When Emma said what she said, I seriously doubt she thought about male issues. Not that I blame her completely, since society in general is so blind when it comes to issues that primarily or uniquely affect men. Sometimes they are even reframed to become ‘Benevolent Sexism’ against women.
Feminism is absolutely cancer. It, as an ideology, is as toxic and cancerous to gender relations as the KKK is to race relations, and we know this because feminists adlib the same bigoted arguments that racists and Nazis and KKK members use and have historically used.
As an example of them doing exactly this: gendering of domestic violence data collection to minimize male victims, hide female perpetrators, and throw any attempts at including males back in those males’ faces with fallacious and insanely sexist takes like “who is causing the violence” (which they also only say after hiding the female perpetrators)
Edit: this is called Gamma bias, btw, and is one of many examples of feminists using KKK tactics against men. For those who would like to see feminists version of Mein Kampf, it’s called the S.C.U.M. Manifesto and has been cited as a “seminal feminist work” by feminists in politics who are creating this sexist DV legislation
Menimism is a group of humans focused on single issue: men's issues.
Feminism is a group of humans focused on a single issue: women's issues.
Why do you think the former will evolve in a different direction than the latter?
You call feminism cancer, radical feminists think men are the cause of all issues. Why do you think behaving like them and copying their rhetoric is good? Why is it wrong for them to think badly of all men, and you to think badly of an entire movement? Do you think that hatred for each other on both sides is the solution?
This pisses me off. Sexism hurts everyone. Men, women, children, everybody. Femnism shouldn’t be about punishing men, just like mens right shouldn’t be about hurting women. We’re all poeple, and we’re all in this together.
You run into a very serious contradiction in that value
What if fixing something that hurts men, hurts women?
It sounds flippant, but it's legitimately a problem men have to deal with.
As a recent example, in florida they are finally "ending" permanent alimony, and men now have their "right to retire" considered when adjusting payments.
Many, many, women depend in part or entirely on a man suffering and working on their behalf. If i want to help those men, to the perception of those women, i am harming them.
Even trying to equalize draft legislation in the states is technically "harming women"
So, given just those examples, i'm all for "harming" women, based on how they've defined it.
This is it (all credit to Karen Straughan aka u/girlwriteswhat on reddit):
So what you're saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists... they are not "real feminists".
That's not just "no true Scotsman". That's delusional self deception.
Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don't care. I've been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they've done under the banner of feminism, maybe you'd stop calling yourself one.
But I want you to know. You don't matter. You're not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: "Well, that's just a clean-up word for wife-beating," and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, "we know it's not girls beating up boys, it's boys beating up girls."
You're not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta's Network of Women's Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.
You're not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were "ambivalent about their sexual desires" (if you don't know what that means, it's that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC's research because it's inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.
You're not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.
You're not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.
You're not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.
You're not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.
You're not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.
You're not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman's history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it's "part of her sexual history."
You're not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman's mouth is "not a crime" in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You're not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there's a "legal" way to rape them.
And you're none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.
You're the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.
We need to end infant circumcision. Honestly, what a barbaric practice to surgically alter a child’s private parts for no real benefit. We also need to teach boys consent. We can do both.
More seriously, I love my wife as well. It’s an awesome feeling to have found someone I can trust completely, can care for without reservation, and who can reciprocate those feelings.
I just saw Everything , everywhere, all at once, and was very pleasantly surprised that, even though it is centered on two female characters, it does not for a second use feminist talking points of "men did it", and concludes in part that the hero is unsatisfied in life because she has failed too see how wonderful her husband is.
To change the ones placed on men, you’d have to change the people placing those expectations, which is women
They aren't the only ones placing those expectations. I can count the handful of male content creators that are out there giving men advice on how to do this. One can argue that it could be due to primarily women expecting that from men sure, but men and women have been expecting men to take an active role in courtship for a very long time now.
So many people believe the wage gap means that women are being discriminated against for doing "the same job for less money". It took me forever to understand that this "gap" just means they take EVERYone, and find the median wage. that men are choosing STEM fields instead of social fields. Duh?
I like this idea of promoting media that isn't actively trying to tear us down or perpetuate caricatures of us. Shout out to the Castlevania series on netflix. A series that has deep and complex male characters of all types who evolve and go through their own journeys throughout the series.
I agree with you about toxic masculinity and patriarchy because those don't exist. Feminism exists as an ideology. Many people identify as feminists so it's okay to use feminism.
Why is it that practically everyone I interact with on kbin is basically an irony machine. Are you at least self aware of the irony. Or is it just something you do instinctively?
One of my points is that all of these things are things that SHOULD bother you but men tend to downplay or refuse to let it bother them out of some sort of bravado.
So saying that this doesn't bother you makes it seem to me like you didn't understand what I said or didn't make it clear enough.
If you disagree with my point that this is something that should bother you, then please explain why.
Because if you're not going to be constructively contributing to the conversation then why are you even saying anything?
Edit: changed machismo to bravado. It's more accurate.
Also. PS:
I change my mind, it's not something that should bother you. You're perfectly entitled to be bothered or not bothered by whatever it is you damn well please.
But it is something that bothers many men. It is something that I believe many men are bothered by without being particularly self aware of. And insist that it is something that needs to be addressed to help society move forwards to more egalitarian outcomes and hopefully just generally more harmonious relationships between different people.
Have you ever considered it's you who are wrong, and not all these men you keep throwing names and adjectives at when they don't agree with you?
Yes, saying "toxic masculinity" is sexist as fuck, and we should use a different term. Your projection of hurt feelings onto your audience is what makes your advice shit, tho. It's wrong to use because it's intentionally insulting and sexist, not because it makes men feel bad.
"Patriarchy" we should absolutely keep talking about, because it's a very popular brainwashing tool to convince people that all problems in the world are the fault of the class of men, and specifically not the fault of anyone not in the class of men, don't you even dare think women might be at fault for something! -- but seriously, it's a psyop so that feminists have an excuse for their bigotry, and we should keep mocking the term to point that out.
"Feminism" we should absolutely keep using, because "Say Gender equality or egalitarian" is for people who actual give a shit about equality, and that's not feminists. This one your post mostly agrees with, but i don't think you take it quite far enough. Letting most feminists "rebrand" into egalitarianism will just make egalitarianism the same sexist dumpster fire. It's like suggesting most KKK members move to an "equality for all races" movement and pretending that stops the problem. It's not that feminists needed to change their terminology, it's that they needed to realize they were, are, and are actively saying they will continue to be misandric sexist pieces of shit in just about everything they say and do.
As for why you get pushback saying these things, it's very clearly because you presume to tell men what they are and should be feeling, which is the same bullshit gynocentric attitude that led men to be subject to this nonsense in the first place.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said, except your characterization of my intentions, motivations and inner thoughts.
It's absolutely not my intention to tell men how they should feel. Nor is it my intention to imply that the only thing wrong with those things I mentionned is the names that they are given.
But I understand now, that I really should have made that more clear.
I do maintain that the terminology is hurting men's mental health in general. And I do suggest that on that basis alone there is sufficient justification to ask that we stop using this terminology.
One of the primary motivations behind this is to remove one of the more powerful tools misandrist have at their disposal by using of equivocation with that terminology.
I'll do a bit of a point by point of the rest of your post to try and explain why my approach has potential. But clearly it's not getting the kind of traction I was hoping for.
It's wrong to use because it's intentionally insulting and sexist
To me that's functionally equivalent to hurt feelings. I don't presume to claim that this is the intention of everyone that uses the phrase "toxic masculinity" but I strongly suspect that most of them know what they're doing.
"Patriarchy" we should absolutely keep talking about, because it's a very popular brainwashing ...
Only under certain definitions of patriarchy. Under other definitions of patriarchy it means very different things. I suspect that the closer you get to where policy makers are, the less sense this argument will make. I've had a few arguments with "academic feminists" end with them saying that only right-wing reactionary lunatics thinks that anyone believes the interpretation of Patriarchy you just used.
Arguing the merits of the meaning behind the word Patriarchy is futile, every version of Patriarchy has been debunked all the way to the deepest depth of academia. Except for the vary latest interpretation that hasn't had the time to get debunked yet.
It doesn't matter, it's going to be equivocation all the way back up to the politician and/or business executive that will be implementing policy that end up unjustly negatively affecting men's lives.
Take away their ability to use the word on the basis that hurts your feelings and they can't do equivocation anymore. They have to speak directly to the merit of the thing and there is none, which gives us a much better fighting chance.
Letting most feminists "rebrand" into egalitarianism will just make egalitarianism the same sexist dumpster fire.
I could be wrong here, but I disagree. Language is much more powerful than this very few of the misandrists will be willing to transfer to a different label, they'll lose so much of their power. The more moderates we can convince to let go of the feminist label the more blatantly and unacceptably radically misandrist those that remain will be.
The way I see it, feminism is a full blown industry that informs decision makers who want to try to make sensible moral decisions (because they have no morals of their own). It's an industry that these decision makers rely on and has taken decades to build up. I hypothesize that to really get some real world change happening we need to either reform the existing infrastructure or build an alternative one. I just don't see building an alternative as something that's feasible. I believe that feminism got to where it is because it organically grew out of the void left behind by the loss of religious morality.
So I think that to have some real success, we need to rebuild the existing infrastructure. Think "regulatory capture", not "revolution". I think maybe starting with nomenclature is the best first step.
... all these men you keep throwing names and adjectives at when they don't agree with you?
The guy was flippant towards me, I was flippant in return in my own way. I spent a lot of thought and effort into my post and someone that just replies to that with "Buzz off" doesn't really deserve that much respect.
As for why you get pushback saying these things, it's very clearly because you presume to tell men what they are and should be feeling
Again, not my intention, but I see how it came across that way, I should have qualified what I said better.
Would you mind unbanning mine? The use of the term 'dipshit' was highly relevant, as intended insult to the audience was very much the topic of conversation
Did you not read everything I just replied to you? How am I ignoring the real life sexist impact the statements have. The whole point of my whole thing is to try and have more tools to fight that off.
But yes, I consider "it gets on my nerves" as having hurt feelings. You at least got that one right.
I really like this take. What I was trying to go for is sort of a simple universal complaint anyone can make, even in a formal setting vs highly educated and potentially bad faith actors.
Like, imagine you're in a marketing strategy meeting about finding a socially responsible way to engage with your customers. Your company has hired a consultant to help with this and that consultant starts using that terminology.
If you try just using a rational argument, it's just not going to work. These things have already been debated ad nauseum and you're not going to come up with something the consultant hasn't heard before and isn't ready to counter.
But if you start with "It just gets on my nerves". That's subjective, the consultant can't argue about that. You also have a rational (at least to you) justification so you're not being unreasonable. The consultant could try to argue that your justification is incorrect but they'd just be wasting everyone's time, it won't change the fact that "it just gets on my nerves" something the consultant can't argue against.
The point is to create a social cost to using that terminology so that in any kind of formal setting that terminology won't be used and more gender neutral terminology comes in to replace it.
I believe that gender neutral terminology alone can really temper the outcome of these kinds of discussion because it just changes the whole "vibe" of the discussion which can lead to real world change. But beyond that, it makes it more difficult for misandrists to use equivocation, and the gender neutral terminology should level the battlefield when arguing against misandrists.
Seeing someone who perceives a double standard and immediately calling them an incel runs counter to your argument. That basic lack of empathy is part of the problem. This is the kind of demonization this post is talking about.
Thanks for posting this link. I always hesitated to promote that archive, because of its association. But since the subreddit has recently been set to private (after I stepped down as mod there), it is now inaccessible, so an archive is welcome.
The reader should realize that we are not aligned with The Red Pill and do not support (all of) their views, especially since they generalize too much and engage in misogyny as a result. We aim to present more nuanced and more egalitarian views here.
men
Top
This magazine is not receiving updates.