why i think that men dont align with feminism and the left at large ( kbin.social )

dil , 1 year ago

Oof yeah that was not a kind reaction. Too often people dehumanize folks they disagree with, and laughing at Peterson crying is clearly that.

Just to provide a contrast, here's a left winger's empathetic take on Jordan Peterson: https://www.tiktok.com/@watchfulcoyote/video/7227861727948361003

I hadn't seen that dang dad, thanks for sharing. His videos seem like they're explicitly not dismissing male issues though? He's saying "these issues are real and valid. Fixing these issues is not something men alone can do."

I generally agree that a lot of the issues men face come from the current power structure. I agree with that dang dad that the current power structure fucks men over.

You're painting "give a man a mission" as a bad thing, but I'm not really sure what the alternative is. If there are issues men face (which there are), men need to be involved in solving them, right?

that a communist or socialist revolution would better the lives of anyone, as in history, it truly hasnt and in fact has been more destructive to peoples lives.

Things like universal healthcare and social safety nets have made people's lives better in other countries, and would make people's lives better here. Having accessible mental health care would directly help men.

the presumtion that men have any privilage that men have some one up over women. and have never been the victims of a society that they themselves built to benefit themselves, but has them suffering

Nobody on the left things that individual men have never been the victims of society - e.g. toxic masculinity. The whole point is that everyone is getting shit on right now.

vlakas , 1 year ago (edited 1 year ago)

Things like universal healthcare and social safety nets have made people's lives better in other countries and would make people's lives better here. Having accessible mental health care would directly help men.

Universal healthcare and social safety nets are not (necessarily) socialism. All universal healthcare means is that everyone has a right to healthcare. Doesn't say how. The state could own the healthcare apparatus like the NHS, or it could be simply a private insurance mandate supplemented by plans for low-income individuals. Socialism just means that workers own the means of production. I agree that universal healthcare and a reasonable social safety net are both necessary.

Nobody on the left things that individual men have never been the victims of society - e.g. toxic masculinity.

I'm just curious, do you think toxic feminity is also a thing? Or just toxic masculinity? If both then I guess you're consistent, but I object to either label. I prefer the term "toxic gender expectations", especially because either gender can impose toxic expectations on the other or their own.

Also, most feminists do believe that even if men have ever been victims of injustice, men have never suffered because of their gender. They really love the term "patriarchy backfiring". Something which I think is a complete lie. Boko Haram's murdering of schoolboys is a perfect example. They let the girls go and burn the boys alive.

Dwayne-Payton879 OP , 1 year ago

i dont really disagree with that dang dad on alot.

what i meant by "give a man a mission" is by in leftist spaces, it is often times the reaction of any critisism that men have of feminism is often times reflected back at some cause that is beneficial to the left. Ie the clip of "you are angry at late stage capitalism" tiktok it is often times used as a way of just pacifying men with something to do, instead of addressing their arguments. ]

"Things like universal healthcare and social safety nets have made people's lives better in other countries, and would make people's lives better here. Having accessible mental health care would directly help men."

yeah, i question this due to places like venezuela, cuba and others that have had socialist coups happen on their soil. they have had worse economic woes overtime as a result

"Nobody on the left things that individual men have never been the victims of society - e.g. toxic masculinity. The whole point is that everyone is getting shit on right now."

yeah well it seems that the left is rather fixated on blaming men (specifically cis het white men) as a collective, even men who fit in the marginalized identities that they say they want to protect, rather than saying everyone is getting shit, so lets work together to fix it.

dil , 11 months ago

I could see how being redirected to liberal causes could feel like dismissing your concerns. If you bring bring up an issue that isn't being talked about, and people react with "oh. yeah we're already working on that - wanna join?" it might feel like they're more interested in you joining their cause than in the issue you're raising. After all, they haven't been talking about the issue you raised, so how can they say they're already working on it?

The reason is that the left is fighting for all kinds of issues, and when different groups talk about the issues they face, they start to see common themes.

Conversations like "people hate you because you're gay? People hate me because I'm lesbian!" end up with people working together under the same banner, despite the unique issues that each group faces. As more groups voice the issues they face, they find solidarity in existing banners. For example, being trans is completely different than being gay or lesbian (it's not who you're attracted to, it's who you are), but gay/lesbian folks heard trans issues and said "lots of that stuff is what we're already working on - wanna join?" This wasn't dismissing trans issues, it was making both voices stronger. LGBT folks unite under the same banner, and issues for one group are issues for them all (do not try to minimize trans issues to someone that's gay/lesbian).

The fact is that men (specifically cis het white men) are relative newcomers in the "getting shit on" world. This is NOT minimizing the issues we face - they're real and should be taken seriously - they're just new (see: women got the right to vote about 100 years ago). Folks on the left offering a "mission" are not asking you to ignore your issues in favor of theirs, they're saying "oh dang that's messed up. Add it the list, let's go fix this shit." I really like that dang dad's focus on solidarity - We fight for them. They fight for us.

yeah well it seems that the left is rather fixated on blaming men (specifically cis het white men) as a collective, even men who fit in the marginalized identities that they say they want to protect, rather than saying everyone is getting shit, so lets work together to fix it.

Also an understandable reaction. The left often talks about "systemic" problems - things not caused by an individual, but by how things are set up. It's not hard to see why men as a collective would be blamed for systemic problems - after all, only men could vote up until 100 years ago. But the left is realizing that it isn't cis het white men that were the problem, since they're also getting shit on now too - it's the rich. It's always been the rich. And that's why we're seeing "no war but class war."

To be clear, there are still folks talking about men as a collective being a problem. My only advise is to mentally correct "men" to "the stereotypical men with traits that this person thinks negatively of" and not take it personally.

a-man-from-earth , 11 months ago

The fact is that men (specifically cis het white men) are relative newcomers in the "getting shit on" world. This is NOT minimizing the issues we face - they're real and should be taken seriously - they're just new (see: women got the right to vote about 100 years ago).

No, this is a misrepresentation. Most men didn't have the right to vote either, just the landowners. If you look at when men got universal suffrage, and when women did, that's often close together. And then we're not even speaking of black men and women.

But the left is realizing that it isn't cis het white men that were the problem, since they're also getting shit on now too - it's the rich. It's always been the rich. And that's why we're seeing "no war but class war."

Yes, it's always been the rich. Not men. And where are we seeing "no war but class war"? The modern "left" appears to be in the pockets of the rich, always looking for the next minority to champion and forgetting to champion the working class.

To be clear, there are still folks talking about men as a collective being a problem. My only advise is to mentally correct "men" to "the stereotypical men with traits that this person thinks negatively of" and not take it personally.

And I would advise to not take bigotry that lightly. We should expose that and demand that people do better.

dil , 11 months ago

No, this is a misrepresentation. Most men didn't have the right to vote either, just the landowners. If you look at when men got universal suffrage, and when women did, that's often close together. And then we're not even speaking of black men and women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_the_United_States

"By 1776 at least 60 percent of adult white males were able to vote, and the proportion expanded significantly by 1787"

So most white men could vote since the country was founded.

Property qualifications were then steadily dropped (and never added for white men):
"The 1828 presidential election was the first in which non-property-holding white males could vote in the vast majority of states"
"The last state to abolish property qualification was North Carolina in 1856."

Do you consider the civil rights movement "close together" with now? Because that's the same amount of time it was between all men getting the right to vote and women being given the right to vote.

And where are we seeing "no war but class war"?

In the TikTok from OP: "(This is the tiktok in question https://www.tiktok.com/@elisse.01/video/7198671535073316142?lang=en)"

a-man-from-earth , 11 months ago

By 1776 at least 60 percent of adult white males were able to vote

That is unique to the US, and to white people in the US. In other countries it was quite different. For example the UK had a ten year gap between male suffrage (1918) and female suffrage (1928), as did Sweden. In my own country, the Netherlands, there was a two year gap (1917-1919).

And I don't do TikTok. We still don't see that in the wider left, tho.

Dwayne-Payton879 OP , 11 months ago

while what you said was true,

but often times on the left you see people whiping this "no war but class war" out in either this scenario, ie men having an issue with something is society, cause otherwise they call this kind of take as class reductionism

Dwayne-Payton879 OP , 11 months ago

" My only advise is to mentally correct "men" to "the stereotypical men with traits that this person thinks negatively of" and not take it personally."

yeah except they arent saying this, they are saying men, and assigning those tropes to men? also how are we supposed to not take it negatively when they are the ones who control the converstion, on mens issues?

dil , 11 months ago

Cause that's all they are - tropes. stereotypes. They're the same stereotypes that we're recognizing as harmful expectations. When we say "men are expected to be X" that's the same thing - the reason we're expected to be X is because "you need to be X or you're not a real man."

We feel the ways in which society's stereotype of men hurt us, and those same expectations cause harm to other folks as well. It's fair for folks to complain about that, but it's complaining about the stereotypes.

The left wants to change toxic gender roles, just like we do. Do you have better ideas for actually getting things to change that doesn't involve the left? We can complain about society all day long, but actually changing it requires work. The door is open for you to join the fight and take part in the conversation - it just requires solidarity and a willingness to fight for others too.

vlakas , 11 months ago

I also think it's relevant to this discussion that the right to vote of men in the past was predicated on mandatory military service. Women have never had to do this.

If I had a choice between giving uo my right to vote and being forced to go die in a trench in WWI, I would seriously consider giving up my vote. I am grateful to be alive today instead of 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago when the US last drafted men against their will.

But even today, people still by and large believe that it is men's natural duty to be sent to war, while women are seen as having no responsibilities.

I don't think we should disenfranchise anyone, but recognise that forced conscription is just as great an injustice to men as disenfranchisement was to women (and black or non-landowning men), if not greater.

Forcing innocent men into harm's way should be confined to the past and recognised for the barbaric practice that it is. Sadly that will not happen anytime soon, seeing how most people don't even see it as injustice.

This is something feminists usually respond to with "but men start all the wars; therefore women shouldn't have to fight them," without realising it caring that only a tiny group of men make these choices; the millions of [usually working class] men who died never got a say in any of it. Feminism is not fighting to end conscription because it doesn't affect women.