to men, and incredibly sexist to keep using the term "patriarchy" or especially to throw it in a victim's face, it's essentially victim blaming at that point. "Oh it was men who caused the problems so any problems you, as an individual man, face are your own fault!"
Contrary to your perspective here, I think it is useful to examine the social context, including how gender is systemically wielded to reinforce power structures that were designed to support the lifestyles of a select few. Living in a patriarchal society doesn't mean you inherently benefit simply by being a man. It's more about putting you into a box so you behave as expected and perform the roles pushed onto you. Having narrow definitions of masculinity or femininity and strictly defined gender roles (no crossing over!) are a big part of building and maintaining those boxes for everyone.
This is not contrary to my perspective. I completely agree with this. I disagree with naming the cause of this problem "patriarchy". I consider this to be engaging in victim blaming.
It's feminist terminology meant to blame men for any and every problem, including problems men bring up. Even if they weasel out of it technically not meaning "all men are at fault and to blame", that is very much how it is used in practice, and certainly how this commenter used it to invalidate the emotions of OP
This may seems like a strange source by I really enjoyed the Copenhagen Pride definition of feminism
FEMINISM
Feminism refers both to a political movement that originated in the battle for equal voting rights for women, and a political ideology that strives to attain equality between all genders. Although feminism arose from the women’s rights movement and have come a long way under its banners, there has recently been a move towards more focus on the struggles of other minorities in society. This is referred to as intersectional feminism: the intersections that occur between identities which affect the way a person experiences society, for instance as a black bisexual woman, a non-binary person with a disability, a transgender gay man, and so forth.
Feminism rejects the traditional patriarchal values that oppresses the individual regardless of gender. An aspect of this is the notion that women are worth less than men, or that being straight is preferable to an LGBTQIA+ identity. The struggle of women in society is still an issue deserving of undivided attention, but it does not need to be at the cost of addressing overlapping identities that face problems on a similar basis.
An example: A boy gets teased in school for wearing a dress. Here, feminism tells us to disregard the idea that there is a correct way of “doing” your gender, and instead encourage us to express ourselves freely. It may sound simple, but we live in a society that is deeply influenced by traditional understandings of gender, and it requires and active awareness that not everyone fits into the classic binary understanding of gender. And that’s totally okay!
HOW DO WE WORK WITH FEMINISM?
The feminist work practice of Copenhagen Pride is tied up with the recognition of privilege blindness. Privilege blind refers to the tendency to be unable to see the challenges faced by others because of your position in society. It is not in and of itself a negative thing, but it can be harmful because it can lead to the exclusion of certain persons or groups. By recognizing this blindness, we can get insight into our distinct challenges and thus become better at helping one another out. An example of privilege blindness is the fact that the global Pride movement has often been criticized of only catering to (primarily white) gay cisgender men and forgetting about the other identities in the acronym. This comes to show if a Pride chooses to only have pictures of this group in their promotional material, thus contributing to a feeling of exclusion by others, who may not feel as welcomed. We can work against this by actively incorporating women, transgender people and QTBIPOC[1] into our strategies and representation and making an effort to amplify the voices that have a hard time being heard. This is ideally done by working towards having decision making persons and groups representing a broad section of our community. A way to use your privilege for good is to pass on the mic, instead of believing that you can speak on the behalf of others. That’s our responsibility as feminists!
This IS progress. Much better than the previous but simpler definition that went like "Feminism is a movement that fights for gender equality for women". Which is a bit of a oxymoron if you ask me.
The next step is to recognize that cultural norms that harms people on the basis of gendered expectations isn't uniquely or even primarily caused by an elite few, but is a systemic wide cultural problem for which both men and women are responsible. Using "patriarchy" as the term to refer to this problem is a best misleading, causes unnecessary division and leads to a certain myopia when looking at how to address the problem.
The step after that is that it is obviously absurd to name a gender equality movement after only one of the genders. Again this alienates certain groups of people and prevents them from contributing to the conversation on an equal footing.
But in practice, that's not what's going to happen. There's not going to be a flipped switch and everyone agrees to stop using the word patriarchy to refer to the ills of society or to rename feminism to something else. Instead, little by little, the more sensible people recognize these issues and individually choose to no longer use the patriarchy and feminist terminologies. Until the only the only people left still willing to call themselves feminists will be the most radical of misandrists.
This might give you a case of déjà-vue, but "harmful gender expectations" is a pretty good alternative. It doesn't cover all the reasons why someone might want to use the term patriarchy, but it covers a large portion of them, in particular it does cover the use of it in this thread that set off all this discussion.
And I think using clearer more precise terms depending on circumstances would be greatly beneficial. The terms patriarchy seems easily misunderstood and misused and I've seen many people go so far as to believe that the term is intentionally misused or intentionally misunderstood.
On a somewhat related topic, what do you think of male privilege. Are men a privileged class?
There was a guy in this thread that talked about how acknowledging his male privilege literally saved his life (I'm exaggerating). But he also had the misfortune of using the word "Toxic" followed by the word "Masculinity" without any irony and therefore suffered the wrath of our merciless mod.
I spent 30 minutes preparing a reply before I realized there was nothing left to reply to, I ended up sending it to him in a dm. But you seem to have a bit more advanced understanding of these topics so I'm curious what you think of this one.
Patriarchy just means "society", but sneaks in blaming men for any problems caused by it
Egalitarian is a word that means equality between all peoples, and that existed before feminism as a word, to give you an idea of how far back their sexist bias goes
"Toxic Masculinity" really is a victim blaming way to say "gender expectations placed on men by society, which are harmful to others but maybe sometimes we'll admit are harmful to the man subject to the abuse, but who gives a fuck about that guy he hasn't solved his own problems and instead made them known to others, how can we make him shut up?"
And for that last one we actually prefer the terminology feminism used before they realized it applied to men as well: "sexist gender roles and expectations"
This definition of feminism is what they want you to think. If you actually read the ideologies behind OG feminists, what feminism means is far from just equality between men and women. It's just a misandrist movement that really stands for female superiority. The concepts they came up with such as patriarchy theory and male privilege really comes from blaming societies gender problems on men. Read Elizabeth Stato, Kate Millett, Andrea Dworkin, and idk this subs opinion on Janice Fiamengo but if you don't wanna do the grueling research, she can break it down for you. This will tell you everything you need to know about real feminism, not the brainwashed crap that hides behind a progressive mask that's out there.
There will be a range of opinions, I guess. Mine is that I like her and many of the points she makes, but she leans a bit too much into traditionalism.
The modern political left has become extremely anti-egalitarian on the gender axis: they discriminate against men.
And they do it relatively openly, though they rarely, if ever, explicitly admit to it and they often claim to be gender egalitarians.
But if you're going to make a post talking about the misandry found in the left, without mentioning the equal amounts of misandry found on the right, then I find that to be a little disingenuous.
Many of men's greatest issues like effective access to mental health care, effective social safety net, accessible and welcoming social environments of neurodivergent men etc... Are all things that are being fought against by the right.
This is going to be speculative, but when you recognize the amount of money in government and how the left has historically been trying to provide social safety nets for everyone, you can see that this creates certain social pressures. If there's a lot of money in helping people, then there's going to be a feedback loop of people financially interested in promoting even more investments in helping people.
The right tends to stand in opposition to this. And what the left has learned is that while the right will be willing to burn everything down just to stop a tiny little welfare project that helps everyone, it turns out that if this welfare project only helps women, then the right won't stand in its way, it may even be supportive of it. This has created a massive industry that focuses on helping only women. Some of the money involved ends up for the promotion of misandrist ideologies that help to legitimize programs that help exclusively women, because that's where the money is.
My perspective is that leftist type people want to help men and women equality. But the right makes it impossible. Over time, this situation combined with the sustained power of money has warped leftist ideology away from what they'd ideally want to see.
The right is just as much to blame for all this as the left. I would argue it is even more to blame for it.
This whole post can be summarized by: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
The Left (I myself identify as a Leftist) behaves the way they do (again, ideologies are not monoliths) generally because, essentially, Men have always been in power, have shaped society, and have benefited from this shaped society since the dawn of time. Yes this is the Patriarchy. In our patriarchal society, women are objectified and sexualized from a young age, with the cat-calling and sexual harassment starting in the teen years or younger. 1 out of every 6 women in america have been the victim of sexual assault/rape. I myself have several female employees that have been the victimized by this, and one of them even said that her mother told her "if you were in a relationship with him it can't be rape".
When men complain about Men's Rights/Inequality, it sounds a lot like the rich complaining that workers want higher wages in an age of record corporate profits. "Crocodile Tears" often sums it up. When a man complains about a perceived slight, expecting everyone to drop everything to help him, it's hard to do that when what that man has experienced is just a fraction of what you go through constantly.
Leftists and feminists calling for equality does not make the life of the oppressor worse. It just means things will be equal. Men saying "it's not fair" rings hollow when men have been oppressing women for millennia, and all women want is to be treated equally.
oh and denigrating Jordan Peterson is good. He is someone actively funneling people towards facscism and nazi-ism. Men need someone promoting Positive Masculinity, not telling men that a woman being mean to them means all women are evil. He's like the king of the incels and if you look up to him you need to seriously re-examine your life.
The patriarchy has never existed in north American history. Most of the gendered oppression have been caused by the monarchy, specifically coverture practices. We had kings and queens (both of whom who have equal powers to create laws before it got taken away). You're also using the apax fallacy to judge men as a whole by the actions of a few men and women in power who are in the minority. The only reason we consider it a patriarchy is due to patriarchy theory (most positions in power are held by men, therefore men oppress women) which is not only rooted in apax fallacy, it's designed to encourage misandry on a societal level.
Feminism has never been about equality. Many 'proto-feminists' such as Mary Wollstonecraft who actually written books about the rights of women and men never called herself a feminist. It was academic feminists from 1848 and onwards who claimed them as such. The ideology of feminism where it classifies men as the oppressor class of women (thanks Elizabeth cady staton) and developing concepts such as the patriarchy theory (kate miller, andrea dworkin and the like) that IS misandry, yet it gaslight everyone into thinking it's about equality.
"Men saying "it's not fair" rings hollow when men have been oppressing women for millennia, and all women want is to be treated equally." Rich people in power have been oppressing everybody else for millennia of history, it just shows up differently based on gender. That's how these things have always been.
oh, you should look into the history of how feminism banned it in the USA... and then left boys out.
Mindblowing how they can sit there and scream about how oppressed they are to people who have been systematically, sexistly, sexually mutilated as children in order to make them easier to use tools for the person screaming.
I don't know much about Jordan Peterson. I had help from other figures before I discovered peterson personally. Aba and preach I've seen a lot of their channels and I like how nuanced they are with their takes. Of course I don't agree with all of them, but they were the first dudes who got me on the right mental track.
I don't know much about Jordan Peterson. I had help from other figures before I discovered peterson personally. Aba and preach I've seen a lot of their channels and I like how nuanced they are with their takes. Of course I don't agree with all of them, but they were the first dudes who got me on the right mental track.
Re: your stance of feminism and its role in the betterment of the lives of men.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the primary problem at the core of most issues facing men today is the narrow, unrealistic, and frankly unhealthy image of masculinity that our society expects us to strive for. And I have to imagine that the (or at least a) goal of any sensible male advocacy group would be to push back against the notion that a man who doesn't meet this single societal ideal of manliness has failed to be a man.
However, I also don't think it can be dismissed as coincidence that so many of the words used to belittle men and boys who behave in ways they're not "supposed" to imply femininity.
"Don't be such a pussy."
"That guy's a little bitch."
"Haha, he cried like a girl!"
Would you not agree that one of the most powerful ways to go about robbing these types of sentiments of their power over young boys is to help feminists destigmatise simply being a girl or a woman? Most issues facing men aren't because women are being given advantages, but because men face the disadvantage of not being allowed to adopt roles or attitudes deemed beneath us — just as women are not allowed to adopt roles and attitudes deemed beyond their place.
I firmly believe that feminism, if truly successful, will allow men the freedom to be who and what they want to be because "masculine"/"feminine" will no longer equate to "good"/"bad" or "strong"/"weak".
How could feminism in any way give men "the freedom to be who and what they want" when they portray men as the problem? Feminism is toxic to healthy masculinity and healthy gender relations.
I think you are conflating men as a group with men as individuals. I think Russia is terrible, but I've met many lovely Russian people.
While I can't speak for feminists, I think when they say "men are the problem" that's shorthand for a system that generally pays men more, expects them to take on less domestic responsibilities, allows them to vote away women's rights, and all of the other longstanding injustices.
The difference between feminism (or even feminists) and men is that the former is a movement or a chosen label, while the latter is not something one can choose to be. So when you generalize the latter (“men are pigs”, “men are responsible for the world’s problems”, or even “Kill All Men”), it really comes across as outright hateful. At least more so than criticizing a movement (feminism) or generalizing feminists (although I don’t believe in doing that too). Seriously, if you were to replace “men” with “blacks”, or even “women” in feminist drivel, you’d be (rightfully) called out for spreading hate. For how much feminism pushes inclusivity and careful, considerate use in language (think: using ‘police officer’ instead of ‘policeman’), when it comes to men, they just give fuck all.
And for the ‘wage gap’, it should really be renamed the ‘earnings gap’ as for the same amount and type of work, men and women are generally paid the same. The main reason there’s a gap is that men generally work more and in higher paying fields. Now why they choose to do so is certainly worth discussion, but to frame it as men being paid more with the insinuation that they both do the same amount of work, is disingenuous.
Men taking on less domestic responsibilities is part of gender roles, no? In exchange they are expected to earn more by working more. Not to mention when you say domestic responsibilities, I doubt you include male dominated tasks like mowing the lawn, or fixing the car. Again, framing it as one-sided privilege (‘men have the privilege of doing less house work”) is disingenuous. I don’t think housekeeping or child-rearing, which is female-dominated, is a walk in the park either, for reference.
If you believe the system allows specifically men to vote away women’s rights (abortions I believe?), and that men shouldn’t have a say in that. Do you also believe women shouldn’t have a say in voting on issues like Selective Service or even conscription, in some countries, that primarily or uniquely affect men? Furthermore, in many countries, women are outright born with the right to vote, whereas men have to sign up for Selective Service or Conscription (what happened to ‘My Body, My Choice’?)
I think you are conflating men as a group with men as individuals.
I don't, but most feminists do.
I think when they say "men are the problem" that's shorthand for a system
Then they should blame society, not men as a group. Most men don't have any more influence on the system than most women do.
And what do you think constant negative messaging about men as a group being the problem does to the minds of boys growing up? Are you surprised many of them go down the alt-right radicalization pipeline?
a system that generally pays men more
I don't know where this is true, but certainly not in Western countries, where such discrimination by gender is illegal.
expects them to take on less domestic responsibilities
More a question of expecting men to take on different domestic responsibilities, on top of expecting men to be the primary providers.
allows them to vote away women's rights
Instead, men overwhelmingly voted for granting women equal rights.
and all of the other longstanding injustices
You mean injustices such as conscription, age of retirement, homelessness, etc?
Most of the feminists I know are straight and either married or partnered - they clearly don't hate all men. Some maybe do, but I don't think it's the majority.
I don't know where this is true, but certainly not in Western countries, where such discrimination by gender is illegal.
I'm in the US and it's absolutely endemic. Women still make significantly less than men on average and gender discrimination is baked right into jobs. My city starts teachers at $56k and police officers at $70k - one of those jobs requires a GED and the other requires a Bachelors degree. Even with a Master's teachers can make as little as $61k - and that's entirely because it's traditionally a "women's job". Can you name any male dominated field where most workers have a master's degree and make that little?
Europe's maybe a little better, but there's still no country where women outearn men - if there really was equality there you'd expect to see that look more like a bell curve.
Most of the feminists I know are straight and either married or partnered - they clearly don't hate all men.
Most feminists collectivize men as "the patriarchy" and hold them collectively accountable for a host of societal problems. And whenever an individual man misbehaves, they often immediately link that back to the patriarchal collective.
You may not recognize that as hate, but what is effectively the difference?
Women still make significantly less than men on average
Not for the same job with the same responsibilities, working the same hours. If women want to make the same or more than men, then they can step up and do the same jobs for the same hours as men.
My city starts teachers at $56k and police officers at $70k
Even taking school shootings into account, one of these jobs is significantly more dangerous than the other and requires shift work. And again, if women want to make more money, then they should become police officers instead of teachers... Who's stopping them?
there's still no country where women outearn men
That's because men are still expected to be the primary providers. And unfortunately that's not something easily changed. Most women expect that, and feel ill at ease when roles are reversed. Do you really want to force women into dangerous or strenuous high-earning jobs? Or maybe we can respect our men more who bring home the bacon, so to say?
I wish it was more surprising to me that this person genuinely went to "This female dominated field starts at less pay than this entirely different male dominated field, wymyn are swo oppwessed!"
Exactly. Of course men in their 50s-70s will outearn women because that's how things were in the past. The future is clearly shown by how much money 20 year olds are making. The only reason young women are making less is because they choose to stop working and have a kid (And yes, men are pressured to have kids too).
but men are pressured to work even harder to support that kid
Male workers having children then becomes an economic benefit, as the man has to work harder
Female workers having children is an economic loss, as the worker stops working entirely.
From an financial point of view, anyways
Another reason why i'm all pro WFH policies. It gets men back in constant contact with their children and makes all the excuses a woman might make to not have to work anymore really weak.
It certainly does appear to be narrowing, and it'll be interesting to see if the teenagers of today manage to hold such a narrow gap as the decades go by.
The government of Russia ≠ the people of Russia. Men are just a gender. There is no government of men. When you say "men are the problem", you are talking about individual men and men as a whole.
Society also expects men to earn more and ties their value to how much wealth they have. Women play a part in this too just as men do. It also expects men to take on more responsibilities outside of the house.
There are as many injustices against men as there are against women. What happened with Roe v. Wade being overturned is terrible, but when it happened people actually cared for women's wellbeing. Including myself.
Where is the outrage over any of the injustices that men face (the draft, male genital mutilation, exclusion from homeless/DV shelters, family court, etc.)? There is none, because when women are victims of injustice people care; conversely when men are victims no one cares.
At worst, feminist literature will try to ignore male victims to make DV seem like a gendered crime, taking away services from men, and make out so-called male victims as abusers in disguise (like the book "Why Does He Do That?").
The government of Russia ≠ the people of Russia. Men are just a gender. There is no government of men. When you say "men are the problem", you are talking about individual men and men as a whole.
Obviously you are technically correct, but I still think many feminists use "men" as a shorthand for the broader male-dominated system. If I say "I love the way women smell" I really don't need to clarify that I probably don't mean all women in all situations, it's kinda obvious.
Where is the outrage over any of the injustices that men face
That's a logical fallacy. There probably should be more outrage about those things, but that doesn't change the initial situation.
And that reveals their blatant sexism and focus on female supremacy
If i used "women" as a shorthand for a broader female-dominated system of oppression against men (like how feminism very much behaves), people might physically attack me. We have to reiterate repeatedly that feminism != women because feminism does some very nasty sexist genocidal things and blaming all women for those things would be as silly as blaming all germans for the actions of the nazi's
They don't make that distinction against men because they're actively trying to attack men, and so want all of those 'miscommunications' and 'oh i didn't mean it that way even though thats absolutely what i said' bullshitery so they can hide how outrageously sexist they are being while pretending not to be.
That's a logical fallacy. There probably should be more outrage about those things, but that doesn't change the initial situation.
It's 'funny' how you are perfectly capable of seeing this logical fallacy.... until you're doing it yourself.
The fallacy you are claiming they are making is the same one you made yourself when you waltzed in here and made it all about how hard things are for women.
They don't make that distinction against men because they're actively trying to attack men, and so want all of those 'miscommunications' and 'oh i didn't mean it that way even though thats absolutely what i said' bullshitery so they can hide how outrageously sexist they are being while pretending not to be.
Perhaps there's some truth to that, though in my circles i hear a lot more about the patriarchy than complaints about men in general.
The fallacy you are claiming they are making is the same one you made yourself when you waltzed in here and made it all about how hard things are for women.
I suppose i'm trying to defend a position that's not my own, and yeah, using "men" to describe a system created by some men to advantage all (or at least white) men in a broad way is absolutely sexist - but it's hardly the main issue here.
It means "men having power, or free of power women hold"
And if you run into the right ones, the mask comes off entirely. Just look at the production of The Power and you'll get plenty of great examples of misandry on display, proudly.
I suppose i'm trying to defend a position that's not my own, and yeah, using "men" to describe a system created by some men to advantage all (or at least white) men in a broad way is absolutely sexist - but it's hardly the main issue here.
the system wasn't created to advantage men, otherwise feminism wouldn't have happened.
The system was created to advantage the wealthy and powerful, and keep them that way. That they were white or male is incidental. Any other race or gender in that position can and will create the same problems.
Saying something ridiculously sexist like "There wouldn't be wars if society was run by women" or any other similar forms such as "the future is female" is just as braindead stupid as someone saying:
"Racism would disappear if X was run by Y people"
It's not the color or gender of the people, it's the incentive that the positions of power create to subjugate others.
Feminists actively promote the idea that just having women in power solves problems, and that is a blatantly stupidly sexist idea to believe.
Saying something ridiculously sexist like "There wouldn't be wars if society was run by women" or any other similar forms such as "the future is female" is just as braindead stupid as someone saying:
"Racism would disappear if X was run by Y people"
True, but women make up the majority of the population in the US, and so in an equal society we'd expect them to make up a very slight majority of fortune 500 CEOs, congressional representatives, supreme court justices and presidents. Whether or not you think that'd make a real difference in the world doesn't change that it's a perfectly legitimate goal and I don't think it's one that's particularly sexist.
If you were to argue that you should have more women in those roles to make up for the historical injustice... that becomes a bit less clear as it would create a situation where present day men are disenfranchised to make up for the mistakes of our forefathers.
so in an equal society we'd expect them to make up a very slight majority of fortune 500 CEOs, congressional representatives, supreme court justices and presidents
Well that's a load of bullshit.
You're treating all of those things as if they were a lottery, and women simply weren't considered.
They're not. ANY OF THEM
Every one of those positions has an army of men competing to be the next one in the seat. Ignoring all of that because you feel like women should have made it is just stupid.
Here's the facts for you: Even with blatant discrimination in women's favor, they still don't get into all the "positions of power" people try to cheat them into because those positions often still require work women by and large choose not to do
Work like taking risks, or being in the public eye and taking responsibility for failures that may not be your fault. Both things women avoid at far greater rates then men.
Edit:
And to be very clear, i'm not saying women can't, I'm saying they don't, won't, and will continue not to, in anywhere near the numbers men do, simply due to their personal choices.
This is why the focus on 'equity' is so fucking toxic. It's basically saying "all power in society should be evenly distributed, i was able to twist data around enough that it i can show a way women have less (ignoring all ways in which men have less), and unless women have all power that men have in equal rates, it's sexism!" and most of the people who say this with a straight face know full well it's impossible and the purpose of framing it this way is so they can continue to advocate for free shit, in perpetuity
women by and large choose not to do Work like taking risks, or being in the public eye and taking responsibility for failures that may not be your fault.
Many, but female aversion to physical and social risk is a broadly studied field that you are perfectly capable of searching yourself, and especially with the prevalence of cherry-picked studies i feel it's better you find one from a source you trust on your own.
Suggesting that the perfect attributes required to lead a major company just happen to coincidentally be those that are bestowed on white men is absurd. I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.
Suggesting that the perfect attributes required to lead a major company just happen to coincidentally be those that are bestowed on white men is absurd.
Or that women specifically preference men who exhibit these traits, rewarding them with sex and status in ways that women generally are not and have not been rewarded for since our species first started to walk might relate to the skills necessary for success in a competitive field.
As it turns out, reality doesn't care about your delusions, or how unfair you feel it is
I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.
Of course you don't, that's what people who are wrong usually do.
In Western countries like most of the European ones, men and women receive equal pay for equal jobs.
Families already share responsibilities equally (fair, not everywhere; I can speak for the north of Italy), and women feel free not to engage with boyfriends who are not up to that.
Finally, in the US it’s mostly women who are voting against women’s childbirth rights.
I haven't spent much time in the north of Italy but we have some suppliers there and every single one of the engineers at the one I worked with was male. I don't doubt they have equal pay for the same job, but I don't believe for a minute that the average women in northern italy makes the same as an average man.
As for voting, there was only one woman on the supreme court that voted to overturn roe vs wade. The rest of the votes came from men
Right but one thing I really admired about that italian company was that they'd bring on engineers as apprentices right out of high school and train them on software or machining. I think that'd really admirable, and it's great that people can work their way into high paid positions.
But i still fail to see why an engineer with a high school education should be paid more than a nurse or teacher with some college education. Is the former really that much of harder job, or that much less in demand?
Friend, I think you're already falling into the "us vs them" mentality. We should be able to separate the loud, misandrist, "men are the problem, women are the solution", feminists from the "we're equal before the law, but I still perceive inequality and something should be done about it", passive feminists.
That is what is done to MRAs who were just saying "men have issues too, here are some" and being labeled as misogynist, radical, dangerous, and incel (which also shouldn't be an insult, much less one exclusive to men).
Each community has their loud, obnoxious members, but they shouldn't be representative of that community unless the community is mostly loud and obnoxious itself.
As such, I'd like to challenge your view that feminism is the problem and propose that it has much more to do with tradition and religion. Men and women alike face irreconcilable gender roles, prejudice, and traditional and societal obligations, that lead to their oppression:
men should work, women should clean
men and women should make children
men should not show emotions, women are too emotional
men should protect women, women are the damsels
a man should sleep with a woman, a woman should sleep with a man
The issue is much deeper than simple "women say men are the problem, which is the problem". Tribalism, identity-politics, and myopic, single-viewed, unidirectional thinking is toxic.
men
Oldest
This magazine is not receiving updates.