Is a men's movement right for us?

[Knockturn Alley]

I do believe that the MRA fills the gaps that are left in the feminist movement [which despite what it claims to be isn't about equality], and therefore has a place. However like the feminist movement it is also sometimes hijacked by people to promote the wrong causes. If I can paint the feminist movement with a very broad brush, then I would like to say that its a movement where women decide how "real" men should behave.

Case in point? OP's sig: "Real men like pink"

Typical feminist deciding what constitutes a real man. I'm not even surprised tbh just tired that you don't see your own hypocrisy.

[Costa Fierro]

[*] Women actually have more acceptable options for clothing than men do, especially swimwear and underclothes. Why are men only allowed by society to wear bulky, large swim trunks at the beach?

In America. In Europe men wear whatever they want on beaches, from business suits to speedos. And there's a wide availability of beaches for nudists, too.

TBF you even see budgie smugglers worn by people in the Antipodes too, even if they're just lifeguards.

[Izandai]

I do believe that the MRA fills the gaps that are left in the feminist movement [which despite what it claims to be isn't about equality], and therefore has a place. However like the feminist movement it is also sometimes hijacked by people to promote the wrong causes. If I can paint the feminist movement with a very broad brush, then I would like to say that its a movement where women decide how "real" men should behave.

Case in point? OP's sig: "Real men like pink"

Typical feminist deciding what constitutes a real man. I'm not even surprised tbh just tired that you don't see your own hypocrisy.

"Real men like pink" and similar slogans are generally used semi-ironically as a jokey counterpoint to similar slogans meant seriously that reinforce harmful stereotypes (real men drive trucks, real men shoot guns, real men don't back down from a fight, real men don't cry, etc.). Written more seriously, the concept would be expressed as "real men can like pink" as the idea is that the whole idea of gender-based stereotypes is stupid and people can like whatever colors it pleases them to like. When a feminist says "real men like pink" it's not for the benefit of the men that don't like pink, it's for the benefit of the men that do but are shameful of their affection for minus green and hide it because they've been told all their life that "real men don't like pink."

[Internationalist Bastard]

If that's what's needed for equality, sure, though I'd rather just everyone fight for equality without a focus on feminism or mens rights

[Galloism]

And even then, unless you're talking about abject poverty (which no one should have to experience) that's just a matter of life not being as awesome as it is when you're not poor.

Well, my point was aimed at Galloism's litany of things that suck for poor men, and why exactly those things are feminism's fault? Couldn't the feminist in turn say that disparity is a byproduct of the alleged patriarchy that demands that men be the "breadwinners" to take care of women? Isn't this actually evidence of society's baked in expectations of men ("man the fuck up, grow a pair, get off the government teat and take care of yourself / your woman / your family") And isn't government's increased nanny state interventions into the economic spheres to make poverty survivable with welfare creating a class of emasculated, dependent men which in turn created a class of self-empowering women that want to "man the fuck up" and support themselves where ambitionless men have failed them?

i know, I'm a crazy libertarian.

I picked the things I did for a reason. I didn't pick things like the male only draft or lack of paternity leave or such because although those things are sexist and suck, they can't be traced back to feminism. The lack of resources for DV and rape for men can. The issue of custody can.

More to the point, feminism, as a movement, continues to this day to blame the victim of domestic violence for being a victim if that victim is a man by saying women only react to previous violence. Feminism, as a movement, continues to try to define men who are raped by women out of existence. Feminism, as a movement, still tries to prevent shared parenting laws or presumptive shared parenting laws in every state via fierce political opposition in favor of primary caregiver legislation (knowing about judicial bias, those are de facto maternal preference laws).

Individual feminists can be ok, sure. The movement itself is toxic, regressive, sexist, and against equality when it comes to any issue where a man can be in conflict with a woman.

[Thermodolia]

If that's what's needed for equality, sure, though I'd rather just everyone fight for equality without a focus on feminism or mens rights

What a crazy thought, I do agree.

[Nulla Bellum]

I don't blame the government for there being so many poor people. I blame the government for making the lack of ambition to self-improve survivable. Maslow's heirarchy of self-actualization's basic, bottom level from which every thing rises has been nerfed. The man that does not starve and shiver in the elements because he doesn't have to go out and get his own food, clothing, and shelter is going to be a little boy psychologically all his life. There used to be a shame component to that that freebies have removed, by that I mean mommy government is going to take care of the slackers no matter what. In that environment, why does a man need to strive to improve when his woman doesn't need him to? Mommy Government is taking care of her too.

You really have no idea what it's like to be poor. Tell you what, divest yourself of all your worldly possessions and try to live for a year solely on welfare, then get back to me. Should be a cinch, since "mommy government" will take care of you no matter how much you slack, right?

Should I acquire a self-sabotaging substance abuse problem, maybe break a few laws, unironically wail about how life is unfair and the world holds me back and it's someone else's fault?

Or do you concede that only little boy psychologies remain poor, and men with drive, determination, and ambition do not?

[Chestaan]

In what sense has that anything to do with male dominance? This whole patriarchy hurts men too thing is a load of bullshit and a complete cop out for people to avoid questioning their entrenched views when something like men suffering undermines their narrative.

If patriarchy is a system dominated by men for the benefit of men, and if it then also hurts men, in what way can it meaningfully be called a patriarchy?

The truth is that the average working class man has no more social power than the average woman.

Patriarchy severely restricts acceptable behavior for men. The traditional status of men as the primary economic caregivers gave them a position of authority over women, who were largely dependent on acting in a manner subservient to their husbands. This is clearly a power balance meant to benefit men and tie a woman's success to their ability to attain a man's favor, and as such it is clearly an issue that is far more detrimental to women than men. At the same time, this has led men who earn less than their wives, even today, to be viewed as weak and "unmanly". The representation of men as stoic and unemotional implied that they were rational and could be trusted with leadership positions, whereas women were irrational and driven primarily by their emotions. This makes men more likely to be seen as natural leaders and for the qualification of female leaders to be questioned. It also leads women who display less emotion to be denounced as "cold" or a "bitch", and for men who display emotion to be "sissies", "pussies", or "fags". The repression of male emotion is detrimental to the mental health of men. Men could certainly lead fuller lives if they were allowed to express the full range of emotions that they do feel, but society does not consider acceptable for them to display.

Gender socialization affects all of us, though in different ways. There is no universal view of what is masculine or feminine. What it means to be a man changes according to your nationality, race, class, or religion. We can see the coding of specific values as masculine or feminine and the prioritization of certain factors within different demographics. For example, while most emotions are viewed as feminine in America, aggression is seen as masculine. The extent to which aggression is emphasized can vary according to one's position in society. Upper class white men for example are given little pressure to present overtly aggressive behaviors, as their power and influence is quite readily apparent from their social class. Lower class men and men of color are brought up in a society that states a man should be in control of their life and be capable of doing what they want, yet the broader social restrictions placed upon them because of their class or race prevent them from achieving those cultural expectations of what it means to be a man. Black feminists and socialists feminists have examined how this phenomenon of powerlessness among those who are supposed to have power for being men promotes aggression as a means to overcome their perceived shortcomings as men. If one is perceived as weak, they will do what they must to be seen as strong. There is a reason that the vast majority of murders are committed by men, and that most murder victims are also men. There is also a reason that homophobia, sexism, and racism are often more prevalent among men who are members of the lower class or other marginalized groups. By men putting down women, heterosexual men putting down gay men, and white men putting down people of color, they may not be able to escape their lower class or oppressed status, but they at least can elevate themselves above another group so as to have at least some degree of power.

Patriarchy above all is both an ideology and tool used by those in power with white supremacy and capitalism to justify their status and divide those below them to prevent them from realizing what they share in common as members of the oppressed. Feminism may not be in the interest of upper class, cisgender, heterosexual, white men, but for the vast majority of men, it enables them to define their masculinity however they want to, rather than having it defined by those in power. It, as well as movements for racial equality, economic justice, and the LGBT+ movement, helps unite those who lack true power within our society so as to see past the arbitrary divisions placed upon us an achieve meaningful social change.

And I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but again, in what sense does the system remain a patriarchy if it hurts the vast majority of men?

I suppose what I am asking is, could you define patriarchy?

My problem with the word is more than mere semantics, it implies to the average person that men, all men, are in a position of power. It leads to horrible human beings like Mary Koss and Andrea Dworkin having their bigoted views justified because the system we are within is a patriarchy. It is not patriarchy that has forced the definition of rape to be so one-sided, unless you want to argue that a large part of the feminist movement is perpetuating the patriarchy.

The patriarchy theory allows for such ridiculous ideas as "substantive equality", arguing that women should have certain privileges that are denied to men in some sort of insane bid to fight the patriarchy and make the genders closer to equality.

Also, I take exception to this:

Feminism may not be in the interest of upper class, cisgender, heterosexual, white men...

Is this to say that it IS in the interest of upper class black men? Or upper class gay men? Surely if feminism is hurting the upper class, it also hurts the members of the upper class who are not-white and not heterosexual? In fact, shouldn't it also be against the interest of upper class women?

[Alaizia]

Men and women aren't equal. They have equal importance to the world ultimately, obviously, but some things that men do can't be performed by women. After all, the two sexes have biological differences, so how could they be treated in every situation the same?

But I guess 3rd wave feminists and pathetic white-knights will never accept this.

No reasonable person is asking for men and women to be treated exactly the same in all situations, only for any differences in their treatment to not purely be the result of their sex (except in fringe cases where it's the sex that matters, obviously). A scholarship going to a man instead of a woman because the man is better at math is fine. A scholarship going to a man instead of a woman because the man is a man is not.

Sure. However the last sentence does not even apply to todays situation in universities. It happens quite the opposite actually, with rape culture and white men shaming plaguing campuses these days.

[Nulla Bellum]

Well, my point was aimed at Galloism's litany of things that suck for poor men, and why exactly those things are feminism's fault? Couldn't the feminist in turn say that disparity is a byproduct of the alleged patriarchy that demands that men be the "breadwinners" to take care of women? Isn't this actually evidence of society's baked in expectations of men ("man the fuck up, grow a pair, get off the government teat and take care of yourself / your woman / your family") And isn't government's increased nanny state interventions into the economic spheres to make poverty survivable with welfare creating a class of emasculated, dependent men which in turn created a class of self-empowering women that want to "man the fuck up" and support themselves where ambitionless men have failed them?

i know, I'm a crazy libertarian.

I picked the things I did for a reason. I didn't pick things like the male only draft or lack of paternity leave or such because although those things are sexist and suck, they can't be traced back to feminism. The lack of resources for DV and rape for men can. The issue of custody can.

More to the point, feminism, as a movement, continues to this day to blame the victim of domestic violence for being a victim if that victim is a man by saying women only react to previous violence. Feminism, as a movement, continues to try to define men who are raped by women out of existence. Feminism, as a movement, still tries to prevent shared parenting laws or presumptive shared parenting laws in every state via fierce political opposition in favor of primary caregiver legislation (knowing about judicial bias, those are de facto maternal preference laws).

Individual feminists can be ok, sure. The movement itself is toxic, regressive, sexist, and against equality when it comes to any issue where a man can be in conflict with a woman.

Aren't those biases baked into a patriarchical society though? Men are supposed to be strong, be providers, fight wars, overcome setbacks, lead by example, "take it like a man?" And women are to be weaker, protected, provided for, nurturing the children while the man fulfills his roles?

I can't see how you can hold up actual examples of the patriarchal paradigm's negative consequences upon men who fail to meet those expectations, then blame the patriarchical expectations on feminism. What am I missing here?

[Please Understand]

I keep seeing all this talk about feminism being about equality for women and men, that's untrue. Feminism by name definition is for the superiority of women against men, if one was truly for equality of both men and women then they'd be for Egalitarianism. But they're not, anyway to answer your question yes I believe a men's movement is right, if feminism is supposedly for equality then there'd be no problem with this then would there?

Agree.

[Please Understand]

I keep seeing all this talk about feminism being about equality for women and men, that's untrue. Feminism by name definition is for the superiority of women against men, if one was truly for equality of both men and women then they'd be for Egalitarianism. But they're not, anyway to answer your question yes I believe a men's movement is right, if feminism is supposedly for equality then there'd be no problem with this then would there?

Agree.

[Ashmoria]

A lot of the time, I hear feminists rant about the patriarchy and it's strict ideals based on traditional gender roles. I was looking on Google about stuff related to gender movements, and I've seen a few blogs that suggest feminism can be good for men, and the patriarchy can be bad for men, too.

I myself am not entirely gender-conformist. I can even want to change my born-given boy's name to a totally girl's name like Chelsea if I want. I never was into any sports at all, except for I'm trying to be good with fitness. I can even grow my hair long if I want. But I still identify as male.

I think we need to break down stereotypes and institutional discrimination of both genders, despite what some parts of feminism might focus only on women too much. I don't think a men's movement is right way to do this, per se. Feminism needs to include more men and vice-versa.

I recommend that you talk to some MRA inclined men and see what they think about not entirely gender-conformist men who dress, groom and get exercise as they please.

if you can find a group of men who think that that is perfectly fine, see if they want to start a movement. movements are good.

[Tahar Joblis]

There's been several men's rights movements lately. Unfortunately many of them have been corrupted by actual misogynists.

I have found that I can generally not trust the label "misogynist."

Sometimes it is coincidentally accurate. Frequently, it is not. Any feminist will call anybody advocating on behalf of men - egalitarian or not - "misogynist," along with anyone not currently accepted as having a feminist identity found in opposition to a feminist. (As well as occasionally feminists in opposition to other feminists.)

[Galloism]

I picked the things I did for a reason. I didn't pick things like the male only draft or lack of paternity leave or such because although those things are sexist and suck, they can't be traced back to feminism. The lack of resources for DV and rape for men can. The issue of custody can.

More to the point, feminism, as a movement, continues to this day to blame the victim of domestic violence for being a victim if that victim is a man by saying women only react to previous violence. Feminism, as a movement, continues to try to define men who are raped by women out of existence. Feminism, as a movement, still tries to prevent shared parenting laws or presumptive shared parenting laws in every state via fierce political opposition in favor of primary caregiver legislation (knowing about judicial bias, those are de facto maternal preference laws).

Individual feminists can be ok, sure. The movement itself is toxic, regressive, sexist, and against equality when it comes to any issue where a man can be in conflict with a woman.

Aren't those biases baked into a patriarchical society though? Men are supposed to be strong, be providers, fight wars, overcome setbacks, lead by example, "take it like a man?" And women are to be weaker, protected, provided for, nurturing the children while the man fulfills his roles?

I can't see how you can hold up actual examples of the patriarchal paradigm's negative consequences upon men who fail to meet those expectations, then blame the patriarchical expectations on feminism. What am I missing here?

Feminism, as a movement, supports these things, basically, and has successfully prevented any meaningful reform, even when people tried to reform.

It's like if your house was on fire, and the firefighters came, but I used a gun to threaten them away so they couldn't put out your house. I may not have set the fire, but I'm damn sure responsible for it burning to the ground.

As a matter of sourcing, I will refer you to a few sources to start with.

First, that we've known about women who beat their husbands/partners for 40 years, but researchers who try to study it receive threats on everything from their professional careers to bomb threats. There is only one group that would be interested in suppressing this research.

Second, on the matter of rape, you have well known feminist and social scientist Mary Koss who doesn't think men can be raped by men, and she was on the CDC think tank which adopted a sexist definition of rape that agreed with her original recommendations from 1993 that men who are victims of rape by women the normal way should be excluded.

Regarding custody, you can look at a (now cached) page from the national organization of women NY, which states that they oppose shared parenting, and they heavily imply that men who seek custody are basically abusers trying to abuse their ex-wives more. That's why they seek custody.


In short, if patriarchy is the cause of these things, then feminism, as a movement, is part of the patriarchy. That means to abolish the patriarchy, you must also destroy feminism.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable interpretation.

[Aberashbury]

<br abp="655">Feminism came about when men held more power then women, when in fact women could not hold power, could not vote, etc. It was called feminism because it was a movement to bring the power women posses in line with that of men. It was supposedly intended as an egalitarian movement, one that focused on women because they objectively where less powerful. As to feminists today being egalitarian, some of us are, others who claim the name are not egalitarian, are indeed misandrist. As to having a problem with a men's right movement or advocate or whatever it is you want to call it, no I have no problem with it as an idea in general. There are in fact some parts of the movement I highly support, like the paid paternity leave, the attempt to change the definition of rape to include made to penetrate, the attempt to get male rape and abuse by women recognized, etc.

Well you see here's the thing. As you stated it was to give women more rights that they didn't have way back when yes? Well now we have those rights. If anything western civilization doesn't need feminism. Women aren't stoned with rocks, they aren't(for the most part) abused, women are able to work the same as men, women are able to drive, women are able to wear whatever the hell we want so therefore all previous objectives have been obtained by us. It's unneeded at this point, the middle east is the only place where feminism is actually needed, women there aren't able to vote, drive, leave the house or do anything without their husband or father's permission women there also are required to be dressed head to toe in clothing only their eyes are able to be visible, if that at all.

The Middle-East, Africa, and Asia actually all still need it, not just the ME, but they're the ones who need it the most.

[Maria Ellis]

Feminism is already defined as the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. That being said, it is apparent why feminism would help men. Patriarchal society tends to view women as more docile and submissive, sexual objects or virgin marys; femininity is viewed as weakness, while masculinity is viewed as strength, as power, as authority. However this concept of masculinity greatly hurts men as well as women. As people already mentioned in this thread, men face a huge stigma around being sexually assaulted, physically abused, or raped. Men are less likely to seek resources when they are abused because of the stigma that surrounds male-on-male or female-on-male abuse. In a lot of cases men who do seek help for being abused are told to "suck it up," essentially.

A lot of the stigma around female-on-male sexual abuse in particular comes from the belief that women's sexuality is always submissive and passive, while men are sex-crazed and always aggressive in their sex drive. It's the same reason why girls are bullied for losing their virginity, and young boys are bullied for still being virgins. This stigma around male sexuality is especially prevalent in today's youth; young boys may feel pressured to rush into sex before they are emotionally mature enough to actually handle it.

In addition, boys and men are indoctrinated to repress their emotions from a very early age. "Boys don't cry, only girls cry." Does that sound familiar? The patriarchy indoctrinates us into believing a man must be big and tough and unfeeling, rejecting anything that could be seen as "feminine" and never expressing an ounce of vulnerability. Ironically, being held to this standard actually creates more emotionally vulnerable and insecure men. We need feminism to teach our boys that it's okay to cry, that feelings aren't inherently "girly" or "gay" things you should repress, and that a person's sex should not determine how they are treated in society. Men and Women alike are riddled with societal boundaries that limit us and keep us from reaching our full potential as people. The key is to redefine gender as we know it and do away with the limitations of gender roles and societal expectations.

[Des-Bal]

Feminism is already defined as the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. That being said, it is apparent why feminism would help men. Patriarchal society tends to view women as more docile and submissive, sexual objects or virgin marys; femininity is viewed as weakness, while masculinity is viewed as strength, as power, as authority. However this concept of masculinity greatly hurts men as well as women. As people already mentioned in this thread, men face a huge stigma around being sexually assaulted, physically abused, or raped. Men are less likely to seek resources when they are abused because of the stigma that surrounds male-on-male or female-on-male abuse. In a lot of cases men who do seek help for being abused are told to "suck it up," essentially.

A lot of the stigma around female-on-male sexual abuse in particular comes from the belief that women's sexuality is always submissive and passive, while men are sex-crazed and always aggressive in their sex drive. It's the same reason why girls are bullied for losing their virginity, and young boys are bullied for still being virgins. This stigma around male sexuality is especially prevalent in today's youth; young boys may feel pressured to rush into sex before they are emotionally mature enough to actually handle it.

In addition, boys and men are indoctrinated to repress their emotions from a very early age. "Boys don't cry, only girls cry." Does that sound familiar? The patriarchy indoctrinates us into believing a man must be big and tough and unfeeling, rejecting anything that could be seen as "feminine" and never expressing an ounce of vulnerability. Ironically, being held to this standard actually creates more emotionally vulnerable and insecure men. We need feminism to teach our boys that it's okay to cry, that feelings aren't inherently "girly" or "gay" things you should repress, and that a person's sex should not determine how they are treated in society. Men and Women alike are riddled with societal boundaries that limit us and keep us from reaching our full potential as people. The key is to redefine gender as we know it and do away with the limitations of gender roles and societal expectations.

Feminism may define itself however it pleases but that is just not what it does.

Feminism doesn't address men's problems. You just talked about the problem with female on male domestic abuse, feminism is fighting on behalf of the traditional view. They deny the huge numbers of men being raped by women while inflating the numbers of women raped by men. The demonizing of male sexuality owes a great deal to feminism. Where is the feminist outcry about disparities in sentencing? The only time I've honestly seen a feminist response to the way the justice system treats women is suggesting that we just stop sending women to jail.

Feminism is NOT an adequate response to gender inequality, regardless of how it defines itself feminism cares about women's societal position and little else it's in the fucking name.

[Costa Fierro]

Feminism is already defined as the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes.

No it is not. Feminism is the advocacy of the rights of girls and women. It does not, and should not, fight for the equality of men because what men and women experience and have issues with are unique to them, and neither can fully grasp these experiences or perspectives. Rather than try to approach gender equality from one perspective, we should be encouraging the perspectives of men themselves, especially where men are affected by changes.

That being said, it is apparent why feminism would help men.

No it won't. Feminism doesn't help men because it does not advocate for the rights of boys and men. That is what masculism is for. Feminism, primarily in the Third Wave, has also done more in the name of gender inequality than it has in the name of equality. The main problem is that people fail to acknowledge that what is now considered mainstream feminism was considered to be radical barely even a decade ago. They still assume that the loud radicals are only a minority, not the majority of feminists today.

In this respect, how can a movement where the majority of people who have wholeheartedly adopted misandry be beneficial for men?

As people already mentioned in this thread, men face a huge stigma around being sexually assaulted, physically abused, or raped. Men are less likely to seek resources when they are abused because of the stigma that surrounds male-on-male or female-on-male abuse. In a lot of cases men who do seek help for being abused are told to "suck it up," essentially.

That is an oversimplification of the problem. And whilst it is in part due to societal attitudes towards male victims of domestic and sexual abuse and violence, it is also in part due to the actions of feminists and feminist organisations who have prevented men from being recognised as victims. Groups in India and Israel have prevented the implementation of gender neutral rape laws and prominent feminists within the CDC have openly said that men cannot be raped. This ties in with the misandry that is prevalent in Third Wave feminism; the idea being that men are "aggressors" and women are "victims" in a perpetual cycle of violence. It's interesting that you seem to think that feminism can be good for men because it fights patriarchal attitudes yet feminists have twisted these attitudes to portray men as dangerous animals enslaved by biological instincts. And feminists who are not radicals or who disagree with such attitudes need to start pushing back against them and telling these people that this is unacceptable and it will only further push men away. Ignoring it isn't working and saying #NotAllFeminists isn't going to work either, because I simply refuse to believe that even the majority of feminists don't in part agree or enable these attitudes.

In addition, boys and men are indoctrinated to repress their emotions from a very early age.

Not entirely true. I was never told that "boys don't cry", but because of my Asperger's, I had to reign in my anger, something which I will admit that I have largely failed to do. I mentioned that because unlike girls, boys are taught to exercise self control when it comes to their emotions. Girls are not. Boys and men are not prevented from expressing their emotions but we generally do so when we feel it is appropriate, including anger, grief and others.

There's also an expectation from women as well that their partners are supposed to be their rock on which they tie themselves to and find closure in when things get tough. Men therefore have difficulty expressing their emotions in relationships because women aren't expecting them to be surfaced or manifest in a manner in which they know they can deal with. Because men deal with emotions differently. Often enough just talking about it is enough to at least relieve some of the pressure. More often than not a man's male friends are going to be more supportive and understanding than his wife is, because they are men and they have a better understanding.

In terms of seeking help with mental issues, this ties in more with the stigma surrounding mental health than anything to do with gender. And in many Anglophone countries, mental health systems are hideously expensive and criminally underfunded, so it prevents a lot of men from seeking the right help because of the cost and because of the horror stories that have come out of it. And again, that stigma about admitting that everything isn't fine and asking for help.

[Nulla Bellum]

Aren't those biases baked into a patriarchical society though? Men are supposed to be strong, be providers, fight wars, overcome setbacks, lead by example, "take it like a man?" And women are to be weaker, protected, provided for, nurturing the children while the man fulfills his roles?

I can't see how you can hold up actual examples of the patriarchal paradigm's negative consequences upon men who fail to meet those expectations, then blame the patriarchical expectations on feminism. What am I missing here?

Feminism, as a movement, supports these things, basically, and has successfully prevented any meaningful reform, even when people tried to reform.

It's like if your house was on fire, and the firefighters came, but I used a gun to threaten them away so they couldn't put out your house. I may not have set the fire, but I'm damn sure responsible for it burning to the ground.

As a matter of sourcing, I will refer you to a few sources to start with.

First, that we've known about women who beat their husbands/partners for 40 years, but researchers who try to study it receive threats on everything from their professional careers to bomb threats. There is only one group that would be interested in suppressing this research.

Second, on the matter of rape, you have well known feminist and social scientist Mary Koss who doesn't think men can be raped by men, and she was on the CDC think tank which adopted a sexist definition of rape that agreed with her original recommendations from 1993 that men who are victims of rape by women the normal way should be excluded.

Regarding custody, you can look at a (now cached) page from the national organization of women NY, which states that they oppose shared parenting, and they heavily imply that men who seek custody are basically abusers trying to abuse their ex-wives more. That's why they seek custody.


In short, if patriarchy is the cause of these things, then feminism, as a movement, is part of the patriarchy. That means to abolish the patriarchy, you must also destroy feminism.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable interpretation.

Depends on who's doing the reasoning.

It would seem that the "patriarchy" as described by the feminists is a strawman of society's underlying framework as a whole. They claim they want to tear the structure down when really they just want to repaint the exterior.

[Longweather]

In addition, boys and men are indoctrinated to repress their emotions from a very early age.

Not entirely true. I was never told that "boys don't cry", but because of my Asperger's, I had to reign in my anger, something which I will admit that I have largely failed to do. I mentioned that because unlike girls, boys are taught to exercise self control when it comes to their emotions. Girls are not. Boys and men are not prevented from expressing their emotions but we generally do so when we feel it is appropriate, including anger, grief and others.

I agree with the "boys don't cry" part. I was never taught or told that growing up. The closest thing to repressing emotion that I was taught was to control my temper (this is a no brainer as rage is generally an incredibly negative/dangerous emotion) and to control sexual urges (I'm Catholic, grew up in a fairly liberal Catholic household, and was taught about consent). Though I definitely agree with being taught emotional self-control growing up. That it's not always appropriate to express one's emotions on the spot... "There's a time and a place." It has only been the past couple of years that I've learned that the same isn't necessarily true for women in American society.

[Jello Biafra]

Ideally, feminism would also address men's issues, as it recognizes the correct framework for doing so. Unfortunately, feminism is mostly not doing so.

If patriarchy is a system dominated by men for the benefit of men, and if it then also hurts men, in what way can it meaningfully be called a patriarchy?

Patriarchy is a system dominated by some men, for the benefit of some men with benefits to other men sometimes trickling down.

[Chestaan]

Ideally, feminism would also address men's issues, as it recognizes the correct framework for doing so. Unfortunately, feminism is mostly not doing so.

If patriarchy is a system dominated by men for the benefit of men, and if it then also hurts men, in what way can it meaningfully be called a patriarchy?

Patriarchy is a system dominated by some men, for the benefit of some men with benefits to other men sometimes trickling down.

And what about upper class women? Is it also set up to benefit them? After all, it would be incorrect to say that there are not some members of the elite who are women.

[Maria Ellis]

Feminism may define itself however it pleases but that is just not what it does.

Feminism doesn't address men's problems. You just talked about the problem with female on male domestic abuse, feminism is fighting on behalf of the traditional view. They deny the huge numbers of men being raped by women while inflating the numbers of women raped by men. The demonizing of male sexuality owes a great deal to feminism. Where is the feminist outcry about disparities in sentencing? The only time I've honestly seen a feminist response to the way the justice system treats women is suggesting that we just stop sending women to jail.

Feminism is NOT an adequate response to gender inequality, regardless of how it defines itself feminism cares about women's societal position and little else it's in the fucking name.

Agree to disagree. Feminism has done a lot for gender inequality pertaining to men. Overturning sexist laws, desegregating the military, and perhaps most importantly: Feminists are responsible for changing the FBI's definition of rape to include male victims. To see more sources about how feminism has advanced the rights of men and women, skim over this list made by a very helpful reddit user.

The reason that you're not taught about these things is because usually gender movements are demonized by the media. Feminism in particular is slandered because it is misrepresented by the movement's worst participants. That's what you do when you want to erase the history of a movement. You sensationalize the most extreme, the most radical, the most ignorant members of the movement meanwhile you completely shove aside and ignore the countless other feminists that have actually contributed to human rights.

No it is not. Feminism is the advocacy of the rights of girls and women. It does not, and should not, fight for the equality of men because what men and women experience and have issues with are unique to them, and neither can fully grasp these experiences or perspectives. Rather than try to approach gender equality from one perspective, we should be encouraging the perspectives of men themselves, especially where men are affected by changes.

Feminism always has included the perspective of men. The early suffragettes had to appeal to the morality of men in power in order to gain the right to vote. Nowadays, it is no longer necessary to appeal to men in power to enact changes, which actually makes the movement more inclusive.

That is an oversimplification of the problem. And whilst it is in part due to societal attitudes towards male victims of domestic and sexual abuse and violence, it is also in part due to the actions of feminists and feminist organisations who have prevented men from being recognised as victims. Groups in India and Israel have prevented the implementation of gender neutral rape laws and prominent feminists within the CDC have openly said that men cannot be raped. This ties in with the misandry that is prevalent in Third Wave feminism; the idea being that men are "aggressors" and women are "victims" in a perpetual cycle of violence. It's interesting that you seem to think that feminism can be good for men because it fights patriarchal attitudes yet feminists have twisted these attitudes to portray men as dangerous animals enslaved by biological instincts. And feminists who are not radicals or who disagree with such attitudes need to start pushing back against them and telling these people that this is unacceptable and it will only further push men away. Ignoring it isn't working and saying #NotAllFeminists isn't going to work either, because I simply refuse to believe that even the majority of feminists don't in part agree or enable these attitudes.

Once again, demonizing an entire movement by only addressing the most radical and the most ignorant. Most of what you said here is just blatant generalization; the truth is "most" feminists are just regular women, women who have husbands, sons, and fathers. It's not really common to find a "true" misandrist, even if you have encountered some in real life, those particular examples are not representative of all feminists. Unless, again, you're looking at the few radicals who are on the fringe. For more info on how feminists have combated men's sexual abuse issues, see sources above.

Not entirely true. I was never told that "boys don't cry", but because of my Asperger's, I had to reign in my anger, something which I will admit that I have largely failed to do. I mentioned that because unlike girls, boys are taught to exercise self control when it comes to their emotions. Girls are not. Boys and men are not prevented from expressing their emotions but we generally do so when we feel it is appropriate, including anger, grief and others.

Your personal experience is not representative of all men, just like how a particular feminist is not representative of the whole movement. Personally, I'm a Latina, so I grew up seeing countless little boys being told "los hombres no lloran" y "se un hombre." I know men and boys who have been raped, and who to this day can't bring themselves to seek help or speak out about it. Because they're afraid of being seen as weaklings, they're afraid no one will believe them. I've seen the best men I know harden themselves against pain so much that they turn to stone. But again, this is my personal experience and it doesn't speak for the experience of most men or most Latinos. But you cannot argue that there isn't a stigma against men being sensitive and emotional in our society: there is.

There's also an expectation from women as well that their partners are supposed to be their rock on which they tie themselves to and find closure in when things get tough. Men therefore have difficulty expressing their emotions in relationships because women aren't expecting them to be surfaced or manifest in a manner in which they know they can deal with. Because men deal with emotions differently. Often enough just talking about it is enough to at least relieve some of the pressure. More often than not a man's male friends are going to be more supportive and understanding than his wife is, because they are men and they have a better understanding.

Once again, you ended that on a huge generalization. Honestly, the idea that men can only find understanding and confide in other men is just perpetuating a harmful gender stereotype and creating a division between the sexes. And as far as relationships go, men who reject gender roles reportedly have more satisfying relationships.

In terms of seeking help with mental issues, this ties in more with the stigma surrounding mental health than anything to do with gender. And in many Anglophone countries, mental health systems are hideously expensive and criminally underfunded, so it prevents a lot of men from seeking the right help because of the cost and because of the horror stories that have come out of it. And again, that stigma about admitting that everything isn't fine and asking for help.

Yeah here's some information about Feminists and mental health issues. The reddit link I included in my reply to Des Bal contains an entire section on how feminists, historically, have battled the stigma against mental health.

As far as "masculism" goes, I think men subjecting themselves to traditional concepts of "masculinity" is highly toxic, but that's just me. The answer isn't to create dividing ideologies, it isn't to create a sex war. The answer is to bring to light the part of the feminist movement that has been constantly ignored in the attempt to paint feminists are stereotypical, man-hating baby killers. The truth is, historically, feminism is important. I'm not saying the movement couldn't use some improvement now--believe me, I understand that third-wave feminism has had a history of misrepresenting men, people of color, and queer people. But demonizing an entire movement and the people who identify with it isn't the answer. The key is to work with educated feminists, feminists who understand the divisive issues facing gender equality today. Many do. The key is education, educating men and women about history, educating men and women about mental health, educating men and women about sex and gender. Movements are made of people for a reason.

This is my last post on here cause I've honestly spent way too much time on this. But yeah. If you don't agree with some aspects of feminism, that's fine. But do not make baseless generalizations and try to paint a whole group of people as blood-thirsty succubi. And do not attempt to erase the monumental history of this movement or disregard the women who came before, the feminists who paved the roads of history and gave voice to the voiceless.

[Costa Fierro]

To see more sources about how feminism has advanced the rights of men and women, skim over this list made by a very helpful reddit user.

You mean a post that hasn't got anything in it and hasn't been updated in months? Not to mention a subreddit full of people that are borderline misandrists?

But let's go over your other sources:
Craig vs. Boren: nowhere is any feminist group or individual feminist mentioned.
Moritz vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue: nowhere is any feminist group or individual feminist mentioned.
Feminism in the service of war: no mention of any feminist groups or individual feminists mentioned but rather an argument on why anti-war feminists should be more vocal, something which became more apparently in the feminist outcry following the United States mandating that women sign on for Selective Service.
Change.org petition: whilst this does explicitly mention men and transgenders, no feminist groups or individual feminists are mentioned.
Feminist.org: this makes no mention of men whatsoever. Instead, it's part of the wider feminist campaign to redefine rape to the point where virtually any sexual contact with a woman could be considered rape.

So we have two court cases with no mention of feminist groups, an anti-war article that is more about getting women out of the military and combat roles and two campaigns to change the FBI's definition of rape, with only one mentioning men and transgenders. The only feminist source you provided did not mention men being victims at all, only perpetrators according to the quotes from former Vice President Joe Biden's speech.

Do you actually have anything of substance to show us or do you think that because you provide is with a variety of links that somehow we're too stupid to figure out that you're pulling the proverbial wool over our eyes?

Feminism in particular is slandered because it is misrepresented by the movement's worst participants.

Or maybe it's because the radicals are now mainstream?

Feminism always has included the perspective of men.

No it hasn't. Feminism by it's very definition is the advocacy of rights for women and girls.

The early suffragettes had to appeal to the morality of men in power in order to gain the right to vote.

Not always. And those that did knew they had to work within the patriarchal society of the late 19th/early 20th century because being provocative would not get them anywhere. Once universal suffrage was introduced, feminists became bolder and more confident.

Now they are quite happy to embrace misandry because society still believes the utter lie that feminism is still a force for good.

Nowadays, it is no longer necessary to appeal to men in power to enact changes, which actually makes the movement more inclusive.

No it doesn't, it just makes it more confrontational. Appealing to men is how you make things more inclusive. Telling men that they are violent, aggressive rapists and that feminists and feminism is here to rid us of our savagery and barbarism isn't appealing at all.

Once again, demonizing an entire movement by only addressing the most radical and the most ignorant.

The radicals are mainstream now. They're not in a minority anymore. Liberal and moderate feminists are. You lost that influential role in the movement because you steadfastly refused to acknowledge the growing radicalism within the movement. Most of us here would be feminists if it weren't for the blatant misandry that mainstream feminism now exhibits and the actions in which said misandry manifests. But we are not, because we cannot live with the fact that if we did, we'd be throwing our fellow men under the bus and continuing the blatant institutional and societal sexism that exists against men.

Most of what you said here is just blatant generalization; the truth is "most" feminists are just regular women, women who have husbands, sons, and fathers.

And so are masculinists and MRA's. That doesn't change anything about what I have said. And it's not a generalisation at all, it's fact. The feminist mainstream is radical, it's embraced misandry, it's continuing the institutional and societal sexism that exists against men and liberal feminists don't want to acknowledge that because it would mean that they failed to keep the movement moderated.

It's not really common to find a "true" misandrist, even if you have encountered some in real life, those particular examples are not representative of all feminists. Unless, again, you're looking at the few radicals who are on the fringe. For more info on how feminists have combated men's sexual abuse issues, see sources above.

Again, this is exactly what I am getting at. You're refusing to acknowledge that the radical is now mainstream. Why? Why do you fail to acknowledge what is sitting right in front of you? You're going both men and women a disservice by continuing to refuse to acknowledge the current state of affairs within the feminist movement.

Stop pretending that the radicals are on the fringe because they are not. The sooner that happens, the sooner more men can accept feminism and even become feminists.

Your personal experience is not representative of all men

I find this hugely amusing and ironic. Mainly because I never said that my personal experience was representative. Neither is yours.

But you cannot argue that there isn't a stigma against men being sensitive and emotional in our society: there is.

I never said that there wasn't, but that stigma is more to do with the stigma and lack of understanding surrounding mental health, rather than anything to do with men.

Once again, you ended that on a huge generalization.

I didn't end it on a huge generalisation at all. Most women expect their partner to be someone they can rely on when things get tough. However they are less accepting then their partner needs help because it calls into question their partner's emotional state and ability to deal with problems and stress. It's not a generalisation at all, it's fact. Not all women do this, but the majority of them do.

Honestly, the idea that men can only find understanding and confide in other men is just perpetuating a harmful gender stereotype and creating a division between the sexes.

No it does not. More than likely a men has known his friends longer than he has known his wife or partner. He would be more willing to talk about things to his friends because they are men and they know how men deal with things. A woman does not, because she was raised differently and does not know any other way to deal with mental stress and other problems.

And as far as relationships go, men who reject gender roles reportedly have more satisfying relationships.

I don't see how men "rejecting" gender roles (because apparently not knowing how to cook and clean is somehow expected of a man) is relevant to how men deal with mental health and stress. As for the idea that feminism improves relationships, I've yet to see a peer reviewed study that confirms such claims. It's mostly bunk anyway, as is any other "scientific" studies relating to relationships because they're inherently harmful to men anyway. I did notice that it said that they were more beneficial for women, not men. And those men that did date feminists were also like more submissive and thus more likely to not establish boundaries or dominance within a relationship, something which a lot of women find attractive.

Yeah here's some information about Feminists and mental health issues. The reddit link I included in my reply to Des Bal contains an entire section on how feminists, historically, have battled the stigma against mental health.

For women.

As far as "masculism" goes, I think men subjecting themselves to traditional concepts of "masculinity" is highly toxic, but that's just me.

Well then you would not absolutely nothing about masculism. Masculism is the advocacy of rights for men and boys. That's it.

The answer isn't to create dividing ideologies, it isn't to create a sex war. The answer is to bring to light the part of the feminist movement that has been constantly ignored in the attempt to paint feminists are stereotypical, man-hating baby killers.

Liberal feminism and other moderates have not been ignored, you've just been pushed out because you've failed to acknowledge the proverbial barbarians at the gate by claiming that they don't represent all feminists or are in a minority. In a movement that is as influential as feminism is, it's difficult to make the claim that somehow liberal feminists are a majority, yet are ignored as part of some sort of nefarious plan to discredit or push back against feminism.

But demonizing an entire movement and the people who identify with it isn't the answer.

I'm not demonising an entire movement, I'm calling a spade a spade. If you don't like the fact that the feminist mainstream is more radical than it has been at any point in its existence, feel free to do something to change that instead of claiming that you're not cut from the same cloth as those who have embraced misandry.

But do not make baseless generalizations and try to paint a whole group of people as blood-thirsty succubi. And do not attempt to erase the monumental history of this movement or disregard the women who came before, the feminists who paved the roads of history and gave voice to the voiceless.

One, I am a misogynist. Painting a whole group of people as blood thirsty succubi is what I do best. Secondly, you have no right to tell me what to do. I'm going to continue making sure that people know the truth about Third Wave feminism and about what's happening regarding to men's position in society. If you don't like that, tough.