~ archived since 2018 ~

Hmmm...Masculism is apparently associated with Promise Keepers and My Guardian Knows What's Best For Me organizations. o.0

thetrollking · 2011-09-01T09:40:29+00:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism Maybe we should inform Ozy, the feminist masculist co-opter, over at No, Seriously What About Teh Menz blog and...

thetrollking

September 1, 2011

1 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Hmmm...Masculism is apparently associated with Promise Keepers and My Guardian Knows What's Best For Me organizations. o.0
Author	thetrollking
Upvotes	1
Comments	14
Date	September 1, 2011 9:40 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/k15g0/hmmmmasculism_is_apparently_associated_with/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/hmmmmasculism-is-apparently-associated-with.1035158 https://theredarchive.com/post/1035158

Comments

[–]thetrollking[S] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OThomson 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Probably.

Then again, I really don't see any MRAs calling themselves masculists. I have seen the Mythopeotic label on a view blogs or forums and the masculinism label a few times but it looks like it has largely been dropped by the MRM. Sort of like the distinction between feminist "men's studies" and male studies.

I had actually forgotten about it for awhile, because most feminist friendly MRAs call themselves egalitarian instead, and only really noticed it once NSWATM and other feminists got interested in the movement.

Part of me wants to say, fuck it. Let em have the term. I think masculism is going to sound weirder to the average noob than Male Rights Activist(which I kinda prefer because it includes a biological distinction instead of a social one and includes defacto boys and babies) or Men's Rights Activist.

[–]OThomson 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I would agree with that.

I think to some degree it depends on how long you have been in the movement and how you found the movement. If you come from the fathers rights side, then masculism may not be how you identify as a MRA. But if you come more from a equalist(for a lack of a better word or moral foundation) then masculism might suit you better.

I would say I come from more of a equalist/feminist ally type of framework due to being raised by a feminist and also because I am not married and don't have kids. TBH though, I found Fathers rights blogs before I stumbled onto the masculism stuff of the 70s and 80(born in the 80s here) and a large part of the reason why is due to the pet issues I first became aware of like suicice, false rape claims, seeing friends struggle with divorce and family court and so on.

I am not sure what being a softy has to do with masculism?? Elaborate?

I do agree about the theoretical framework though. I think it would be useful for deprogramming newer guys and gals from their feminist indoctrination. Although, just pointing them towards feminists blogs to be yelled at and called a rape apologist for simply asking questions might do more good for our movement.

To elaborate on what I was thinking above. I think viewing masculism and mra as the same depends on whether you are more interested in issues(FRAs, family court, feminist jurisprudence, etc) v. identity or social/cultural roles(expanding definitions of maleness outward, changing male culture, etc).

I guess I would say that I am more on the MRA side, but also see value in masculism side, due to caring more about getting laws and political structures changed than whether or not a guy gets teased for wearing a skirt or nail polish. I would see the MRA side as more antifeminist, showing how feminists uphold and create antimale cultures and systems(mandatory arrest policies, absurd sexual harassment policies, elimination of burden of proof on campus, etc.) while masculism is more about men seeking help with emotional problems which possibly leads to more suicides, equality in things like health insurance, prostate cancer, life spans, etc.

Does that make sense? To boil it down, I guess I would say that MRA is more promale and antifeminism(equal opportunity instead of forced outcome) while masculism is more equality oriented sometimes even to the absurd which can mean sameness instead of forced outcome( a subtle distinction I think). On the latter part, there are some areas where men just can't be equal to women and some where women can't be equal to men without changing the rules or infringing on rights of both parties....Pregnancy and abortion would probably go under both of those, but then again we do try to find ways around the abortion issue with various arguments.

One of the biggest problems, I think, is trying to reconcile one inevitable truth between the allegedly good goals of feminism and the MRM/masculism.

We either bring men up to the level of women, or we drag women down to mens level. I would say the latter is MRAism and the former is masculism and depending on the issue I would support both. I don't think that men, as a example, need to take on traditionally feminine forms of emotional expression or work(if domestic work was oppression for women then how the fuck is it liberating for men?) but at the same time I do think, for example on the masculist side, that male rape victims should be seen as equally valid and harmed as female victims.

On the other hand, as a example, I don't think we need to hold male murderers to the same standard as female murderers but instead make sure females serve the same prison time and aren't coddled as victims of da patriarchy. Damn. Kinda ranty, but hope that makes a bit of sense.

[–]OThomson 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gotcha. I have just been thinking about some of the differences off and on in the last few weeks.

I tend to go off a bit about feminism but as far as r/masculism and NSWATM and what not I do hope they are genuine and not appropriators. I have also been hitting up NSWATM about every three or four days for the last few weeks and I can't say I am surprised that it is more feminism than Male issues and even more the little bit of male issues are couched in feminist ideology. I am pretty sure that they are nothing but a appropriation attempt after reading the rape culture and schrodingers rapist post.

Which got me thinking, how do we point out which is better or should be legitimate? Especially considering how masculism actually was the name of the MRM in the 80s???

I continually come back to this idea that there is a struggle, and I think this is what really gets feminists ire going, between raising mens roles to the feminine standard or lowering womens roles to the masculine standard.

The very basic assumption of feminism is that men had it better than women, from reading history I just can't see how. I like to say that they want equality with the top 1-10% of men because they are hypergamous and have a sort of blinders on that make the men below them invisible. I think this is where the concept of male as disposable is created. I also think it is biological and due to reproduction, women need a social network for raising children. Historically we lived in band based societies and small groups really did, and were normal, for taking care of the young and organizing distributions of labor.

So the question in my mind becomes how do we organize against some of these biological facts. Must of the masculist stuff I have read focuses more on the social and cultural aspects of masculinity and male roles but fall into the fuzzy area of feminism of trying to discern how these roles came about. Now, in my opinion it really depends on the issue at hand. I still don't know exactly how I would break down the differences, I keep flip flopping in my own mind. I do think that it is something that we as MRAs/TrueMasculists need to think about and fight against feminists about.

I was watching The Colbert Report the other day and he had on Gloria Steinem and she said something like, "the women's movement proved women can do what men can do, now we need to prove that men can do what women historically did."

Needless to say this pissed me off. Have women really proved that they can compete with men when trying out for police, fire dept., military??? Education? and so on. Then, again, IF it was oppression for women to be burdened with the domestic role then WHY would it be liberating for men???

I think the real reason they are beginning to try and take control of the discourse around masculinity is to define it for the benefit of women as a whole and not for the benefit of men and boys first and foremost.

I have seen quite a few women complain about, "how what they really need is a wife." Think about that for a moment.

They kicked the male out of the male sphere. They stillw ant their feminine sphere and now we have "manboys" and shaming language while women struggle to do it all. Many times when I look at feminists talk about male issues I get the idea that it really was about just switching roles. /rant

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Seems to be changing as time goes on, the organiser seems pretty genuine to me at this point and is on a learning curve (he noticed how all the feminists withdrew support once they realised that it wouldnt be about feminism for example). They will not be linking to NSWATM or using feminism as its focal point. This thing is going ahead one way or the other... as ZM is probably going to point out, if we stonewall it, it will become what we want it not to be, because of our absence, if we participate and just follow some basic rhetorical guidelines it will be our space and that will mean our occupying more real estate and the broadcasting of our message in a more mainstrem friendly tone, while we still have all our more radical outlets, if we don't own and utilise the space, it will be our loss Thats why Im supporting it, at this stage. Think of it as a purple pill/recruitment office, thats what it can be, IMO, at this stage.

[–]thetrollking[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnnArchist 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link