The patriarchy says it’s weak to cry.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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
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
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
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 🤣
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.
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.
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).
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.
