No, because the word itself is not the problem. You think it’s a problem because it starts with “fem” and immediately think it’s all about female power when it’s not. I suggest learning more about it before drawing these conclusions.
The “the word implies women superiority” argument has to be the proverbial dead horse that gets beaten with a stick, when it comes to feminism, at this point…
I don’t see a point to me doing it yet again, when it has already been many times over, in better words than I could, in this one thread and beyond. The men’s lib movement this community is about is by definition, if not outright feminist, very feminist adjacent and aligns on many views. This is not the “men’s rights” movement.
For what it’s worth, if you are actually asking for my take and not an info dump, IMHO, the semantic argument is rarely very strong. In practice, tons of the societal issues women face align with men’s, for example on their very opposition on traditional roles.
If semantics isn’t a real problem, why do you oppose the changing of semantics so desperately to the point of insulting/diminishing those that discuss it?
You’re literally part of a “men’s right group” while simultaneously using the literal phrase for it as an insult because of Toxic Feminism.
The first step of an inclusive society that listens to each others issues is already being failed by your ideology that is asking it of others. The feminist movement that inherently shits on men’s rights are in no way representative of an inclusive group of left minded people. Recently, these groups are being labeled as the new right wing online pipeline for women.
It seems like you want to have and eat cake here.
If it is such a common problem, why is there no common inclusive response?
Re-read my last comment, follow the link, read some definitions. You either missed or skipped the point I made on my previous comment that we are not on a “men’s rights group”. You’re kind of illustrating my point for me here. Feel free to point out at the “insult” I made, I’ll gladly retract if there is genuinely one. I can’t find it.
I’m sorry, but I think it’s the other way around. As I mentioned in my previous comments, “men’s liberation” and “men’s rights” just both happen to be names referring to specific movements that both advocate for men’s interests, but largely disagree on the causes.
If you still genuinely think I’m somehow ashamed of advocating for men just cause I don’t agree with the ideas of the MRM in particular, this idea that feminism as a whole is somehow either obsoleted by the existence its extremist elements, rather than just being a parallel fight, then… what are we arguing over, exactly?
I feel like I wrote what I intended to say very specifically and then clarified when there was confusion about our disagreement.
Feel free to address my point about how the phrase "men's rights" became such a toxic branded phrase due to an ideology that hated men having any form of organized action addressing the harms men face.
It was a label created outside pointed inwards. By definition, this is a "men's rights movement" space, and an outside force is equally capable of branding it under the same title for the exact same reasons.
The disagreement here was your unity with said toxic viewpoints.
I feel like all of this has now been written out 3 times, so I will wait for you to respond to it before engaging further.
"Men's rights" has literally always had a toxic connotation.
The term "men's rights" was used at least as early as February 1856 when it appeared in Putnam's Magazine. The author was responding to the issue of women's rights, calling it a "new movement for social reform, and even for political revolution", which the author proposed to counter with men's rights.[12] Ernest Belfort Bax wrote The Legal Subjection of Men in 1896, deriding the women's rights movement as a farcical effort by women—the "privileged sex"—to prove they were "oppressed."
My point was pretty much that I don’t feel like semantics are really beholding anything. There’s just no end to following that logic. The other commenter accused me of being ashamed of defending men’s interests because of my position. Isn’t this literally being ashamed of calling myself feminist cause I disagree with the extremist minority? If you’re 95% of a feminist, you’re pretty much a feminist. There’s disagreement even internally to pretty much every movement out there. Not everyone agrees on everything.
I’m genuinely confused as to why one would need “wiggle room” for anything, who we need to “win over”, and what is that “side” you’re referring to.
Movements as large as feminism have plenty of internal disagreement. There’s no party line, no code of conduct, it’s a bunch of people fighting over similar principles. Do you agree with literally everything from every movement or political allegiance you associate with?
I don't want to be part of the feminist movement because I vehemently disagree with some of the things feminists do. I don't want us to be called to task for those things, or have to explain them or implicitly support them. I don't want to have to say "we" when talking about feminist theories or actions.
Which is why you should choose your affiliations carefully, especially for a fledgling movement that is still finding its ideological footing. I think men's lib is something that should be seen as closely aligned with, but distinct from, feminism.
The men’s liberation movement ranges back from the 60s, developing pretty much at the same time as second-wave feminism. The movement as an official legal entity isn’t a thing now, but it used to be openly pro-feminist. The men’s right movement literally rose from a chunk of the liberation movement that left because of exactly this.
Well, it's important, to recognize that the term is distinct from egalitarian. The term feminism does essentialize the advocating for the equal rights of women, but it is also important to note that while this is a feminist community, this community is not about feminism. This community is about men and their specific liberation from oppressive gender roles and stereotypes.
It’s very interesting to have the view of a women that has transitioned to a men on the feeling side of things. I wonder how the transition is actually affecting his current relationship.
My experience as a man does look like what he talks about however, it’s not as crazy as he is saying. His depiction of manhood feels almost satire to me. Almost all of my interaction with men, I feel safe enough to talk about my problems, my feelings and my opinions on things, both personal or not.
Although, I am me and I do not represent all other men, It’s not untrue that men are lead to believe that they must be the one to shut up and provide for their community/family. Shut up and die for your family, you country. Shut up and do what you have to do. If you really do that, I think you just end up lonely, sad and probably really suicidal.
it’s not as crazy as he is saying. His depiction of manhood feels almost satire to me. Almost all of my interaction with men, I feel safe enough to talk about my problems, my feelings and my opinions on things, both personal or not.
It’s spot on for me. 9/10 times I open up to other men, it’s either diminished, insulted, or ignored. I count 4 friends who’ve actually listened to me. 1 ghosted me some time later. 1 listened rarely, only after I listened to him for hours. The other 2 are true chads and I wish life hadn’t separated us.
When I open up to women, it’s either insulted or saved and later used against me as manipulation.
I just don’t anymore. Only people I talk to are therapists.
I’m an ardent feminist, but I’m not generally going to discuss issues impacting men in feminist spaces. There’s a HUGE difference between men’s lib and MRAs, who are very problematic.
Why not? You can simply say that sexism is harmful to everyone and that regardless of gender, our interests are the same on this. I don’t think most will have and issue with that and if they do, it can start a useful discussion. That being said, I have a bit of problem with an overly focus on women rights over general human rights, but I do understand the connection and can talk about both in both spaces.
Because, if we really must compare apples and oranges, women are harmed more. You complain about this community sounding like “all lives matter,” but then you say we shouldn’t talk about women’s oppression, just human oppression. That sounds like you’re “all lives matter”-ing this topic.
This post was definitely bait, but I wanted to let you know that I appreciate reading this comment of yours in particular, because it gave me something to think about.
The whole “human brains aren’t fully developed until you’re 25” is such an annoying quote that gets thrown around by people just because they’ve heard it online.
I swear half the time it’s used to infantise young adults. I’m glad people weren’t pedalling this pseudoscience “fact” when I was that age, it’d probably get on my nerves.
It’s based on essentially nothing.
There isn’t an age where your brain is done developing. It constantly changes all throughout your life, affected by a whole load of factors we don’t really understand yet.
It certainly goes through periods of rapid change, but this happens predominantly years before you’re 25, or after life-changing events that alter how you think - things like moving out and having to manage your own life more, moving country to a very different culture/language, entering a LTR, having children, using drugs, getting a job, losing family members, even learning to drive can have a profound effect on your brain, evidenced by MRI scans.
Much of that stuff happens in your early-mid twenties, so I see why people would erroneously think that it’s the turning 25 part that does it.
I actually learned it in university studying biology. Which was some time ago and I didn’t follow up on research. But if I remember correctly there is rather large deviation on individual level.
Way too easy to say it like that. It really is a double edged sword situation. Over all, woman get way more harassed. This comes from a guy that says being a woman is better for like 15 years, than got a SO that grts harassed a lot.
Like even friends (not friends anymore) will grope or only do nice things cause they just wanna F her.
Not what I meant, I mean small things like before when I was socially awkward, people thought I was some kind of creeper… Now people just think I’m cute.
I think that part of the problem is that people tie their identities to labels.
When someone says "I'd rather encounter the bear than a man", some people will say "I'm a man, and that means she's afraid of me (personally)"...and go on to have their feelings hurt by it because it's interpreted as a judgment of who they are as an individual.
Honestly, I think a big part of it is ignorance of women's experiences and a difficulty with perspective-taking.
Maybe men aren't as statistically dangerous as bears. If they aren't, why are women afraid? There are reasons for that.
I can imagine some men extrapolating from this and wondering "How can I ever approach a woman if they're all afraid of me?"...but the answer is "NOT alone when she's alone in a secluded spot in the woods"...
If the question was "Would you rather encounter a bear or a man at a board game café?", you'd find a lot fewer women hoping to encounter a bear.
I said ok, her choice and moved into the next meme/story.
I must admit to not understanding the furore that then arose and don't know why men (am a man) were getting butt hurt. Why would I care if women prefer the company of bears in the woods.
There is no rule set down in stone for what men have to be like and what women have to be like. I do think there are rules for what people generally ought to be like, and I admire those who display what I consider to be the universal virtues. It’s true that many young men lead lives of quiet desperation. But I don’t see how masculinity has anything to do with the solution to that.
I get the general point that gender roles should be overcome etc, but we’re definitely not gonna be able to change anything by ignoring the fact that they exist and influence us on a daily basis.
I regularly sit down to pee because the toilet in my van has a divider which diverts all the solids to the back and the liquids to a storage tank in the front. Good to know it’s also healthy for my prostate.
My problem is that I drip when I stand up even after I'm "finished". It feels easier to get every last drop out when I stand up.
Also, I could never have carpet in my bathroom. That just sounds like a breeding ground for mold and mildew just from the humidity of showering even if you are sitting down to avoid sprinkling droplets of pee everywhere.
Protip: when you're done, doesn't matter sitting or standing, push on your taint. It often helps clear the plumbing and prevents dripping. Was a life changer when I found that trick.
I love to see this. Genuinely warms my heart. Raising emotionally healthy, well adjusted young humans who can advocate for themselves, express their emotions, and relate to others in a healthy way is vital. And it feels like we raise young men in a way that sets them up to fail in these ways.
This isn't a comparison to the severity of issues women face. I just think its one of MANY issues that culturally need to be addressed with respect to gender and socialization. Boys and young men deserve to be raises in a way that facilitates feeling valuable, having healthy self esteem, and feeling safe in expressing emotions.
My take is that the people that would benefit the most from the introspection this hypothetical is meant to illicit are the furthest from being able to take it to heart. It works better as a way to make the worst people around you out themselves, so now you know to avoid them.
"Prouductive" is rapidly becoming yet another word that's being both overused and mangled beyond all definition. "Safe"/"Safety", "Bullying", and "Narcissim/Narcissistic" now have a new play mate
That's the myth I routinely have to bust to guys I meet who hate feminists. I ask if they think women should have the right to vote. When they yes, I say that's feminism. It's simplistic and I usually follow up with other basic rights until I get to the contemporary issues. I say that if they want all that stuff then they are also feminists. Their reaction after this depends on how entrenched or how stupid they are.
"Feminism" is just a sloppy term. It's "egalitarianism": people deserve rights, your demographic shouldn't decrease your rights. Those who you're referring to when you use the term "feminists" will insist upon this interpretation, for good reason.
"Feminism", as a term, conjures images of the uplifting of women, which was a potent image when women weren't allowed to vote or work most jobs. Now, with many of those low-hanging battles won, equality is largely the case, and the image of uplifting women feels a lot more like favoritism and bias than leveling the field.
Yes there are gender specific issues, but those exist in both directions much more equally than when the "feminism" label was solidified. The goal should not be to uplift women, the goal should be to trivialize the influence of gender and sex on the involuntary conditions of life. When that results in the uplifting of women, great. But men face struggles intrinsic to being men too, and naming your egalitarian movement after femininity only deepens the divide with marginalized men.
Yeah, but no. To refuse the term feminism is like to say “white lives matter too”. Of course men deserve rights, and of course white lives matter too. But white people and men don't need to fight for themselves.
Swing and a miss, mate. Many people who have a problem with the name feminism are nonbinary people, who want equality but have been excluded from the movement by enbyphobic women, AKA TERFs. While there are lots of feminists who say feminism also means uplifting enbies, some enbies feel misgendered by this terminology, and reality is nonetheless more complicated. But your comment reducing every opponent of the term to male privilege is perfectly symbolic of the nonbinary exclusionism practiced by many who use the term feminism, and demonstrates exactly why some nonbinary people have a problem.
Swing and a miss, mate. Many people who have a problem with the name feminism are nonbinary people, who want equality but have been excluded from the movement by enbyphobic women, AKA TERFs.
I'm not sure the mere existence of TERFs has led to any significant movement to rename feminism among the NB community.
It's a complicated issue. I'm being a bit reductive when I say every enbyphobic feminist is a terf. There's lots of people who think of themselves as trans allies, but still don't believe in genderfluidity, xenogenders, or two-spirit. They think they're allies of nonbinary people, because they simply choose not to believe in the nonbinary people they exclude and oppress. Does that make them TERFs? It's complicated.
We haven't assembled into a movement about this because it's not that big a deal, and we have more pressing problems like impending genocide. We can't waste time organising about a word. But on a personal level, the word still makes us uncomfortable. When we're told feminism is for nonbinary people, some of us feel like we're being called female. Misgendered. But if feminism isn't for nonbinary people, well that's a bigger problem.
The debate around terminology for spaces intended for women (and the tendency for folks to make nebulous assertions about the inclusion of NBs) seems to me to be an entirely separate issue.
Fundamentally, I see what you're saying but I'd like to push back on the idea that the term "feminism" needs rethinking at this point in time.
I'd even go so far as to say the parent comment where a rejection of the term feminism is portrayed as tantamount to "all lives matter" is more correct than the idea that "feminism" is a poor term because it feels like misgendering. This is a space centered around the idea that feminism is good for men because feminism is not a term that should leave you feeling gendered in it's primary usage.
At this point in time I tend to take terms like "intersectional feminist" to mean someone is probably an ally, but if someone just calls themself a feminist without any adjectives, that gives me absolutely zero information as to whether they're interested in gender equality for all genders. I know they support cis women, but I have no idea whether they support any kind of trans person.
Throwing out feminism because it does not essentialise trans and NB rights feels like very poor praxis. From the perspective of one individual assessing the views of another, I don't disagree with your metric, but I disagree with your application of the ideas to the broader movement. Particularly in so far as it grants to right wingers that feminism is a sexist term.
Well this is a debate about prescriptivism vs descriptivism, right? I'm saying the complexities of the ways the word is used no longer make its meaning clear unless certain adjectives are applied. You're arguing we should stick to the "intended" meaning. But at what point does denying the evolution of language to become more transphobic deny the genuine harms suffered by trans people? Surely there's a point where that's the case, right? How do you know we haven't reached that point?
Well this is a debate about prescriptivism vs descriptivism, right?
No I don't think so.
You're arguing we should stick to the "intended" meaning. But at what point does denying the evolution of language to become more transphobic deny the genuine harms suffered by trans people?
I'm arguing that your particular claimed usage of feminism as a transphobic term (that is, the general inclusion of NBs as a class for whom feminism benefits is tantamount to gendering them female) simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. This is distinct from the issue of women's spaces explicitly including NBs feels like misgendering (which is valid).
The premise of this community is fundamentally dependent on the idea that being a beneficiary of feminism MUST be entirely seperate from being gendered female.
Ah, no, I meant to say that feminism losing its implication of progress for all gender identities (if it had such an implication in the past), is evidenced by the fact that if someone says they're a feminist, that doesn't tell you whether they support equality for enbies.
Many people who have a problem with the name feminism are nonbinary people, who want equality but have been excluded from the movement by enbyphobic women, AKA TERFs.
I assert that the quantity of nbs who hold this opinion is so small as to be negligable and that ceding a major right wing talking point for gender equity for nbs (a group in which I, and the majority of my social circle are a part of) is mostly just ceding a right wing talking point.
Put another way, the idea that "feminism" is an insufficient term is tantamount to "all lives matter".
When you say "cedineg a right wing talking point", you mean admitting the right is correct about something, right? I'm as left as they come but I don't see a problem with that. The right is correct that the sky is blue. The right is correct that water is wet. The right was (partially) correct that chemicals in the water were turning the frogs gay, and the right is (partially) correct that an armed population is a necessary component of a healthy democracy. I'm just seeing this as an issue of ego. If you have an unhealthy ego, then you worry about denying any and all criticism. But if you have a big healthy ego, then you take criticism onboard and improve. 99% of what the right criticises us for is wrong, but that 1% is a chance for us to improve. I have a huge ego, and my thinking is we could either fight the right on this and be 99% correct, or we could be nonbinary allies, "cede a talking point", and get closer to perfection.
I don't know I'm not trying to be reactionary, I'm just thinking that pretending enbies' criticisms don't exist in order to "stick it to the right" is erasure and bad. It should be about doing the right thing, not about winning. We only truly win by doing the right thing.
I don't think feminism is the wrong word in this case. The way men are harmed by patriarchy is directly related to how women are understood as lesser. Male only drafts, male worth based on possession of women, unequal familial rights, and harmful beliefs about men's emotion all exists as ways to subjugate women.
For the draft and emotions, men's "violent nature" is cultivated because "we have to protect the women." The only emotion you allowed to have is righteous anger used to defend women. This dynamic ties neatly into men as predators. Men are naturally violent, look at how that violence protects the women, but when improperly raised they become monsters.
Men often feel as though they have no social standing if they haven't had sex with a woman. The way that relationship is framed is often conquest and power rather than mutual connection and understanding. The truth is men would benefit far more from connection, understanding, and knowing that they can have social standing beyond fucking somebody.
Unequal family rights are directly related to the societal expectation that women are the primary care givers. Which frequently results in women working full time jobs, taking care of the children, and taking care of the house.
I don't think the term feminism is really the problem. Billions of dollars have been spent by right wing billionaires to control this narrative. It's no wonder young people have a skewed perception of what feminism is. I don't think changing the term to gender equality really would have helped much.
The truth is men would benefit far more from connection, understanding, and knowing that they can have social standing beyond fucking somebody.
Please stop viewing men as defective women. Maybe fucking somebody is more important than you think. Maybe the problem is that instead of supporting men we're telling them to stop wanting the things they want.
As a man who has had sex, it's not as good as connection, understanding, and social belonging. Granted, that's just me. Maybe other men do in fact need to fuck somebody to feel like a worthwhile person.
Granted, that’s just me. Maybe other men do in fact need to fuck somebody to feel like a worthwhile person.
Correct. And I'm saying that's not a defect. That's just an aspect of personality, and it's as valid as any other.
Anyone who says you're less of a man for not wanting to fuck a different girl every night is an idiot and an asshole. But conversely, anyone who says I'm toxic for wanting to fuck a different girl every night is also an asshole.
It's easy to fall into motte-and-bailey reasoning though. The motte is an easily defended simple thing most people agree with. The bailey is a controversial thing you want to advance. If the bailey is debated, you can retreat into the motte and make claims that it's simple and uncontroversial. Most ideologies or systems of thought have a core that many people agree with, and then that's taken as approval of all its extrapolations. For example, do you believe that people should be able to decide what they use their money for? Well, then you must agree with laissez-faire neo-liberalism. Do you want children to be safe online? Then you agree that the government should inspect all your communication. Do you want everyone to be equal? Then you must agree with everything the soviet union did.
With feminism, it's easy to defend the core ideas, but it also encompasses implementations like affirmative action which not everyone agrees with, and practices that are not about dismantling hierarchies but rather just "wanting a better seat at the table of tyranny", to quote White Lotus.
On a personal level, I work in a female dominated workplace, where women hold all the positions of power. There's a lot of remarks and actions that would absolutely not be ok if the genders were reversed. A constant flow of explanations why men are stupid, sexualizing male workers, "playful" sexual harassment, ridiculing men etc. Many of them are self-proclaimed feminists. And it's cheered on and praised as a form of "girl power". If you ask me to identify as a feminist, these are the people I think of.
I have struggled a lot with setting boundaries and not letting myself be taken advantage of, so I'm very reluctant to be a part of something that requires self-flagellation over which group of people I belong to. I agree with the core of feminism, but to call myself a feminist I'd like my voice to be as welcome as a womans voice, which is rarely the case in my experience.
There's a bit of... something, irony maybe, in my experience that I'm trying to be aware of. I can't judge a movement by the not-true-feminists while feeling hurt that I'm judged by what other men have done. Maybe there's a difference between an ideological label and a gender, but still. It's this generalization that feels similar. I know that when I am given compassion I am much more likely to care about others. And vice versa. Maybe I need to look past the loud not-true-feminists and try harder to see the points of the true feminists. Maybe they need to look past bad men and not treat me as a villain by default. It's this stalemate I feel locked into.
We all live in our own little bubbles; they may not be true feminists to you, but they sound quite consistent with the people around me who describe themselves as feminists. A significant portion of feminist activists in my online bubble also seem to subscribe to the same ideas.
Sounds like you have a toxic work environment, I'm sorry these people suck. I'm assuming HR is all women, but start documenting and pursue a lawsuit if you don't want to leave. You shouldn't have to suffer this bullshit.
"what we see around us" – where? there are very few "modern radical feminists" in real life, they're all on shitty youtubros' channels and weird conservatives' twitter feeds. i guarantee you've met a ton of feminists without even knowing, hell a lot of your childhood idols and role models were probably feminists (there are a lot more self-identified feminist role models than you may think).
specifically focusing on the distinction between "modern feminism" and "previous feminism" is a conservative talking point that has unfortunately made its way into common internet culture, there is nothing less righteous about the modern feminist/equality movement than before – although there are bad parts of it which still exist like TERFs. "it was okay before, but now i can't tolerate it" is basically what righties say whenever a movement threatens the hierarchy too much and they want to make it seem "radical" and therefore "bad". the reality is that the past of the feminist movement has had many flaws and a lot of bigotry (especially in the context of LGBT), which "modern" feminists have made significant improvements on.
And in doing so, they drill the idea of "men are at fault for existing" down the brains of little boys. I have said this before and I will keep saying it: feminism was defined as promoting women's equality with relation to men, but it's now about the equity women can get from men
That makes as much sense as saying trans, non-binary people only need to have a satisfying, meaningful life without a vision of masculinity, femininity, or gender Identity.
trans, non-binary people only need to have a satisfying, meaningful life without a vision of positive masculinity, femininity, or gender Identity
Of course it makes sense to have a concept of these things, but the point is that it is not helpful to define these things with positive or negative values, but rather to look consider these things independent from one another.
no matter how positively you define a gender role, it will negatively impact those who struggle with conforming to said roles. So I say it is preferable to define masculinity (or gender in general) without any value judgement.
I hate gender roles and assigning anything to them. But everybody deserves a positive view of the traits and ideals they identify with and everybody deserves positive examples of how to express/demonstrate the traits and ideals they identify with.
Noticing more smells and colors and flavors and sounds and being able to listen to more complicated music are all skills that we gain over our life. Identifying and identifying with traits you have or aspire to is almost certainly the same, and even if it isn’t I have no place to say that someone else shouldn’t think about themselves primarily as being a reproductive male (which may be devastating if that’s not something they can do), and since that is a common way to see oneself, due to the importance of reproduction or due to culture or due to some aesthetic like which flavors go together, then people identifying with masculinity deserve positive views of it, and positive examples of how to express it.
Only if you broadcast your list of gender “check boxes”, and come down on others to follow them.
I think this is precisely what gender roles are supposed to do.
Do young men really pursue masculinity because it truly matches with the people they are or do they do that because of the benefits of being ‘masculine’? You’ll enjoy respect, authority, a certain sex-appeal, confidence… And if you challenge gender norms you’ll experience the opposite. You’re gonna be treated more like a women. And that’s the reason why masculinity is appealing to young men. And I feel like this is fundamentally problematic. I don’t think the individual traits are bad (as you said, responsibility, physical fitness etc), it is the expectations and privileges attached to masculinity.
The broadcast to others is the point I’m targeting.
Keep your own list and enjoy it. Just don’t expect it out of others, perhaps aside from your SO, and even that would only be a temporary thing, or a vehicle for discussion about changes in their life.
There is an extreme pressure for boys and men to be masculine. It is like a radio so strong it interferes with any other radio station. There is so much discrimination you face as a ‘feminine’ man. In this context it feels odd to say ‘mind your own business’
Most certainly. They are exploiting issues in masculinity that have been here for decades.
One of the ones they like to use is the ‘strong man’ and a callback to our forefathers (eg., miners from the 1800s. Typical ‘manly’ men). There is nothing wrong with being strong, determined, or ambitious, provided you’re a decent human being beforehand. These grifters, though seem like it’s the only thing that validates a guy, and that we must achieve it no matter the cost. If we don’t, we are failures and must find someone or something to blame
On the one hand, sure, you’re not wrong. On the other, why are young men entirely passive in your analysis? “The right”, neither the talking heads nor the nebulous concept, can radicalise anyone without some level of their consent in being so radicalised.
Men's Liberation
Top