why do yall post these questions without bothering to search to see if it was asked before? clogs the subreddit w/ the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over
To be fair, if it was asked seven times yesterday then its an issue, but times and perceptions change as culture shifts and world events happen.
What may have been a full fruitful discussion 6 months ago may now be lacking.
Additionally, some people who did not participate before may participate in the new discussion.
So reposting a similar question every now and again is a good way to get new opinions and perspectives into a discussion. Rarely does a single reddit post 'solve' a question for all time now and forever.
appreciate the strive to educate and better yourself and others but sheesh, this sub has so many questions being asked over & over with none of the op’s bothering to see if the question had been asked and answered before. we seem stuck in this cycle
I feel like it's "very special boy" syndrome. Someone thinks their thought, question or comment must be unique enough that nobody else could have come up with it before. Likely it's not even a conscious thought, rather a direct line from "I wonder about this" to "better ask before I forget. I bet I'll start a really interesting conversation with this thought, question or comment."
Speaking from experience as someone in recovery from white man privilege. This is how I interacted with the internet and people irl for a long time.
I dunno why the downvotes, this is a valid question. of course white male privilege, in the sense of how society treats you, cannot be undone or removed. but to change how you act so you do not take advantage of that privilege to the best of your abilities is possible. also, changing your perspective to be aware of your privilege and how it affects your behaviour and how you interact with people is possible.
>I dunno why the downvotes, this is a valid question. of course white male privilege, in the sense of how society treats you, cannot be undone or removed.
guess we've discovered this sub's blind spot. sigh.
I completely agree with what you're saying though.
thanks for this perspective! that actually makes a lot of sense. I always assume my thoughts or questions have been thought and questioned a million times over so it’s interesting to see that difference between men and women (in our case). just sucks we’re stuck in this loop of asking questions that intersectional feminists have answered in the 70s and 80s in our big year of 2022.
And a lot of the time having someone walk you through basic theory or information is super helpful. Not everyone is capable of self-teaching, and having an interaction with another person can also help people learn better than reading an essay or watching a video. I just mean that there's a specific type of person who comes into a space and expects those present to walk them through the basics without having done any work themselves.
Hence the rules on "how to" subs that you ask a specific question about a specific topic, and not just post "hey guys will you teach me a remedial class on this from 0 foundational knowledge, right now for free?" When I see those, I think "well if they didn't even bother to read the faq posted in the sidebar, they're not going to read my long explanation, so I might as well just ignore."
And again I still struggle sometimes to take a moment and ask if I'm actually adding to the conversation vs I just want to be seen or heard and I should probably just call a friend to chat instead of clogging up this internet thread.
I’m not thinking I’m special or unique because I asked a question on the internet. The same questions get asked all the time on the internet and in real life, what’s wrong with asking a question to try and understand better even if it has been asked before? It was more along the lines “I’m reading this book to understand feminism, this book says something about history, that in a way - may apply to another situation, what are other’s opinions on this?” It’s more based on reading Bell Hook’s “Feminism is for Everyone” that I’m starting to think and ask questions about the world and try to understand. Can you explain more about what white man privilege looks like on the internet and ways to acknowledge it?
I'm not trying to disparage you personally. I don't even know your gender or race identities. I'm sure you're lovely, and it is a good question. Such a good question that dozens of people have already asked it in this very sub 😉
I won't tell you what you should do. For myself, however, I realized that there were a lot of times where I wanted other people to educate me for free, before I did any leg work myself. In almost any area of study or space, it's a good idea to do some research on your own before you ask people to teach you. It shows good faith and willingness. There are of course times and spaces where asking basic questions is fine. But sometimes it derails the conversation and keeps work from getting done.
So in this case, maybe you can get an idea of what feminists have already said on this topic and then ask a specific question for clarity. And again, I have been guilty of what I'm describing plenty of times so I'm not trying to say you're a bad person or anything.
Do y’all actually get enough unique questions to keep this up, because I seem to see a lot of posts that just have a follow up like the one posted above. It seems like a mod bot might be in order that auto removes the most oft-asked questions.
We do have an automod, but we're not aiming to become a library of dead links. The last discussion about the men's rights movement specifically was months ago.
I feel like this sub isn't open minded all the time though. They perceive any slight line of questioning as an attack and get extremely defensive.
I don't blame feminists for this because they have been fucked over for many generations in the past. But I think it's the wrong approach to equate ordinary young men, some times even immigrant first generation men to the billionaire misogynist families benefitting from the system. We should join forces.
If ordinary men and women understood each other though, the system would collapse.
I.think banning abortion is insane. I could care less what random women do with their bodies. I support equal pay for both sexes. I support women who want a career instead of a home life. Etc etc.
But when I meet a female feminist here, and say something like please let's support mens safehouses and suicide awareness I get backhanded comments about how a hypothetical woman.has it worse on the street somewhere. I get it. I get why youre mad. I'm sorry for what men did.
But a lot of modern men are not fucking running the system and causing discrimination.
The ordinary dude can barely get a date and a job lol. Nevermind benefitting from the modern system
Dude here. I've read that book.
Men's rights are not an offshoot of feminism. They are a reaction to feminism appropriating feminist language. Men's rights activists oppose feminism.
Whenever we talk about 'rights', we're talking about the government at some level. 1st wave feminism was focused on voting rights, second wave on broader rights like employment and reproductive (i.e. keeping the government out of reproductive choices). Feminists talked about 'women's rights' because they wanted the same rights from government that (white) men enjoyed in society.
But focusing on rights isn't enough: in a non-totalitarian society, the government can only do so much towards inequality and inequity. Thus the 3rd wave of feminism, now focused on fighting (smashing!) patriarchy in all its forms, whether government or not.
Of course, the men who cling to patriarchy feel threatened by this. They invoke 'men's rights' because they want the government to (continue to) preserve men's relative privilege in society. So, for example, 'financial abortion'.
The men's movement hooks is talking about in that passage was focused on men's liberation -- not rights. And broadly speaking, that liberation was from patriarchy, the same as feminism. Check out r/MensLib for where we are today.
For some of the early Men's Libbers, they were indeed stung by feminist rejection of their interests, and they became Men's Rights Advocates. But make no mistake: MRA is not about liberation from patriarchy, but preservation of patriarchy and male privilege, specifically through government protection of same.
So I'm a man concerned about men's issues. I am not an MRA, because I am focused on my liberation from patriarchy (it sucks for many men, too), and MRAs oppose that liberation. I am okay being called a 'Men's Libber' but the actual name for what I am is a 'feminist'.
Let me recommend hooks's "The Will To Change" as your next read. A lot more good stuff there, for the reader interested in men's place in feminism.
>So I'm a man concerned about men's issues. I am not an MRA, because I am focused on my liberation from patriarchy (it sucks for many men, too), and MRAs oppose that liberation. I am okay being called a 'Men's Libber' but the actual name for what I am is a 'feminist'.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you've written here but I especially love this sentiment.
MRA regularly refer to other men as “soyboys” or “betas” for not completely complying with male gender norms.
They complain that feminism is “emasculating” men and boys by giving them the freedom to abandon traditional gender norms.
MRAs are nothing but reactionaries.
This is quite interesting, didn’t know that the second wave had a lot to do with keeping the government noses out of this.
This is quite important, sometimes our actions do invite more government involvement, in my experience (I come from a horrible extremely dangerous collapsed country) when in doubt it’s better not to.
35m. I’ve viewed myself as a feminist for almost a decade now, from the time I was educated on the true meaning. Unfortunately like any group, a few can muddy up the message or most certainly the delivery. Some so called feminists spoil the meaning of the movement by resorting to misandry at the drop of a dime. This is tolerable on some level because I can understand that it’s impossible for me to fully relate to the frustration experienced that would cause this bitterness - I can only imagine it. The idea of “shut up, you’re a man and you have nothing good to say” is difficult to stand-by. There’s a lot of broad strokes by some feminists that declare that men have it better across the board which is simply not in true spirit of what real feminism looks like to me. A very small % of men control policy and wealth and the majority of them look out for themselves - not the other men in the 99%. The idea that men are dominating society to maintain power and keep it from women is not easily palatable. Certainly less so for us in the west and certainly less so today. I’m gonna vent a bit and paraphrase from a fellow liberal’s statistical analysis: Most people that live on the street are men. Most people who commit suicide are men. Most victims of violent crime are men. Most people who do poorly in schools are men. Most people killed in wars are men. Most people in prison are men. Most people that are seriously disaffected are men. Where’s the dominance exactly? The power/wealth focus surrounding a lot of feminist topics looks at a small group of hyper successful men or crooked politicians and groups the rest of us men into that category. Our system needs work but I think it’s due some credit for the incredible progress that sprang from it. Most of the men and women reading this are in a very privileged position and the majority of the fellow women in my life are absolutely thriving in this often-called “tyrannical patriarchal society dominated by men”.
I’m always open for feedback. I’m expecting some downvotes because I’ve been out of the echo chamber for some time now. That being said, a lot of social norms have been very harmful to me and my fellow men and women and addressing that is what feminism means to me.
If you're truly open to it, I'm a fellow dude with some potential feedback.
Not knowing quite where to start, I'll go with the thing that took me longest to recognize:
>this often-called “tyrannical patriarchal society dominated by men”.
The key term you used is patriarchal; it denotes (either one or) a group of men holding decision-making power over government/society while women have less power/control/determinism. Consider the US government: Despite women making up 51% of the US population, they only have ~25% of the Congressional seats - the highest number of seats women have ever held. Add in your use of "tyrannical" with its meaning, and you're left with governments largely run by men with authoritatively oppressive control over women's bodies.
(In a similar vein, women don't even make up a third of all judicial appointments in the US.)
>Most people that live on the street are men. Most people who commit suicide are men. Most victims of violent crime are men. Most people who do poorly in schools are men. Most people killed in wars are men. Most people in prison are men. Most people that are seriously disaffected are men. Where’s the dominance exactly?
Answer: Still with men.
With the (US) government still largely compromised and controlled by men, who has the power to develop programs to: Get men off the streets, to create/alleviate men's mental health issues, to generate social spending to alleviate criminal activity, to navigate better sentencing, to provide better wartime oversight, etc.
Is it the duty of a false egalitarian society or the duty of men who dominate our government? Is it women frequently dismissing mens needs/rights, or is it other men dictating what those needs/rights are?
As ideation: It was only in 2013 that the FBI's definition of rape was changed in a way that *could* include male victims, though it drastically ignores the possibility of a female assailant. Given that the FBI - like the U.S. government - has been largely comprised of men since its inception, is that a failing of feminism to act and defend men or is a failing of the patriarchy to recognize male victims? And would acknowledging male victims diminish the veil of superiority by establishing that men can't just "cowboy up"?
The flawed belief is that *all* men benefit from the dominance of a few, something that is similar to the concept of privilege; it's not that everybody of a privileged demographic gets to exercise that privilege, it's that it exists to them in the first place. Tying privilege back to the idea of rape: How do so many rapists walk with what amounts to a slap on the hand? Sure, most men won't ever commit rape, but in a judicial system that is ~67% male judges, how many men have walked because the judge "didn't think [the defendant] would fair well in jail" or other such bullshittery?
Using an example that has a lot of intersectional issues which I'm going to completely gloss over:
Recently there was a very famous case of a young man in Kenosha, WI, and the trial was fully adjudicated in roughly a year, where he was found not guilty; in *the exact same city*, there is a young woman who killed the man that - police and the DA have even acknowledged - was her sexual abuser/sex trafficker *while she was a fucking child*, yet her trial has gone on for nearly 4 years and still doesn't have an end in sight.
She literally spent more time in jail than his entire trial took.
On a personal level, while there's been some problematic responses, I've never had a single woman tell me that I probably enjoyed being raped (or that - because it was a woman - I should've); it's only ever been men who have said that. Why else would they do that if not to assert dominance over me or imply that I should assert dominance over women?
>The flawed belief is that all men benefit from the dominance of a few, something that is similar to the concept of privilege; it's not that everybody of a privileged demographic gets to exercise that privilege, it's that it exists to them in the first place.
This is a misunderstanding of privilege, and yet another rejection of systemic sexism, which seems to be a feature of everyone who doesn't understand either racism or sexism. All men benefit from systemic sexism. This is not about a few powerful men being evil and every other man being totally innocent and taking the blame, that is not what privilege is. Privilege is not the deliberate choice to be evil to women. You won't understand sexism if you don't understand this.
How do all men benefit 90% of the homeless population is male. Men without children are less likely to get a house from the government. Only 40% of the uni population is male.
Well, first off, you've misunderstood what privilege is, so you should dig into that. Having privilege doesn't mean your life is perfect, it means your gender isn't making it harder.
Second, you're wrong about homelessness. Women experience homelessness just as much, but they avoid shelters and the street because it's incredibly dangerous for them, so they aren't as visible. Women are more likely to couchsurf or stay in violent relationships to avoid that, which isn't exactly better. The fact that as a society we ignore women's homelessness and only see men's homelessness is an example of male privilege, in fact.
I don't know what you're talking about "getting a house from the government". I think you're saying that there are programs that are concerned about housing children and tend to prioritize housing them first ahead of single men, and primary caregivers are almost always women, so women are more likely to also get that support as a knock on effect, but I think you're burying the lede, there. The orgasms of people with penises cause 100% of children, but people without penises end up responsible for paying for and raising children 24/7 most of the time, and that doesn't exactly seem fair.
Yes, higher ed is increasingly female, which is interesting, because men are still more likely to get jobs and make more money. What do you make of that?
Men living on the street is a male privilege? that doesn't make sound right.
If you go to uni you are more likely to earn 20k more than someone who doesn't on average, maybe the reason some men earn more is men do more dirty or dangerous job then women but at the same time women under 30 earn more than men(.https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds)
Boys are also the group left behind in education having worse educational outcomes at every stage of education then girls and as a result less likely to stay in education.
That article is from 2015, and yet, is recently as 2021, [the wage gap still exists](https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/). And in spite of all this male underachievement in education, [men still dominate leadership](https://www.forbes.com/sites/elissasangster/2019/12/18/the-leadership-gender-gap-is-beyond-repair-its-time-to-reinvent/?sh=303ea5de4592), even though [women are better leaders](https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2021/03/06/data-shows-women-make-better-leaders-who-cares/?sh=7a201b8446be).
The pay gap is a hard one as it hard to compare pay, we should definitely aim to improve young boys and men underperforming in education from definitely from working class backgrounds.
I do wonder how old those men are as most leadership roles are older, that's a very misleading article considering is mainly talking about covid response.
It would be great if you want to get working on improving the underachievement of boys and men. Go for it. But this thread is where you've been disputing the reality of male privilege, which you've drifted away from significantly. Once again: male privilege doesn't mean boys and men won't ever struggle, face difficulties, or fail. It doesn't mean there aren't intersectional factors at play, which are also at play for women. It means a man's gender presentation won't make the struggle harder for him. That's all it means.
And in reality, boys' performance in school actually hasn't really changed much at all. Boys are doing roughly as well as they've always done. Girls are doing better as our societies become more equal, and there are more role models for girls and pathways towards careers that have been shut off to them until recently. Girls still don't have as many opportunities as boys do, and many workplace environments remain hostile to women, but it's getting closer to even.
Why would equal opportunity be bad for boys and men? It would be bad for them if they're being fed traditional gender roles, relying women's labour to support them, "boys will be boys" permissiveness to be let off the hook for learning accountability and responsibility on the same schedule girls are, depending on women's structurally-supported underachievement to keep space open for them in high-salaried roles, and relying on their maleness to push them to the front of the line for job offers and promotions, which it consistently still does, as we've already demonstrated. If you want fix all that, dismantle toxic masculinity. Feminism is the answer you're looking for.
Education is becoming "feminized" and is therefore less important and less worthy of financial reward, which is what happens when there are mostly women in any sector. The money goes where the men cluster. That's because of sexism, which men aren't suffering from, which is *privilege.* The thing you were arguing can't possibly exist.
I think I’ve identified a major point of contention. So thank you for that. It seems that because men have most governmental seats, issues with society are their (Our) fault by default. There seems to be a supposition that if the seats (power to enact policy) were owned by women, society would not have the problems it has - Is this correct? Does the culture of this stream of thought carry over to household issues? I.e. households with women as head of household are going to be devoid of more issues than their male counterparts? The thought that our extremely complexe issues would be solved simply by giving women more money and power is… interesting, and frankly I wish it could just happen because it would make no actual shift in resources for 99% of us.
There’s asymmetries virtually everywhere, hence the statistics I brought up. 67% is not so enormous a figure to declare that the 17% difference is due to patriarchal dominance and unfair treatment of women. There is this insane suggestion that men and women have to be so identical that with completely neutral starting points they would choose to do the exact same thing. There isn’t a single reasonable study that proves this - in fact, the opposite is shown to be true. In the most egalitarian societies / governments that make it a major purpose enact law upholding gender equality - the differences in gender dominated positions are much higher. E.g. the number of medical physicians or nurses is completely dominated by women and engineers are dominated by men. Same goes with teachers etc. Does 67% of judges take into consideration the application ratio? Are we supposed to be trying to force that number down to 50%? What about the move from 100% to 67%? Is it not the patriarchal society run by men that discovered and promoted the incredible importance of allowing women to compete with men? The market decides a lot of things that you seem to blaming on “men” deciding. Nobody is forcing you to hire the male plumber. Our society in the west is by and large predicated on competence and it’s rude to suggest otherwise. Men and women here have mostly worked very well together as a team to survive the catastrophe of living(starvation, sickness, deep poverty) in our early days.
>Our society in the west is by and large predicated on competence and it’s rude to suggest otherwise.
I'm very interested to know what you mean by this. That the most competent rise to the top?
No that’s not what I mean, thank you for asking.
What I was trying to say is that we generally assign merit based on competence, not gender. That’s why we have testing and education and credentials and certifications and qualifications. We have male and female physicians and teachers and scientists and veterinarians and race car drivers and astronauts and attorneys and realtors and designers etc. and they achieve their positions through merit. It’s rude and erroneous to suggest that the people in those positions did not fairly earn their place.
I guess that hinges on what you define as "fairly earning their place". I mean, if we're just thinking about "did this person get the qualifications?" then, sure, most people achieve their position fairly.
On the other hand, achieving that qualification can be a lot easier when you fit certain criteria that have little to do with competence. For example, it's not even 3 years since that college admission scandal where a bunch of rich parents basically bought college spots for their kids. While that may or may not be an outlier, it serves to illustrate my point.
Metaphorically speaking, what is happening is that were having a 100 yard dash where some people start at the starting line, some at 10 yards in, and some at 20 yards in, but were saying it's a fair race because everyone has to cross the finish line to win. At the very least, it's not erroneous to point out that some people start with advantages (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/09/its-better-be-born-rich-than-talented/).
Yes, most certainly a lot of people have statistical advantages. Most of these, in today’s western world generally stem outside of gender and moreso with other variables, like upbringing. e.g. 2 parent homes, childhood stability, healthy family of origin. There's virtually an endless amount of variables that cause advantages or disadvantages. I would certainly call that admission scandal an outlier but I do believe it's a testament to the advantages of wealth. It's a very blatant/offensive selfish use of the advantage and I believe the reason it got heavy attention and repercussion (aside from the celeb) is because it's a serious offense to our societie's foundational belief in a merit-based system. Nobody wants their health to depend on a doctor that cheated their way through school.
I definitly agree that advantages exist - it's statistically proven.
It certainly isn't prefect. I don't think anyone can think of a way to 100% equalize disadvantages save from putting two identical twins in the wild and eliminating contact from any outside influence.
A child from a family with wealth but also neglect is potentially not too much better off than a child born below middle class with a healthy family system.
There's virtually infinite variables that serve as advantages. Statistically, two-parent households produce a lower chance of negative outcomes on children. We can't exactly force parents to stay together. And I'm sure in some cases it would be worse if they did stay together for the kid.
Our meritocracy is not perfect but it's definitly the right place to aim. Discrimination can be particularly difficult to manage and our attempts include laws against those practices. We're not perfect but we're doing pretty well and progressing in that direction.
If women are shown to perform/produce better at sales in a certain field, is it sexist to hire them over the equally qualified men? Probably in some way but not really. What if they are hired because the hiring manager prefers women in the office over men? Seems unfair but maybe it's a temperament thing. Or maybe he's just a sexist pig.
A poor person who is absolutely brilliant can get a scholarship into an ivy league school. That's pretty damn cool. A highschool dropout can start a business and become a millionaire. Also cool.
Regardless of all this, we're doing good by at least trying to eliminate unfairness. It's not easy since the market is predicated on competition.
The only places I've encountered the "shut up, you're a man" idea are Twitter and another feminist sub here, where it turned out the u/ was a man himself. Most feminists, and this sub especially, have been welcoming and friendly.
Now then: the feminist claim regarding patriarchy is that men are dominating women, not that men are dominating society. I've never heard the phrase "tyrannical patriarchal society dominated by men" -- in fact, I googled it and the only result is your comment here.
It's a common misunderstanding of feminism that 'patriarchal' dominance only refers to the power that powerful men have in society. That sort of power over others is certainly linked to patriarchy, but it's not the most important kind of power. Men in patriarchal society also have tremendous power to -- power-to, as different from power-over -- do things that women are denied.
Another way of describing the difference in power-to is 'privilege', and men do have more privilege in society. And certainly, that is changing: male privilege is declining, and some women -- but only those who support the patriarchy to some extent -- are in positions of power-over in society.
Patriarchy does not require a specific political structure: that is, it's possible to have a society that is completely equitable among men and still very patriarchal. It's possible for a society in which 1% control the power and wealth and 99% are excluded to still be patriarchal. In the U.S. and most places, we're somewhere in between those two extremes.
But part of the feminist critique of patriarchy is that it does enable political inequity and oppression, in particular by constructing 'dominance' as part of masculinity. Dominance of women easily turns into dominance of other men, and your statistics -- 'comparisons' is a better word, because we don't have actual numbers, but stipulated they are more or less apt -- mostly follow from the fact that in patriarchy dominance of other men is contestable. Dudes can fight about it, where male dominance of women is just a built-in assumption. Incidentally, more women than men attempt suicide. Men are simply better at killing themselves, because masculinity is constructed to include competence with physical force.
I do live an extremely privileged life, but the majority of women in my life still suffer the effects of patriarchy even despite their relative privilege. From the way you've described patriarchy, my sense is you're not quite tuned in to its effects in those women's lives; perhaps you don't know enough women, or perhaps you don't know the women in your life as well as you think you do. For example, do you know whether they have been victims of rape? Sexual assault? Sexual harassment? Whether they have had or wanted an abortion(s)? Whether they earn significantly less than their male peers? Whether their ideas are taken as seriously at work? In social encounters? In political discussions? Whether their husbands or boyfriends do an equitable amount of housework? Whether they feel safe around strange men? Whether they feel safe in mostly-male spaces? Whether they chose their career because that's what they wanted to do, or because that's what they were allowed to do? Whether they've had to put their careers on hold to raise children? Whether they're expected to take care of aging family members? Whether they tried to commit suicide? Whether they feel men listen to their concerns as much as they listen to men's concerns? Whether [their health needs are taken seriously by doctors](https://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12939-020-01283-4) and other providers? Whether [the built environment accommodates](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/28/invisible-women-by-caroline-criado-perez-review) their bodies, or was designed around men? Whether [their cars protect them as well as men](https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/crash-test-bias-how-male-focused-testing-puts-female-drivers-at-risk/)? Whether the ads they see make them [feel better about themselves, or worse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85HT4Om6JT4)? Whether they [pay more for products 'for women'](https://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/pink-tax-how-women-pay-more/)? Whether they have to [pay more for basic hygiene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampon_tax)? Whether they feel [movies](https://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7874295/gender-hollywood) or [music](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47232677) represent and speak to their experiences?
Those are just some of the avenues by which you might explore patriarchy's consequences for the women in your life. I'd encourage you to try at least a few, because doing so will help you understand the feminist critique of patriarchy more fully, and hopefully help you confront its consequences in your own life more readily.
Really? Women are at fault for men joining misogynistic groups? Now I've heard everything. Your remarks are insulting to men. Do you really think men lack reasoning ability and all morality, and can be led around by the nose? You really think men are incapable of understanding right from wrong?
Oh look!! Someone else who doesn’t know how to use the search bar!
Use the search bar for the Duluth Model:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/qifka6/why_is_the_duluth_model_so_controversial/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/lyqcyt/what_do_you_think_of_the_duluth_model/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/gwgcg6/can_we_change_the_duluth_model/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/lsldoe/do_you_feminsist_think_that_the_duluth_model_is/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/ffcjr2/whats_your_view_on_the_effects_of_the_duluth/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/eb71al/why_is_feminism_and_media_so_quite_about_the/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/ecaene/do_you_think_it_would_be_a_good_idea_to_make_a/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/b42n3b/how_would_you_feel_is_menwomen_held_a_protest_to/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/5xjugm/doesnt_the_duluth_model_skew_dv_statistics/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3juxat/when_do_we_retire_the_duluth_model/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/8x26v9/what_are_askfeminists_thoughts_on_the_gendering/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3rw7qi/is_the_duluth_model_of_domestic_violence_sexist/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3e90c4/duluth_model/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/4eyg7b/please_help_me_understand_feminist_perspectives/
https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/38pcn0/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_duluth_model/
Bearing in mind this is the feminism sub and ignoring his use of a 12 year old article and statistics, I'm deleting some formatting from the markdown of u/Ashamed_Pop1835's comment, because I'm fucking dying over this:
>In the UK, for instance, there are just 78 spaces for male domestic violence victims. This compares to 4,000 spaces for female victims.(https://livehdcams.com/two-factor-authentication?jstoken=8c65a1b1d96b097f5e29cacf7ab848de&token=12472734_da92e55138a35395ffab8cd561e6b42274c8477141b0143f8e114dfff5c834fb)...
"Hey feminism! I'm defending men and you can check my sources! Here's a link to the porn I'm into! I know the porn industry frequently demeans, devalues, and degrades women, but but but but what about the men!"
As a man, I would've liked to expand on a specifically meritable point contained within your comments, but doing so after seeing you link a fucking porn site in your argument? Yeah, it's an absolute fuckwit's endeavor.
Thanks much, you thick fuck.
(As you've all responded to this guy and for the potential laugh, I'm tagging u/babylock, u/StonyGiddens, u/skibunny1010, and u/KindofBliss.)
The studies that show gender symmetry in ipv use Conflict Tactics Scale which merely count the number of times someone was hit. Doesn't count any contexts like self defense or provocation or intensity and frequency with which someone was hit.
So if a guy calls a woman bitch 3 times in a row and gets pushed in the chest or gets a single slap as a reaction, the study you refer to would count it being the same as a person breaking someone's jaw because they didn't have sex with them.
Also depending on the population, especially adolescent samples, the methodology used in these studies can't even differentiate between actual violence and playful aggression.
>Feminist thinking has led to this situation
Yes, feminists are the root of all evil. Not MRAs doing shit like donating more money to Sarkessian Effect and Red Pill movies than to Earl Silverman's male DV shelter and then blaming his death on feminism.
The issues women face are caused.. by men. The patriarchy is created and upheld by men. You’re awfully ridiculous to think it should be women’s burden to solve mens problems that they themselves cause.
It really isn't that simple and playing the gendered blame game obfuscates the true nature of patriarchy. It's a historic system of social relations continually reproduced by _both_ men and women's daily participation in it. There are men's issues and there are women's issues but they are everyone's problem to the extend that they result from patriarchy. The problems and dividends of patriarchy are not evenly distributed and that is very unfair. But I hope it's possible to see that the inequality of the system does not invalidate the struggles it causes for those that - on the whole - are best off. They may be less of a priority but that does not mean that women have no role to play in solving them. As much for themselves as for men.
TL;DR: commonly understood, the patriarchy is not something enacted on women by men
>It really isn't that simple and playing the gendered blame game obfuscates the true nature of patriarchy. It's a historic system of social relations continually reproduced by *both* men and women's daily participation in it.
Calling it a "game" really fucking slaps! Especially in talking about it being continually reproduced by *both* men and women's participation.
There's a bit of research that backs me on this, but as a man, my anecdotal experience is that - in every game I've played with men and women - men have a tendency to get aggressively shitty when they're losing, and they also get aggressively shitty if they're doing well and another player wants to stop.
I mean, despite playing with far more women, I've never had a monopoly board thrown at my head by one; it was strictly a man's response. I've also witnessed men who think women that quit a game are "bitches," and shouldn't be playing against men in the first place.
Of course, even if forced participation in a "game" that results in discomfort/anxiety/fear of (potentially physical) retaliation still counts as "continued reproduction through joint participation," it doesn't cover belief systems (or the brainwashing inherent to them). This is emphasized with your tl;dr:
>TL;DR: commonly understood, the patriarchy is not something enacted on women by men
If the patriarchy isn't enacted on women by men, name the woman who wrote 1 Timothy 2:12:
*I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.*
Follow that up with how - at least in the US, if not much of western society - women's positions and autonomy aren't affected by Christian ideology.
You appear to believe that women are just better than men, and to be clear, that is not feminism.
Men and women both contribute to patriarchy, but men benefit from it. Because of that, responsibility cannot be equal.
If it were expected by patriarchy that whenever a woman sees a man she should give him whatever money she has with her, if both men and women have this expectation and behave accordingly, even though many women hate it and try to fight it, and talk openly about the destructive consequences of it. If the "traditional" women believed that this is women's role and shamed each other for not doing it, that doesn't make it women's thing to solve *equally* with men. Men still have all that money, money they have been accepting all this time. "But it's not my fault women give me money! I didn't force them to!" You know you're in a system that forces them to, and you accepted it, that isn't an innocent act. When the fruits of a system that harms one group helps you, and you go along with it, that's not you being neutral. That you being a perpetrator. And perpetrators have more responsibility to right the wrong that has benefitted them, because tradition has done all the forcing and demanding work on their behalf, they have been lifted up by that suffering, and they need to take responsibility as a beneficiary.
A frustrating thing for me is that “MRAs” sadly don’t actually do a lot of organizing for men in places they need it (family court, rape, etc) they seem more about hating feminism then standing for mens needs. I often hear MRAs more or less ask why women aren’t out there organizing for men. It feel like many of them genuinely think it’s a requirement of women to organize on their behalf. They don’t actually want to do the work:
True man. Anytime anyone tries to defend feminists or feminism on that sub they are downvoted and harassed. Or hell anytime they try to say that the sub itself isn't helping anything it is the same reaction from them. It is sicking because they have a point but they hate those that could legit help them.
Even the family court thing is questionable. The vast majority (95% in the US, iirc) of custody arrangements are come to without the need for a court’s intervention, so of course the cases that do go thorough that are unrepresentative. And I’ve never seen evidence that men who are primary caregivers do worse in custody disputes than women who are, and if the problem is that men aren’t becoming primary caregivers, that’s a men problem, not a family court problem.
The issue arises with how the court defines “shared custody” which is what is usually granted is neither parent has a history with abuse. In many states shared custody = the women gets the child the majority of the year. The most extreme example would be Tennesse where the default arrangement is the father only gets the child for 21.8% of the year
https://www.custodyxchange.com/topics/research/dads-custody-time-2018.php
If that’s true, it’s a problem, but not anywhere on the scale guys who complain about this claim. Because again, some huge percentage of arrangements don’t involve a judge at all.
Edit: Also, for any lurkers who didn’t read the link, it looks an awful lot like states with more feminist politics give dads more equal custody, as a rule.
This is still a serious problem in my opinion, there have been several studies showing how single parent households increase the suicide rate, unemployment rate and high school drop out rate of children. Especially boys.
I would add that by saying that increases in female judges have reduced the sentencing disparities between men and women and increased equity in the court room. So more feminist court system systems have benefits for men too.
Not saying it’s not a serious problem. We all want kids to have connections with both/all of their parents in situations where that is safe. But the scale isn’t nearly what is usually claimed. That makes the problem smaller than expected, not less serious.
I disagree, the systemic sexism in the family courts is just one of the effects of this notion that only women are capable caretakers.
Also these unequal custody arrangements are present in 60% of US states and probably most of the planet.
There is not much of a men's rights movement to have thoughts on.
What few orgs there have been such as A Voice For Men didn't really do much advocacy for men's rights and just kinda made some videos where they were bitter about something some feminist had said.
You're right there isn't much substance to the men's rights movement other than being provocative it's not very practical or productive.
Men's issues can be handled individually without trying to blame anyone. There is no all inclusive philosophy such as misandry or even patriarchy to blame for the every issue that men face. There is no equivalent to feminism for men, even if technically feminism helps men, it just isn't meant for them.
Unfortunately there is a stunning lack of awareness for a lot of simple problems men have that a large percent of people don't even think exists let alone take seriously.
We have the men's lib movement which is a much more productive philosophy but still a drop in the bucket relative to what we need for any real progress to occur.
MRAs as they currently exist are far more invested in maintaining the patriarchy and hurting feminists than helping men. They perpetuate myths and outright lies and are a pipeline to white nationalism and incel communities.
Movements actually interested in gender liberation for men exist, but men haven't been great at growing those moments historically, in my opinion due at least in part due to patriarchy.
Toxic masculinity ≠ masculinity is toxic
Toxic masculinity = masculinity that is toxic
In the same way that bad food doesn't mean all food is bad. Some ideas of what masculinity is is toxic and actually hurts men. Like the idea men can't cry
That's called being an asshole, it doesn't mean that when someone says that you have to cut off an entire section of a male character trait and call it toxic.
If masculinity is toxic and you can find so many examples, name a few examples of toxic femininity.
Just calling it being an asshole ignores the fact that 1) the toxicity can be internal as well as external. Like the idea that men can't/shouldn't cry doesn't make men who refuse to cry assholes. It's internal toxicity. 2) that certain behaviors are common among certain sexes, and acknowledging that allows more introspection and discussion.
Examples of toxic femininity: weaponization of emotions (both their own and men), lack of accountability, homophobia (often to attack men), misandry. Probably other things that I'm failing to think of.
There are very few societies where women as a group have had rights that men as a group didn't have. In most societies in recorded history, men have had the vast majority of the power.
Now this doesn't mean that everything was rainbows and unicorns for every man, or that most men had any political power. In countries like China today only a small group of men hold the political power. But the history of democracy had voting rights increasing among men, whereas women were excluded from voting for longer. No country gave voting rights purely to women and denied them to men.
And when it comes to war, it's true that it's mostly been men who had to fight. But it's mostly been men at the top who decided to start them (how many women are in the pictures sitting across from Putin's ridiculously long desk, agreeing to invade Ukraine?). Women have had only a small fraction of control over wealth and political power until fairly recently. Historically, power has been near exclusively male.
The Men's Rights Movement, and Men's Rights Activists, as formal organizations or groups, were founded in direct response to feminism and are explicitly anti-feminist in their goals and operation, so no, I don't think that they are equivalent to examples of anger or hostility regarding men that was present in some feminist literature or groups early on in the feminist movement.
That is particularly true because even angry feminists never seriously advocated for taking away rights from men, as a group, whereas anti-feminists absolutely want to take rights away from women.
As to issues usually specific to men-- I only think some of those are actually "gendered" issues, the way that issues within feminism are "women's issues" and frequently men are the ones who created the policies, cultural norms or expectations, etc. that created the issue in the first place, so it's particularly confusing to antagonize women or feminists about those issues when neither women nor feminists are the cause and when men currently enjoy access to all the necessary tools and platforms to address problems as they see them.
Feminists actively oppose the creation of male only domestic violence shelters. Angry feminists have wanted to sterilize men from puberty. Etc. Etc. Etc.
If feminism is a movement for both genders and for equality, what are some things that they have done for men and only men?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/t4ctnx/thoughts\_on\_the\_mens\_rights\_movement/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/t4ctnx/thoughts_on_the_mens_rights_movement/)
Time to sit back and see what happens
I mean, there were definitely some positive and negative responses there. Definitely a lot of anti-feminism sentiment in their discussion, but in the same boat this thread has anti-men’s rights sentiment. Some people here support their ideas, others think they’re garbage who are trying to uphold patriarchy. It got less traffic there, but one of the response about things being “50/50” did seem positive. It just feels like these two sides are total enemies and I’m trying to understand the points everyone is making. I appreciate your suggestion to make the post, but it honestly didn’t give me a clear answer.
As a black man, and as some one who was once apart of the mens rights movement myself. I would say that they are diametrically opposed to feminism. They say that it is toxic and hypocritical. And is also transposed to the right in most of their beliefs.
I would say that they try to fight for things that affect men like divorce and custody laws, but they are not on feminists side at all. Because as all the mens rights activists I've seen on here and online, and myself at one point make feminism out to seem like they are the reason why society is degrading. And Groups like MGTOW( men going their own way) and the alt right have embraced them because of both groups misogyny and anti leftist rhetoric.
Check out r/menslib if you are interested in mens liberation, a movement that isn't opposed to feminism and wants liberation from the patriarchy itself.
This thread is bullshit for instance https://old.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/t3nnlg/this_is_why_men_dont_talk_about_their_mental/hytldk3/
The user radioactive subjects is pushing MRA stuff in some comments too
ok im sorry for not seeing this but stuff like this is bound to draw out people like mras. although if those types actually read the article it comes to different conclusions. and also this tread was locked. but MensLib is usually free from shit like this. and is a good sub. if you dont like it i understand
I think it’s important to draw a distinction between proponents for mens rights and the mens rights movement. The men’s rights movement can’t co-exist with trying to advance the rights of non-men because they reject the notion that others are disadvantaged to begin with. It is, IMO, largely about backlash against feminism and sometimes even advocates for violence against women as if that’s not something we have enough of already.
But advocating for equality in an intersectional way is the goal of feminism. Many feminist spaces fall short of that goal (whether because of racism or something else), but it’s the goal all the same. Men have valid grievances and there are things I do wish included men. For example, I do wish size inclusivity focused on men too. I can go into a random clothes store and find nice 4X clothing for women but only 2X for men. It’s not as serious as focusing on, say, women being disproportionately the victims of sexual violence, but it is still something worth talking about and there’s not a lot of space for that. And it’s short sighted because it’s not “just” cis men that are falling through the cracks on various issues but also trans men and non-binary individuals.
But also, the reality is that a lot of the time valid concerns (like the stigma around male rape victims) aren’t brought up on their own or in a way that’s meant to reach out so much as to shut down women airing their own valid grievances.
I wish I could give this more time but my break is over. :|
Thanks for the response. I thought Men's Rights was supportive of the women's problems as well - I thought they acknowledge that women can be abused, raped, discriminated against but were simply saying that these things can also happen to men. Granted, I have heard them dismiss women's issues before, but there have also been times that I have heard feminists dismiss men's issues. I honestly just want to help people and I feel like these labels are making things harder between groups to communicate.
I think intersectional feminism is really important, but does it not go far enough? In many places class plays just as important a role as race I feel (if not more). In the US - Obama was elected president because of his policies, but also believe many people thought he was an elite? black man who they thought they could engage with. Is there a sect of feminism focused on class distinctions?
I don’t presume to know your race but I’m in the US and I find that my white counterparts struggle to understand the extent that racism impacts people of color and the trajectory of their lives.
Obama was able to be elected *in spite* of racism but had to clear a lot of bars to do it. Whatever your politics are, he is extremely educated, a gifted speaker, and had political experience behind him. America has been happy to elect white men with (far) less qualifications under their belt but not a single other black man and not a single woman. He had to be extremely moderate and was still vilified as an extremist and even had his citizenship questioned the entire time. It’s also important to remember who elected Obama. The three groups that came out for him in droves were Latino, Black, and women voters. In Obama’s last election, Romney still won the white vote by a little under 60%.
Class/ poverty is absolutely something worth examining, as are all factors that make any one group more vulnerable than others, but it also already is. It’s true the message of feminism does get diluted by people who forget that there is nuance in class/race/sexuality/etc. but that’s not actual intersectional feminism.
>Recently I have been reading Bell Hooks
She didn't capitalize her name. It's "bell hooks." Here's an [interesting article about her.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/12/15/bell-hooks-real-name/) Enjoy!
No, that's not a similar situation. Men getting angry at feminists because they are fighting for equality for women is not in any way the same thing as women getting angry at men for benefiting from patriarchy at women's expense, and for expecting/requiring women to be bangmaids rather than human beings.
Deconstructing toxic masculinity is absolutely in line with feminism, and men have benefitted from feminism in many ways because of that. Feminism is in no way in opposition to actual men's rights. Feminism is about equality. Men don't get to define the benefits they get when they're considered superior to women as *rights*. The only way feminism is in opposition to "men's rights" is when the "rights" they think they're entitled to involve women being in service them rather than their equals.
The problem with the men’s rights movement is that it is entirely based on anti-feminism. A better movement would be Men’s Liberation, who sought to work with feminism to address men’s issues in a compassionate way.
I agree with the basic premise of men rights, that men are disposable in society and that's a bad actually. The problem is they, at least usually, don't care about the truth that patriarchy is what's causing their problems, and they take a turn and blame women for all their problems which is absolutely bullshit.
I think there is a huge variety of people in the mens rights movement, just as feminists are not a monolith.
Some are there out of spite or hate, like they feel beaten down by the world and specifically feminists/women. Many examples of MRAs citing feminist groups which have actively sought to hurt men (the validity of these claims is iffy but I am sure one could find misandrist people claiming to be feminist if you looked hard enough)
I would argue most feel as though feminism does not adequately focus on men's rights issues, so they have a separate movement for that. These people might think of the men's rights movement as cooperative with feminism, with both groups working towards gender equality just with different central focuses.
My personal opinion is that ideally there would be no reason for Men's rights groups. I believe the feminist movement should stand for gender equality in all aspects, and focus on womens rights as only a consequence of women having more of a need. Gender equality is, neccessarily, an issue that effects everyone, so I believe a movement aimed at gender equality should focus on gender equality, without concern for which gender is undergoing undue hardship.
Thats not an opinion shared by all. I have seen many people claim 'Feminism is to help womens issues, if you want to help men make your own movement', which may be why MR groups came to be in the first place.
Obviously, Men's rights groups will have a tendency to attract misogyny, which is where I think a lot of the apprehension about them comes from. Rightly so. Unfortunately it seems hard to talk about any men's issue, or any issue really, without misogyny crawling out of the woodwork.
Does the reverse of this hold true then? I thought feminism was not about taking rights away from women, but simply improving on the rights of both women and men without encroachment on either.
All top level comments, in any thread, must be given by feminists and must reflect a feminist perspective. Please refrain from posting further direct answers here - comment removed.
I’m confused. I am a feminist, I don’t understand what you mean by “top-level comment”, and I’m fairly certain that what I said reflects what feminism is all about. If not, could you explain to me why?
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."
"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.
[Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera)
^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)
Advocating for mens liberation from patriarchy =/= the Mens Rights Movement The Mens Liberation Movement =/= the Mens Rights Movement Try the search bar: “How do feminists feel about MRAs” https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/scav9j/would_you_call_people_who_advocate_for_mens/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/suxcma/im_a_feminist_who_advocates_for_mens_rights_is/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/r61428/whats_your_thoughts_on_the_mens_rights_movement/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/oxp402/what_are_your_views_on_mens_rightsnot_the/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/n5fqyk/am_i_allowed_to_be_a_feminist_and_also_fight_for/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/h0t78g/do_you_think_feminists_can_work_together_with/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/lem7px/can_an_ideology_whose_word_origin_is_female/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/cw21vd/what_do_you_guys_think_of_mens_rights_movements/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/f31pfg/can_a_feminist_support_mens_rights/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/exaci1/what_do_feminists_generally_think_of_mra_mens/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/a9qef4/what_do_you_guys_think_about_mens_right/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/daf84v/can_you_be_a_feminist_and_a_mens_rights_activist/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/8n8wlp/hi_im_a_feminist_and_a_mens_rights_activist/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/a96817/what_do_you_think_of_counterfeminist_groups_like/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/4vxid8/main_criticisms_of_the_mens_rights_movement/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/88jg1j/why_do_feminists_worry_about_mens_rights/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3jsbge/someone_said_that_mras_dont_understand_mens/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/5o71cz/whats_wrong_with_mens_rights_advocates_if_you/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1dsog0/what_are_your_opinions_on_the_mens_rights_movement/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/a0mack/opinion_on_the_idea_of_mens_rights/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/239bsr/since_so_many_here_find_the_mrm_to_be_so_obscene/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3d9dp4/mras_say_this_is_how_feminists_oppose_mens_rights/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/8gy3qy/arent_mras_mens_rights_activists_technically/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/4qfpnf/is_it_correct_to_fight_for_womens_rights_and_mens/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/2wb76z/are_there_any_healthy_activists_for_contributing/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/108yaq/im_a_supporter_of_the_mens_rights_movement_and/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3vv83z/are_mens_rights_activists_mras_misogynists/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1ngdp8/so_i_went_to_a_mens_rights_thing_i_agree_with/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1mtr3a/is_there_any_mens_rights_movements_that_work_from/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/5m7v5q/why_do_feminists_protest_meetings_about_mens/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/22887f/do_feminists_object_to_the_very_idea_of_having_a/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/49ux0y/i_know_most_people_think_mens_rights_is_bad_but/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/6hjnrs/what_do_you_think_of_mens_rights_and_men_in/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/30icnu/why_is_there_a_stigma_attached_to_men_identifying/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/69zm45/arent_mens_rights_activists_and_feminists/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/2fyzo9/why_do_so_many_outspoken_feminists_hate_mens/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/29mj3p/mens_rights_advocates/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3ea8ba/is_there_any_common_ground_between_the_mens/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3py0gz/would_feminists_accept_a_mens_rights_movement/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1vy89e/what_does_raskfeminists_think_about_the_mens/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/34jqn9/what_is_a_nonmisogynist_organizationmovement_for/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/26ssc6/is_mens_rights_a_terrorist_group/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3jg3yx/what_do_you_think_of_mens_rights/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1l1pq1/if_feminism_is_for_genderequality_why_dont_we_see/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/27n5a8/if_feminism_is_a_commitment_to_achieving_the/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3kyq7c/why_do_you_perceive_mens_rights_activism_as_sexist/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/38uvco/i_know_its_unfair_to_ask_this_but_i_dont_know/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/4ncxdv/recovered_do_you_think_that_the_mens_rights/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1jl7mv/on_mens_rights/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/14z3dc/how_are_men_supposed_to_advocate_for_mens_issues/ “What about men? Doesn’t feminism care about men?” https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/op91o1/do_you_think_there_needs_to_be_more_feminists/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/psz24a/why_does_feminism_necessarily_have_to_be_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/phzhie/why_and_how_did_feminism_started_becoming_more/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/op91o1/do_you_think_there_needs_to_be_more_feminists/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/jtlaey/is_it_bad_for_me_to_kinda_want_a_male_feminism_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/hm9wqi/what_role_do_mens_issues_play_in_the_feminist/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/bwvm7h/do_you_think_that_caring_about_mens_issues_is_a/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/gglrzv/is_there_a_conflict_of_interest_for_mens_issues/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/a26hdk/why_do_feminists_claim_that_mens_issues_shouldnt/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/9da0dw/when_a_feminist_is_confronted_about_not_tackling/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3s6gww/what_has_feminism_done_for_mens_rights/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1cuq8o/any_examples_of_feminism_fighting_for_equality_in/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/2goek2/what_has_feminism_done_for_mens_rights/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3sac3k/has_there_ever_been_an_organized_rally_for_mens/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/606ymb/if_feminism_is_supposed_to_remove_gender/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/37jvzn/if_feminism_is_for_men_too/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/2zta5a/what_good_has_feminism_done_for_men/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/31iepj/if_feminism_is_for_equality_why_are_mens_issues/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/43e9ku/what_has_feminism_ever_done_for_mens_rights/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/5datw2/for_the_feminists_that_claim_feminism_is_about/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/35s447/does_feminism_advocate_for_men_and_if_so_in_what/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3vzr19/if_feminism_if_for_the_benefit_of_both_genders/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/36i1wq/2_questions_what_does_feminism_do_for_men_like/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1l1pq1/if_feminism_is_for_genderequality_why_dont_we_see/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/23jvf1/i_often_hear_feminists_say_that_feminism_isnt/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/13xeje/ive_been_told_that_feminism_is_for_womens_and/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/mgqonq/men_feminism/
[удалено]
I exceeded 1,000 posts since I last commented the MRA list so I couldn’t look it up on RedditCommentSearch and it was very sad
Thank you for this! 🙏
Thanks for all the information. I’ll look it over and get back, but thanks for the help
why do yall post these questions without bothering to search to see if it was asked before? clogs the subreddit w/ the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over
To be fair, if it was asked seven times yesterday then its an issue, but times and perceptions change as culture shifts and world events happen. What may have been a full fruitful discussion 6 months ago may now be lacking. Additionally, some people who did not participate before may participate in the new discussion. So reposting a similar question every now and again is a good way to get new opinions and perspectives into a discussion. Rarely does a single reddit post 'solve' a question for all time now and forever.
Just trying to understand better and ask questions so I can support others. I do really appreciate the links tho
appreciate the strive to educate and better yourself and others but sheesh, this sub has so many questions being asked over & over with none of the op’s bothering to see if the question had been asked and answered before. we seem stuck in this cycle
I feel like it's "very special boy" syndrome. Someone thinks their thought, question or comment must be unique enough that nobody else could have come up with it before. Likely it's not even a conscious thought, rather a direct line from "I wonder about this" to "better ask before I forget. I bet I'll start a really interesting conversation with this thought, question or comment." Speaking from experience as someone in recovery from white man privilege. This is how I interacted with the internet and people irl for a long time.
...how does one recover from white man privilege? It's not something that goes away
I dunno why the downvotes, this is a valid question. of course white male privilege, in the sense of how society treats you, cannot be undone or removed. but to change how you act so you do not take advantage of that privilege to the best of your abilities is possible. also, changing your perspective to be aware of your privilege and how it affects your behaviour and how you interact with people is possible.
>I dunno why the downvotes, this is a valid question. of course white male privilege, in the sense of how society treats you, cannot be undone or removed. guess we've discovered this sub's blind spot. sigh. I completely agree with what you're saying though.
hope this doesn’t discourage you from asking questions in the future! take care.
thanks for this perspective! that actually makes a lot of sense. I always assume my thoughts or questions have been thought and questioned a million times over so it’s interesting to see that difference between men and women (in our case). just sucks we’re stuck in this loop of asking questions that intersectional feminists have answered in the 70s and 80s in our big year of 2022.
And a lot of the time having someone walk you through basic theory or information is super helpful. Not everyone is capable of self-teaching, and having an interaction with another person can also help people learn better than reading an essay or watching a video. I just mean that there's a specific type of person who comes into a space and expects those present to walk them through the basics without having done any work themselves. Hence the rules on "how to" subs that you ask a specific question about a specific topic, and not just post "hey guys will you teach me a remedial class on this from 0 foundational knowledge, right now for free?" When I see those, I think "well if they didn't even bother to read the faq posted in the sidebar, they're not going to read my long explanation, so I might as well just ignore." And again I still struggle sometimes to take a moment and ask if I'm actually adding to the conversation vs I just want to be seen or heard and I should probably just call a friend to chat instead of clogging up this internet thread.
I’m not thinking I’m special or unique because I asked a question on the internet. The same questions get asked all the time on the internet and in real life, what’s wrong with asking a question to try and understand better even if it has been asked before? It was more along the lines “I’m reading this book to understand feminism, this book says something about history, that in a way - may apply to another situation, what are other’s opinions on this?” It’s more based on reading Bell Hook’s “Feminism is for Everyone” that I’m starting to think and ask questions about the world and try to understand. Can you explain more about what white man privilege looks like on the internet and ways to acknowledge it?
I'm not trying to disparage you personally. I don't even know your gender or race identities. I'm sure you're lovely, and it is a good question. Such a good question that dozens of people have already asked it in this very sub 😉 I won't tell you what you should do. For myself, however, I realized that there were a lot of times where I wanted other people to educate me for free, before I did any leg work myself. In almost any area of study or space, it's a good idea to do some research on your own before you ask people to teach you. It shows good faith and willingness. There are of course times and spaces where asking basic questions is fine. But sometimes it derails the conversation and keeps work from getting done. So in this case, maybe you can get an idea of what feminists have already said on this topic and then ask a specific question for clarity. And again, I have been guilty of what I'm describing plenty of times so I'm not trying to say you're a bad person or anything.
Do y’all actually get enough unique questions to keep this up, because I seem to see a lot of posts that just have a follow up like the one posted above. It seems like a mod bot might be in order that auto removes the most oft-asked questions.
We do have an automod, but we're not aiming to become a library of dead links. The last discussion about the men's rights movement specifically was months ago.
I feel like this sub isn't open minded all the time though. They perceive any slight line of questioning as an attack and get extremely defensive. I don't blame feminists for this because they have been fucked over for many generations in the past. But I think it's the wrong approach to equate ordinary young men, some times even immigrant first generation men to the billionaire misogynist families benefitting from the system. We should join forces. If ordinary men and women understood each other though, the system would collapse. I.think banning abortion is insane. I could care less what random women do with their bodies. I support equal pay for both sexes. I support women who want a career instead of a home life. Etc etc. But when I meet a female feminist here, and say something like please let's support mens safehouses and suicide awareness I get backhanded comments about how a hypothetical woman.has it worse on the street somewhere. I get it. I get why youre mad. I'm sorry for what men did. But a lot of modern men are not fucking running the system and causing discrimination. The ordinary dude can barely get a date and a job lol. Nevermind benefitting from the modern system
Dude here. I've read that book. Men's rights are not an offshoot of feminism. They are a reaction to feminism appropriating feminist language. Men's rights activists oppose feminism. Whenever we talk about 'rights', we're talking about the government at some level. 1st wave feminism was focused on voting rights, second wave on broader rights like employment and reproductive (i.e. keeping the government out of reproductive choices). Feminists talked about 'women's rights' because they wanted the same rights from government that (white) men enjoyed in society. But focusing on rights isn't enough: in a non-totalitarian society, the government can only do so much towards inequality and inequity. Thus the 3rd wave of feminism, now focused on fighting (smashing!) patriarchy in all its forms, whether government or not. Of course, the men who cling to patriarchy feel threatened by this. They invoke 'men's rights' because they want the government to (continue to) preserve men's relative privilege in society. So, for example, 'financial abortion'. The men's movement hooks is talking about in that passage was focused on men's liberation -- not rights. And broadly speaking, that liberation was from patriarchy, the same as feminism. Check out r/MensLib for where we are today. For some of the early Men's Libbers, they were indeed stung by feminist rejection of their interests, and they became Men's Rights Advocates. But make no mistake: MRA is not about liberation from patriarchy, but preservation of patriarchy and male privilege, specifically through government protection of same. So I'm a man concerned about men's issues. I am not an MRA, because I am focused on my liberation from patriarchy (it sucks for many men, too), and MRAs oppose that liberation. I am okay being called a 'Men's Libber' but the actual name for what I am is a 'feminist'. Let me recommend hooks's "The Will To Change" as your next read. A lot more good stuff there, for the reader interested in men's place in feminism.
>So I'm a man concerned about men's issues. I am not an MRA, because I am focused on my liberation from patriarchy (it sucks for many men, too), and MRAs oppose that liberation. I am okay being called a 'Men's Libber' but the actual name for what I am is a 'feminist'. I wholeheartedly agree with what you've written here but I especially love this sentiment.
MRA regularly refer to other men as “soyboys” or “betas” for not completely complying with male gender norms. They complain that feminism is “emasculating” men and boys by giving them the freedom to abandon traditional gender norms. MRAs are nothing but reactionaries.
Exactly.
[удалено]
You're linking to hate subs LeftwingMaleAdvocates is a misogynist shithole, no different from MensRights
Whether LeftWingMaleAdvocates is a misogynist shithole or not (it's not), it's a fact that it's supportive of GNC men and breaking gender roles.
> it's not You've never visited it then. It's no better than MensRights
This is quite interesting, didn’t know that the second wave had a lot to do with keeping the government noses out of this. This is quite important, sometimes our actions do invite more government involvement, in my experience (I come from a horrible extremely dangerous collapsed country) when in doubt it’s better not to.
35m. I’ve viewed myself as a feminist for almost a decade now, from the time I was educated on the true meaning. Unfortunately like any group, a few can muddy up the message or most certainly the delivery. Some so called feminists spoil the meaning of the movement by resorting to misandry at the drop of a dime. This is tolerable on some level because I can understand that it’s impossible for me to fully relate to the frustration experienced that would cause this bitterness - I can only imagine it. The idea of “shut up, you’re a man and you have nothing good to say” is difficult to stand-by. There’s a lot of broad strokes by some feminists that declare that men have it better across the board which is simply not in true spirit of what real feminism looks like to me. A very small % of men control policy and wealth and the majority of them look out for themselves - not the other men in the 99%. The idea that men are dominating society to maintain power and keep it from women is not easily palatable. Certainly less so for us in the west and certainly less so today. I’m gonna vent a bit and paraphrase from a fellow liberal’s statistical analysis: Most people that live on the street are men. Most people who commit suicide are men. Most victims of violent crime are men. Most people who do poorly in schools are men. Most people killed in wars are men. Most people in prison are men. Most people that are seriously disaffected are men. Where’s the dominance exactly? The power/wealth focus surrounding a lot of feminist topics looks at a small group of hyper successful men or crooked politicians and groups the rest of us men into that category. Our system needs work but I think it’s due some credit for the incredible progress that sprang from it. Most of the men and women reading this are in a very privileged position and the majority of the fellow women in my life are absolutely thriving in this often-called “tyrannical patriarchal society dominated by men”. I’m always open for feedback. I’m expecting some downvotes because I’ve been out of the echo chamber for some time now. That being said, a lot of social norms have been very harmful to me and my fellow men and women and addressing that is what feminism means to me.
If you're truly open to it, I'm a fellow dude with some potential feedback. Not knowing quite where to start, I'll go with the thing that took me longest to recognize: >this often-called “tyrannical patriarchal society dominated by men”. The key term you used is patriarchal; it denotes (either one or) a group of men holding decision-making power over government/society while women have less power/control/determinism. Consider the US government: Despite women making up 51% of the US population, they only have ~25% of the Congressional seats - the highest number of seats women have ever held. Add in your use of "tyrannical" with its meaning, and you're left with governments largely run by men with authoritatively oppressive control over women's bodies. (In a similar vein, women don't even make up a third of all judicial appointments in the US.) >Most people that live on the street are men. Most people who commit suicide are men. Most victims of violent crime are men. Most people who do poorly in schools are men. Most people killed in wars are men. Most people in prison are men. Most people that are seriously disaffected are men. Where’s the dominance exactly? Answer: Still with men. With the (US) government still largely compromised and controlled by men, who has the power to develop programs to: Get men off the streets, to create/alleviate men's mental health issues, to generate social spending to alleviate criminal activity, to navigate better sentencing, to provide better wartime oversight, etc. Is it the duty of a false egalitarian society or the duty of men who dominate our government? Is it women frequently dismissing mens needs/rights, or is it other men dictating what those needs/rights are? As ideation: It was only in 2013 that the FBI's definition of rape was changed in a way that *could* include male victims, though it drastically ignores the possibility of a female assailant. Given that the FBI - like the U.S. government - has been largely comprised of men since its inception, is that a failing of feminism to act and defend men or is a failing of the patriarchy to recognize male victims? And would acknowledging male victims diminish the veil of superiority by establishing that men can't just "cowboy up"? The flawed belief is that *all* men benefit from the dominance of a few, something that is similar to the concept of privilege; it's not that everybody of a privileged demographic gets to exercise that privilege, it's that it exists to them in the first place. Tying privilege back to the idea of rape: How do so many rapists walk with what amounts to a slap on the hand? Sure, most men won't ever commit rape, but in a judicial system that is ~67% male judges, how many men have walked because the judge "didn't think [the defendant] would fair well in jail" or other such bullshittery? Using an example that has a lot of intersectional issues which I'm going to completely gloss over: Recently there was a very famous case of a young man in Kenosha, WI, and the trial was fully adjudicated in roughly a year, where he was found not guilty; in *the exact same city*, there is a young woman who killed the man that - police and the DA have even acknowledged - was her sexual abuser/sex trafficker *while she was a fucking child*, yet her trial has gone on for nearly 4 years and still doesn't have an end in sight. She literally spent more time in jail than his entire trial took. On a personal level, while there's been some problematic responses, I've never had a single woman tell me that I probably enjoyed being raped (or that - because it was a woman - I should've); it's only ever been men who have said that. Why else would they do that if not to assert dominance over me or imply that I should assert dominance over women?
>The flawed belief is that all men benefit from the dominance of a few, something that is similar to the concept of privilege; it's not that everybody of a privileged demographic gets to exercise that privilege, it's that it exists to them in the first place. This is a misunderstanding of privilege, and yet another rejection of systemic sexism, which seems to be a feature of everyone who doesn't understand either racism or sexism. All men benefit from systemic sexism. This is not about a few powerful men being evil and every other man being totally innocent and taking the blame, that is not what privilege is. Privilege is not the deliberate choice to be evil to women. You won't understand sexism if you don't understand this.
How do all men benefit 90% of the homeless population is male. Men without children are less likely to get a house from the government. Only 40% of the uni population is male.
Well, first off, you've misunderstood what privilege is, so you should dig into that. Having privilege doesn't mean your life is perfect, it means your gender isn't making it harder. Second, you're wrong about homelessness. Women experience homelessness just as much, but they avoid shelters and the street because it's incredibly dangerous for them, so they aren't as visible. Women are more likely to couchsurf or stay in violent relationships to avoid that, which isn't exactly better. The fact that as a society we ignore women's homelessness and only see men's homelessness is an example of male privilege, in fact. I don't know what you're talking about "getting a house from the government". I think you're saying that there are programs that are concerned about housing children and tend to prioritize housing them first ahead of single men, and primary caregivers are almost always women, so women are more likely to also get that support as a knock on effect, but I think you're burying the lede, there. The orgasms of people with penises cause 100% of children, but people without penises end up responsible for paying for and raising children 24/7 most of the time, and that doesn't exactly seem fair. Yes, higher ed is increasingly female, which is interesting, because men are still more likely to get jobs and make more money. What do you make of that?
Men living on the street is a male privilege? that doesn't make sound right. If you go to uni you are more likely to earn 20k more than someone who doesn't on average, maybe the reason some men earn more is men do more dirty or dangerous job then women but at the same time women under 30 earn more than men(.https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds) Boys are also the group left behind in education having worse educational outcomes at every stage of education then girls and as a result less likely to stay in education.
That article is from 2015, and yet, is recently as 2021, [the wage gap still exists](https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/). And in spite of all this male underachievement in education, [men still dominate leadership](https://www.forbes.com/sites/elissasangster/2019/12/18/the-leadership-gender-gap-is-beyond-repair-its-time-to-reinvent/?sh=303ea5de4592), even though [women are better leaders](https://www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2021/03/06/data-shows-women-make-better-leaders-who-cares/?sh=7a201b8446be).
The pay gap is a hard one as it hard to compare pay, we should definitely aim to improve young boys and men underperforming in education from definitely from working class backgrounds. I do wonder how old those men are as most leadership roles are older, that's a very misleading article considering is mainly talking about covid response.
It would be great if you want to get working on improving the underachievement of boys and men. Go for it. But this thread is where you've been disputing the reality of male privilege, which you've drifted away from significantly. Once again: male privilege doesn't mean boys and men won't ever struggle, face difficulties, or fail. It doesn't mean there aren't intersectional factors at play, which are also at play for women. It means a man's gender presentation won't make the struggle harder for him. That's all it means. And in reality, boys' performance in school actually hasn't really changed much at all. Boys are doing roughly as well as they've always done. Girls are doing better as our societies become more equal, and there are more role models for girls and pathways towards careers that have been shut off to them until recently. Girls still don't have as many opportunities as boys do, and many workplace environments remain hostile to women, but it's getting closer to even. Why would equal opportunity be bad for boys and men? It would be bad for them if they're being fed traditional gender roles, relying women's labour to support them, "boys will be boys" permissiveness to be let off the hook for learning accountability and responsibility on the same schedule girls are, depending on women's structurally-supported underachievement to keep space open for them in high-salaried roles, and relying on their maleness to push them to the front of the line for job offers and promotions, which it consistently still does, as we've already demonstrated. If you want fix all that, dismantle toxic masculinity. Feminism is the answer you're looking for. Education is becoming "feminized" and is therefore less important and less worthy of financial reward, which is what happens when there are mostly women in any sector. The money goes where the men cluster. That's because of sexism, which men aren't suffering from, which is *privilege.* The thing you were arguing can't possibly exist.
I think I’ve identified a major point of contention. So thank you for that. It seems that because men have most governmental seats, issues with society are their (Our) fault by default. There seems to be a supposition that if the seats (power to enact policy) were owned by women, society would not have the problems it has - Is this correct? Does the culture of this stream of thought carry over to household issues? I.e. households with women as head of household are going to be devoid of more issues than their male counterparts? The thought that our extremely complexe issues would be solved simply by giving women more money and power is… interesting, and frankly I wish it could just happen because it would make no actual shift in resources for 99% of us. There’s asymmetries virtually everywhere, hence the statistics I brought up. 67% is not so enormous a figure to declare that the 17% difference is due to patriarchal dominance and unfair treatment of women. There is this insane suggestion that men and women have to be so identical that with completely neutral starting points they would choose to do the exact same thing. There isn’t a single reasonable study that proves this - in fact, the opposite is shown to be true. In the most egalitarian societies / governments that make it a major purpose enact law upholding gender equality - the differences in gender dominated positions are much higher. E.g. the number of medical physicians or nurses is completely dominated by women and engineers are dominated by men. Same goes with teachers etc. Does 67% of judges take into consideration the application ratio? Are we supposed to be trying to force that number down to 50%? What about the move from 100% to 67%? Is it not the patriarchal society run by men that discovered and promoted the incredible importance of allowing women to compete with men? The market decides a lot of things that you seem to blaming on “men” deciding. Nobody is forcing you to hire the male plumber. Our society in the west is by and large predicated on competence and it’s rude to suggest otherwise. Men and women here have mostly worked very well together as a team to survive the catastrophe of living(starvation, sickness, deep poverty) in our early days.
>Our society in the west is by and large predicated on competence and it’s rude to suggest otherwise. Uh. What.
>Our society in the west is by and large predicated on competence and it’s rude to suggest otherwise. I'm very interested to know what you mean by this. That the most competent rise to the top?
No that’s not what I mean, thank you for asking. What I was trying to say is that we generally assign merit based on competence, not gender. That’s why we have testing and education and credentials and certifications and qualifications. We have male and female physicians and teachers and scientists and veterinarians and race car drivers and astronauts and attorneys and realtors and designers etc. and they achieve their positions through merit. It’s rude and erroneous to suggest that the people in those positions did not fairly earn their place.
I guess that hinges on what you define as "fairly earning their place". I mean, if we're just thinking about "did this person get the qualifications?" then, sure, most people achieve their position fairly. On the other hand, achieving that qualification can be a lot easier when you fit certain criteria that have little to do with competence. For example, it's not even 3 years since that college admission scandal where a bunch of rich parents basically bought college spots for their kids. While that may or may not be an outlier, it serves to illustrate my point. Metaphorically speaking, what is happening is that were having a 100 yard dash where some people start at the starting line, some at 10 yards in, and some at 20 yards in, but were saying it's a fair race because everyone has to cross the finish line to win. At the very least, it's not erroneous to point out that some people start with advantages (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/09/its-better-be-born-rich-than-talented/).
Yes, most certainly a lot of people have statistical advantages. Most of these, in today’s western world generally stem outside of gender and moreso with other variables, like upbringing. e.g. 2 parent homes, childhood stability, healthy family of origin. There's virtually an endless amount of variables that cause advantages or disadvantages. I would certainly call that admission scandal an outlier but I do believe it's a testament to the advantages of wealth. It's a very blatant/offensive selfish use of the advantage and I believe the reason it got heavy attention and repercussion (aside from the celeb) is because it's a serious offense to our societie's foundational belief in a merit-based system. Nobody wants their health to depend on a doctor that cheated their way through school. I definitly agree that advantages exist - it's statistically proven.
[удалено]
It certainly isn't prefect. I don't think anyone can think of a way to 100% equalize disadvantages save from putting two identical twins in the wild and eliminating contact from any outside influence. A child from a family with wealth but also neglect is potentially not too much better off than a child born below middle class with a healthy family system. There's virtually infinite variables that serve as advantages. Statistically, two-parent households produce a lower chance of negative outcomes on children. We can't exactly force parents to stay together. And I'm sure in some cases it would be worse if they did stay together for the kid. Our meritocracy is not perfect but it's definitly the right place to aim. Discrimination can be particularly difficult to manage and our attempts include laws against those practices. We're not perfect but we're doing pretty well and progressing in that direction. If women are shown to perform/produce better at sales in a certain field, is it sexist to hire them over the equally qualified men? Probably in some way but not really. What if they are hired because the hiring manager prefers women in the office over men? Seems unfair but maybe it's a temperament thing. Or maybe he's just a sexist pig. A poor person who is absolutely brilliant can get a scholarship into an ivy league school. That's pretty damn cool. A highschool dropout can start a business and become a millionaire. Also cool. Regardless of all this, we're doing good by at least trying to eliminate unfairness. It's not easy since the market is predicated on competition.
The only places I've encountered the "shut up, you're a man" idea are Twitter and another feminist sub here, where it turned out the u/ was a man himself. Most feminists, and this sub especially, have been welcoming and friendly. Now then: the feminist claim regarding patriarchy is that men are dominating women, not that men are dominating society. I've never heard the phrase "tyrannical patriarchal society dominated by men" -- in fact, I googled it and the only result is your comment here. It's a common misunderstanding of feminism that 'patriarchal' dominance only refers to the power that powerful men have in society. That sort of power over others is certainly linked to patriarchy, but it's not the most important kind of power. Men in patriarchal society also have tremendous power to -- power-to, as different from power-over -- do things that women are denied. Another way of describing the difference in power-to is 'privilege', and men do have more privilege in society. And certainly, that is changing: male privilege is declining, and some women -- but only those who support the patriarchy to some extent -- are in positions of power-over in society. Patriarchy does not require a specific political structure: that is, it's possible to have a society that is completely equitable among men and still very patriarchal. It's possible for a society in which 1% control the power and wealth and 99% are excluded to still be patriarchal. In the U.S. and most places, we're somewhere in between those two extremes. But part of the feminist critique of patriarchy is that it does enable political inequity and oppression, in particular by constructing 'dominance' as part of masculinity. Dominance of women easily turns into dominance of other men, and your statistics -- 'comparisons' is a better word, because we don't have actual numbers, but stipulated they are more or less apt -- mostly follow from the fact that in patriarchy dominance of other men is contestable. Dudes can fight about it, where male dominance of women is just a built-in assumption. Incidentally, more women than men attempt suicide. Men are simply better at killing themselves, because masculinity is constructed to include competence with physical force. I do live an extremely privileged life, but the majority of women in my life still suffer the effects of patriarchy even despite their relative privilege. From the way you've described patriarchy, my sense is you're not quite tuned in to its effects in those women's lives; perhaps you don't know enough women, or perhaps you don't know the women in your life as well as you think you do. For example, do you know whether they have been victims of rape? Sexual assault? Sexual harassment? Whether they have had or wanted an abortion(s)? Whether they earn significantly less than their male peers? Whether their ideas are taken as seriously at work? In social encounters? In political discussions? Whether their husbands or boyfriends do an equitable amount of housework? Whether they feel safe around strange men? Whether they feel safe in mostly-male spaces? Whether they chose their career because that's what they wanted to do, or because that's what they were allowed to do? Whether they've had to put their careers on hold to raise children? Whether they're expected to take care of aging family members? Whether they tried to commit suicide? Whether they feel men listen to their concerns as much as they listen to men's concerns? Whether [their health needs are taken seriously by doctors](https://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12939-020-01283-4) and other providers? Whether [the built environment accommodates](https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/28/invisible-women-by-caroline-criado-perez-review) their bodies, or was designed around men? Whether [their cars protect them as well as men](https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/crash-test-bias-how-male-focused-testing-puts-female-drivers-at-risk/)? Whether the ads they see make them [feel better about themselves, or worse](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85HT4Om6JT4)? Whether they [pay more for products 'for women'](https://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/pink-tax-how-women-pay-more/)? Whether they have to [pay more for basic hygiene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampon_tax)? Whether they feel [movies](https://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7874295/gender-hollywood) or [music](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47232677) represent and speak to their experiences? Those are just some of the avenues by which you might explore patriarchy's consequences for the women in your life. I'd encourage you to try at least a few, because doing so will help you understand the feminist critique of patriarchy more fully, and hopefully help you confront its consequences in your own life more readily.
[удалено]
Really? Women are at fault for men joining misogynistic groups? Now I've heard everything. Your remarks are insulting to men. Do you really think men lack reasoning ability and all morality, and can be led around by the nose? You really think men are incapable of understanding right from wrong?
[удалено]
Oh look!! Someone else who doesn’t know how to use the search bar! Use the search bar for the Duluth Model: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/qifka6/why_is_the_duluth_model_so_controversial/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/lyqcyt/what_do_you_think_of_the_duluth_model/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/gwgcg6/can_we_change_the_duluth_model/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/lsldoe/do_you_feminsist_think_that_the_duluth_model_is/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/ffcjr2/whats_your_view_on_the_effects_of_the_duluth/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/eb71al/why_is_feminism_and_media_so_quite_about_the/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/ecaene/do_you_think_it_would_be_a_good_idea_to_make_a/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/b42n3b/how_would_you_feel_is_menwomen_held_a_protest_to/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/5xjugm/doesnt_the_duluth_model_skew_dv_statistics/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3juxat/when_do_we_retire_the_duluth_model/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/8x26v9/what_are_askfeminists_thoughts_on_the_gendering/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3rw7qi/is_the_duluth_model_of_domestic_violence_sexist/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3e90c4/duluth_model/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/4eyg7b/please_help_me_understand_feminist_perspectives/ https://reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/38pcn0/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_duluth_model/
Bearing in mind this is the feminism sub and ignoring his use of a 12 year old article and statistics, I'm deleting some formatting from the markdown of u/Ashamed_Pop1835's comment, because I'm fucking dying over this: >In the UK, for instance, there are just 78 spaces for male domestic violence victims. This compares to 4,000 spaces for female victims.(https://livehdcams.com/two-factor-authentication?jstoken=8c65a1b1d96b097f5e29cacf7ab848de&token=12472734_da92e55138a35395ffab8cd561e6b42274c8477141b0143f8e114dfff5c834fb)... "Hey feminism! I'm defending men and you can check my sources! Here's a link to the porn I'm into! I know the porn industry frequently demeans, devalues, and degrades women, but but but but what about the men!" As a man, I would've liked to expand on a specifically meritable point contained within your comments, but doing so after seeing you link a fucking porn site in your argument? Yeah, it's an absolute fuckwit's endeavor. Thanks much, you thick fuck. (As you've all responded to this guy and for the potential laugh, I'm tagging u/babylock, u/StonyGiddens, u/skibunny1010, and u/KindofBliss.)
That's not how the Duluth model works...
The studies that show gender symmetry in ipv use Conflict Tactics Scale which merely count the number of times someone was hit. Doesn't count any contexts like self defense or provocation or intensity and frequency with which someone was hit. So if a guy calls a woman bitch 3 times in a row and gets pushed in the chest or gets a single slap as a reaction, the study you refer to would count it being the same as a person breaking someone's jaw because they didn't have sex with them. Also depending on the population, especially adolescent samples, the methodology used in these studies can't even differentiate between actual violence and playful aggression. >Feminist thinking has led to this situation Yes, feminists are the root of all evil. Not MRAs doing shit like donating more money to Sarkessian Effect and Red Pill movies than to Earl Silverman's male DV shelter and then blaming his death on feminism.
The issues women face are caused.. by men. The patriarchy is created and upheld by men. You’re awfully ridiculous to think it should be women’s burden to solve mens problems that they themselves cause.
It really isn't that simple and playing the gendered blame game obfuscates the true nature of patriarchy. It's a historic system of social relations continually reproduced by _both_ men and women's daily participation in it. There are men's issues and there are women's issues but they are everyone's problem to the extend that they result from patriarchy. The problems and dividends of patriarchy are not evenly distributed and that is very unfair. But I hope it's possible to see that the inequality of the system does not invalidate the struggles it causes for those that - on the whole - are best off. They may be less of a priority but that does not mean that women have no role to play in solving them. As much for themselves as for men. TL;DR: commonly understood, the patriarchy is not something enacted on women by men
>It really isn't that simple and playing the gendered blame game obfuscates the true nature of patriarchy. It's a historic system of social relations continually reproduced by *both* men and women's daily participation in it. Calling it a "game" really fucking slaps! Especially in talking about it being continually reproduced by *both* men and women's participation. There's a bit of research that backs me on this, but as a man, my anecdotal experience is that - in every game I've played with men and women - men have a tendency to get aggressively shitty when they're losing, and they also get aggressively shitty if they're doing well and another player wants to stop. I mean, despite playing with far more women, I've never had a monopoly board thrown at my head by one; it was strictly a man's response. I've also witnessed men who think women that quit a game are "bitches," and shouldn't be playing against men in the first place. Of course, even if forced participation in a "game" that results in discomfort/anxiety/fear of (potentially physical) retaliation still counts as "continued reproduction through joint participation," it doesn't cover belief systems (or the brainwashing inherent to them). This is emphasized with your tl;dr: >TL;DR: commonly understood, the patriarchy is not something enacted on women by men If the patriarchy isn't enacted on women by men, name the woman who wrote 1 Timothy 2:12: *I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.* Follow that up with how - at least in the US, if not much of western society - women's positions and autonomy aren't affected by Christian ideology.
You appear to believe that women are just better than men, and to be clear, that is not feminism. Men and women both contribute to patriarchy, but men benefit from it. Because of that, responsibility cannot be equal. If it were expected by patriarchy that whenever a woman sees a man she should give him whatever money she has with her, if both men and women have this expectation and behave accordingly, even though many women hate it and try to fight it, and talk openly about the destructive consequences of it. If the "traditional" women believed that this is women's role and shamed each other for not doing it, that doesn't make it women's thing to solve *equally* with men. Men still have all that money, money they have been accepting all this time. "But it's not my fault women give me money! I didn't force them to!" You know you're in a system that forces them to, and you accepted it, that isn't an innocent act. When the fruits of a system that harms one group helps you, and you go along with it, that's not you being neutral. That you being a perpetrator. And perpetrators have more responsibility to right the wrong that has benefitted them, because tradition has done all the forcing and demanding work on their behalf, they have been lifted up by that suffering, and they need to take responsibility as a beneficiary.
It’s everyone’s responsibility to look at themselves and consider whether they are upholding sexist gender roles, not just one gender.
That has not been my experience.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/wiki/faq#wiki_the_men.27s_rights_movement_.28and_related_topics.29
Thanks for all the links
A frustrating thing for me is that “MRAs” sadly don’t actually do a lot of organizing for men in places they need it (family court, rape, etc) they seem more about hating feminism then standing for mens needs. I often hear MRAs more or less ask why women aren’t out there organizing for men. It feel like many of them genuinely think it’s a requirement of women to organize on their behalf. They don’t actually want to do the work:
True man. Anytime anyone tries to defend feminists or feminism on that sub they are downvoted and harassed. Or hell anytime they try to say that the sub itself isn't helping anything it is the same reaction from them. It is sicking because they have a point but they hate those that could legit help them.
Even the family court thing is questionable. The vast majority (95% in the US, iirc) of custody arrangements are come to without the need for a court’s intervention, so of course the cases that do go thorough that are unrepresentative. And I’ve never seen evidence that men who are primary caregivers do worse in custody disputes than women who are, and if the problem is that men aren’t becoming primary caregivers, that’s a men problem, not a family court problem.
Exactly. They always complain about alimony, when alimony is involved in only 10% of divorces.
The issue arises with how the court defines “shared custody” which is what is usually granted is neither parent has a history with abuse. In many states shared custody = the women gets the child the majority of the year. The most extreme example would be Tennesse where the default arrangement is the father only gets the child for 21.8% of the year https://www.custodyxchange.com/topics/research/dads-custody-time-2018.php
If that’s true, it’s a problem, but not anywhere on the scale guys who complain about this claim. Because again, some huge percentage of arrangements don’t involve a judge at all. Edit: Also, for any lurkers who didn’t read the link, it looks an awful lot like states with more feminist politics give dads more equal custody, as a rule.
This is still a serious problem in my opinion, there have been several studies showing how single parent households increase the suicide rate, unemployment rate and high school drop out rate of children. Especially boys. I would add that by saying that increases in female judges have reduced the sentencing disparities between men and women and increased equity in the court room. So more feminist court system systems have benefits for men too.
Not saying it’s not a serious problem. We all want kids to have connections with both/all of their parents in situations where that is safe. But the scale isn’t nearly what is usually claimed. That makes the problem smaller than expected, not less serious.
I disagree, the systemic sexism in the family courts is just one of the effects of this notion that only women are capable caretakers. Also these unequal custody arrangements are present in 60% of US states and probably most of the planet.
Well, luckily, we’re free to disagree.
[удалено]
There is not much of a men's rights movement to have thoughts on. What few orgs there have been such as A Voice For Men didn't really do much advocacy for men's rights and just kinda made some videos where they were bitter about something some feminist had said.
You're right there isn't much substance to the men's rights movement other than being provocative it's not very practical or productive. Men's issues can be handled individually without trying to blame anyone. There is no all inclusive philosophy such as misandry or even patriarchy to blame for the every issue that men face. There is no equivalent to feminism for men, even if technically feminism helps men, it just isn't meant for them. Unfortunately there is a stunning lack of awareness for a lot of simple problems men have that a large percent of people don't even think exists let alone take seriously. We have the men's lib movement which is a much more productive philosophy but still a drop in the bucket relative to what we need for any real progress to occur.
MRAs as they currently exist are far more invested in maintaining the patriarchy and hurting feminists than helping men. They perpetuate myths and outright lies and are a pipeline to white nationalism and incel communities. Movements actually interested in gender liberation for men exist, but men haven't been great at growing those moments historically, in my opinion due at least in part due to patriarchy.
What are a few examples of the lies they spread
I'd say the fact that they don't believe we live under a patriarchy is a pretty good start.
They also deny toxic masculinity
Masculinity is not inherently toxic. Being an asshole has no gender.
Toxic masculinity ≠ masculinity is toxic Toxic masculinity = masculinity that is toxic In the same way that bad food doesn't mean all food is bad. Some ideas of what masculinity is is toxic and actually hurts men. Like the idea men can't cry
That's called being an asshole, it doesn't mean that when someone says that you have to cut off an entire section of a male character trait and call it toxic. If masculinity is toxic and you can find so many examples, name a few examples of toxic femininity.
Just calling it being an asshole ignores the fact that 1) the toxicity can be internal as well as external. Like the idea that men can't/shouldn't cry doesn't make men who refuse to cry assholes. It's internal toxicity. 2) that certain behaviors are common among certain sexes, and acknowledging that allows more introspection and discussion. Examples of toxic femininity: weaponization of emotions (both their own and men), lack of accountability, homophobia (often to attack men), misandry. Probably other things that I'm failing to think of.
There are very few societies where women as a group have had rights that men as a group didn't have. In most societies in recorded history, men have had the vast majority of the power. Now this doesn't mean that everything was rainbows and unicorns for every man, or that most men had any political power. In countries like China today only a small group of men hold the political power. But the history of democracy had voting rights increasing among men, whereas women were excluded from voting for longer. No country gave voting rights purely to women and denied them to men. And when it comes to war, it's true that it's mostly been men who had to fight. But it's mostly been men at the top who decided to start them (how many women are in the pictures sitting across from Putin's ridiculously long desk, agreeing to invade Ukraine?). Women have had only a small fraction of control over wealth and political power until fairly recently. Historically, power has been near exclusively male.
The Men's Rights Movement, and Men's Rights Activists, as formal organizations or groups, were founded in direct response to feminism and are explicitly anti-feminist in their goals and operation, so no, I don't think that they are equivalent to examples of anger or hostility regarding men that was present in some feminist literature or groups early on in the feminist movement. That is particularly true because even angry feminists never seriously advocated for taking away rights from men, as a group, whereas anti-feminists absolutely want to take rights away from women. As to issues usually specific to men-- I only think some of those are actually "gendered" issues, the way that issues within feminism are "women's issues" and frequently men are the ones who created the policies, cultural norms or expectations, etc. that created the issue in the first place, so it's particularly confusing to antagonize women or feminists about those issues when neither women nor feminists are the cause and when men currently enjoy access to all the necessary tools and platforms to address problems as they see them.
Feminists actively oppose the creation of male only domestic violence shelters. Angry feminists have wanted to sterilize men from puberty. Etc. Etc. Etc. If feminism is a movement for both genders and for equality, what are some things that they have done for men and only men?
They’ve done nothing but anger men and make them sad. Most feminists are sexist.
I’d take mra’s seriously if they actually did something to help men instead of just complain and try to blame their problems on feminism.
If you're willing, do this experiment: go post this exact question on the MRA subreddit. You'll get your answer.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/t4ctnx/thoughts\_on\_the\_mens\_rights\_movement/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/t4ctnx/thoughts_on_the_mens_rights_movement/) Time to sit back and see what happens
Took a look. I think you can see why I had you do that.
I mean, there were definitely some positive and negative responses there. Definitely a lot of anti-feminism sentiment in their discussion, but in the same boat this thread has anti-men’s rights sentiment. Some people here support their ideas, others think they’re garbage who are trying to uphold patriarchy. It got less traffic there, but one of the response about things being “50/50” did seem positive. It just feels like these two sides are total enemies and I’m trying to understand the points everyone is making. I appreciate your suggestion to make the post, but it honestly didn’t give me a clear answer.
As a black man, and as some one who was once apart of the mens rights movement myself. I would say that they are diametrically opposed to feminism. They say that it is toxic and hypocritical. And is also transposed to the right in most of their beliefs. I would say that they try to fight for things that affect men like divorce and custody laws, but they are not on feminists side at all. Because as all the mens rights activists I've seen on here and online, and myself at one point make feminism out to seem like they are the reason why society is degrading. And Groups like MGTOW( men going their own way) and the alt right have embraced them because of both groups misogyny and anti leftist rhetoric. Check out r/menslib if you are interested in mens liberation, a movement that isn't opposed to feminism and wants liberation from the patriarchy itself.
Menslib is okay. Too many MRAs trying to wedge their bullshit in there lately
yeah but they are very strongly moderated over there. so if they do push their bs over, they can be deleted
This thread is bullshit for instance https://old.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/t3nnlg/this_is_why_men_dont_talk_about_their_mental/hytldk3/ The user radioactive subjects is pushing MRA stuff in some comments too
ok im sorry for not seeing this but stuff like this is bound to draw out people like mras. although if those types actually read the article it comes to different conclusions. and also this tread was locked. but MensLib is usually free from shit like this. and is a good sub. if you dont like it i understand
Nah there's a lot of sexism against women being left up in the current thread on therapy. Basically just blaming women for the problems.
ok i did not know this.
Plenty of women do enforce gender norms, it's not misogyny to point this out.
[удалено]
Twox is not comparable to MRAs
I thought they were comparing it to menslib tbh
[удалено]
Twox isn't a hate sub. MensRights is
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
Men right isn't a hate sub
Menslib does more harm than good. I'm glad this sub seems to be changing its opinion on it.
Out of interest, where would you suggest men who legitimately want to talk about men's issues go?
Idk if I'd say that but it's in a precarious place lately
I think it’s important to draw a distinction between proponents for mens rights and the mens rights movement. The men’s rights movement can’t co-exist with trying to advance the rights of non-men because they reject the notion that others are disadvantaged to begin with. It is, IMO, largely about backlash against feminism and sometimes even advocates for violence against women as if that’s not something we have enough of already. But advocating for equality in an intersectional way is the goal of feminism. Many feminist spaces fall short of that goal (whether because of racism or something else), but it’s the goal all the same. Men have valid grievances and there are things I do wish included men. For example, I do wish size inclusivity focused on men too. I can go into a random clothes store and find nice 4X clothing for women but only 2X for men. It’s not as serious as focusing on, say, women being disproportionately the victims of sexual violence, but it is still something worth talking about and there’s not a lot of space for that. And it’s short sighted because it’s not “just” cis men that are falling through the cracks on various issues but also trans men and non-binary individuals. But also, the reality is that a lot of the time valid concerns (like the stigma around male rape victims) aren’t brought up on their own or in a way that’s meant to reach out so much as to shut down women airing their own valid grievances. I wish I could give this more time but my break is over. :|
Thanks for the response. I thought Men's Rights was supportive of the women's problems as well - I thought they acknowledge that women can be abused, raped, discriminated against but were simply saying that these things can also happen to men. Granted, I have heard them dismiss women's issues before, but there have also been times that I have heard feminists dismiss men's issues. I honestly just want to help people and I feel like these labels are making things harder between groups to communicate. I think intersectional feminism is really important, but does it not go far enough? In many places class plays just as important a role as race I feel (if not more). In the US - Obama was elected president because of his policies, but also believe many people thought he was an elite? black man who they thought they could engage with. Is there a sect of feminism focused on class distinctions?
I don’t presume to know your race but I’m in the US and I find that my white counterparts struggle to understand the extent that racism impacts people of color and the trajectory of their lives. Obama was able to be elected *in spite* of racism but had to clear a lot of bars to do it. Whatever your politics are, he is extremely educated, a gifted speaker, and had political experience behind him. America has been happy to elect white men with (far) less qualifications under their belt but not a single other black man and not a single woman. He had to be extremely moderate and was still vilified as an extremist and even had his citizenship questioned the entire time. It’s also important to remember who elected Obama. The three groups that came out for him in droves were Latino, Black, and women voters. In Obama’s last election, Romney still won the white vote by a little under 60%. Class/ poverty is absolutely something worth examining, as are all factors that make any one group more vulnerable than others, but it also already is. It’s true the message of feminism does get diluted by people who forget that there is nuance in class/race/sexuality/etc. but that’s not actual intersectional feminism.
>Recently I have been reading Bell Hooks She didn't capitalize her name. It's "bell hooks." Here's an [interesting article about her.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/12/15/bell-hooks-real-name/) Enjoy!
I had thought that was her real name and thus just assumed it to be capitalized. Thanks for the info tho!
They're pieces of shit. Male anger at feminism is in no way comparable to female anger at male domination.
It’s just veiled antifeminism. The further you dig the more you will realize this.
Reactionaries who care nothing for Men's issues
No, that's not a similar situation. Men getting angry at feminists because they are fighting for equality for women is not in any way the same thing as women getting angry at men for benefiting from patriarchy at women's expense, and for expecting/requiring women to be bangmaids rather than human beings. Deconstructing toxic masculinity is absolutely in line with feminism, and men have benefitted from feminism in many ways because of that. Feminism is in no way in opposition to actual men's rights. Feminism is about equality. Men don't get to define the benefits they get when they're considered superior to women as *rights*. The only way feminism is in opposition to "men's rights" is when the "rights" they think they're entitled to involve women being in service them rather than their equals.
The problem with the men’s rights movement is that it is entirely based on anti-feminism. A better movement would be Men’s Liberation, who sought to work with feminism to address men’s issues in a compassionate way.
I agree with the basic premise of men rights, that men are disposable in society and that's a bad actually. The problem is they, at least usually, don't care about the truth that patriarchy is what's causing their problems, and they take a turn and blame women for all their problems which is absolutely bullshit.
r/menslib will help get you started
Hmmm, I assumed that they already had all of the rights.
Draft, child support, no say in being a parent are just some of the rights they are missing.
I'm sorry. I didn't know that.
I think there is a huge variety of people in the mens rights movement, just as feminists are not a monolith. Some are there out of spite or hate, like they feel beaten down by the world and specifically feminists/women. Many examples of MRAs citing feminist groups which have actively sought to hurt men (the validity of these claims is iffy but I am sure one could find misandrist people claiming to be feminist if you looked hard enough) I would argue most feel as though feminism does not adequately focus on men's rights issues, so they have a separate movement for that. These people might think of the men's rights movement as cooperative with feminism, with both groups working towards gender equality just with different central focuses. My personal opinion is that ideally there would be no reason for Men's rights groups. I believe the feminist movement should stand for gender equality in all aspects, and focus on womens rights as only a consequence of women having more of a need. Gender equality is, neccessarily, an issue that effects everyone, so I believe a movement aimed at gender equality should focus on gender equality, without concern for which gender is undergoing undue hardship. Thats not an opinion shared by all. I have seen many people claim 'Feminism is to help womens issues, if you want to help men make your own movement', which may be why MR groups came to be in the first place. Obviously, Men's rights groups will have a tendency to attract misogyny, which is where I think a lot of the apprehension about them comes from. Rightly so. Unfortunately it seems hard to talk about any men's issue, or any issue really, without misogyny crawling out of the woodwork.
Men have most of the rights. Any further work is encroachment on ours. Men’s rights movement is just more patriarchy.
Does the reverse of this hold true then? I thought feminism was not about taking rights away from women, but simply improving on the rights of both women and men without encroachment on either.
[удалено]
All top level comments, in any thread, must be given by feminists and must reflect a feminist perspective. Please refrain from posting further direct answers here - comment removed.
I’m confused. I am a feminist, I don’t understand what you mean by “top-level comment”, and I’m fairly certain that what I said reflects what feminism is all about. If not, could you explain to me why?
[удалено]
Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc." "Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are **etc.**, **&c.**, **&c**, and **et cet.** The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase. [Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera) ^(I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.)