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.
I support Feminism and feminists, and in a political environment of curbing women’s rights to abortion, it is clear that someone must stand up for the rights of women. Certainly the INCELS on Xwitter are full hate mode against feminists, and I too don’t want to see that here. As a man, I am not at all threatened by feminist women insisting on equal rights, and access to the mechanisms of power and control which have been held by men for centuries.
As egalitarians, we support equal rights for all, and that includes women as well as men. We do not support feminism, because of the widespread misandry in their theory and practice.
Anti-feminism ≠ Anti-women. Feminism is a hate movement, which promotes discrimination, sexism and fights against human rights. That is an objective fact, easy to prove just by looking at the kind of laws and speeches that feminist movements, political parties, major influencers, etc. carry out.
If some among you don’t want to see the obvious reality, or if you want to fantasize that you support a fanciful “true philosophical feminism,” that’s your problem. I am very proud to say that, precisely because I am a leftist who greatly value human rights and egalitarianism, I am anti-feminist.
Anti-feminism ≠ Anti-women
This is the only statement I can agree with. The rest… I have to ask, are you against all feminists?
Of course not, I am referring to ideology, to hegemonic feminism.
In fact if it comes to assumptions about individuals, I don’t even think the vast majority of people who define themselves as feminists really know almost anything about it, except the mantra of feminism = gender equality.
Misandry. The contemporary feminist movement is more misandristic than pro-woman.
Does that mean that the men’s movement has to be misogynist?
No, the men’s movement doesn’t have to be misogynist, and in essence it isn’t. Except for some bad apples.
The feminist movement also doesn’t have to be misandrist, but it has always been that. With some positive exceptions.
Just look at the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments, one of the founding documents of the movement, which blames men in general and demonizes them as tyrannical oppressors. The misandry starts right there.
In contrast, the men’s movement has always promoted equality.
The feminist movement also doesn’t have to be misandrist, but it has always been that. With some positive exceptions.
I disagree and think that’s a biased view. Women are just human, like men, and fall prey to the same problem of “bad apples”. To date, I have only met one brainwashed feminist, a few engaged feminists, and way more passive feminists. The same applies to men. Online though… it’s very much the opposite.
In contrast, the men’s movement has always promoted equality.
That’s only the benefit of time. Back in 1848 things were very very different. There are probably very few movements started by the disenfranchised back then that could have even started in a civil manner.
Women are just human, like men,
Yes, most certainly. But I wasn’t talking about women. I was talking about an ideological movement. Don’t confuse women as a gender with feminism as an ideological movement. Feminists often pretend to speak for all women, but that’s not how this works.
That’s only the benefit of time. Back in 1848 things were very very different.
No, not really. Feminism may have refined their theories and reworded their ideas, but they still blame men in general for society’s woes. It’s just misandry repackaged.
See for example this very even-handed article by Cathy Young: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/30/feminists-treat-men-badly-its-bad-for-feminism/
Are you saying that I can’t despise contemporary feminism without also hating women? Because I reject that concept.
No. Your comment could lead one to believe that you were saying “if they can do it, why can’t we?”
Defining contemporary feminism by those who take the stage to say stuff like “stop mansplaining”, “men can’t be raped”, and “men should be paid less to reduce the gender pay gap”, would be like defining conservatives by those who call out to “shoot immigrants at the border”, “Arbeit macht frei”, and “you’re just a snowflake”.
Or defining the men’s rights movement by those who say “women are the problem”, “she’s just a plate”, “you’re such a soyboy”.
If that is the only lens we use to describe others, we will see enemies everywhere.
Defining contemporary feminism by those who take the stage to say stuff like “stop mansplaining”, “men can’t be raped”, and “men should be paid less to reduce the gender pay gap”, would be like defining conservatives by those who call out to “shoot immigrants at the border”, “Arbeit macht frei”, and “you’re just a snowflake”.
False equivalence, because the former are things definitely said and defended widely by feminists in positions of power. E.g. “men can’t be raped” is literally what Mary P. Koss said, who is behind the statistics published by the CDC and used by for example RAINN to completely dismiss the issue of men being raped by women.
Or defining the men’s rights movement by those who say “women are the problem”, “she’s just a plate”, “you’re such a soyboy”.
Nobody serious within the men’s rights movements says those things. Again, false equivalence. And please don’t confuse TheRedPill with the men’s rights movement.
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.
honestly it doesn’t leave me hopeful for this space
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.
Comments saying that feminism is an egalitarian movement are reduced.
Because unfortunately, in practice feminism too often is not egalitarian, but paints men collectively as oppressors. We oppose that unhealthy, sexist view of men.
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.
We are pro women’s advocacy. We simply oppose misandry as well as misogyny.
Then you need to adjust your perspective.
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.
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.
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.
Because unfortunately, in practice feminism too often is not egalitarian, but paints men collectively as oppressors. We oppose that unhealthy, sexist view of men.
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.
We are pro women’s advocacy. We simply oppose misandry as well as misogyny.
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.
This is an over-generalisation of feminism.
Says you. But you didn’t give any of the evidence asked for.
Feminists regularly state that men as individuals are not well served by a patriarchal system. […] 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.
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.
In the welcome thread you favourited comments that consider feminism to have a “focus on female supremacy”
It often does.
and to be “genocidal”.
I don’t agree with that. Just because I upvote a comment does not mean I agree with every phrase in it.
That same comment thread deliberately misinterprets feminist distinction between “group” and “individual”
How so? Doesn’t feminism habitually demonize men as a group? And isn’t demonizing people based on innate characteristics bigotry?
To be very frank, you are not pro women’s advocacy if that is the sort of generalisation that you encourage.
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.)
meaningful men’s advocacy is only going to gain actual traction by working with feminists towards egalitarianism.
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.
Says you. But you didn’t give any of the evidence asked for.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t agree with that. Just because I upvote a comment does not mean I agree with every phrase in it.
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.
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.
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.
I responded your assertions with the same amount of evidence that you made them with. Which is none.
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?
This is literally just individualising systemic criticism again.
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.
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.
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.
Incel, mens-rights activist, red-pill, black-pill, MGTOW, etc.
Most of these groups are not even misogynistic, besides black-pill. This post is unnecessary.
I disagree, tho there is some nuance.
Incels are literally involuntary celibates, which is mostly a situation outside of their control. And it doesn’t say anything about their views on women. That said, many of their forums do contain a lot of misogyny.
MRAs are mostly egalitarians, so it’s not right to paint them collectively as misogynists.
TRP has certain ideas that are definitely misogynistic (such as AWALT), so it applies to this group.
Black pill is even worse and paints people as being determined by their genetics. This group is misogynistic by definition.
MGTOW in itself is not misogynistic, but it is very present in their online forums.
But indeed, this post would have been better if it focused on misogyny only, which is something we strongly oppose. Instead, the discussion derailed into a discussion on feminism.
It is pretty hard to be pro men without being anti feminism (not anti women though) when it seems that feminists constantly trash on any attempt at giving men the rights and resources they need and deserve.
Whenever the topic of conscripting women comes up, feminist leaders and politicians will counter that just because we treat men poorly does not mean we should do the same to women. These same people are still overall in favor of mandatory conscription continuing though, so nothing happens. Meanwhile, men are literally forced to work for the military and potentially fight and die for their country while women get to live their lives.
When the idea of opening shelters for male homeless or victims of abuse comes up, this is shot down by feminists who fear that resources will be taken away from women to do this. Again, no progress is made as all money allocated to abuse victims must go to women.
The UN has several departments for empowering women all over the world, yet none specifically for men. This causes them to always look at atrocities through the eyes of “this harms women and children” regardless of how disproportionately an issue affects men.
The World Economic Forum defines gender inequality between the sexes to be when men are advantaged over women. However, when women are advantaged over men (for example if they have better health outcomes, or are overrepresented within a certain field) this is seen as being equal. In fact it doesn’t matter to them how bad men are doing as long as women are doing better.
There are many more examples.
I know that individual feminists can be perfectly good people who want the best for the world. The same cannot be said about the feminists in power though. The very people the movement seems to support, those who get the votes and lead the movement are actively using it to silence men under the banner of “empowering women”.
Any real, positive change for men cannot happen within the movement of feminism. And it cannot ignore feminism either, as it seemingly strives to take any resources allocated for men in order to give them to women. If you want to change societal structures in a way that promotes equality for men and women, rather than empowering women at the expense of men, you will clash with feminism eventually. That is what you are seeing here.
Everyone can pretend to be feminist, there’s no law against that. Just as everyone can pretend to be egalitarian. It’s just a label with no worth, if no actions follow the word.
No ‘real’ feminist would disagree, that there currently is a lack of focus on disadvantaged men in shitty living situations. An example of this being domestic violence. But had it not been for the efforts of feminists who initially brought attention to this issue affecting women, there would not be a helpline in Germany today that caters to men in similar situations. They paved the way.
Imo your comment is too black and white, leaving no space for how greyish reality truly is. In real life the feminists aware of these problems outnumber the ones who are ignorant of them. And you make it sound like they are taking away from us ‘men’, when we are all victims of the same powers of oppression.
Feminism is a political ideology, and in order to understand what a political ideology entails, you need to look at how it is applied to the real world. ‘Real’ communism is supposed to bring about a utopia in which resources are fairly distributed and everyone works as best they can to aid one another. In reality, communism has resulted in mass murder, famine and some of the most cruel dictatorships the modern world has seen.
‘Real’ capitalism is supposed to ensure that everyone produces what they are best at producing, and market forces should ensure that we get the best quality and cheapest products we can have while also making everyone richer. In reality, capitalism results in the aggregation of wealth and power, misleading advertising, horrible working conditions for the poor, and rising inequality.
In the same vein, ‘real’ feminism might be supposed to create equality by tearing down the societal structures that keeps people down, ultimately helping everyone. But in reality, it simply empowers women at any cost, resulting in the marginalization and silencing of men.
A communist might genuinely want the best for the world and envision a utopia, but that doesn’t change how the ideology is applied. And ultimately, that is the measure of what the ideology truly is. The actions of the leaders are the determinant, not the opinions of random followers.
As it stands, right now feminism is applied in a way that either ignores or silences men. and thus, it is anti-male.
I mean yeah, not much I can say to that. Almost every ideology poses some sort of danger/benefit. But what can we make of it? Take the ‘good’ things and discard the ‘bad’ things. That’s why I don’t see why we should not take out the good things coming with feminism.
Also no society ever only entailed one single ideology. It’s always been a mix of different influences. At least if we are walking about it on a bigger level.
As it stands, right now feminism is applied in a way that either ignores or silences men. and thus, it is anti-male.
That’s not a fact, but an interpretation. So yeah, I disagree. I feel empowered by feminism as a man to be who I wanna be. E.g. to be emotional, caring without the fear being called a ‘pussy’.
It’s so funny how the things you say are “facts” and the things others say (if you disagree with it, that is) are “interpretations”, despite you not having a source for a damn thing.
As it stands, right now feminism is applied in a way that either ignores or silences men. and thus, it is anti-male.
That’s not a fact, but an interpretation.
Objection! Many men have the lived experience of our issues not being taken seriously, but rather them being dismissed. Men are often silenced, because “what about the women? Don’t they have it worse?” And the dismissive “patriarchy hurts men too.”
You’re just phrasing it differently. Where is your proof if you argue for it to be a scientific fact? Anecdotal ‘evidence’ ≠ scientic fact.
Men are often silenced, because “what about the women? Don’t they have it worse?” And the dismissive “patriarchy hurts men too.”
Every critique has its place. Whataboutism never helps.
And yeah it’s true, patriarchy hurts men as well. I experienced enough of that in my life.
Where is your proof if you argue for it to be a scientific fact?
For example, feminist Mary P. Koss is instrumental in the sexual assault statistics published by the CDC. She redefines rape as something that cannot be done by women to men, thus burying the evidence that rape is not a gendered crime. See https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
That is a systemic silencing of male issues.
Where is the quote by Mary P. Koss? And how would the quote of one presumably feminist author provide evidence for a systematic issue?
All I see is an article discussing how the CDC’s definition of rape should be rethought as it might lead to misinterpretation.
Also, what do you mean by rape is not a gendered crime? No matter the definition, the numbers from NISVS show more men are raping women, than women raping men… by a large margin. Even when accounting for ‘made to penetrate’ to be rape. And there’s no country on earth were this statistic will be reversed.
Are you familiar with the story of Erin Pizzey?
So what you’re saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists… they are not “real feminists”.
That’s not just “no true Scotsman”. That’s delusional self deception.
Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don’t care. I’ve been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they’ve done under the banner of feminism, maybe you’d stop calling yourself one.
But I want you to know. You don’t matter. You’re not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: “Well, that’s just a clean-up word for wife-beating,” and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, “we know it’s not girls beating up boys, it’s boys beating up girls.”
You’re not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta’s Network of Women’s Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.
You’re not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were “ambivalent about their sexual desires” (if you don’t know what that means, it’s that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC’s research because it’s inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.
You’re not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.
You’re not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.
You’re not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.
You’re not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.
You’re not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.
You’re not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman’s history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it’s “part of her sexual history.”
You’re not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman’s mouth is “not a crime” in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You’re not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there’s a “legal” way to rape them.
And you’re none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.
You’re the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.
—-
Credit to Karen Straughn
I don’t even define myself as feminist? So the comment you put so much work in, was kinda pointless. I can align myself with most ideas of liberal feminism and I agree with some radical points as well. But that’s about it. My identity is not based on an ideology. And your comment just screams: I read and know a lot of one-sided facts about how I am being mistreated by the evil feminist agenda, but I never had an open discussion with a single feminist irl to get their actual points. You’re just a pawn in a game for attention and outrage. I’m not gonna get in on that game.
The facts (showing a myriad of sides) are out there, if you care enough. A normal sane person would not be stupid enough to believe most women have it generally easier on this planet than men. And would also understand why fighting for their rights simply means survival in some situations.
So the comment you put so much work in, was kinda pointless.
The comment you clearly didn’t read as i credited the original author at the end?
Also, you may not call yourself a feminist, but there’s feminist bullshit spilling from your mouth so i’ma go ahead and treat you like one.
The facts (showing a myriad of sides) are out there, if you care enough
Yes they are, you should try caring instead of defending a sexist supremacist hate group.
A normal sane person would not be stupid enough to believe most women have it generally easier on this planet than men
This is blatantly false, because a sane informed person would obviously see that men literally bleed and die making women’s lives easier, and no one does the same for men, so you’d have to be stupid enough to completely ignore reality to believe women have harder lives than men, basically across the board.
And would also understand why fighting for their rights simply means survival in some situations.
Men die more frequently in basically every category except pregnancy death. Your bullshit is getting boring, go troll elsewhere.
