Is a men's movement right for us?

[Costa Fierro]

I don't think a men's movement is necessary

It is absolutely necessary. Men don't even have most of their issues acknowledged by society. Everyone acknowledges how awful it is if a woman is raped or beaten by her partner, but when it happens to a man, he is mocked, called a pussy and never taken seriously, even by police. And these aren't just isolated cases, it's widespread. The fact that we have people thinking men already have "too many rights" and therefore masculism or other such movements are necessary only further proves that we need masculism more than ever. How can we hope to have a gender equal society if only one side has a movement advocating for them?

I think the approach espoused by figureheads for HeForShe is a great start, making the problem of gender politics an issue approached using collaborative action to help fix problems faced by both sexes a main goal.

Collaboration would not work, because no one would be able to agree on whether or not men actually have problems worth fixing. Certainly I wouldn't put any money on any HeForShe feminists even acknowledging that men can be raped or can be domestic violence victims, let alone agreeing to do something about that.

Men and women face often unreasonable challenges and the best means of going about it is for everyone to be working together toward eliminating those problems.

That would be nice, but it's not realistic. Feminist groups and organisations have shown time and time again over the last decade or so that they are not interested in pursuing gender equality, no matter what liberal feminists say.

[Chestaan]

Here's how male dominance and traditional roles include harm to men:
[*] Men are supposed to be financially supportive and have a job w/ money to attract any women at all. What if the man suffers a disability or is a late-bloomer in life? I never worked any low-level job before and I'm in my twenties already, so it sucks. Nobody believes how many obstacles I have because of a disability, to get a life started.
[*] 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?
[*] etc... you pick something else

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.

[Giovenith]

Ideally, there would be a collective gender transition movement, not just two movements for men and women. Until then, I see no harm in a men's movement.

I don't think that there anything inherently exclusionary about feminism to men's issues, and I understand that the name comes from a time when women had the short stick, but I can also understand why some might not feel comfortable placing men's issues under a broad banner named in favor of women. There's room for both feminism and MRM, they can work as two halves of a single machine, you can have more than one label - 50% feminist, 50% MRA, 100% gender equalist.

That is, of course, if both sides can get their collective shit together.

[Giovenith]

Here's how male dominance and traditional roles include harm to men:
[*] Men are supposed to be financially supportive and have a job w/ money to attract any women at all. What if the man suffers a disability or is a late-bloomer in life? I never worked any low-level job before and I'm in my twenties already, so it sucks. Nobody believes how many obstacles I have because of a disability, to get a life started.
[*] 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?
[*] etc... you pick something else

Yeah, considering most men's issues revolve around the fact that everyone expects them to be unreasonably powerful and in control of everything, calling it a result of "male dominance" completely shoots you in the foot and puts you back where you starte

The second you start saying one of the sexes is the "dominant one" in society is when you fail at truly understanding gender issues. It's more complicated than that. There are some ways men get unfair dominance, there are some way women get unfair dominance, all are as a result of stereotypes, not all are necessarily a result of traditional roles though I'd say most are. If you insist on twisting men's disadvantages in society as also somehow being a result of them totally not being disadvantaged, you're not offering any real help.

[Threlizdun]

Here's how male dominance and traditional roles include harm to men:
[*] Men are supposed to be financially supportive and have a job w/ money to attract any women at all. What if the man suffers a disability or is a late-bloomer in life? I never worked any low-level job before and I'm in my twenties already, so it sucks. Nobody believes how many obstacles I have because of a disability, to get a life started.
[*] 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?
[*] etc... you pick something else

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.

[Neo Balka]

^the above post is bullshit.

[Giovenith]

^the above post is bullshit.

I'm sure we'd all love to hear your thoughts more indepth.

[Neo Balka]

^the above post is bullshit.

I'm sure we'd all love to hear your thoughts more indepth.

Typical anti capitalist/Marxist feminist bullshit that offers for no real solutions on the internet except moan about it on the internet.

[Costa Fierro]

Patriarchy severely restricts acceptable behavior for men.

The "patriarchy" doesn't really restrict male behaviour at all. Most men don't fall within what is considered to be "acceptable", and these stereotypes of what men are supposed to be are perpetrated largely by women, who put their personal beliefs and desires about what a man should be into those stereotypes. What is considered to be "manly" is largely what is considered attractive to women in terms of looks, dress, behaviour, attitude etc.

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.

Not true at all. Women in most relationships may not earn as much as their partner, but they control the finances in the majority of relationships. This gives women a massive amount of influence and power in relationships because they get to dictate what their money is spent on. And a woman's success isn't tied to their ability to attain a man's favour, far from it. Success as a man is defined by his ability to be useful and provide. Success as a woman is merely to have a rich husband, because it means she doesn't have to work. I don't know how you can look at what is defined for success in life between men and women and come to the rather moronic conclusion that simply being pretty and having a rich husband is somehow detrimental for women. They don't have to work hard in order to be successful, because half of that success is already achieved through genetics anyway.

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.

Men can and do express a full range of emotions around other men, but we deal with them in different ways. The problem is that a lot of men don't open themselves up around women, because women expect men to be their emotional rock in the relationship. More often than not, women will react negatively to men opening up on their feelings because they expect men to be there for them and don't want to return the favour. Men on the other hand are a lot more supportive, even if the way we show our support is different to how women do it.

Men also deal with emotions in different ways. A lot of the time they don't do something about it because they don't want to worry other people, they would rather simply acknowledge that there's a problem but don't want to do anything about it because society still hasn't really come to terms with mental health as a whole rather than men dealing with their emotions.

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.

"Patriarchy" does not exist in the West and cannot be considered as an ideology, because there is no clearly defined tenets or stipulations for something to be considered an ideology. It lacks a developed intellectual foundation from which an ideology grows. You have communism as an ideology because you have communist thought outlined in publications such as the Communist Manifesto. You have fascism as an ideology because it has been defined by intellectuals and by fascists themselves. None of this has existed for "patriarchy", because even if it was present in the West, there is no clear definition of what constitutes "patriarchy".

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.

Feminism isn't in the interest of any self-respecting men at all. No matter what colour your skin is, social class or sexuality, because you were born with a penis, you are automatically considered public enemy numero uno. Third Wave feminism as a whole has embraced misandry and has absolutely no qualms about engaging in actions and ideas that openly discriminate against men or preserve social and legal privileges of women. It's why we have seen feminist groups in India and Israel fighting against gender neutral rape laws: because doing so would preserve the privileged status of women under the current gendered laws in those countries. Don't forget that men have to fight to get themselves recognised as victims by society, let alone legal changes to existing laws.

[Ambarii]

I'm sure we'd all love to hear your thoughts more indepth.

Typical anti capitalist/Marxist feminist bullshit that offers for no real solutions on the internet except moan about it on the internet.

You seem to have a habit of responding to multi-paragraph comments with one or two sentences. If you don't want to provide an actual argument, maybe just don't post at all.

[Galloism]

I'm not going to address the rest because I don't want to lower myself by arguing against fairy tales like the patriarchy, but I did want to address this.

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.

This isn't in any way true. Feminism, as a movement, is especially harsh against lower class, heterosexual men, both gay and straight, of every race. Upper class men have the means generally to avoid the worst of feminism's abuses, but lower class men have no such recourse.

We know that violence is correlated with lower class, especially being a victim of violence. This means that most of the men who can't get help when they're being abused by their spouse due to efforts of feminists to bury them? Mostly lower class. Men who are raped by women and can't get help and are threatened with arrest if they try to file a report because of the feminist narrative that men are almost never raped and even then only raped by other men? Mostly lower class. Men who lose all access to their children because they can't afford a lawyer and so they lose everything based on the feminist narrative that men who seek custody are abusers by default? Mostly lower class. Men who are imprisoned over 60% longer than women for the same crime? Mostly lower class. Men who are arrested after being beaten by their partners? Mostly lower class. Those who can't afford treatment for prostate cancer while almost every state medicaid program covers breast cancer? All lower class.

Feminism, as a movement, has been devastating against lower class men. It's not just not in upper class white heterosexual men's interests - it's not in any man's interest, but especially the lower class.

[San Marlindo]

Yes OP, like you a lot of times I hear feminists rant about the patriarchy.

But more often I hear MRAs rant about feminism.

I can't tell which I find more irritating.

[Donut section]

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.

As far as I can tell patriarchy is usually called upon by feminist supremacists when they want to push for unequal treatment in favour of women. It's not a real theory or framework to address actual problems as it's basis is "there's a majority of men with political/economic power and that's bad because penises."

I think we need to change what support networks we have to gender neutral. And allow people to succeed on their own merits as gender based entitlement is more damaging than helpful.

Removing gender based preferential treatment across all branches of law would also be swell. And the sort of thing we need a MRM for.

[Longweather]

I'm not going to address the rest because I don't want to lower myself by arguing against fairy tales like the patriarchy, but I did want to address this.

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.

This isn't in any way true. Feminism, as a movement, is especially harsh against lower class, heterosexual men, both gay and straight, of every race. Upper class men have the means generally to avoid the worst of feminism's abuses, but lower class men have no such recourse.

We know that violence is correlated with lower class, especially being a victim of violence. This means that most of the men who can't get help when they're being abused by their spouse due to efforts of feminists to bury them? Mostly lower class. Men who are raped by women and can't get help and are threatened with arrest if they try to file a report because of the feminist narrative that men are almost never raped and even then only raped by other men? Mostly lower class. Men who lose all access to their children because they can't afford a lawyer and so they lose everything based on the feminist narrative that men who seek custody are abusers by default? Mostly lower class. Men who are imprisoned over 60% longer than women for the same crime? Mostly lower class. Men who are arrested after being beaten by their partners? Mostly lower class. Those who can't afford treatment for prostate cancer while almost every state medicaid program covers breast cancer? All lower class.

Feminism, as a movement, has been devastating against lower class men. It's not just not in upper class white heterosexual men's interests - it's not in any man's interest, but especially the lower class.

I... I hadn't thought about it in that way. Damn, you've added another thing to add to my general worries about society ... another thing to emotionally repress because it's so damn depressing and I don't have a support structure to adequately deal with my emotional response to it.

[Des-Bal]

The men's rights movement as it exist is largely a hostile response to feminism that internalizes many of it's issues. The result is that just like feminism it's often not helpful for large segments of people.

[Nulla Bellum]

I'm not going to address the rest because I don't want to lower myself by arguing against fairy tales like the patriarchy, but I did want to address this.

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.

This isn't in any way true. Feminism, as a movement, is especially harsh against lower class, heterosexual men, both gay and straight, of every race. Upper class men have the means generally to avoid the worst of feminism's abuses, but lower class men have no such recourse.

We know that violence is correlated with lower class, especially being a victim of violence. This means that most of the men who can't get help when they're being abused by their spouse due to efforts of feminists to bury them? Mostly lower class. Men who are raped by women and can't get help and are threatened with arrest if they try to file a report because of the feminist narrative that men are almost never raped and even then only raped by other men? Mostly lower class. Men who lose all access to their children because they can't afford a lawyer and so they lose everything based on the feminist narrative that men who seek custody are abusers by default? Mostly lower class. Men who are imprisoned over 60% longer than women for the same crime? Mostly lower class. Men who are arrested after being beaten by their partners? Mostly lower class. Those who can't afford treatment for prostate cancer while almost every state medicaid program covers breast cancer? All lower class.

Feminism, as a movement, has been devastating against lower class men. It's not just not in upper class white heterosexual men's interests - it's not in any man's interest, but especially the lower class.

Forgive my bluntness, but isn't being poor supposed to suck?

[Izandai]

Forgive my bluntness, but isn't being poor supposed to suck?

No.

[Donut section]

I'm not going to address the rest because I don't want to lower myself by arguing against fairy tales like the patriarchy, but I did want to address this.



This isn't in any way true. Feminism, as a movement, is especially harsh against lower class, heterosexual men, both gay and straight, of every race. Upper class men have the means generally to avoid the worst of feminism's abuses, but lower class men have no such recourse.

We know that violence is correlated with lower class, especially being a victim of violence. This means that most of the men who can't get help when they're being abused by their spouse due to efforts of feminists to bury them? Mostly lower class. Men who are raped by women and can't get help and are threatened with arrest if they try to file a report because of the feminist narrative that men are almost never raped and even then only raped by other men? Mostly lower class. Men who lose all access to their children because they can't afford a lawyer and so they lose everything based on the feminist narrative that men who seek custody are abusers by default? Mostly lower class. Men who are imprisoned over 60% longer than women for the same crime? Mostly lower class. Men who are arrested after being beaten by their partners? Mostly lower class. Those who can't afford treatment for prostate cancer while almost every state medicaid program covers breast cancer? All lower class.

Feminism, as a movement, has been devastating against lower class men. It's not just not in upper class white heterosexual men's interests - it's not in any man's interest, but especially the lower class.

Forgive my bluntness, but isn't being poor supposed to suck?

Only in the sense of limited funds.

[Izandai]

Forgive my bluntness, but isn't being poor supposed to suck?

Only in the sense of limited funds.

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.

[Risottia]

[*] 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.

[Nulla Bellum]

Only in the sense of limited funds.

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.

[Izandai]

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.

See, I was with you until you started saying the government is to blame for there being so many poor people because of its efforts to make there be fewer poor people. But this isn't really the thread to get into that.

[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.

See, I was with you until you started saying the government is to blame for there being so many poor people because of its efforts to make there be fewer poor people. But this isn't really the thread to get into that.

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.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

Right?
It was inevitable.

[Izandai]

See, I was with you until you started saying the government is to blame for there being so many poor people because of its efforts to make there be fewer poor people. But this isn't really the thread to get into that.

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?