The title and some comments read like a revelation of people who, without looking into it, assumed feminism is for women or is anti men and are surprised that the movement actually wants to free everyone from the cycle of abuse.
Every movement has a canon: the core principles behind it, a mythology about its history, and the textbook statement of its objectives.
Every movement also has a reality. Thousands or millions of people with their own ideosynchratic beliefs forming a complex social web. Within this web, a vibrant biosphere of memes [0] develop, spread and evolve on this social web. A movement is simply a name we give to a cluster of memes within this complex web. It is not any of the myths we tell about it; those are merely particular memes holding the cluster together.
The author of this article is a self described liberal feminist. She identifies a change that occurred within her bubble of feminism, where it became increasingly anti-man.
To be clear, that is not all the author says. Once she gets to the “Let’s talk about how the patriarchy harms men and boys” section, she stops the meta conversation about the movement itself, and spends the rest of the article discussing mens issues directly.
However, to your comment, and the first part of the article, maybe we need to stop hiding behind the mythology we tell ourselves about feminist; and start recognizing that the “feminist” portions of the social web are still susceptible to anti-feminist memes.
[0] in its original sense; as a direct analog to the genes of biology.
assumed feminism is for women
It’s because of the name and history of fighting for women. The movement should have gone for “egalitarianism” if they didn’t want people to think of women first/exclusively.
It’s why I’ve vehemently rejected the label of feminist even when I’m in feminist spaces with feminist friends: I’m here for everyone, there’s a word for that, use it.
Except movements are often named after the oppressed group. Black Lives Matter, for example, doesn’t really want cops to only stop killing Black people. Black people are just disproportionately impacted.
Feminism is about raising up women’s status in society. That benefits men in the process though.
Except movements are often named after the oppressed group
That’s nice, but I don’t care. Doing things in a stupid way because “that’s how we’ve always done it” is literally conservativism, which I’m not really for.
This thread originates from a comment surprised that people would look at a gendered term and assume actions done in that name are for said gender, this should be an obvious and predictable outcome, one that’s been seen countless times, and has a simple and easy fix
No your position is dumb, it is petty and so silly and a perfect example of how dumb you’re being. No one decided this. It just developed this way. Your critique is the name?
Feminism is an egalitarian movement that likely you’d not even know what the word meant had this movement not continued for its history. Feminism is the grandmother of almost any egalitarian movement today.
Fool. You’re a petty fool
You don’t win an argument with name calling
From an outsider, when I heard Black Lives Matter I thought the core goal was to value black lives more.
It’s less about what they “want” and more about what got them to protest… which is police behaviour towards black individuals, not everyone.
It’s because of the name and history of fighting for women
Sounds like different movement then. There is nothing wrong with saying feminism did its job and now we need equalism.
You might be okay with that refocus, but maaannnyyy feminist aren’t.
Indeed. Wish I could give you a dozen upvotes.
That’s petty and sexist as fuck. Literally the perfect example of toxic masculinity
It is the equivalent of only using soaps labeled “for men”
Do you need things gendered correctly for you to use it? Maybe your gender should’ve fought for equality first then. Maybe then you can have your Malenism or whatever you’d want it to be called
Please make an effort to understand the point someone is making before attacking it.
Excuse me? Are you really this?
This man is against a movement that champions for him because the name is gendered towards a group that he doesn’t identify with. He is resistant to it and the position it takes up because of the name.
There is no council of “the Feminists” who vote the name. This is a term that has evolved into this place, not one person put it this way and the absolute silly pettiness of it is his reason to oppose it?
And you think I’m failing to understand that position? You know who takes positions like that? Children.
foh my god how absolutely childish 🤣
“They said something negative about my movement, they must be an enemy”
You assumed their gender, they did not mention it in the comment. Given the context, quite embarrassing.
You can’t accept simple critique about a name. Their only complain of the movement is the name, that’s a fucking good ally to have. I’m all in about the feminist movement, I acknowledge that it’s about everyone, and I still see why some people would get confused.Are you a troll? You must be a troll. If you are not, you really need to talk with someone about how incapable you are about receiving critique.
Removed by mod
Wow, talk about being childish.
But they’re not. They are simply saying that lay people assuming feminism is for feminine gender is to be expected as they may go on the face value of it. They aren’t saying that the goal of feminism is anti men, rather they agree it is anti abuse due to patriarchal structures but the naming only brings confusion and irrational reactions for the uninformed.
No. Reread what he said.
He is not a feminist because they should’ve renamed themselves. That’s not a criticism, that’s a stance of someone masquerading as an ally it is a well-known position many men take so they don’t have to actually support the movement that works on their behalf.
That criticism has been used to bring genuine resistance to the movement and the fact all these dudes in here still say/think this shit shows why this person is a dummy.
Ok, but is that the case for this specific person? Or are you using the general trend to attack someone in particular who may not exhibit the negative traits you associate with their position? Condemning someone as a fake ally when they are not is not a good move for several reasons.
To address the least objectionable part of this comment (it bugs me and the rest has been covered already):
This is a term that has evolved into this place, not one person put it this way
How do you expect terms to evolve without people making arguments like this? You accept it as a fact that these terms evolve and are agreed upon somehow, but you’re missing that this happens through individual people making points like this.
Why does it need to evolve? It is feminism you know what it is. You are for all of it but the name, so you won’t support it?
And don’t do what dummy above said and claim you support it but don’t use the label because it is gendered. That is some privileged ass shit bro. Bore me to death out here
It is feminism you know what it is.
I mean, we do, but a surprising amount of people don’t. This is precisely why the name should evolve. Well, that and the perspective that the movement’s goals have changed significantly enough from individual liberation of women to comprehensive equality of everyone, which should come with a corresponding change in the name. These are related.
You are for all of it but the name, so you won’t support it?
It’s more that if people are informally introduced to the movement, their preconceptions are formed by its name. This can turn them off from seeking or accepting the real nature of the movement once it’s explained to them. As a reminder, most people put very little thought into this sort of thing, so making a good impression for the people who are potential allies is important. You can argue that that’s stupid and shouldn’t be necessary, but it won’t stop it from working like that.
And don’t do what dummy above said and claim you support it but don’t use the label because it is gendered.
I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a situation where it’s useful to directly say “I am a feminist” because it’s generally clear from my other opinions, but I would if the situation required it. I do agree that an alternative label would be better, though.
Six-day-old troll account. Ignored.
Men’s Liberation instance with dudes asking to change the name of feminism
But I’m the troll lmfaooo
The problem is that the “Kill all men” extremists are often the loudest which causes many to think that feminism in general is like that.
Yep. There’s an unfortunate amount of people who cloak themselves under the guise of being a feminist, or claiming to care about women’s issues, that could be more accurately referred to as misandrists.
It’s my belief that there’s a heavy overlap between these people and TERFs. With TERFs hating trans women in particular (notice how prominent TERFs like JKR never seem to talk about trans men? It’s always “men in dresses infiltrating women’s public toilets”, which amusingly is also pushing the misogynistic idea that women are delicate fragile flowers that eternally need protection in every aspect of their lives).
But why? Why trans women in particular? Because not only do these TERFs view trans women as men, it’s worse. They view trans women as men infiltrating their women-only “club”, and that’s something they don’t tolerate.
It’s unfortunate that terminally online minorities within movements that screech the loudest can have such a profound effect on the image of that movement. I think it’s also a big part of why menslib movements struggle. People hear anything to do with it and their brain is clouded with preconceptions like angry incels, Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson, etc. People who often purport themselves as activists of men’s rights, when in reality they’re usually either grifters or people yearning to be back in the 1950s.
It’s unfortunate that terminally online minorities within movements that screech the loudest can have such a profound effect on the image of that movement.
It’s cause we are in the age of valuing the loudest opinion not the most logical.
Lack of education is a hell of a drug.
Fucking hilarious how much a ferengi has to say about feminism! Thanks for commenting(and for the comment too!) so i got to see this.
And thanks to all you who upvoted it and helped me see it as well
Edit: yes i did notice its nagus and not negus but im okay with what i said
In my experience, in general for all movements, loudest ones are always a bit more extreme and sometimes over the edge. It seems to be very strongly coupled with activism and in many cases drives the movement forward. So I have trouble accepting that reason as an excuse to so quickly dismiss something, especially a major movement.
However this is a very widespread issue and a reason my comment sounded a bit annoyed. But since it is an actual problem, articles and discussions like this are important and meaningful. Hope your community keeps growing and more men who struggle with of abuse from the patriarchy are able to find a safe space and a support system 🧡
And these both side feminist are on the same team as the “kill all men” ones. I’ve never seen any “real feminist” call these ones out.
It probably is. Not everyone has a robust education, misinformation is rampant, and there is always a new generation still learning the world. At a glance the word “feminism” appears as a movement just for women, so occasionally having headlines like this can help the misinformed or still learning to reevaulate their understanding.
Some people are surprised to learn it is not just about women.
I’ve been told it’s not about just women, I don’t believe that until it’s renamed.
Why call something a name to misrepresent it?? Unless of course, feminism is mostly about women and this is just gas lighting?
How many feminists fought for men’s right recently compared to fighting for women?
Frankly we can rename it to whatever we want, I won’t believe it until feminists start actually calling out the “bad” ones that just do the tired male hate schtick regularly and it starts feeling like I’m welcome again. Last I heard “I had my time and now I need to shut up and let women speak” by virtue of my gender identity, that doesn’t sound very “for everyone” to me.
If feminism wasn’t women centric, it wouldn’t be called feminism, it would be called humanism or just equality.
How can a movement centred around women empowerment also empower men?
Some people read the above and see it possible, some, like me, see it as an oxymoron.
If it’s just a label, then just rebrand it…
I think that it’s very straightforward that the movement fighting against patriarchy benefits everyone suffering under it and empowers all of its victims. I will elaborate more in a second but first, here is the fundamental definition of feminism:
Feminism is a range of socio-political movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.
Gender equality, also known as sexual equality or equality of the sexes, is the state of equal ease of access to resources and opportunities regardless of gender, including economic participation and decision-making; and the state of valuing different behaviors, aspirations and needs equally, regardless of gender.
I understand your concerns about the word, and it was about women when it started, obviously, as women have needed and still need to fight for basic legal rights and autonomy, but since its inception the movement has evolved and widened a lot. It is also crazy how arguments like yours disregard all the battles that feminists fought - ones that are the reason why we all have a better society, healthier relationships and kinder childhoods. All these changes have benefited men no less than women. Men have been substantially liberated from many harsh and crushing burdens of more extreme patriarchy, such as the stress from unequal financial burden or the responsibilities and expectations disrupting bonding with children, trauma of watching mothers receive unequal treatment or live through abuse or themselves being victims, etc. Not supporting the movement that keeps fighting for that change that benefits everyone, just because women are being abused by patriarchy more, and are therefore more represented in the movement more, is shocking to me. Disregarding and diminishing all the efforts and benefits by nitpicking over the origin of the word just seems ungrateful and unfair.
fighting against patriarchy benefits everyone suffering under it
So right from the get go, the language you use assumes masculinity or “patriarchy” is inherently broken and needs to be fixed. I find that sexist and imo a non sexist take is to free people from human greed and selfishness.
as women have needed and still need to fight for basic legal rights and autonomy
Yes! That’s when feminism made sense. It was named after women, for women’s rights, which they got. Feminism being a success meant it was not needed as much.
ones that are the reason why we all have a better society,
That’s is VERY subjective and I doubt you would get most people to agree that feminism made their life better. As I guy I can inform you that it has made my life much, much worse. I doubt you would believe me though.
Disregarding and diminishing all the efforts and benefits by nitpicking over the origin of the word just seems ungrateful and unfair.
I mean if that’s what you took away from my comment then you misunderstood. Feminism worked well for women, and I’m happy for them. They are the judge on what helps them and what does not. Same way women have that right, I have the right to state that feminism has made life better for women at the expense of men.
If there are women out there fighting for true equality, please note that if your truly fighting for men, you would use the terminology that communicates that the best, by not using the label feminism.
I write in the book that there’s a weird combination of entitlement and inadequacy. You’re entitled as your birthright as a male to women’s bodies, you’re entitled to power, you’re entitled to glory, you’re entitled to this heroic position. But you’re also never going to meet it, so you’re always going to feel shame and inadequacy. That combination makes is like a perfect storm for this resentment and emasculation.
This is interesting, Ive never thought of it that way. Tell men they have a right to a particular way of life, then make it next to impossible to achieve and finally feed off the resentment that perceived failure breeds.
I have actually never felt entitled to these things. What I mostly feel is a responsibility. If something breaks I’m supposed to know how to fix it. Because of this I have become good at fixing things. If we are lost I’m supposed to find where we are, so I study maps before I go somewhere new. If a decision needs to be made, again, eyes turn to me, so I need to know a little about everything, and never look indecisive. If an unexpected expense comes up, I need to have money saved away for this purpose. The punishment for failing things like this is not disapproval from other men or feeling less masculine. The punishment is that I’m viewed as less by my girlfriend. This is how I think things go hand in hand. By helping women get empowered, we can share responsibilities. By women helping us feel valued for ourselves, worthy of love, desired as we are, we don’t need to constantly fear being seen as less… then, I don’t know. Maybe it would also lead to men feeling safer to be better human beings. The impossible dilemma now, for me, is that I’m still expected to be successful in the traditionally masculine things, while at the same time not being successful in the traditionally masculine things. No way to win.
Wow the only sane comment I found in this thread so far.
The issue isn’t masculinity or how it can be toxic (to even suggest it is insulting imo).
The issue is:
Society does not value men!!!
That’s it, it’s not complicated at all. It’s not this weird problem with masculinity.
Society does not value men inherently like women (as in for just existing), it values the benefit they can provide.
This has been the case in all of human history. The difference now is that we no longer prepare most/all men to be able to provide the most value they can.
I always thought the solution was to value men inherently too. But that means saying a “you go bro” to incels and other “low value” men.
Yes, because men are entitled to these things (ie that is their purview) they are expected to automatically excel in those areas. Then when they fail to live up to those expectations, they feel badly about themselves.
I think your experience sums it up perfectly, as long as you don’t get too hung up on the word “entitled.”
Maybe I am hung up on the word, but I feel more forced into it. I don’t feel bad about myself for failing to live up to that standard, it’s more feeling unvalued as a person, as myself. It’s an external invalidation.
They’re “entitled” in the same way women are “entitled” to cook and clean.
I hope more people will talk about this. In the near future I’ll be writing a study of this, hoping it’ll reach at least somebody.
This was originally a reply to a comment but I thought it’s important enough to reply to the post too:
The issue isn’t masculinity or how it can be toxic (to even suggest it is insulting imo).
The issue is:
Society does not value men!!!
That’s it, it’s not complicated at all. It’s not this weird problem with masculinity.
Society does not value men inherently like women (as in for just existing), it values the benefit they can provide.
This has been the case in all of human history. The difference now is that we no longer prepare most/all men to be able to provide the most value they can.
I always thought the solution was to value men inherently too. But that means saying a “you go bro” to incels and other “low value” men.
The best way I’ve heard it put is that society values women for what they are, and values men for what they do. This is bad for everyone, of course, but it’s how things have worked.
That’s a good way to put it.
It’s also what I meant by women being valued inherently.
It’s like conditional love vs unconditional love, they are VERY different.
I’m not sure I agree with that. Society values women for all the wrong reasons (sexual objects, something to be controlled, etc). Men are valued for the wrong reasons too (physical prowess, etc).
Well I’m not claiming that women are or are not valued for the wrong reasons, just that they are not mainly valued for the benefits they provide but men are.
I’m saying men being valued for the benefit they provide without support is why there is a lot of mental health issues today. And that what people call “toxic masculinity” is basically caused by this expectation that society puts on men.
Society doesn’t value people. This applies close to equally for all cis people at least. If you look at the statistics of who makes money (which is normally attributed to value), it values men a little more. (Modern capitalist) society stomps over all individuals though. The individual does not matter except for the wealth that can be extracted from them.
I always thought the solution was to value men inherently too. But that means saying a “you go bro” to incels and other “low value” men.
This makes me think you’re not talking about society valuing women, and instead the value women put on their friends (in movies and other media, which isn’t always how it works). If your friends put you down instead of lifting you up, that’s an issue with your friends, not society. I know my (male) friends (mostly male) generally lift me up. This is an issue you can solve. Either dump your bad friends or encourage the behavior you want to see out of them be doing it yourself.
Society does not value men inherently like women (as in for just existing), it values the benefit they can provide.
Since when have we inherently valued women? Since they received the right to vote, maybe when they were allowed to have credit cards without a man’s permission?
How exactly are we defining value here? I just don’t see any appreciation of value being shown that isn’t directly related to maintaining a hierarchy of relations based on what’s between your legs and what you do with it.
If society inherently valued women I would think they would have more to show for it.
Value women as in having more women’s shelters, having more support systems for women. Or even things like more scholarships for women.
Usually men have to provide value to get support.
But those are direct reactions to women lacking opportunities in those specific fields.
Damn sucks to live with people who are upset your children born are the wrong gender.
Is this sub about actual mens liberation and not just a reactionary movement?
The former :)
Good.
Men’s liberation is a far cry from MRAs, which is probably what you’re thinking of
It’s mainly what you see these days, isn’t it. Lemmy is a different energy though, I like it.
The men’s lib subreddit used to be very good as well. (It probably still is, I just haven’t checked it in a while.)
MRA is kind of the inverse i think because it typically is just about mens rights not egalitarianism. At least in my experience with it online.
I can accept im wrong if put to the test but i dont think im wrong enough that ill wait for a convincing argument before i burden myself with slogging through that much slop to find if theres good stuff underneath
MRAs are mostly driven by their hatred of women
The patriarchy says it’s weak to cry.
Is this phrasing helpful or hurtful.
Its making it sound like patriarchy isnt a nebulous web of consequences.
If its giving people the idea that the patriarchy is something akin to a politcal party or movement then we should probably stop unintentionally giving people the wrong target to hit.
Its a thing of a billion selfish decisions and consequences going back thousands of years.
You cant just name it and scare it away, you have to understand how it still exists and set the path for self correction when decisions are made that affect and effect people broadly.
It cant be fixed by making gender based corrective rules or legislation, its by adopting good practices when making policies for people you wont ever see or hear from because they arent born yet. Hilariously to me, im kind of saying wont we just think about the children.
Like climate change and pollution its not the world today we can fix, its fixing today so the world can be fixed later
And thats why its so hard, everyone is arguing about what is first thing we should already be doing but arent
We need to just start making choices now whenever we find the opportunity, that we wont have to revisit tomorrow.
And that means finding common ground so we can start agreeing on somethings and making some decisions like that today.
And im not smart enough acheive that, and it looks like around the world we are all having a hard time finding choices that arent getting unmade by the next people who get to make decisions
Try crying on a date, she won’t give you a 2nd date
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How is that in opposition to this?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
“Testosterone and it’s consequences have been a disaster for the human race…”
It seems like you have fallen for a very common misconception about testosterone
deleted by creator
Why so many downvotes lol?
Because it’s hostel, overly simplistic, and doesn’t achieve anything. It’s not like there aren’t any examples of women behaving badly. It would be reductive to make a meme about the failings of estrogen because of those examples.
