I think this article does a great job talking about there isn’t enough examples and models of an non-toxic masculinity out there. Women are told and have examples about many different ways to be women. Thanks to work of female feminists for years being childless, a stay at home mother, working a “feminine” job, working a “masculine” job, etc. are all valid options for women and are celebrated by women.
For men there is celebration of only one kind of man. We need more examples and celebrations of the varieties of men out there. I think this is especially true for straight men. I think straight men should borrow some of these examples from both the Gay community and from women. I personally as a straight man have found a lot of acceptance and value from how Gay men value diverse bodies types of men. I find it validating to me own experience and women are starting to do the same. We as men need to start celebrating each other in the ways that women do. After doing this enough and making it safe enough for women to join in a lot of good examples can be set for young men to see there are multiple celebrated options of masculinity. I think it might be hard for straight men to understand they are not the best at this and we should follow the lead of other but it is best course of options.
there needs to be real accountability for the impact of men like rogan, tate, musk, trump
This is definitely needed.
I would like to point on that these men are purposely trying to many people as possible to play their game since they know they can win. So recruiting men to think and act like them is their own point. Its helpful to note that all these “successful” people are all benefiting from the system that exists today that we are not. They need us more than we need them
While there are some points worth discussing in the article, I want to raise an issue with the community itself, since it’s actually fairly adjacent.
If you look through it, majority of posts in the community that calls itself “Men’s Liberation” is really not about, well, men’s liberation. It’s about how men should adapt to the realities of modern feminism, without getting a set at the table to discuss how it affects them and what they would’ve done differently. It just straight up mirrors feminist talking points and rephrases them to have “men” in the name.
This is very much why feminism is often hated: not because it gives women seat at the table, but because it takes the seat away from men, while vaguely claiming they have power elsewhere (but do they?).
Don’t get me wrong: feminism tackles important questions, but it always looks at issues through the women’s perspective, which might miss the unique circumstances men find themselves in and their angle with the issues raised. Since the community claims to come from the men’s side (it’s in the name), I find it deeply disingenuous and concerning.
If I’m not mistaken, this was the initial concept behind the community, no? The idea that this “manosphere” bullshit is a response to the erasure of men in the misguided attempt to bow to third (fourth now?) wave feminism.
In a nutshell, the plot of feminism got lost in the greater society as a whole finally trying to adopt some of its principles via straight up virtue signaling. —fuck I can’t think of the phrase people use—value posturing? Ethics acting? I’m sure you all know the phrase I’m searching for, right wingers popularized it.
But point is, it’s true. And yes, it happens on the white left, but its most devious incarnation is in corporate America. Putting a woman of color in your ad is not equality. Taking aunt jemima off your bottle isn’t erasing racism. It’s just lip service to something akin to progress to boost their bottom line.
So in this world of a bunch of meaningless putting women in the spotlight to say they’ve done it, young men are feeling like they don’t matter. So when you have the liberal world saying “shut up now, a woman is talking,” young men don’t hear “okay, it’s on my generation to take this and smile because there is a long history of women not getting a seat at the table.” Young men hear the most misguided of the fourth wave feminists shouting “men are pigs” and “oh a woman killed her husband? Good, one less man in the world,” and they don’t see much pushback on it. And their brains aren’t fully developed, so they don’t understand that this behavior, in context…well, it’s still very stupid and wrong, but they see society writ large mostly embracing this or laughing it off.
So what do they do? Where do they turn? To the people telling them that women, actually, are the ones who are trash and they need to shut up and get back in the kitchen. Because, to their eye, the world does seem to be trying to go out of its way to “oppress” men. When you hear those fucksticks say “white men are the most oppressed group,” young men don’t understand why that should be laughed off. Because, again, their young brains aren’t developed and hey don’t have centuries of history understood. They hear one side saying “whatever it’s just some white man,” and they hear the other saying “it’s okay to be a man, it’s actually great and you deserve everything.”
Who the fuck do we think they’re gonna listen to?
The term you’re looking for is ‘virtue signalling’. It’s a shame it got assigned a political bias, because it’s a handy term for what makes rainbow capitalism so infuriating.
Another big point that needs to be made is that engagement driven social media algorithms have pushed the most controversial content to the top, giving it an oversized representation. Then there are also those with vested interests in preventing unity who are more than happy to jump on any opportunity to stoke division.
Not sure exactly how the lemmy.ca community came to be but I suppose it’s a continuation of the subreddit, vox has the original story in form of an interview:
I had gotten really into observing the online gender wars. It was entertaining for a while, and then it started to get pretty depressing. You had people on both sides of these issues who are passionate about the parts that they care about — but what they’re really passionate about is arguing, and making the other side look bad.
After a while, I realized that I either needed to stop observing it or I needed to try to help fix it. So I started thinking that what we needed was an actual solutions- and positivity-focused men’s group, where we could talk about these issues that are so important but ditch some of the bad habits of what we’ve seen before.
You mean, virtue signaling?
I agree with you in that the less avenues we have for men to speak up and be listened to, the more radical they will become, and instead of coming with constructive and useful criticisms, they will instead follow everyone who says “the other side is a problem, so now it’s your time to violently state your way”.
One thing though - no one should be silenced or mistreated for the acts of previous generations. Those young men hold no relation to what happened there in the past, and those young women are not its victims, either. “Reverse” discrimination is just discrimination based on arbitrary concept, and acts of other people in other times should never be seen as a supporting argument here.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you. What I was trying to say there was that they’re not able to see the situation, as it is, through the lens of history. They don’t have the capacity for that kind of understanding. I’m not exactly saying that unequal treatment is good and fair.
However, after a long period of inequality, there is kind of a necessary middle point between inequality and equity where there has to be a balancing of the scales. We’ve all seen that sort of infographic/web comic where they’re showing the people looking over the fence, where inequality has the white boy standing on all the blocks and the others standing on one or none, and then under the “equality” header, they’re all standing on the same amount of blocks, and then under “equity,” the tall kid gets exactly enough o see over the fence, the short kid gets more, etc?
I mean, that is the main goal, right? Equity? There comes a time, especially after a long period of inequality, where those blocks have to get doled out. There has to be a time, after a long period of people not getting a seat at the table, where those disenfranchised people who have been historically kept out of the room get intentionally put in that room, given one of the seats at the table. And for all intents and purposes, there are only so many seats at any given table. See what I’m saying?
Now, these are all solutions under a capitalist system. Solutions to work within a system that is inherently flawed and inequitable. The answer is dismantling that system. But if we’re talking about jobs, positions of power, places at the capitalist table, etc., there is going to be a period of righting the wrongs, of giving those limited number of seats to people who belong to groups who have historically been kept out. But that’s talking about solutions within a flawed, unjust system. Because under capitalism, it is a hierarchy. And putting people in higher positions within it is the solution under capitalism—because you’re placing people still in a hierarchy, where others will be exploited at the hands of, now, the people who have suffered the exploitation the worst.
It makes no sense. You’re absolutely right.
So I think that’s what you are butting up against. It is that’s still inherently unfair because it requires overlooking the previously dominant groups, no matter that people didn’t choose to be born into the oppressor group, and they shouldn’t bear the pushback their ancestors catalyzed.
And rightly so, you should butt up against that because the system is built to be unfair. It thrives and literally operates on exploitation. So the solution you’re looking for is one that doesn’t involve hierarchy or capitalism. And I’m with you there. But we’re unfortunately talking about life under capitalism, so without demolishing that whole system in favor of a more equitable and just and healthy system, there will be inequality to right the imbalance. Should it be that way? No. But capitalism and hierarchy are forcing our hand here. But I’m with you, all the way.
I think when hearing about feminism and Men Liberation is to understand how feminist talk about the Patriarchy. I would really recommend The Will To Change by bell hooks. She does a great job explaining how the Patriarchy system harms men. It helps me to understand when people are talking about the Patriarchy they are talking about the “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” which is its full name. See below quote from bell hooks.
Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. -The Will to Change, Chapter 2 pg 39
Talking about the intersections of gender, race, class etc. is called Intersectionality which is what modern feminist are talking about. It talks about how one can be both discriminated and benefit from others being discriminated at the same time. This how you get the case of typically rich white powerful females using the language of feminism to support the patriarchal systems that keep them in power by dominating those who are below them.
Thanks, I am aware of patriarchy and the way it harms men. I don’t take the issue with men going against it, and it should absolutely be dismantled as it screws pretty much everyone, women and men.
What I do take issue with is that many just adopted the feminist approach and expect women to fix it for everyone, despite the fact feminism is and always has been about women, and what it does for men is rather collateral. Men are commonly not seen by feminists as someone whose voice matters much inside the movement, and if men don’t have much representation in it, we can’t expect it to be fair to us.
As per intersectionality, I’ve always found its ties with feminism concerning, much for the same reasons. Intersectional feminists are concerned with the issues of Black women, for example, but are Black men proportionally covered? We should accept that a white disabled man and a black able woman are both disadvantaged, and do our best to help everyone who is disadvantaged by any means. Intersectionality shouldn’t focus on women, or Black people, or disabled, or poor, or someone with mental issues, or anyone is particular; it should be about recognizing everything that drags people down and figuring out what can be done to shorten the divide.
I do think there can be more done to help Men within feminist spheres. I think one of the hard parts from a woman’s perspective is “Not all Men” men taking over debates in female circles and “Man-o-sphere” bros taking over any man and man discussion. Its good to have communities to discuss these things
Because it is disingenuous. Most feminism frames the world in terms of women’s interests and experiences, and elevates them above men’s. It doesn’t seem a middle ground or acknowledge the difference in the sexes. It just sort of adopts ‘women are wonderful’ bias through and through, without realizing that women can be, and often are, awful people.
Liberation requires acknowledging our shared humanity outside of identity labels, but that type of thinking isn’t emotionally motivating for people because it can’t take a ‘us vs them’ approach.
Exactly!
Screw everyone who tries to put feminism as a band-aid for everything, and screw twice everyone who tries to take men’s movements and turn them into yet another feminist think tank, pretending it’s about men.
We need to consider both sides if we want to form any sort of balanced view, or to actually achieve anything on the grounds of gender equality.
Women are people. Men are people. Let’s figure out how to coexist in a way that makes everyone happy.
I mean there is a duality in patriarchy, that each issue that touches on a woman also touches on a man. If you don’t understand how feminism is two halves a whole, and how it is actually a mirror for us to investigate our own masculinity, then I don’t know how to help you on your path to liberation.
Of course there is!
But that’s the very issue I take. The problems around gender stereotypes, patriarchy etc. are a complex combination of factors on both sides - and the only way to untangle this is to listen to both sides. Men should absolutely scrutinize their behavior using what women can share; but so should women hear male voices to see what can be changed on their end.
We can’t expect to find a common ground under the dictate of one side. Men didn’t manage to solve the issue of women back in the pre-feminism era, because they thought they knew better. Now women repeat the same mistake, thinking they hold the keys to the solution and not bothering asking men on what they think about it.
but so should women hear male voices to see what can be changed on their end.
Dude you want to honestly argue that male voices are not present enough in general population? Where do you live?
Sorry but this has not been my experience, but even if it was, I don’t see how that’s a “man” problem. We are not here to talk about how women should change, but men. You either accept the situation and make the best of it, or you look for excuses not to engage in the subject.
You could have read the description of community first:
“his community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people,”
But you chose not to which kind of begs the question of you arguing in good faith.
How is giving women a seat at the table taking it away from men?
while vaguely claiming they have power elsewhere
We can go check who is in positions of power around the world if you are inclined to defend this point.
You seem to misunderstand the core concept of feminism, which is not men vs. women it’s people against a specific power structure, which arguably benefits only few while keeping the majority down.
I did read the description - and initially tried to write it off, because in the minds of many people feminism=gender equality movement (it is not).
The point I raise is not that giving women a seat removed it from men in itself, but that feminism tries to sit on two chairs, claiming to be for equality and at the same time doing everything to show only female voices count, because men are presumably “powerful anyway” and don’t need to be heard out.
It is true that the top positions are predominantly taken by men. But does it convert the same way for the average Joe, does he actually have that much power? This place seems to recognize this is not true, yet comes with an answer that feminism (a movement that strongly boasts female voices over male, and often doesn’t consider men as actual allies) will magically resolve it without active men’s contributions by dismantling patriarchy. No it won’t, because it doesn’t work with the issue on the other end. Men are not invited to resolve issues that directly concern them; they are instead forced into the roles feminists have made for them, and this doesn’t work because men have issues and considerations of their own that are not addressed.
Again, feminism (as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it”) - cool. Masculism (as in the same but about men) - amazing. But we can’t have one of them and hope for it to fix stuff for everyone. Either we go united for an actual antisexism, or we need both to be balanced. What happens here is the subversion of the men movements into yet another feminist space. We have enough of that.
Again, feminism (as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it”) - cool. Masculism (as in the same but about men) - amazing. But we can’t have one of them and hope for it to fix stuff for everyone. Either we go united for an actual antisexism, or we need both to be balanced. What happens here is the subversion of the men movements into yet another feminist space. We have enough of that.
This space was created as a space to deal with men issues through the lens of feminism. While you claim that feminism is "as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it” - it is a sociological framework that explains social hierarchy and power structures, that grew over long period of time and gave power to a specific group of people, while disenfranchising other groups to different degrees. This framework can be used to understand problems quite a lot people face today (men and women) but is obviously not a theory of everything. It does not deal with all issues men and women encounter in a modern world. You are free to create your own space for men issues to analyse them from a different point of view. But in my experience such places often deteriorate into basic misogyny.
It is true that the top positions are predominantly taken by men.
How come?
yet comes with an answer that feminism (a movement that strongly boasts female voices over male, and often doesn’t consider men as actual allies) will magically resolve it without active men’s contributions by dismantling patriarchy.
I doubt that this is the conses opinion on this sub - you will have to present some evidence for this claim.
Men are not invited to resolve issues that directly concern them; they are instead forced into the roles feminists have made for them, and this doesn’t work because men have issues and considerations of their own that are not addressed.
Who exactly is stopping men from being involved in resolving their issues? Feminists? I don’t see how - you will have to elaborate on this one.
The point I raise is not that giving women a seat removed it from men in itself, but that feminism tries to sit on two chairs, claiming to be for equality and at the same time doing everything to show only female voices count, because men are presumably “powerful anyway” and don’t need to be heard out.
We seem to have a very different understand and view on feminism and what it’s about.
Wow great read
The article gets so close to fully getting it but then misses the point in an attempt to identify a common enemy.
White male privilege was the bribe that was given to the group in exchange of accepting a shit deal (being a worker under capitalism) as long as that group helped enforce an even shitier deal to the rest.
Now that bribe is gone, so it’s actually a shittier deal than before (similar to what everyone else has, maybe worse cause of the stigma).
Men aren’t thinking, oh what’s the ideal solution. They are thinking, we did the right thing and agreed on equal rights, but you (feminism) didn’t fix the shit deal, so I don’t want more of your solution.
Imo, the solution to the shit deal wasn’t feminism, it was socialism (which includes equal rights for all humans).
I think this is by design, the owners knew feminism wouldn’t change their system of oppression much, so they let that one go through and crushed socialism in the process.
I think this is by design, the owners knew feminism wouldn’t change their system of oppression much, so they let that one go through and crushed socialism in the process.
This was definitely the strategy and it wasn’t an acceptance of feminism but a much limited feminist rights. These were limited to the rights to vote and work from other rich white families (i.e. from their own wives and daughters.) . From the earliest days feminism included socialistic elements with many of same people interacting in much in the same way civil right organization had socialist elements. The powers at be simple found the easiest path and did it. Moreover, they tried to highlight the most extreme man hating elements to isolate men from joining the cause.
it’s wild to me how many people think socialism and feminism are somehow at odds rather than exactlyein lock step, two aspects of dissolving the torture that’s inflicted through all of the hegemony. we want to dissolve the hierarchies of gender, race, class, and nationalities and create a society where everyone celebrates each other. feminism, socialism, integration, and solidarity are all the same goddamn movement. none of them are distractions from eachother. they’re all different sets of messaging to help reach people where they are.
I get why its difficult to understand at both because the systems in place force a scarcity mindset where everything is “either or” and its never “both”. Once you start thinking in an abundance mindset and see that the restrictions are artificial a whole world of differences appear. Once the veil is lifted for aspect everything comes clearer. You can see this in why the Patriarchy fights all of the movements because they know to they are the same behind the scenes. Its obvious once you start studying the history of feminism, queer rights and civil rights that the same people had similar ideas and were inspired by similar ideas and methods. But it takes some time to look through what you are told is a “natural system”. So natural that it needs constant propaganda to support it
but you (feminism) didn’t fix the shit deal,
I’m just curious where feminists are in power. Maybe in some nordic countries - but than again those have rather high living standard and economical equality. Big corporations pandering to LGBT and co, does not really count.
Feminism has a lot of narrative power, and the whole middle management not just of individual companies but society as a whole is, by now, female-dominated.
If you’re getting laid off chances are a women wrote the reports that the layoff was based on, and a woman is signing off on your severance package. You go to the dole office and – yep, a woman works your case. Chances also aren’t too terrible that, above the layer of the predominantly male C-suite, there’s an heiress to the empire because generational capital accumulation doesn’t discriminate.
So, in a nutshell: Much feminist messaging can easily come across as HR telling a male truck driver “our boss is a man, therefore, you’re fired”.
Whether that power base can actually be, realistically, mobilised, is another topic. I guess academia in principle serves the place for middle management that unions play among workers but it’s a tough cookie no matter which side you look at. Doubly fucked in places like the US where middle management is even more prone to the temporarily embarrassed billionaire fantasy. And somehow I ended up at class analysis. Honestly, wasn’t intentional.
What do you mean by female-dominated and do you assume that every women is a feminist?
If you’re getting laid off chances are a women wrote the reports that the layoff was based on, and a woman is signing off on your severance package. You go to the dole office and – yep, a woman works your case. Chances also aren’t too terrible that, above the layer of the predominantly male C-suite, there’s an heiress to the empire because generational capital accumulation doesn’t discriminate.
So, in a nutshell: Much feminist messaging can easily come across as HR telling a male truck driver “our boss is a man, therefore, you’re fired”.
Whether that power base can actually be, realistically, mobilised, is another topic. I guess academia in principle serves the place for middle management that unions play among workers but it’s a tough cookie no matter which side you look at. Doubly fucked in places like the US where middle management is even more prone to the temporarily embarrassed billionaire fantasy. And somehow I ended up at class analysis. Honestly, wasn’t intentional.
Sorry it might very well be my bad English, but I don’t get your point at all.
I think unfortunately the one theme we are missing and the one most important is solidarity.
In my experience, everyone is focussed on their community and furthering their cause. Rightly so in many cases.
One of the starkest I always felt was when talking about men, children and family courts. When I discuss this online, and even occasionally IRL with feminists. The conversation usually is one of acknowledgement of a problem followed by a cold “we’ll support that when we get the things we need”. It’s a cold brutal unsympathetic view that doesn’t help that feeling of isolation and hardens that “us vs them” division. Many feminists don’t see that the division sewn is intentional, to stop us uniting and fighting for the rights of the working class. Be it trans rights, gay rights, women’s rights, freedom from racial discrimination and men’s rights. They are human rights. We have to stand shoulder to shoulder and make our voice heard in support. We also have to hope that folks from other groups will support us.
There is nothing more isolating than fighting in the corners of others and then when the time comes get a cold rejection when they come for you. It pushes folk to these liars and snake oil salesmen from the right. We need to remove that oxygen from the fire so those bigoted views can wither and die. Right now, we’re losing that battle. DEI initiatives are being rolled back. Under the guise of fighting positive discrimination, they take more. The destroy awareness of bias, fair selection processes and opportunities for all.
I fear that the true strength of men fighting for fairness is you need to fight for others, extend the olive branch of friendship and then hope when we fight some will join us even if at times it feels like we will fight alone.
I’ve lost bigoted anti-trans friends who’ve swallowed the snake oil but to some, I’ll always be seen as a part of the patriarchy, purely because of my gender. So will our sons. I hope they don’t have the same experience of where they cross from innocent child to evil propagator of the patriarchy despite doing nothing wrong other than being born male and becoming an adult.
