You will be no better than the people you’ll fight against. I’ve seen it happen on every pro-men subreddit, and if this place isn’t aggressively moderated to dispel hopelessness, negativity, and prejudice, it’ll just turn into hate.
Incel, mens-rights activist, red-pill, black-pill, MGTOW, etc. don’t let the haters join otherwise this community will end up just like the aforementioned.
Egalitarian from a male perspective is what we should be, not pro-male (I say male because of sex and gender).
Be excellent to each other.
Did you read the pinned welcome thread?
It is because we are egalitarian and pro-human that we are pro-men as well as pro-women. And because men are human and have human rights, men also deserve to have their rights advocated for. This community welcomes everyone who comes without hate or bigotry, to discuss men’s issues.
I just did. And honestly it doesn’t leave me hopeful for this space. Boosted comments in that thread overly generalise feminism and even place blame on feminism as a whole for issues that men face. Comments saying that feminism is an egalitarian movement are reduced.
Men’s advocacy is important. There are perspectives on issues that men offer that other genders cannot, the same way there are perspectives that women can offer but other genders cannot. And not all feminist advocacy is created equal, some of it is not great. But the generalised blame game is precisely the sort of tribalistic thinking that so often leads men’s advocacy spaces into misogyny, where women’s advocacy is treated as an infringement on men.
Then you need to adjust your perspective. Feminism is an ideology that has from the start been steeped in misandry. That is what we oppose. Sure, there are individual feminists who may promote actual equality. But show us the actual feminist thought leaders, academics, lobbyists and politicians who do. The majority in practice support sexist ideas and policies.
Because unfortunately, in practice feminism too often is not egalitarian, but paints men collectively as oppressors. We oppose that unhealthy, sexist view of men.
We are pro women’s advocacy. We simply oppose misandry as well as misogyny.
No, I don’t actually need to do anything. I’m stating my opinion, like everybody else is. I just think that you are wrong. And I think that that perspective will lead this space nurturing the sort of tribalistic blame-game that has been seen in previous overtly misogynistic MensRights spaces.
This is an over-generalisation of feminism.
Like, radical feminists often outright loathe liberal feminists. Intersectional feminists have long been critical of the strands of feminism focused on traditional, white, femininity. Queer feminists tear apart TERFs (although while TERFs claim the label of feminist, they tend to enforce rigid gender distinctions so many people, including myself, don’t think they are feminists at all). The label “feminism” refers to a massive, multifaceted, many-decades-long field of study and discourse, full of differing perspectives and internal disagreements and discussions.
It’s like what the right-wing does with terms like “woke” or “cancel culture”. It lumps together a diverse set of beliefs, which are often in opposition to one another, under a single label and talks about them as if they’re one single unified ideology or movement. It then picks the worst examples from that set of beliefs and uses it to tar everything under the label. Any counter examples can be dismissed as “individuals” who are not representative of the set as a whole.
Feminists regularly state that men as individuals are not well served by a patriarchal system.
Heck that’s a big part of what feminist conversation around “toxic masculinity” is about: how a patriarchal system hurts everybody, including the individual men within it.
A lot of this is just the misunderstanding of “men” as a social group, and “men” as individuals. Critique of the social systems affecting a group cannot be simply applied to every individual within that group. That’s not how critique of social systems is intended.
In the welcome thread you favourited comments that consider feminism to have a “focus on female supremacy” and to be “genocidal”. That same comment thread deliberately misinterprets feminist distinction between “group” and “individual” and considers that some sort of malicious deception.
To be very frank, you are not pro women’s advocacy if that is the sort of generalisation that you encourage.
And just practically speaking, meaningful men’s advocacy is only going to gain actual traction by working with feminists towards egalitarianism. So long as there is a focus on tearing down this falsely constructed boogeyman of “feminism”, this will be little more than finger-pointing.
Says you. But you didn’t give any of the evidence asked for.
So men in general are bad, but some individuals are okay? Yeah, that’s misandry. And that’s why we cannot work with most feminist activists. They are bigots.
I’ve tried. I’ve honestly tried. When I was active on Reddit I tried to ally with a feminist or feminist-adjacent group that would not demonize men. I found a few individuals, but no community (/subreddit) that would actually embrace men as equals and oppose misandry.
And that’s a reflection of what happens in politics. Feminist politicians, lobbyists, and activist groups often say they want equality, but their actions often show the opposite.
It often does.
I don’t agree with that. Just because I upvote a comment does not mean I agree with every phrase in it.
How so? Doesn’t feminism habitually demonize men as a group? And isn’t demonizing people based on innate characteristics bigotry?
Nonsense. Don’t you understand the difference between a gender and an ideology? We are pro women, but oppose feminist ideology because of its misandry.
(Yes, there are schools of feminism that are not, but they are fringe.)
That sounds a bit like meaningful black advocacy is only going to gain actual traction by working with white supremacists towards egalitarianism.
There is no working with bigots.
(And yes, I’m aware there are many “passive” feminists who believe the propaganda that the movement is for equality. We welcome them to open their eyes and work with us.)
But if there are feminists who are pro men and pro equality, we would love to work with them. The problem is that in practice they are very hard to find.
I responded your assertions with the same amount of evidence that you made them with. Which is none.
I’m giving my opinion. You don’t have to take it. And I don’t have to spend any more effort than I feel like in responding to you.
This is literally just individualising systemic criticism again. The exact thing my comment was saying it is a misunderstanding to do.
I’m being sincere when I say: You do not seem understand the words that feminists are saying.
I really do need you to realise that. If that is how you interpret feminist critique of social systems, that “men in general are bad”, then you do not understand feminists arguments as they are intended. You are deadset against a strawman.
Your attempts to engage with feminism are almost certainly going to be coloured by that misunderstanding. Because when a feminist says ABC, and you are seemingly determined to hear XYZ instead, and because of that you begin throwing around accusations, those interactions are going to become combative.
Complete cop out. You are a moderator of this space. If you allow, and even show tacit support for such ridiculous tribalism, you cannot later be suprised when the community you foster embodies that.
I’m not a man, but I used to be pretty sympathetic to the MensRights crowd. I am still sympathetic to men’s advocacy because I think men’s issues are important, both to men as individuals and to a healthy society. But those previous communities were misogynistic because they were more concerned with blaming feminism and women than building something healthy.
Right back at you. Your attempts to separate “women’s advocacy” from “feminism” just reads like you, as a man, want to determine the acceptable limits of women’s advocacy.
You need evidence for feminism being misandrist?
I mean, I can give you that, as there is plenty to go around, starting from the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments painting men in general as tyrannical oppressors.
Do you need us to make a list?
No. There is a difference between criticizing a system and criticizing a gender. I’m all for criticizing traditional gender norms, but I’m vehemently opposed to demonizing men.
Just like you reject the misogyny in some corners of the men’s movement (as do I), I reject the misandry so prevalent in feminism.
And exactly because misandry is so prevalent in feminism (and reflected in its theory), I call those who wish to advocate for women from an egalitarian perspective to distance themselves from it.
There is a difference between criticism of social systems and criticism of individuals living within those systems.
But you are hell-bent on misunderstanding and conflating the two. Deliberately so it seems.
Just look at how you write this, for goodness sake.
Misogyny is “in some corners” of the men’s movements, but misandry is “so prevalent” in feminism? As if misogyny isn’t rife is many men’s rights spaces, the misogyny is so prevalent it’s become a joke to the rest of the Internet.
There is a guy in this magazine just straight up denying women’s historical suffering and suggesting that women don’t actually know mistreatment, or perhaps he’s suggesting worse, that they’re lying about it.
The misogyny is already here.
Alright. Good luck with that. Lol.
That’s not what I said. I said: There is a difference between criticizing a system and criticizing a gender. As in, there is a difference between criticizing social phenomena (or groups of people choosing to behave in certain ways), and criticizing groups of people by innate characteristics.
Methinks the deliberate misunderstanding is on your part.
Yes, that is my observation.
It’s not. That’s mostly smears from the feminist camp, especially based on a confusion of criticism of feminism with criticism of women.
And what happens in men’s rights spaces is quite in opposition to the feminist camp, where misandry is embedded in their theory, even tho people usually defend it.
Then please report that comment / those comments. I’m human and the moderation tools here are rudimentary. It’s not easy for me to see everything, but misogyny is not welcome here.
But they all agree to at the very least use wording to imply that men are to blame for everything.
And while it’s true that different factions will have different perspectives, the one perspective that is never properly accounted for is the one of self-respecting men.
So while it’s impossible to nail down a clear and complete position held by Feminism, it’s misandrist impact on society is very clear. This is the natural consequence of constructing an ideology focusing on women’s well being without real concern for men’s wellbeing for decades.
I agree. I scrolled through the comments (even responded to some) and this community is already heading towards where the feminist communities are heading: blaming the “other side” for everything.
It’s not productive in any way and only serves to widen the gap between both communities.
Great comment. I think the framing for a lot of the issues men face get mixed up here. I casually scrolled through the post about the Reference book of Men’s Issues(RBOMI) and at a quick glance two thing stuck out to me:
There was a point about how most of the homeless population is men, around 90% or something, but women make up 25% of shelter/housing resources. First, the framing. If 90% of the homeless population is men, then by grace of majority every discussion about homelessness as a whole is going to be male-centric. There is no need to specify or specifically call to men. Secondly the article they reference from the BBC does indeed state those numbers but the RBOMI doesn’t explain that yes, these numbers are accurate but that’s because most of the women using those resources have kids with them that need to be cared for.
The second thing that stuck out to me was in that same point the RBOMI claimed it was likely due to “male disposability” although there is no reference link for that assertion. That is a claim the post is making by itself based on a flawed understanding of the issues that affect men. That attribute, that I want to reiterate is completely made up, is meant to have an emotional response in the reader, to make them angry, to make them afraid that it could be them.
I was pretty far down the track of stereotypical MRA/Incel/forever alone when I was younger and the posts here remind me of that and it is scary. I am worried for the community and for the men here.
That’s great. Hopefully the moderators will uphold that view.
Despair and the longing for understanding, can easily be exploited to guide people onto a path of anger and hate.
Good luck with the community.
deleted by creator