True feminism helping men in society

Post Reply New Topic

I guess I'm turning more progressive here.

I was using Google and found blogs about the patriarchy in gender roles and how they are just as harmful and unfair to men then they are to women. I say I agree with these points because men impose such toxic narrow gender roles on themselves. I don't even fit most, if any, of those narrow roles. In fact, I think the patriarchy can (and still is) affect aspie men in a negative way, as with other certain groups. I also believe in cross-gender equality: men can be feminine in any way just as women can be masculine in any way.

But here's my question: what about the "feminism" today that see men as the enemy? What about the fact that male standards are still just as strict, if not worse, than those of women? Or that today, women are advancing further than men in some areas? I would like to think true feminism is helping men too.

Also, we don't need a men's rights movement, per se. But feminists also need to help and do their part for men and boys.

Good luck with that.

Female chauvinism isn't the same as feminism and people who conflate the two notions damage feminism whether they claim to oppose feminism or support it.

I think your position is well meaning but quite naive. I have followed this identity politics a great deal, and the whole social theory and power model it is based on is unrealistic and simplistic.

Really this about equating a particular gender identity with sexual violence, which is misguided and plain wrong.

A feminised version of masculinity isn't going to reduce sexual violence, it fact many sex offender aren't particularly masculine or male. Also sexual/domestic violence happens just as much in non-binary circles. Same with violence in lesbian and gay relationships.

These activist are more than happy to promote a whole rage of identities except for ones they are ideologically opposed to and resent. Hence the bashing of masculinity as toxic as well as being white and heterosexual.

They go on about violence, then on demonstrations they not unknown for acting violently themselves, and they try to play victim. These are people who talk about "micro aggressions", then go on to commit actual assaults themselves.

Why is it we never talk of "toxic feminity", when if was to use the same standard I could cite many examples of it? My point isn't about it for tit for tat but the absurdity of this argument.

There is nothing inherently wrong with masculinity and nobody has to adhere to your standard of it becuase you happen to think certain form of it are toxic.

there is no such thing as "true" feminism, however there is popular feminism.

The current intersectional feminism is the most popular ATM, and this is one of the worst forms of identity politics, it helps neither men nor women. In fact quite a lot of has very little to do with feminism as a definition.

I think that both masculinity and femininity can be toxic. The extremes of violence and dominance versus those of grievance-keeping and manipulation.

Frankly I can't stand either of them.

It doesn't help that media and entertainment promote these traits. It only encourages those who exemplify them and marginalizes those who don't.

Where? Who?
If they do exist, they're not feminists by definition. They're misandrists.



Well, what about it? That's part of sexism. Which I've been told by many sources doesn't exist in modern times. Not here anyway. :eye roll:




Which areas are those?



So do I. Forcing people into boxes (whether it's male/female into strictly assigned roles or autistics into strictly assigned communication styles in order to get along with neurotypicals) does not seem to me to be a natural thing. Let alone a good one. If you're everything traditionally expected of you based on your gender, kudos. But I really haven't met many people who are and enjoy it. Also, expectations as far as chores and work and education and political involvement of both genders varies greatly by culture and class.


We try. It's generally hard enough to get people to listen to the call for women. Frankly, we still have a few things that need fixing (like the pink tax, or sanitary napkins/tampons being seen as a luxury, etc.). Basically we need more unabashed male feminists. But for whatever reason, it's a hard sell. From what I've seen, men don't like male feminists because they misunderstand what feminism is about. And the people (both male and female) who misunderstand what feminism is about don't care to listen to the Webster's definition or listen to an actual feminist. They prefer to be misinformed. I think it just works better with their world view or something.
Ah well, pick your battles and all that.

I agree with everything you've said except I would argue we don't need more 'male feminists' we need more men who are feminists. If you're a man it's obvious you're male, one doesn't need to specify that they're a male feminist.

why woman can't focus on themselves? feminism is about woman. stop trying to push men into this. woman don't have any obligation on putting man first while fighting against a system created by man that, yes, it's bad to everybody but it's way worst to woman because we have no chance of autonomy on it.

I don't think male feminist are disliked so much as very few of them can back up their arguments or have their own ideas. People like people who are capable of coherent argument and are not just parroting the same intersectionalist bilge.

Prominent male feminist tend to be tragic figures like Steve Chives, who are so neurotic with fear that they might be accidentally oppressing women, that they are scared to express any semblance of male identity that is proscribed as "problematic". It is not surprising given the attitudes of people like his partner. It is hard not to feel sorry for him becuase he is judged and judges himself by a standard that he can't possibly live up to and has to bare the weightof all mankind's sins on his shoulders, and all the generation before then, while the so called oppressed can behave in hypocritical manner.

The lack of reasonableness in activists is why people can't take it seriously. Not only is it not attractive, it genuinely scares people who worry about freedom and what ill thought out legislation will be brought in by such identity politics.

However it is not surprising that people that see themselves as the biggest victims will shout loud.

This all stems from the unrealistic and frankly wrong power models and social theories, that have taken over activism in recent years. People who never though of themselves as victim are not being told they are victims, and those have never activley oppressed any one are now being told they are the oppressor simply for not being in the oppressed class.

You talk about not putting people into boxes, but due to the social theories that are popular in activism that is exactly what is encouraged with no awareness of the irony.

Male feminist are probably more disliked by a section of the feminist community than anti-feminist dislike them, and treated with suspicion too. They are tolerated so long as they toe the line of what is acceptable and are "model citizens", thought this cannibalistic nature within identity politic is not uncommon.

There is fallacious argument within intesectionality that unless you come from a demographic you can't possibly know anything about that demographic or community at large. This is regardless of education and expernce, similarly simply being from a demographic somehow is credibility enough regardless of any education or experience or critical thinking a blilty. So in that sense being a male feminist these days is fairly limiting, becuase you aren't supposed have an opinion if it is not narrowly confined.

Women who disagree with there intersectionalist are "internally oppressed" rather then expressing an opinion. It is all pretty Orwellian how the the narrative is controlled, including the taboo as propaganda.

Unless you are in universities or in town halls, your version of feminism, is being drowned out by the current trend.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 20 May 2017, 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

First why assume it was entirely created by man? That is creative anthropology at best. Part of it may have been part of our animal behaviour present in male and female and not something actively created, e.g. pre/proto culture.

The main problem with these social theories is they conflate institutional power with individual power and don't acknowledge power dynamic. Ones you are in an oppressed class, you are a card holding victim regardless of if you really are oppressed. Also you can't be a bigot or oppress anyone else by their definitions.

Secondly how are you to convince men if they are not involved? That is not exactly going to sell is it?

You could go off and form your own women only communes like they did in the 80s. You know what happened? Women were pressured by other women to change their sexuality and abandon their families.

This may happen becuase these people may have been f****d up by their own negative experiences, but that doesn't mean their ideology was right. It means they were angry and directed their anger in an negative and crucially oppressive way.

I used to think that third wave feminism was all about bashing men, but a while back I learned that one of its core tenets actually tackles how society expects men to act stoic and unemotional, which in turn leads to mental health issues.

People believe that there were different "waves" of feminism, and they escalated.



They're called "cucks".

imo, saying that someone does not have emotions, so much as biological triggers, is a form of slander, once, commonly used against women and minority members. It was said that they were instinctive or hormonal.

The line of discussion then arrives at a politically-correct way, for people to show their emotions ie, the party line.

I am questioning whether third wave feminism is just a deconstruction of white, male chauvinism. Is it derivative, in other words, copying the same tactic. Isn't that female chauvinism.

An alternative view of slavery, forced-labor, and captivity, was that they were civilizing people. Indoctrination was believed to be helpful, and I am questioning whether feminists would like to 'help' me, in that sense.

As such, when the man is effectively cucked, when he does everything he is told, and says and thinks the correct things, who is to say that he should be treated well.

Only by needledicks.

> using "cuck" unironically

Opinion discarded.