bunnywithabanner Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
0	"Men create men's problems so men can't complain!" It literally is how it is in practice. It’s not a 'gotcha' to point out that most male victims are victimized by other men, but it’s a necessary data point for finding an actual solution. If we misidentify the source of the problem, we can’t create effective interventions. Reframing a factual observation as a 'dunk' to shut down conversation is what actually diffuses the problem, because it prioritizes a specific narrative over the material reality of how violence functions. We can have deep sym…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 07:20 PM
1	To Advocate for Women, you must Equally Advocate for Men. And I’ve responded to that post, so this is unnecessary.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 07:18 PM
-3	Feminism functions as a massive Motte and Bailey Defining a global, century-old movement solely by its most extreme online fringes is like defining all of philosophy by a few toxic subreddits. If feminism were truly 'just about man-hating,' it wouldn’t be focused on systemic issues like labor rights, legal reform, and educational access, all of which have tangible, secular goals. Dismissing an entire branch of sociology as 'malice' might feel satisfying, but it ignores the actual work being done in policy and law. If you're interested in a mea…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 06:41 PM
-5	Feminism functions as a massive Motte and Bailey This religious dogma analogy falls apart because feminism is a secular political movement that relies on empirical data and legislative debate, not divine revelation. In Spain, for example, these laws weren't handed down as 'faith'; they were passed by a democratically elected parliament and upheld by a Constitutional Court after intense legal scrutiny of the sociological data. Unlike a religion, feminist policy is constantly being refined and challenged in the public square based on its measura…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 06:30 PM
-5	Feminism functions as a massive Motte and Bailey That’s a massive oversimplification of the prison reform debate. The push for gender-responsive sentencing isn't about 'removing agency'; it's about acknowledging that women in the justice system have vastly different profiles, and they are significantly more likely to be primary caregivers and survivors of the very abuse that led to their crimes. True human agency means looking at the specific context of an individual's life, not just applying a 'one-size-fits-all' punishment that ends up harmi…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 05:17 PM
-2	Feminism functions as a massive Motte and Bailey That’s a catchy slogan, but it’s a non-sequitur that ignores how law actually works in every other sector. We have specialized laws for children, the elderly, and workers because treating a child 'equally' to an adult in court would actually be a form of injustice. Acknowledging that different groups face different systemic risks, and creating specific tools to address those risks, isn't about 'being more equal'; it’s about ensuring that the law is actually effective. If the 'neutral' system was…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 05:14 PM
-6	Feminism functions as a massive Motte and Bailey The reason a 'neutral' law isn't always the solution is that it assumes all violence is the same. Gender-based violence laws in Spain exist because the state identified a specific, systemic pattern of lethal control that required unique intervention strategies, much like a city would create a specialized task force for a specific crime wave in one district. This doesn't “reinforce” the ignoring of male victims; in fact, male victims are protected under Article 173 of the Criminal Code, and thous…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 07:12 AM
-5	Feminism functions as a massive Motte and Bailey The goal of specialization isn't to say one group is “more important” than another; it’s about creating a judicial tool that is fit for purpose. When Spain passed this law, the general courts were failing to catch high-lethality cases because they weren't trained to recognize the specific patterns of intimate partner violence. By creating specialized courts, the state increased efficiency and victim safety for the most frequent and lethal form of domestic crime. Making the law 'neutral' sounds g…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 06:40 AM
-7	Feminism functions as a massive Motte and Bailey This kind of just feels like projection to me. Describing feminism as a 'faith' because it has different branches actually proves the opposite: it’s a living sociopolitical framework precisely because it's constantly being debated, revised, and critiqued from within. Most modern movements including liberalism, conservatism, or even the 'men’s rights' movement rely on broad sociological concepts (like 'the market' or 'misandry') that aren't 'falsifiable' in a lab but are used to observe real-worl…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 05:50 AM
1	Feminism functions as a massive Motte and Bailey [ Removed by Reddit ]	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 05:47 AM
-5	Feminism functions as a massive Motte and Bailey "The framing of Spain’s Organic Law 1/2004 as 'anti-male' misses the sociological reality it was built to address: the specific, structural nature of gender-based violence that requires specialized judicial resources—much like we have specialized courts for labor or commerce. The '72-hour' detention isn't a special 'man-only' rule; it is the standard maximum for any arrest in Spain, used here to prioritize immediate victim safety while a judge reviews the evidence. Furthermore, claims of 'automa…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 05:29 AM
-2	Feminism functions as a massive Motte and Bailey Some of the examples you’re citing (like the Duluth Model or older rape law definitions) are widely debated and have evolved over time. Many feminists themselves have critiqued those frameworks. It’s fair to discuss policy impacts, but attributing every gendered legal issue to feminism as a whole oversimplifies a much more complicated history. I’m open to discussing policy, but sarcasm and grievance-stacking don’t make for productive conversation.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 05:00 AM
1	To Advocate for Women, you must Equally Advocate for Men. Listen, I think a lot of what you’re describing: male loneliness, vulnerability being punished, stigma against male victims..those are real issues. I don’t think dismissing them helps anyone. Where I struggle is this leap you’re making from “these problems exist” to “feminism as a whole is inherently anti-male.” Large movements are messy and decentralized. Online rhetoric isn’t always representative of core principles. I don’t see advocating for women and advocating for men as mutually exclusive…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 03:49 AM
-1	"Men create men's problems so men can't complain!" There’s a difference between explaining patterns and dismissing people’s suffering. When people point out that most violence against men is committed by men, the intention (at least in theory) is to analyze causes, not to say male victims deserve it or that their pain doesn’t matter. I agree that dismissing men’s issues outright or reducing them to “men did it to themselves” is unhelpful and dehumanizing in most contexts. Male victimization absolutely matters. At the same time, however, acknowle…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 03:44 AM
0	Men's Issues are invisible in discourse I think your framing here is just mixing up a bunch of stuff. Acknowledging that men face serious issues like suicide, workplace deaths, loneliness doesn’t logically mean that “male privilege” is fake. Privilege in structural terms doesn’t mean men don’t suffer. It means their suffering isn’t typically caused by being male in the same way women historically faced legal and institutional barriers for being female. A lot of the disparities listed (dangerous jobs, draft, emotional repression, under…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 03:40 AM
-3	Feminism functions as a massive Motte and Bailey Feminism is a decentralized social movement spanning over a century. Treating the most inflammatory online rhetoric as its “Bailey” and the principle of equality as its “Motte” assumes that extreme voices represent the core doctrine, but that’s not how large movements work. Every large movement has fringe elements. The existence of misandrist rhetoric online doesn’t logically mean feminism as a framework is a supremacist project. That would be like defining environmentalism by eco-terrorism or m…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	03/03/26 03:34 AM
1	As a feminist ... I think this is where we fundamentally diverge. You seem to be treating other people’s understandable emotional reactions (which are shaped by real patterns of harm) as proof that your existence itself is the harm..no..I honestly don’t think that follows. A woman feeling wary isn’t evidence that you are a moral contaminant; it’s just evidence that society has produced patterns of violence and exclusion. Awareness and respectful behavior don’t erase those patterns, but they do matter. If nothing …	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	02/03/26 02:38 AM
1	As a feminist ... I really respect that you’re thinking about concrete impact. The examples you’re giving aren’t abstract; they’re about real people feeling excluded, threatened, or invalidated. That kind of awareness matters. Where I still think we differ tho is in the leap from “my presence can exist within harmful patterns” to “therefore reducing or erasing my presence is the most ethical move.” Being aware that women may have reasons to feel wary doesn’t automatically mean your existence is the harm, but it j…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	02/03/26 12:28 AM
1	As a feminist ... I think we might be getting stuck on one core thing. It sounds like you’re treating structural location (being positioned within systems of power) as a statement about moral identity. Like if a system advantages you, that makes you inherently corrupt. And if that’s the premise, then self-erasure would feel like the only ethical response. I just don’t think that leap is necessary. Structural awareness, to me, is about patterns of power and impact, and not a claim about someone’s essence. Accounta…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 11:10 PM
1	As a feminist ... I hear you, and again, I get why it feels so heavy..when frameworks are presented as if individual behavior doesn’t matter, or that your very existence is tainted by systems you were born into, that absolutely creates toxic shame. The thing I’ve had to learn (and I’m still learning but getting better every day at) is that structural critique isn’t a moral damnation. Acting ethically and reflecting on your role doesn’t require self-erasure. You can recognize patterns of power, hold yourself accou…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 10:27 PM
1	As a feminist ... I hear you, and I truly don’t want to minimize how heavy that feels. I’ve been in a place where structural critique made it feel like my presence itself could be harmful, and it’s exhausting. What helped me was learning to practice self-compassion and self-forgiveness; recognizing that being part of a system doesn’t make you a bad person, and that mistakes or participation in structural harms are opportunities to learn rather than a moral sentence. I know it’s easier said than done, and you don’…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 09:48 PM
1	As a feminist ... Yeah, I completely get that. Being aware of these dynamics does come from a privileged place, and you’re right that power gives you the ability to navigate and even “repay” that debt. For men without that privilege, these frameworks can absolutely feel punishing, especially if they don’t fit the high-masculinity mold. I also agree that some self-doubt is healthy, but framing it as moral failure or monstrousness is regressive; it doesn’t have to be a moral failure. I’ve personally had to learn th…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 09:15 PM
2	As a feminist ... I hear you..the way structural and critical frameworks are applied can absolutely create toxic shame if the nuances aren’t communicated or internalized. I’ve personally had to learn to separate paralyzing shame from motivating awareness, and that’s been essential for being able to act ethically without erasing myself or my worth, but I understand that unfortunately not everyone is there, and I do say this at least somewhat of a position of privilege. I think you’re right that academia is slow an…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 08:27 PM
1	As a feminist ... The point isn’t inventing distinctions for fun; it’s clarifying how structural patterns produce gendered outcomes differently for men and women. Understanding why something is gender-based discrimination versus essentialism is important to analyze causality, not a “mental gymnastics” trick. This honestly just sounds like a really specific dunning-krueger type of anti-intellectualism to me.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 08:05 PM
1	As a feminist ... I completely agree with what you’re saying; theory alone isn’t enough. If structural analysis ends up justifying hierarchy or creating double standards in practice, it fails ethically. The work has to be grounded in real-world awareness, actively checking how ideas are applied, and ensuring it doesn’t replicate the same patterns of domination. That kind of critical reflection, combined with concrete action, is what makes scholarship meaningful. 🖤	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 08:03 PM
1	As a feminist ... I do see exactly what you mean; the way these ideas are often communicated online can feel rigid and absolutist, especially if there’s no explicit framing that they’re theoretical constructs and not personal judgments. That’s a big part of why people experience structural analysis as shame or moral condemnation. The key reality to this tho is that most serious scholarship treats these as tools to understand patterns, and not as moral verdicts on individuals. It’s absolutely fair to want “guardra…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 07:10 PM
1	As a feminist ... I’m genuinely so sorry that happened to you.. Being assaulted and then seeing rhetoric that sounds like it erases your experience would understandably hit hard. I think where we may differ is that structural analysis doesn’t mean “everything you have is stolen” or that individual experiences don’t matter; that’s shame logic, not structural logic. I’ve had to learn the difference between paralyzing shame (“I am illegitimate”) and motivating awareness (“systems shape outcomes, and I can act ethica…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 06:23 PM
1	As a feminist ... I get what you’re saying about structural critique feeling like it requires moral condemnation or shame, but that doesn’t have to be the case. Awareness of systemic patterns isn’t inherently personal guilt or condemnation; it only becomes “toxic shame” if we assume or interpret it as zero-sum or internalize it as a reflection of our worth. In my own experience, I’ve learned to separate paralyzing shame from motivating guilt, and seeing where systems of power create advantages or burdens allows m…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 06:00 PM
2	As a feminist ... Structural analysis doesn’t require treating individuals as permanent oppressors or victims. It’s possible to recognize that gender systems create patterned advantages and disadvantages while also addressing harms men face. Collaboration isn’t impossible unless we insist on the most rigid, moralized version of the framework.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 05:39 PM
1	As a feminist ... Structural analysis isn’t the same thing as moral condemnation. Saying men as a class hold certain forms of social power doesn’t mean individual men have no worth or can’t exist ethically. Most feminist theory distinguishes between systems of power and individual agency. You can benefit from aspects of a system and still be harmed by it, and you can work to change it. That’s not an inescapable moral trap.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 05:37 PM
2	As a feminist ... There’s a difference between prejudice against a gender and rigid gender roles that harm that gender. Historically, men being sent to war wasn’t justified by “men are inferior,” but by ideas like “men are warriors” and “men must protect.” That’s not internalized misandry, it’s gender essentialism. Those same rigid norms can both privilege and harm men at the same time. That’s not some gotcha.	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 05:35 PM
4	As a feminist ... Dude..no one is denying that draft inequality discriminates against men, it clearly does. The point being made is about why the policy historically existed. The rationale for excluding women has long been rooted in ideas like "women are too weak" or "need protection," which are sexist assumptions about women. Those assumptions can simultaneously harm men by placing the burden solely on them. Acknowledging that doesn't mean sexism against men doesn't exist; it just means gendered policies often g…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 05:33 PM
1	Things men (supposedly) never have to think about or be afraid of This argument is literally just a big strawman. Feminists generally don’t claim that men never worry about safety or suspicion; the point is that women are statistically more likely to face certain gendered risks (like sexual assault or harassment) and are socialized to constantly account for them. That doesn’t mean men never experience fear, danger, or unfair suspicion; those things absolutely happen, but pointing out that men sometimes face those issues doesn’t somehow invalidate the broader p…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	01/03/26 05:25 PM
1	How representive of feminism is r/AskFeminists? I hear your frustration, and I don’t think you’re crazy for wanting men’s struggles to be taken seriously. Patriarchy does hurt men too, especially those who don’t fit rigid masculine norms. But it’s also important to remember that feminism was built first and foremost to center women’s liberation. When you go into women’s spaces asking for men’s issues to be prioritized, it can come across like recentering the conversation back on men, even if that’s not your intent. That doesn’t mean your stru…	/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates	17/09/25 04:44 AM