how to show to women that advocating for men does not mean anti-women?

rochesterslim · 2022-02-01T11:19:07+00:00

They seem to think if we are pro speaking about domestic violence against men/ask for more refuges for men we are somehow minimising women victims/hate women....

[+][deleted] 4 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Interesting_Doubt_17 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rochesterslim[S] 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 4 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheLWMA 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheLWMA 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Excalibur54 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]_PotatoShiv_left-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Excalibur54 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soft_Leather_Couch 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SuperStateSamBamCam 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rammo123 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Keep in mind that there are feminists and then there are feminists. The latter is the highly organised group of implicit or explicit misandrists who are the ones holding back male advocacy. The former are the more causal majority who are people who value women's rights and therefore call themselves feminists (because refusing to call yourself a feminist "makes" you a misogynist).

They're kind of like the people who call themselves Christian but only go to church at Christmas and Easter. Label isn't totally wrong, but their not the ones bombing abortion clinics or defending gay conversion therapy.

Feminists are beyond hope and are the outright antagonist of male advocacy. We don't need them. Feminists OTOH can definitely be reasoned with. It pays to keep the distinction in mind. Feminism is a barrier for men's advocacy but not all people calling themselves feminists are.

[–]TheLWMA 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dr-korbo 23 points24 points25 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NockLeafZol 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]heimdahl81 15 points16 points17 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]heimdahl81 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SuperStateSamBamCam 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]heimdahl81 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pvtshoebox 37 points38 points39 points 4 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]goldenjuniperleft-wing male advocate 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]goldenjuniperleft-wing male advocate 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]goldenjuniperleft-wing male advocate 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, the men's rights movement attracts a lot of men that have been treated pretty awfully by women and see the blatant unfairness of the immense privilege women have while simultaneously telling men that their problems don't matter because the 1% of men have immense privilege. These men are understandably bitter towards feminists, which they regrettably coopt into being bitter about women. In their mind, there's no difference between a woman and a feminist, which is why you see so many posts on mensrights where some woman did an awful thing and the title is "feminist does bad thing".

The bigger problem is how feminism judges itself on it's most pure pursuits while judging men's rights on the worst detractors. It's pretty classic tribalism 101, and it's rather disheartening that so many idpol feminists can't figure that out. They go to great efforts to not judge other demographics by their worst actors, but not mras.

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LawUntoChaos 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DekajaSukunda 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

That's fair. But isn't that part of the question. Why do women feel this way? Them feeling this way isn't blatant maliciousness. I have never intentionally perpetuated an environment that disallows men from bringing up their issues on their own but surely accidentally (by virtue of being a gender discussing woman) do just that. I should/could be more intentional in inclusion of broad effects of gender crap. The few times I have intentionally made the "what about the men" comments from what I've seen on subs like these, usually the men dismiss it sharply and not the women... issue still applies however. Be more intentional in gender discussions to speak about the effects on all of the population.

In my defense, I very much have to pretend to be a man to be engaged in these discussions with any amount of positivity without begging for the opportunity to be assumed rational. As happened with this one, downvoted and ignored until I poked. Oi. And this is very much more dismissive IRL. My engagement isn't taken seriously (totally fair) and dismissed, when honestly women advocating/understanding is needed here.

[–]Omoikane13 20 points21 points22 points 4 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

It's funny because she's being treated a lot less harshly than I've seen a lot of other people being treated in these men's rights communities. People here do not generally tend to pussy-foot around detractors (though granted, the environment here is still a good bit more civil than on the main MR sub).

I'm aware the OP asked a question, but she came in here with an extremely accusatory tone, utilised "Muh feels and experiences" as her only argument, played victim throughout, and people are generally still trying to be somewhat decent to her. But her using her feels and experiences wouldn't necessarily be such a problem, if she didn't come in here pointing fingers in such a way.

In other conversations I've seen, this behaviour doesn't fly whatsoever. I've seen men get utterly chewed out for less, and I've chewed men out for less myself.

[–]JustSomeGuy2008 17 points18 points19 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Harsh it out. Best to keep to topic at hand of "how to bring women around to understand that advocacy for male issues isn't anti-woman." but harsh it out if you have the time and wouldn't be too inconvenienced to do that labor. Each brick builds. Decency be damned (although needed in the end.)

I say "I feel", "my perspective", "in my experience" as a qualifier that what I am saying and my statements are obviously formed by my unique exposures/readings etc and therefore do not indicate actual reality (neither do yours) and I do not think that they hold more weight that another completely opposite experience or path to whatever opinion is held opposite. Should another qualifier better accomplish this?

I don't see the accusatory tone or finger pointing. I answered the question, in a way that I think is very very relevant to the issue of women joining male advocacy with respect to sentiments of anti-women. And pointed out that the point made was dismissed as "not a real answer" by downvotes, when I legitimately think this is the biggest blockage and should be talked about if mutual understanding is the goal. Could be a blindness of mine.

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Okay, this was your first paragraph.

"If you want my perspective at all, I have a very very hard time with "male advocates" when the only time any "advocacy" about the plight of men in our society is brought up is when it is a response to a conversation about women issues or in response to "feminism" and they feel the need to hi-jack the discussion because it seems (from my perspective) that they are angered by the subject being societal issues women face."

As u/Omoikane13 pointed out, here, you've pretty bluntly said that most anyone advocating for male issues only does so in order to invalidate female issues for the sake of it rather than bring attention to issues that men face. In other words, they don't want to bring attention to men's issues, it's not even that they think the statements being made in conversations about women are fundamentally wrong and feel the need to correct it, they are just misogynists who are unhappy that any conversation at all is about women.

Instead of stating things in a more impartial or charitable manner such as "If you really want women to be on board with male issues, you should change the manner in which you present things as it sometimes rubs people the wrong way" (which I believe would've gotten a more positive response), you've blatantly decided to impute nefarious motivations on us.

You qualify that later on with a statement that it is just your perspective, but that doesn't make you look that much better. Imagine if I went into say, a libertarian forum and in response to a question "Why is libertarianism such a fringe opinion" decided to state something like "Maybe it's because libertarians seem to be bad people who want to cause harm? Just my opinion tho". I think I would get downvoted faster than I could blink. Yes, this is an extreme example, but the point is that qualifying it with these statements doesn't really mean people can ignore the implications and impact of your wording.

So you got downvoted. And when you got downvoted, here was your response.

"I wonder what better conversations would have happened if I hadn't disclosed that I was a woman. Just pretended to be a guy trying to understand and expressing the trouble with doing so. Lol Ok then."

This was the part that got me to really want to jump in, because it's the best possible illustration of your mindset. Here you're basically jumping to the most negative possible conclusion about us. We're treating you this way because you're a woman. Yes, you didn't state that directly, but that was definitely a very ugly implication inherent in your wording.

You didn't jump to other, more charitable assumptions that could've been made even if you thought that your initial comment didn't deserve downvoting. You could've assumed "These people don't like listening to opposing views" or "These people misunderstood what I was saying" or any number of other things. But you jumped specifically to "It's because I'm a woman". In return, it doesn't foster a charitable attitude towards you.

And no, nobody stated that their perspective was the be-all end-all of things. But if we're responding to a comment of yours which was completely derived from your experience and perspective, stating what our experiences and perspectives are in return is a perfectly valid way to respond.

And you know what, I'll extend an olive branch here. I get it. I'm not always too careful with my wording either, and in addition I can be a bit of an argumentative, callous little shit when dealing with people and/or opinions I disagree with. Just ask anyone who knows me in real life, and they'll likely tell you I'm an asshole.

So I understand how easy it can be to make people unhappy or upset even when it wasn't necessarily your intention. But people's reactions to you? I think they're largely justified.

[–]SchalaZeal01 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As u/Omoikane13 pointed out, here, you've pretty bluntly said that most anyone advocating for male issues only does so in order to invalidate female issues for the sake of it rather than bring attention to issues that men face. In other words, they don't want to bring attention to men's issues, it's not even that they think the statements being made in conversations about women are fundamentally wrong and feel the need to correct it, they are just misogynists who are unhappy that any conversation at all is about women.

I saw this notion early on, like in 2005 on blogs. Its likely in reference to the idea that men have no serious issues, so they just want people to shut up about issues affecting women and keep the status quo. This was also referenced in opposition to the modification of rape laws in India: Men don't get raped anyways, its just an excuse for rapists to counter-sue their victims.

It's a popular idea that people might not even consciously weight on, if made to think about it. They could certainly find real relevant issues about men even without thinking DV or rape even affects men. But they're called from all sides to minimize them as a stubbed toe compared to the oppression of women being an amputated limb.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

>bluntly said that most anyone advocating for male issues only does so to invalidate female issues.

I don't feel like I said that at all. I tried to say that most of my exposure to male advocacy was in that context (literally awful men spewing nasty) and that is a big factor in reacting to it as anti-woman, not that it is representative of legitimate male advocacy. I used quotes to try to convey (badly it seems) that I don't view that the most common and loud type of my exposure to this is reality. The smaller percentage, the more reasonable few, brought me here.

In the similar feeling as it seems MRA face frustration in having their intentions in gender discussions received so differently than it was served, it's frustrating for me in this moment to have my voicing my struggle overcoming my receiving these intentions as anti-women sentiments. The reason is the context that male advocacy is presented and with enormous amounts of anger at the discussion of women issues (which according to other commenters, I might misconstrue the motivation behind that anger and it could be a result of being frustrated/ignored in these topics.) Diplomacy skills and time make a big difference in being understood in both - and all- directions. Mine need improvement obviously.

I do actually wonder how reception would have been different if I didn't disclose my gender and it is interesting that this has been perceived as playing a victim. (you'll probs claim I'm in denial I can tell, and you'll claim justified, which you are, all kinds of thoughts are justified, but still not right) Again, seems implications are taken as statements which is the exact issue here. The context and manner in which gender discussions happen are perceived to carry immense implications, especially the ones brought by MRA content to the extent as others have indicated, that you've been labeled hate groups. This is perceived implications of misogyny. I would seriously argue that that reaction and perception is justified. Not right, but justified. And the "victim playing" (quotes to indicate the idea but not reality) as though there is some over-arching political agenda to silence your voices, when some might see it as your angry, callous selves bringing on justified reactions and assumptions about your intentions and ugly implications (that may not be there at all). This is the exact perception that was given to me about my "victim playing." IDK, we all just need to ask better questions it seems and try to be more understanding overall. I appreciate your time.

For the record, I love argumentative, callous little shits, provided they are reasonable, and you seem so.

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't feel like I said that at all. I tried to say that most of my exposure to male advocacy was in that context (literally awful men spewing nasty) and that is a big factor in reacting to it as anti-woman, not that it is representative of legitimate male advocacy. I used quotes to try to convey (badly it seems) that I don't view that the most common and loud type of my exposure to this is reality.

Appreciate the clarification. If that was your intention it certainly wasn't very well conveyed (the quotes do not particularly get the point across), and it's not something we can personally change if the specific perception of us is supposedly tainted by people who aren't even us, but just a fringe group of "awful men spewing nasty".

There is indeed an expectation on us to not specifically try and interpret your comments in a negative way, but there is also an onus on you to convey that point in a manner which is clear and understandable. In this specific case, what you wrote seemed to convey a message which was very different from the message you claim to have intended, so it's just reasonable that people interpret it in the simplest way possible.

It also doesn't help that the interpretation of your wording which I (and evidently many others) took away from it is in fact an argument that I, and a lot of us here, have seen a lot of people make in order to wholesale discredit the motives of people who even dare to bring up men's issues in the proximity of any conversation about women whatsoever (no matter how erroneous the statements being made in that conversation are).

I'm not unwilling to interpret your comments in a charitable light, but jumping to the most obvious and apparent interpretation isn't exactly unreasonable.

The reason is the context that male advocacy is presented and with enormous amounts of anger at the discussion of women issues

I'll repeat the point I made earlier. The anger is due to the fact that a lot of "discussion of women's issues" essentially erroneously paints non-gendered issues (such as intimate partner violence) as gendered (thus erasing and impeding compassion for male victims) and often falsely assigns blame to men and masculinity for these issues. That occurs all the time. Again, it's not unreasonable to find these conversations tiresome when there are so many misconceptions in them and when they are had so extremely often. But MRAs, every single time they try to correct these misconceptions, are accused of "derailing".

The exclusion of male victims from the public discourse and the constant assigning of blame to men is definitely a problem which male advocates need to tackle if they are ever going to try and gain compassion and sympathy for their issues, and these discussions where people pretend that women are worst off when they simply aren't are most definitely an impediment to progress in this department.

More than that, this viewpoint (of male privilege and female oppression) is the dominant viewpoint, and this ideology has been used to justify an incredible amount of abuses and justification of lack of equal protections for men. And most of these abuses have been swept under the carpet and hidden. So I have no problem with the anger at the erasure of male victims and issues which is so common in these discussions.

(which according to other commenters, I might misconstrue the motivation behind that anger and it could be a result of being frustrated/ignored in these topics.) Diplomacy skills and time make a big difference in being understood in both - and all- directions.

Many such MRAs start out being fairly moderate and calm. These men, however, learn that even when you behave perfectly, if you're an MRA, feminists and others will talk shit about how you're a misogynist, hateful violent terrorist.

Gandhi and Mother Teresa could get together over lunch and be overheard saying, "Yeah, those fathers sure don't get a fair shake in family court, and the feminists just make it worse. Someone should do something about that," and they'd get accused of hate, misogyny and malicious intent.

Often when MRAs radicalise over time, it's because they've been pushed there by a huge amount of denial of the issues that they're trying to raise awareness of, accusations of being anti-woman, and being mocked and labeled as a member of a hate group.

This kind of reaction you get when you advocate for men and/or criticise feminism's tenets are much worse than the (IMO fairly muted) criticism you've gotten here. I almost didn't return to Reddit after my first few political arguments on this site. You have to become somewhat calloused over, or you won't survive the sheer wave of criticism coming your way. And slowly, you stop being careful about what you say and how you say it, because people will believe what they want to believe.

Anecdotally speaking, I found myself to be far more effective in arguments where I acted openly combative and angry. If some men leave a bad taste in your mouth, it may have been that they've learned that being nice and civil often gets you nothing at all but stepped on. That's certainly been my experience, at least.

I do actually wonder how reception would have been different if I didn't disclose my gender and it is interesting that this has been perceived as playing a victim. (you'll probs claim I'm in denial I can tell, and you'll claim justified, which you are, all kinds of thoughts are justified, but still not right)

With regards to the topic of playing the victim, I still believe that it's a reasonable takeaway. Your comments move beyond the point of simply wondering how one would be treated if they'd presented their sex as being different. For example, one of your comments (just a few replies above this one, in fact) contained this quote:

"In my defense, I very much have to pretend to be a man to be engaged in these discussions with any amount of positivity without begging for the opportunity to be assumed rational. As happened with this one, downvoted and ignored until I poked."

Again, if this isn't basically a presumption of "I'm being treated differently (read: worse) here because I'm a woman", I don't know how else I'm supposed to interpret it. If this wasn't your intention, then I can only again chalk it up to a communication error.

EDIT: added more

[–]LacklustreFriend 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PassedPawn_ 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Omoikane13 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Complete-Temporary-6 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LawUntoChaos 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Not OP, but have been reading a few of your responses and wanted to jump in.

Maybe my biases are blocking me from understanding your overall points, so I wanted to ask some questions to clarify. I must admit, I am finding it difficult to understand where you are coming from (which isn't necessarily on you - like I said, it is just as likely it is from my own mental blinders - if not more so). So I have list of questions, with some quotes to reference the specific elements I'm asking about:

That's fair. But isn't that part of the question. Why do women feel this way? Them feeling this way isn't blatant maliciousness.

Why do you believe some women feel this way? Is it because they have been pained (understandable, especially the ones who gravitate toward these kind of subs), it is clear that me that feminists do bring up real issues and I believe those most likely to be prominent activists are those most impacted by said issues. I think this also brings the bitter and resentful people, who are too close to the subject matter to think rationally. This isn't to say that their opinions don't matter, or that we shouldn't listen and be supportive. It's more to say that people who have been through trauma aren't necessarily the best suited to fighting it as a wider issue. Trauma messes with our heads in unexpected ways. It took years of internal processing and additional help for me to identify how my trauma has affected me and I still feel like I have a lot to learn. Do you think it is possible that we have two groups here, that attract people who may be looking to make sense of their traumas and possibly projecting that trauma outward, toward a group? So it is not necessarily malicious, but misguided.

The few times I have intentionally made the "what about the men" comments from what I've seen on subs like these, usually the men dismiss it sharply and not the women...

How would you know this? I assume you're talking about feministsubs?

I might misconstrue the motivation behind that anger and it could be a result of being frustrated/ignored in these topics.) Diplomacy skills and time make a big difference in being understood in both - and all- directions. Mine need improvement obviously.

Would you be willing to entertain the notion that the anger is based inreal world trauma? As with the women who feel that men's rightsactivists are just misogynistic, could it be that these men have sufferedas well? I personally don't think either group is represented by theirworst actors, but can see why people would think that. I think the twogroups would benefit from working together, as more variedperspectives create stronger solutions. At this point, the conversationseems too strained though.
How would you define malicious?
What ideals would you say your opinions most match? MRA, feminist or somewhere inbetween? I'll go first, I don't really consider myself and MRA or a feminist. I suppose I am both to a certain extent, but I really think that having two separate movements is detrimental. I would also say that there are some ideas I disagree with heavily (patriarchy theory, gynocentrism). I think there are poorly designed metrics but also quite harmful. I'd be happy to extrapolate, my issues with both are the same. It is why I can't really identify with either feminism or the MRA. I have never heard a definition of Patriarchy or Gynocentrism that I agree with, and they seem (to me) to be quite big aspects of each ideology.

I'm curious about your beliefs that people that react to MRA content as though it is anti-woman as malicious? Why are knee-jerk reactions based on engrained conditioning considered malicious as opposed to ignorant?

I believe I can offer some insight here. Malicious intent often comes from ignorance. I think ignorance and fear is (by-and-large) what drives hate and maliciousness. If you believe that someone is only mentioning something to dismiss you're issues, then the person who is mentioning it must be arguing in bad faith (and being malicious). If the other person is being malicious and (in this instance) trying to take resources or the conversation away from women because they want to impede women rights. I don't think this is malicious in itself, but it does make it a zero sum game so I think it can be used to justify being malicious. Calling someone an incel, or virgin shaming. I do see this a lot from so called "equal rights" activists who claim to be empathetic. I saw someone opening up about their traumas and the person they were talking to responded (paraphrasing):

You continue with your hate. I will continue to demonstrate empathy.

Without even acknowledging the fact that the other person had opened up about abuse. Empathy indeed. It sickens me that it happens the other way. Calling women names like bitch and whore etc. It really rubs me up the wrong way. These people (admittedly in the minority of each group) tend to be the loudest and most gleeful when tearing each other down, and they do it in the name of "equality", "fairness" or "empathy". Certain aspects of both ideologies do encourage tribal thinking.

[–]BaddyRio 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BaddyRio 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hottake_toothache 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwaceornotaceblob 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SuperStateSamBamCam 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]matrixislife 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 24 points25 points26 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Talk to women who aren't hardcore feminists.

Offline, I've had no issue bringing up men's rights point to women who were "true feminists" (aka people who once heard feminism was good and decided that was who they were but never dug much deeper)

It's the more hardcore feminists, the issue. But they can be quite rare. I haven't met that many, although that might depend in which circles you hang out.

Avoid too straight a criticism of feminism if you can. Step around terms like men's rights they might have associated with "bad people", and you might even reach people that are a bit further down the feminist rabbit hole.

The cases we are making are fairly similar to the ones that feminists have to pretend they are making when trying to push "we're just about equality". So a lot of work is already done, often.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Framing it in terms of something that a "good feminist" would support and a radical feminist would be opposed to seems to work really well with this strategy and can defuse the ones who would have a knee jerk reaction and try to argue with you.

You can also show, concretely, how what you're talking about would help end gender norms or change institutions for the better.

Like you said, feminists already claim on the surface to be about all of that, they just tend to be very ignorant about problems and solutions. It's usually just a bunch of blind syllogisms that they repeat to themselves to feel good about being a feminist, despite never actually doing anything or considering what those syllogisms mean. So when you come in with something concrete that's linked to their ideological mythos, they kind of have to stop for a second and listen.

Plus most want to be seen as one of the good ones as well, and of course a good one would follow through with that kind of logic, even if it makes them see things in a different light.

In very extreme cases you can even concede quite a bit but then show how those concessions are false though example. "Yes women are the main victims of sexism, but let's talk about this long list of serious forms of institutional discrimination against men, and how one of the toxic gender roles in society is the systematic whitewashing of these problems to save the poor weak women from things like manspreading (another toxic gender norm enforced by radicals and people trying too hard to be allies because they see women as too weak to help themselves :wink: :wink:)."

[–]AskingToFeminists 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup. This kind of approach.

I've had quite a few talks like that.

"Women are pigeonholed into the role of mothers and earn less"

"well, you know, I know this guy who was a stay at home father, and in fact all the friends of his wife, and even his wife in the end, were throwing a lot of crap at him for not earning money. Is it really so surprising that men don't want to deal with that? There's been a lot of work that has been done to free women's role, and baring some religious extremists, you don't find many more people who think that women solely belong to the house and shouldn't work. But if even women themselves don't respect a stay at home father, and men's role are still just as stuck, since it takes a man and a woman to make a couple, you can push all you want to free women, if men only have one option, then women can only be either co earner or stay at home.

And to become some of the biggest earners and most prominent political figures, it takes those people almost all of their time. It is only possible if they have someone behind them to pick up all the rest that they aren't dedicated to. Which means that to get super high influence women, they first need to find a man that will take the back seat, and they need to behappy about that. And that can only happen if the roles of men are liberated. And we know that the best way to convince men to do stuff is to convince them that women find it attractive. So the work to liberate men is not only about bashing it into men that they can be stay at home parents. It's also a lot about getting women to accept men that are in non traditional roles. It wasn't easy to get men to accept non traditional women. And in the same way, it won't be easy to get women to accept non traditional men.

Same goes for a lot of issues. Society is composed of both men and women, and so any progress in liberties or rights for one sex can only be accomplished when the reciprocal is accomplished for the other.

And bam, you have them starting to consider men's rights.

After all if things are unequal for women, they are en equal for men. If they are equal for men, they are equal for women. You can't have one without the other. It is how an equation works.

Then you can bring in "to be considered equal parents, and thus freeing women to have any role they want, then fathers need to be treated as equally competent by the judges in divorces. Until that happens, the expectation that women belong with children won't fade"...

It's rather easy to make people realize how all those things are interconnected, and how you can't have rights for only one side, advocacy for only one side.

I've got people to reflect on the wage gap, parenting, domestic and sexual violence, the important need of advocating for men to women,...

[–]goldenjuniperleft-wing male advocate -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]goldenjuniperleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Icy-Wallaby4326 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Give up I’m trying to get approval for people that will never ever give you approval. The problem with people that say that “advocating for men means you’re anti-woman” - those people are beyond help! Their hatred for men is not going to be answered with logic, a tweet, or Instagram or anything else. This is a generational lost to hatred of vulnerable men. I’m glad there’s a group of “left wingers” That are going to advocate for men, but the response to the sub Reddit on re/askfeminism is very telling and frankly the conversation should be (if already isn’t) how did we allow this to get so far..

You didn’t keep it in check under the Obama years because you were winning and “exposing white people” and blah blah sh*tting on republicans as they rightly deserved but the monster was created and now you’re stuck with it. A hate group that is convinced that they are actually for equality is unstoppable and a serious problem for society. Under Trump you just auto stand up to him and the Metop movement was suuuuper important and every day innocent guys around you were being falsely accused but it’s very hard to stand up to the mob. Also it didn’t affect you so it didn’t really matter.

Just text Tacko fall happened and that you were part of the problem honesty and whatever continue hoping that this hatred that’s impossible to be fought will somehow Dissipate because experience has taught us that when a feminist gets what she wants she’s no longer hateful.

[–]BloomingBrains 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sinnaatraa 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dgaruti 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think that bringing up things over wich we agree with could be a way :

-payd maternity leave , most feminist would agree it should be a right , as such i belive paternity leave should also be a right

-trans rights , like all of them are in male bodies or man , so we should be with them

-condemn sexual assault , expecially if they are a man right activist , and by the same token ask for false accusation to be condemned in the same way , and maybe try and open correction shelters to help them recover , i don't think we have yet the expertize , i belive it could be a way to improve the world

-teach children not violent ways to solve conflicts , as much as possible , self defence from phisical violence is good , however violence should be a last ditch effort

-i guess asking women what they want from us and clearly stating that we want to be treated like humans and most of us mean no harm

These are my two pennies at least

[+]Acceptable-Success56 -16 points-15 points-14 points 4 years ago* (70 children) | Copy Link

I am a woman.

I follow this sub to purposefully expose myself to this sort of thing (I do this with many things that I have a hard time understanding and that my conditioning needs adjustment). If you want my perspective at all, I have a very very hard time with "male advocates" when the only time any "advocacy" about the plight of men in our society is brought up is when it is a response to a conversation about women issues or in response to "feminism" and they feel the need to hi-jack the discussion because it seems (from my perspective) that they are angered by the subject being societal issues women face.

And if I am honest, that is when a solid 98% of the male advocacy comes up in my realm of life. Mostly as an effort to deny the issues that women face. It is rarely brought up on it's own accord. I try to give the benefit of the doubt and choose to tell myself that it's because it's a gender issue discussion, not just a women issue discussion, but I rarely see men in these situations validating the issue that women face and adding to the conversation, but instead regularly trying to invalidate and one up or reverse uno. I wish I felt differently, but that is my observation and that is why it feels/seems anti-woman. Just my perspective. Still going to quietly read everything here.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 32 points33 points34 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

There's an epistemic bias in society enforced by feminist ideology.

I think that's what a lot of people miss when they talk about this.

I disagree that it's 98% of the time. You see feminists being reactionary against MRAs way more often than the reverse, for example. Mainly because they don't have anything else to talk about.

But what you'll find are people upset that feminists are bigots and that they get in the way of progress. Often because they're detracting from issues and spreading this myth that sexism against men isn't real.

Criticizing an MRA for being opposed to feminism is like criticizing BLM for being opposed to white supremacy.

I mean how do you think your argument would fall in a room of BLM supporters? Like are you actually supporting white supremacists? Why do you even care? That's how it will be interpreted.

[+]Acceptable-Success56 -7 points-6 points-5 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I understand that is how a woman speaking on her struggle with trying to understand at all on this sub would be viewed. Just as a white person expressing difficulty understanding BLM perspective would be hated on. My mistake was thinking the question was similar to "how do we get the "colorblind" people to advocate correctly with us?" and assumed that meant that there was an effort to understand what is stopping them or where their points of allowance are to open them up to bigger discussions, or why they view anti-racism as anti-white. Whoops.

I would say that there are a great many epistemic bias issues in our society. One by radical feminist ideology, another by misogynistic ideologies and yet another by dualistic primitive ideologies that categorize separate character traits arbitrarily IE masculine/feminine stuff.

Can we acknowledge that the sorts of gender discussions that we experience differ greatly based on our societal positions and how we are viewed. Yes of course in your journey through the gender discussions as a male MRA then your experience is radical "feminist" reactionary nonsense at a much higher percentage than I would have given to me as a woman. Yes there are bigots that claim/co-opt feminism as their platform for misandry. Do you acknowledge that there bigots that co-opt/claim MRA as their platform for misogyny? Do you acknowledge that as a woman speaking of my experience in the social gender discussions and telling my stories of my own difficulties with that, that the bigot is my main experience with "male advocates" and they are very very loud and honestly they do overcast you guys that are more equal minded at least in my purview? Yes 98% of MY realm of life is the bigoted sort of MRA. I very much wish to engage with better people. I use quotation marks because I acknowledge that these tough yuck people are not representative of the fundamental ideology at least I hope. As you should with the women that are looking for equity.

For the record, in my conversations I have never heard not once that sexism against men isn't real... Probs limited by me not being a dude.

As a woman looking to understand perspectives, men will rarely engage with me (probably for the reasons in these prior paragraphs and the risk of me being radical and bigoted and that makes a bit of sense.) It sucks that for the most part to be spoken to with any sense of normalcy in the circles that are speaking of this, I have to pretend to be a man and can only do so online. SMH

[–]Cfox006 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

You wouldn’t have to “pretend to be a man” if your points actually were thought out in the slightest.

The fact that your using your “experience” i.e anecdotal evidence to make grand claims and generalizations is bad enough.

I guarantee there are more feminists who are loud and obnoxious when it comes to a man trying to talk about his problems. Hell you have feminists trying to claim women have it worse when it comes to suicide when men EVERYWHERE are actually killing themselves way more than women are. For some reason feminists ALWAYS have to make it a competition and not only that they get rewarded for it.

If you open your eyes you’ll see feminists gaslighting men, shutting down their feelings and calling them “fragile” left and right and being rewarded for it. Stop being biased.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

? I use "In my experience" as an qualifier that I don't take my paths of coming to perspective as the correct/only ones, free of problematic formation and conditioning, nor as fact and I am open to the idea that I am wrong and need adaptations and exposure. What qualifier should I use to invoke this sentiment if that is not acceptable?

Your "guarantees" indicate you do the same as you just said I do in making grand claims and generalizations. The same that you said feminists do to men speaking about their issues, happens to women doing the same.

There seems to be an odd acceptance here on this thread (maybe these circles in general) that the loud, awful, obnoxious women in gender discussions are representative of feminism. But the loud, awful, obnoxious men in these discussions are not representative of MRA and to say so is being . How do these 2 ideas co-exist in one mind? I don't get it. I try hard to rationalize away the awful men that claim this platform, why does the same not happen with respect to the platform of feminism. When dug through the crap (including shitty non-inclusive terminology, and the changing of this is regularly discussed in feminist conversations), I see no difference in fundamental ideology.

[–]SchalaZeal01 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There seems to be an odd acceptance here on this thread (maybe these circles in general) that the loud, awful, obnoxious women in gender discussions are representative of feminism. But the loud, awful, obnoxious men in these discussions are not representative of MRA and to say so is being .

People take as representative the institutional version. What Biden and the White House endorse as feminism, what is passed as law, what is said by a minister for equality and women, etc. Also what is said by DV shelter operators, NOW leaders etc. Basically what the leaders are saying.

I guess CAFE is one of the leaders of on-field happening for men. And Ally Fogg in the UK doing milquetoast advocacy (Men's lib tier of caring about men sometimes, if its conflicting with feminist establishment). The Honey Badgers are some of the most well-known too. Warren Farrell does stuff too.

But none of them have achieved institutional presence in any way. They're at best tolerated by mainstream media, but shit on by woke (who single-handedly prevent them from forming any groups in universities to help men - using radfem arguments - , unopposed by reasonable people). Most people have not heard of people helping men, and they've probably received zero funding for what they do.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

In theory, ministers of equality should be impartial and help both genders. In practice, gender and equality = women.

Also whoever is responsible for allocating funds for DV shelters, that should be for both genders, its not gendered. Same for rape crisis centers or therapy. Same for rape laws and surveys (making a term to not count male victims as raped is not just, for funding).

In the US, Title IX is overreaching because it considers sexual assault as "discrimination against women". Maybe they should deal with sexual assault, but it's not Title IX's job (is not discrimination), and it implies collectively men doing it to women and men never having it done, and never by women. Reality disagrees. And it shouldn't be dealt with using kangaroo courts pseudo tribunals held on campus either.

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 27 points28 points29 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

when the only time any "advocacy" about the plight of men in our society is brought up is when it is a response to a conversation about women issues or in response to "feminism" and they feel the need to hi-jack the discussion because it seems (from my perspective) that they are angered by the subject being societal issues women face.

Here is how this works in practice 99% of the time.

"Women are disproportionately affected by intimate partner violence and need special considerations."

"That's actually untrue, men are just as likely to be affected by intimate partner violence. I can link you some studies if you wan-"

"Stop derailing. This conversation is about women."

Let's have another, shall we?

"Society is a patriarchy which privileges men and oppresses women. Men have no clue what women face."

"A patriarchy? How did you determine that this is a patriarchy? The fact is, under this current system, there are certain disadvantages men face that women don't face. How does this fit into your worldview-"

"Stop derailing. This conversation is about women."

This in practice gets used as a bludgeon to stop people from questioning dubious claims that they make with counter-evidence that shows them that their claims of male privilege and female oppression are not valid. In your own comment, you've characterised criticisms of these claims as knee-jerk "denial" of the issues that women face, presuming that the presentation of these issues as gender-specific are valid, when they are often not and people who criticise these claims are attempting to expose the falsity of the viewpoint.

I rarely see men in these situations validating the issue that women face and adding to the conversation, but instead regularly trying to invalidate and one up or reverse uno.

This is backwards. When people falsely state that something is a gendered issue that predominantly affects women when it's actually not, they are, in actual fact invalidating the issues that men face by erasing a massive cohort of victims in favour of a female victimhood narrative. When we subsequently come in and say things like "Actually, this issue you've described affects men as much as it does women" or "Your assessment is one-sided", we're not the ones invalidating anyone. We're the ones countering the invalidation inherent in the claim of unique female victimisation.

[–]LettuceBeGrateful 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaddyRio 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Can we take a pause and LOL at how easily your sweeping experience of "99%" was accepted/overlooked and my more gracious "98%" was chopped with machetes. LOL. Only kind of kidding.

It isn't the percentages that people are casting their upvotes or downvotes on. People understand that both these percentages are likely hyperbole. People are casting their upvotes or downvotes based on whose assessment it is that they agree with and that rings true to them.

I have my life, statistics/books/articles that are so heavily manipulated to serve whatever narrative is wanted, and my efforts to understand the lives of others. And that is all I have to work with, and this shit is tough.

I understand the difficulty in navigating the minefield of gender politics. It's something anyone interested in this topic has to contend with. I don't have any good advice on how to deal with it. I don't think anyone does.

[–]Sorry-Difference5942 23 points24 points25 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

If you want my honest opinion, a lot of guys tend to do that because it's the only time we feel safe bringing up gendered issues. And usually it's not trying to deny that women face issues, but to share that men face issues too and those issues are often similar/interlinked.

For me, someone talking about women's issues is a signifier that they care about gender inequality, which is like half the battle if you're a man. If I bring up gender issues on their own with no prompting, I usually get the cold shoulder or told in some way to fuck off and stop complaining about my immense privilege.

So yeah, idk. Some guys are definitely over the top and feel like they need to correct any claim they feel is misguided from feminists. But often, when people bring up sexism in discussions that's the only time I feel I can bring up men's issues without being completely laughed off.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sorry-Difference5942 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I think the hardest part about it as a guy is that if you ever bring up something in an existing discussion there's some presumption that you literally don't care about women's issues and are simply trying to derail the conversation.

My ex did this a lot with me. One of the conversations I remember most was she said something about female genital mutilation and how horrific it was that people would do that to young women much less see it normalized in some groups. I attempted to agree with her - I'm circumcised and felt like I knew what it was like to have some irreversible thing done to you at birth that's normalized in society and objectively a violation of bodily autonomy. I was trying to agree that genital mutilation is a horrific practice and share that it's really difficult to get people to care about it.

I learned never, ever to bring that topic up again because she railed into me about how I didn't care about FGM, that I was derailing the conversation and trying to delegitimatize women's issues. At no point did I not care about FGM or disagree that it's a horrible violent practice, but she was so conditioned to see any mention of a male issue as a dismissal of a female one that she literally couldn't understand that I was trying to show empathy for what women face.

There's generally an easy solution to all this though - if you feel like a guy is trying to detail a conversation or pull it into men's issues when you want to talk about women's, 9 times out of 10 they simply don't think you care about whatever they are talking about. There are so many people out there that care unilaterally about women's issues with men's as a distant, distant second. Literally just saying "I hear what you're saying and you're right, X issue is fucked for men" does wonders because at the end of the day most of these guys just want to be heard and taken seriously.

[–]LettuceBeGrateful 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Ugh, that's awful. And this sort of reaction is normal for you guys? I'm shocked. All my discussions that I've about genital mutilation have always included how awful it is that this is done to baby boys so readily and that any body modification done to a minor is a violation of bodily autonomy. Context, 4 sons, all intact, I get regularly asked about it so this topic comes up a lot in my circles.

So you are saying that the solution to bringing to conversation to more inclusive gender discussion is to agree that the issue he brought up in the context of an issue faced by women, is important, talk about it for a bit because his (hopefully) reason for doing that is that he is testing to see if anybody gives a damn overall about gender equality or the fake kind, and it is not an attempt to derail or invalidate? And that will hopefully weed out the bigots co-opting men's rights and the people that legitimately care about these social issues and want an improved society for all?

[–]Sorry-Difference5942 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Pretty much, yeah.

I will admittedly say, I have seen precious few people that have co-opted men's rights as a way of bringing down women's rights because they hate women or pure misogyny. What I see far more often is men who contextualize that men's issues are talked about so little and shut down so often that they believe that advocacy for women is a big lie and it's actually men who need most of the resources and women are just floating on the privilege of having worth in society.

Now, functionally what that results in is definitely co-opting men's issues as a way to bring down women, so I totally understand the frustration and think those people deserve criticism. But if it matters to you, the intent is usually driven from a place of "no one hears our voices - how can women claim to be oppressed if they get listened to and we don't". Idk if that makes sense but I find it helpful because it gives me some hope that those people can be deradicalized, even if their actions are reprehensible. Maybe that's just me trying to have hope for humanity though lol.

As for the conversation on genital mutilation, that conversation was a little shocking in person but it's absolutely commonplace online. In real life, the reactions tend to be simple apathy. Lots of people think circumcision simply doesn't matter and can't wrap their heads around why a man might be angry or sad about it.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]insane_gravy 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Expand more on the "having worth in society" if you can

They're referring to a couple of tropes.

1) A man is valuable in proportion to what he provides to others, ie a man earning 6 figures is viewed as more valuable than a man working in retail because the former can provide more resources to someone, usually a female partner. This is something I attribute entirely to the predatory nature of capitalism.

2) Male disposability. Men are overwhelmingly more likely to be homeless or die young (from violence, workplace injuries, or suicide) than women; it's a pattern that exists even in childhood, boys are more likely to die of diseases or accidents than girls. However, there is very little political will to fix these problems unless it is couched in terms of helping women, otherwise the general societal response is cold indifference at best and hostile at worst.

The unifying theme with both of these is the lack of interest in fixing these problems.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, I've read some things about how the disposability of men could have come about evolutionarily speaking with regard to the notion that if a small village of people warred with another and most men died, then they could rebuild with just 1 or 2 men and have many children in a few years, but if the women were all killed or taken then the village is fucked because they could only rebuild with 1 child a year and that won't turn out well, and therefore men gradually became disposable people to use for wars, while women gradually became things/objects to possess and steal and that's why they were not killed but stolen and taken back to the other village to be used to repopulate. IDK the credibility, but it was an interesting read. Maybe I can find it if interested. Question however, how does this argue that the same sort of devaluing isn't true about women's place in this social construct with just different manifestations like turning into property and dealing with the ramifications of that historically speaking? Because if I remember correctly the original argument is that "women are floating on the privilege of having worth" which is very different from how women express being treated? Are they "victim playing" as I've seen said?

[–]SchalaZeal01 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

In our society, women are treated as having a net surplus of value, absent doing anything at all. They're expected to eventually marry and have children, but they're valued even outside or before this.

Men are treated as starting with a deficit of value: what they consume to survive, which they have to pay back, just to hit 0 value (at that point, you're homeless or a freeloader). They have to produce a surplus of value to hit the baseline value of women (its not being rich, but being able to supply a familial income is about that threshold).

If they ever fall under this threshold, or never reach it (or don't pair off by opting out, like in Japan), they're treated with contempt, as man-children, incels, 'herbivores' or undesirables that should just stop existing.

Also, nobody but slaves was ever treated as real property. Children sold into slavery could count...the moment they're sold.

If women don't pair off due to lack of marriageable men (as in income lv), it's blamed on men, as well.

If men need victim services, or social services, or poor services, or hospitalization that isn't in order to go back to work faster, they're considered as taking from their value. And if they hit below 0 (didn't have savings or insurance), they're seen as leeches.

[–]Deadlocked02 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If you want my perspective at all, I have a very very hard time with "male advocates" when the only time any "advocacy" about the plight of men in our society is brought up is when it is a response to a conversation about women issues or in response to "feminism" and they feel the need to hi-jack the discussion because it seems (from my perspective) that they are angered by the subject being societal issues women face.

But wouldn’t you also react the same way if male advocates started gendering issues that are not gendered? In my experience, those who advocate for the rights of women seldom do it in a way that doesn’t minimize male issues in the process. I often hear this complaint about male advocates bringing their issues to shut down discussions about female issues, but what I see in practice is very different from the scenario that is usually described. For example, if a woman were talking about her experience with sexual assault and a man replied with “But you know men get raped too?”, I think most people would agree that it’s a bad move. But that’s not how it usually goes. What really happens is that someone who spouses feminists views says something along the lines of “Men have no idea how it feels like to go through [insert a problem that isn’t gendered]”. Not always so explicitly, but it’s still what’s implied in their comments. So it’s only natural that those who are aware of how such problems don’t have an intrinsically gendered nature will oppose this kind of language and narrative.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm curious about this. Gendering issues that are not gendered? By this do you mean an issue that affects both equally but is discussed as affecting one more than another? I would say there are many times that issues are gendered by male advocates that are shouldn't be. Example the notion recently (I think a celebrity said something.. but it's been common) that men are the only group of people that are not unconditionally loved. When all people experience conditional love that is dynamic throughout their lives. IDK

"Those who advocate for the rights of women seldom do it in a way that doesn't minimize male issues in the process." That is literally what I said but switch words women and male. So clearly our experiencing these discussions differ based on gender, and per the points made by others on other thread sections, we need to broaden our scope of who we speak to, to include more rational people of both genders.

Lol @ the "but men .... too" being an understood bad move, as that is mostly what I encounter in these discussions. So that absolutely is how is goes for women trying to engage male advocacy as it is a huge hurdle to get over. To overcome the initial invalidation that is soooo rampant in my experience (and you say what you see in practice is very different from that scenario), to keep listening and keep trying to get to mutual respect and understanding. It does take some doing on both our parts.

This is all so unbelievably interesting to me, that we experience these gender discussions so differently. The things that are so commonly happen to me in these conversations, are very rare to you, and vice versa.

[–]MelissaMiranti 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MelissaMiranti 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gabrielcoronel_left-wing male advocate 18 points19 points20 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Horny20yrold 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I like the fact that you are not the biggest fans of men's rights but you still make the effort to understand and listen. That's very open minded and charitable of you. I have a certain respect for people like you.

in response to "feminism"

The thing I notice often is that moderate feminists don't realize how much ideological content is stored in the label they are carrying, so when men's rights sympathizers attack the label, they sound overly aggressive and belligerent to them. It's like a person carrying a swastika in Germany thinking its just a religious symbol of an ancient culture, and he/she is very surprised that people there are looking at them weird and being aggressive and fighty.

Look, we're not, and this can't be said often enough or loudly enough, against what feminists claim to want. Education, autonomy, the right to a life free of prejudice or violence. There is no contraversy here, no one in their right mind would dare stand up and say no to this. That women have those rights is a straight forward implication of the 2 facts "women are human" and "those rights are inalienable human rights", both hopefully self-evident. Really, really, basic stuff, like "2+2 == 4" kind of basic.

What we do have problem with, is how feminists frame it. Many of us are former feminists, and we know first hand how the ideology nudges your thinking. Men are entitled, men are violent, every right you want will have to be fought over tooth and nail with men. Men either actively oppress women, or stand quietly and watch women being oppressed. Men never support women unless forced, and even feminist men do so for their own nefarious purposes. It's never the fact that men just want to help women for no reason other than that's the right thing to do.

I'm not saying that's how every feminist consciously thinks, indeed if that were the case there wouldn't be any misunderstanding at all, every feminist would know why men's rights advocates are hostile to them and react accordingly. What I'm saying is that the ideology is shaped by those sentiments, it oozes of misandry, it has a very deep and very fundamental mistrust of men and everything about them as it's basis, and it subconsciously shapes how it's followers see the world.

The reason moderate feminists sometimes don't understand why anti feminists hate the ideology so much is that they don't dwell on those misandrist aspects of feminism, their model of the movement is its public, very non-contraversial, "Feminism is when women education" facade. Very rarely, at least in my experience, do feminists entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, they have a seriously narrow and inaccurate view of how an entire 50% of their species work. It's not a secret, you would see feminists in comment sections and social media threads openly saying things like "Yes, I want the future to be female. We men are dumb and aggressive" (an actual thing I read in a Facebook group about a week ago) all the time, and yet those things don't stick, they are completely normalized, it's not even hate speech for a feminist, but rather a fair and honest desire.

So, what I hope to get from all this rambling, is that you might have a better understanding of why anti feminists, specifically anti feminist men, hate feminism so much. The pink promises of feminism are not what we hate, but rather it's dark and oft-overlooked underbelly, the things many feminists believe automatically and mechanically without reflection.

is when a solid 98% of the male advocacy comes up in my realm of life.

Can I ask you about a concrete example when this happened? Not trying to say this doesn't happen, I just want to know how it happens in your case specifically.

Sorry for people downvoting you, this is what I really hate about the reddit downvote system, it makes no distinctions whether people are just disagreeing or just dismissing you, it's a single all-purpose button for expressing that people don't like your comment for whatever reason. I like your comment, for what's it's worth, you seem genuinely curious about something you don't agree with and that's very rare and a sign of an intelligent mind.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I really like what you wrote. The automatic belief of ideas presented without reflection is a damning thing for society in soooo many ways. Thank you.

Do we dare recognize the underbelly of MRA as a big factor in women viewing this as anti-women? Because it is so sharply there and it rears it's teeth in ways that maybe you guys can't fully see, not sure.

Concrete example. A lot of my conversations in the gender discussions are around issues of sex assault/harassment, molestation, sex intimidation etc and the various ramifications of that and ripples that exist in all of society - because this is a very important one for me personally.

Context is that I was actually born into a polygamous sex cult (current members would argue against my terminology choice) that was very heavily patriarchal (I know skewer me for using that word), with very very blatant misogyny and woman targeted abuse. So, much of my understanding is a bit colored by that. While I recognize that my experience is not the normal experience, once I got out I was troubled to find that women that didn't have the same upbringing speak of very very similar experiences in what is considered average homes. As in not 1 single women I have ever spoken to has lived a life free of sex assault/harassment, most first dealing with it as a child. Yes, I acknowledge that many men share those experiences and are minimized in their struggle, but the sheer magnitude and ratio of occurrence comes nowhere near that of women in my conversations with men (it is arguable that they do not feel safe enough to disclose when I speak to them). Literally 1000's of incidences of assault/harassment through out my life and these men try to throw their superbly lacking in credibility "stats" and obviously manipulated "studies" as "proof" that women are not overrepresented as affected by sex issues and that the prevalence is blown out of proportion and that the risk of false accusation (which yes is harmful) means that we shouldn't move forward with more protective policies because it might maybe negatively affect or not include a man. I'm shocked. I'm gutted at that idea. I can't think anything other than you don't care about us if that is your stance, a caring person with that view must greatly misunderstand how absolutely destructive this issue is and then to present such inaccurate "studies" and claim it's not gendered? IDK that's a big one for me. Hate on me if desired, I am used to it.

[–]SchalaZeal01 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

that the risk of false accusation (which yes is harmful) means that we shouldn't move forward with more protective policies because it might maybe negatively affect or not include a man

Yea, let's throw due process out the window, there's a victim here, with a vagina. Blame a man, any man will do.

This is how it sounds. This is how Biden sounds.

The victimization may or may not have happened (according to law), but the person could feel bad enough to need therapy about it. That's fine as is, but it may not be the fault of the accused. There may not actually be fault either. And in the haste to "kill everyone, God will sort them out", some innocents who didn't do anything at all get caught by vindictive people. And 'believe women' and the gendering of sexual assault makes it extremely likely this false accuser is female (men are not exempt from being bad vindictive people, just way less credible as victims).

[–]Complete-Temporary-6 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

when the only time any "advocacy" about the plight of men in our society is brought up is when it is a response to a conversation about women issues or in response to "feminism" and they feel the need to hi-jack the discussion because it seems (from my perspective) that they are angered by the subject being societal issues women face

This is because not only is the plight of men routinely ignored, when women speak on their issues, it is so often that they invalidate male issues in doing so (ex men are rapist dogs that don't care to help us boost getting our justice, but we're going to ignore that men get virtually zero justice when any one of us does the same thing). Of course aware men will get angry at you, at feminists, and often at women in general when you pull that.

but I rarely see men in these situations validating the issue that women face and adding to the conversation, but instead regularly trying to invalidate and one up or reverse uno.

Because they have been invalidated their entire lives. They are angry. Imagine being raped, and nobody cares to help you. How would you feel if someone dared to come at you with some "I have it worse woe is me" shit?

Men would generally not react this way if men were listened to and validated.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Douglas0327 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RockmanXX 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminism has a virtual monopoly on Gender Politics. Its historical narratives are assumed to be an axiomatic truth by pretty much everybody. We don't want Feminism to define Men's Issues but due to Feminism being so prevalent in our culture, we have no other choice but to push back against the framework that Feminist discourse. That's the only way we can create a narrative based on male experiences as opposed to Feminism's "idea" of Men's experiences.

is to hijack a discussion or in response to feminism

Feminists are the ones hijacking men's issues, they're going on to social media and patronizingly lecturing men about the problems they THINK men have.

How would you react if i went around talking about Women's Emotional issues without even consulting a single woman? Feminism does the same thing with its so called "Toxic Masculinity". The discussions surrounding Toxic masculinity is primarily informed by Feminist narratives, which itself comes from a female POV. The Male Perspective is absent from the discourse about Men's issues and whatever male perspective is given is filtered through a Feminist narrative, if you don't see a fundamental problem with it then idk what to say.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RockmanXX 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]luciolover11 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]luciolover11 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LettuceBeGrateful 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I get that there are absolutely men who try to tell women that they don't have issues, or that they are living life on "easy mode." That stuff is rude and invalidating, and I don't want to endorse that stuff for a second.

However, on the issue of men butting in to women's conversations...I avoid that behavior myself, but I'm becoming more and more sympathetic to those guys. When men talk about issues amongst ourselves, we're labelled hate groups. Even menslib (which is very feminist-friendly!) has been accused of being misogynistic. This sub is often portrayed as being a gateway to the alt-right.

And of course, when we try to host events, set up resources, or even just screen a movie about men's issues, women's groups protest and get us shut down.

So, where the heck else are men supposed to be heard? Raising these issues anywhere else is screaming into the void. If people believe that well-behaved women rarely make history, then I don't know why men are expected to put manners above raising awareness about their lack of basic rights. There is also an enormous amount of misinformation out there regarding gendered issues, and topics like rape and genital mutilation are falsely categorized as women's issues, when both the statistics and the underlying rights are not gendered. Some of these "women's discussions" are built on the faulty premise that an issue is only a women's issue to begin with.

People need to figure out what men are/aren't allowed to do, because the gender wars bickering is going to keep getting worse until society gives men the same attention and care that it gives women.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaddyRio 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GltyUntlPrvnInncnt 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GltyUntlPrvnInncnt 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goldenjuniperleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Acceptable-Success56 -13 points-12 points-11 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 20 points21 points22 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]JustSomeGuy2008 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -4 points-3 points-2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cfox006 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JustSomeGuy2008 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cfox006 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Omoikane13 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acceptable-Success56 -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Although the terminology is outdated, in a historical sense, my understanding is that which has been dubbed "the patriarchy" is referencing the gendered social construct that placed men into the primary power roles. Ie, political, economic, and religious. (I don't doubt that men suffered under this construct also.) Is this what you view as a load of crap? How do you refute that those roles (and thus the powers in them) were held by men? Do you believe that historically the roles that women were socially placed in held more power? I'm confused about the notion of a social construct that gendered these powers in favor of men is seen as false?

I would agree with sentiments I have heard that over the last 2-3ish decades there has been a drastic change and that power dynamic is adjusting (my understanding is that this has been related directly to more acceptance of birth control for women and therefore a female liberation toward self-actualization became possible, could be wrong...) and that the issues facing men under our social construct (whatever we want to call it) were not being addressed as resoundingly and have caused a fall behind of sorts that factored with perpetuated social conditionings is resulting in a lot of men struggling and being ignored. To my understanding feminism has adapted to

My understanding is that feminism has transformed to include super nuanced social issues that are remnant ramifications of historical power dynamics and access and my understanding is that is it supposedly inclusive and "intersectional" of various discriminatory dynamics at least in its attempts. *doesn't mean it succeeds*

Upon reaching the age of consciousness, I sought out my world views and that included egalitarian views on gender. When finding the word for that, it resulted in feminism. (literally I remember a person asking when it was that I became a feminist, and my response was when I learned that that was the social word that is used to describe egalitarian and progressive views with regard to political/economic/social dynamics amongst the genders and when there is a better word I would use that- there still isn't a better one that I have come across). Here's a definition I just looked up "Feminism is an interdisciplinary approach to issues equality and equity based on gender, gender expression, gender identity, sex and sexuality." And yeah, that's what I still view it as. I think we do a bad job of it because it is a bunch of humans trying to fix issues of humanity when we are the same humanity that created our issues, but I think the fundamental ideology and intent is there and is valuable. IDK

[–]Omoikane13 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Although the terminology is outdated, in a historical sense, my understanding is that which has been dubbed "the patriarchy" is referencing the gendered social construct that placed men into the primary power roles. Ie, political, economic, and religious.

The basic definition, sure, but feminism has men as the oppressor and women as the oppressed, linked to critical theory.

How do you refute that those roles (and thus the powers in them) were held by men?

Often, those roles were held by men. That does not make men an oppressing class, as there were - and still are - countless men without a shred of that kind of power. Those roles were, more importantly, held by the rich, and I find that's a far more pertinent problem.

I'm confused about the notion of a social construct that gendered these powers in favor of men is seen as false?

See, that's the problematic bit. What tells you these roles were specifically geared towards men as opposed to being geared towards something like hereditary wealth? Was Queen Victoria some wonderfully subversive saviour by virtue of being a woman and rising beyond her oppression, or was she one in a long line of hegemonic overlords that gained power over the British Empire because of her class? I know which I think.

I would agree with sentiments I have heard that over the last 2-3ish decades there has been a drastic change and that power dynamic is adjusting

This makes me think of how the fight for the vote always gets framed as "men had the vote so women had to fight to get it" as opposed to "a tiny proportion of very wealthy men had the vote and it was a fight for everyone else".

My understanding is that feminism has transformed to include super nuanced social issues that are remnant ramifications of historical power dynamics and access and my understanding is that is it supposedly inclusive and "intersectional" of various discriminatory dynamics at least in its attempts. doesn't mean it succeeds

I have never seen this. I've seen people say it's true, but I've never seen it in action, and especially not if it would involve men. What i have seen is feminists minimize and ignore the fact that young, white, lower-class boys here in the UK are massively being failed in schools, which tells me that at the very least they're overlooking race, and more importantly class.

Upon reaching the age of consciousness, I sought out my world views and that included egalitarian views on gender. When finding the word for that, it resulted in feminism.

Definitions aren't prescriptive, they're descriptive. If the dictionary, tomorrow, said that humans ruled the universe, it wouldn't make it true. It doesn't matter if people say "I'm a feminist because equality!" when feminist policies include things like the Duluth Model.

"Feminism is an interdisciplinary approach to issues equality and equity based on gender, gender expression, gender identity, sex and sexuality." And yeah, that's what I still view it as.

See, that's a pithy definition and all, but again, it doesn't determine reality. Saying that's true does nothing to erase the mountains that have been done to make it not true.

but I think the fundamental ideology and intent is there and is valuable.

The fundamental ideology of feminism is one where I, by virtue of my very existence, am deemed an oppressor. It is one where I supposedly have power over every woman in my life, and by virtue of being born am supporting a power structure that hates them. It is one where if my fiancée beat me (she wouldn't, she's wonderful, but it's a hypothetical) and I called the police, then I would be arrested. It's one where I have at times had a paralysing fear of having a son because I've felt mentally beaten down by the waves of hatred I see for being male. It's an ideology where rich women who have nothing to worry about in the world except mean words are seen as more oppressed than every single male child struggling in schools and every homeless man on the streets, because of their gender.

I don't think it's at all good for women either. Surface-level feminism is hollow empowerment, but deeper down it's teaching them that 50% of the world is out to get them because of their gender. It's teaching them that this is the model of oppression the world is based on, which leads people to overlook a hell of a lot of bad shit because it isn't along those lines. Feminism is what's teaching girls that if they're forbidden an abortion by law, it's because they're female and the legislators are male, and they are oppressed by them, ignoring that anti-abortion sentiment is surprisingly high among women.

I am for equality, egalitarian views, so on, absolutely, but feminism isn't a route to it. I believe that far more can be done with a focus on class, far more to gain freedom and equality for both men and women, and hey, I guess I'm on /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates, ain't that handy.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SamaelET 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Omoikane13 20 points21 points22 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I wonder what better conversations would have happened if I hadn't disclosed that I was a woman. Just pretended to be a guy trying to understand and expressing the trouble with doing so. Lol Ok then.

No downvote has a reason explicitly attached to it (unless someone comments with one), so why are you snapping to the conclusion that you're being downvoted because you're a woman, rather than, say, that you're professing a point that's often brought up and often refuted? You're also bringing up said point on a sub that makes a point to provide, or at least try to provide plenty of discussion on men's issues solely on their own.

The problem is -at least in my view - many of the issues people wish to discuss are often based on feminist stances (e.g, the Duluth model's harm and how misandrist it is, with the model exisitng due to feminists), and common rhetoric positions feminism as being the same as advocating for women.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's fair. Assumed the reasoning possibly inaccurately. I do still wonder how reactions would have panned out differently as based on my experience of the way people treat your questions based on perceived gender in male advocacy discussions. Emphasis on the "TRY to provide discussion on men's issues solely on their own." Even on this sub many (most?) posts (I could be subconsciously noticing inaccurately) are reactions to sentiments invoked around social issues that women experience and carry a sense of "those stupid women are at it again. When will they shut up?" Could be me only noticing those a little bit more, can't say for sure. I find that telling that the same point is brought up so often as you say when I was speaking purely of personal experience and the reason I feel a lot of anti-women sentiment in the male advocacy circles that I have been privy to and it has caused a significant struggle with my personal understanding. Do you guys believe that we are making this up? Why is there automatic disbelief? And what do you mean refuted, when we are speaking of our experiences? IDK ignore me if this is annoying.

[–]Omoikane13 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's fair. Assumed the reasoning possibly inaccurately. I do still wonder how reactions would have panned out differently as based on my experience of the way people treat your questions based on perceived gender in male advocacy discussions.

Yeah, that's fair, my quarrel was with the assumption, not the idea.

Emphasis on the "TRY to provide discussion on men's issues solely on their own." Even on this sub many (most?) posts (I could be subconsciously noticing inaccurately) are reactions to sentiments invoked around social issues that women experience and carry a sense of "those stupid women are at it again. When will they shut up?"

Any notable examples that you feel highlight this? Your use of "sense" again seems to imply to me that this is more of a defensive reaction, but it's tough to get tone over text, so who knows?

I find that telling that the same point is brought up so often as you say

I find it to be a common way of dismissing men when they want to talk about men's issues anywhere near the mention of a woman.

Do you guys believe that we are making this up? Why is there automatic disbelief? And what do you mean refuted, when we are speaking of our experiences?

Obviously, I can't speak to your experience, but let me quote your first comment:

If you want my perspective at all, I have a very very hard time with "male advocates" when the only time any "advocacy" about the plight of men in our society is brought up is when it is a response to a conversation about women issues or in response to "feminism" and they feel the need to hi-jack the discussion because it seems (from my perspective) that they are angered by the subject being societal issues women face.

Here, you've pretty bluntly said that anyone advocating for male issues only does so when it is to hijack a discussion or in response to feminism. Sure, the subsequent section is where you clarify that your guess at the motivation is an opinion, but everything before that, whether it was your intention or not, frames the entirety of advocating for men as something anti-woman. Not just that you've only seen it be like that, but that the entire movement or ideal is bunk.

If you'd said something more like "most of the spaces I've looked at / comments I've read are only in response to women bringing up issues / feminism", then sure, you've got the defence of that being your experience.

I do want to clarify that this last bit is more about the communication than the actual message, just because it seemed that was part of what you were questioning.

IDK ignore me if this is annoying.

If I didn't want to comment about it or have this kind of online discourse, I wouldn't be here. If you feel you're communicating honestly, then I don't think you should worry about being annoying.

[–]Algoresball 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	how to show to women that advocating for men does not mean anti-women?
Author	rochesterslim
Upvotes	93
Comments	147
Date	February 1, 2022 11:19 AM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/shsn6p/how_to_show_to_women_that_advocating_for_men_does/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/how-to-show-to-women-that-advocating-for-men-does.1098531 https://theredarchive.com/post/1098531

Comments