TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

The Feminist Case For Men’s Rights

phileconomicus

August 14, 2022
48 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
https://www.philosophersbeard.org/2020/07/the-feminist-case-for-mens-rights.html
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title The Feminist Case For Men’s Rights
Author

phileconomicus

Upvotes 48
Comments 32
Date August 14, 2022 12:27 PM UTC
(3 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/wo5874/the_feminist_case_for_mens_rights/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/the-feminist-case-for-mens-rights.1127320
https://theredarchive.com/post/1127320
Red Pill terms in post
feminist
Top posts by phileconomicus

Artificial Wombs: A Technological (Partial) Solution To Gender Injustice and Global Fertility Collapse?

89 upvotes
December 11, 2024
/r/MensRights

Putting Women In Charge Is Not The Way To Make The World Better

46 upvotes
June 26, 2022
/r/MensRights

Putting Women In Charge Is Not The Way To Make The World Better

33 upvotes
July 31, 2022
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

The Feminist Case For Men’s Rights

10 upvotes
February 11, 2020
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Martijngamerleft-wing male advocate 42 points43 points44 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately the feminist movement has tended to neglect this, assuming that if women are the losers from a patriarchal social order, then men must be the winners.

 

Intellectually, feminism has the right focus on the injustices caused by organising society around essentialist ideas of gender. But as a political movement for change it has neglected to advance that analysis to its logical conclusion.

If you ever need three sentences to describe why you don't support feminism (as a political movement).

[–]phileconomicus[S] 36 points37 points38 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Argues that our society’s reliance on narrow, arbitrary, and dysfunctional gender roles and rules reduces the freedom and flourishing of both women and men. Hence, all the feminist arguments for liberating women from their grip also apply to men (and not against men, as is sometimes supposed). We are all victims of a system that has to change.

[–]uptheline-83 50 points51 points52 points 3 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

Some feminists did (and some still do) say that the liberation of men relies on the liberation of women. They would say feminism needs men and men need feminism. I suppose I'm here because I part company with the feminists who say "feminism is about the dismantling of male privilege. If you want to talk about how gender oppresses men differently you're not a feminist".

[–]ripyourlungsdave 45 points46 points47 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Feminism is meant to help men and women!"

"Unless you're trying to pass a law that primarily helps men/boys, in which case you're a sexist piece of shit fascist."

I think the idea of feminists being willing to work with male advocacy programs sounds amazing. It would be great to actually get to that point of balance in this discussion of gender.

But at the same time, we really don't need to keep trying to make ourselves palatable to feminists. In the same way that feminists aren't required to make feminism palatable for men. (In fact, they seem to think that making men uncomfortable is part of their job and a sign that they are doing something right, regardless of whether or not that man did anything to deserve that discomfort) Change is always going to cause pain, it's just a matter of whether or not that change is worth the pain it will cause.

And this is absolutely a fight worth causing some discomfort over.

[–]BCRE8TVE 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Some feminists did (and some still do) say that the liberation of men relies on the liberation of women. They would say feminism needs men and men need feminism.

The problem with this analogy is that usually it derives into trickle-down liberation, where men are needed to liberate women, and then the liberation of men will come about, eventually, somehow, on its own, but we still have to pour more and more efforts into liberating women, and if you as a man don't support this unconditionally, then you're misogynistic and anti-feminist.

Women have been by and large liberated from their gender roles, and they can choose to be whatever they want to be, they can be career-driven breadwinners, they can be stay-at-home moms, or any mix thereof.

Meanwhile, men have to work and provide, or be single and/or homeless.

Women have by and large been emancipated from their gender roles, men by and large have not, and yet nothing has been done to recognize and address this fact. Women have been getting their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd serving of equality, while men are told again and again to wait their turn at the end of the line, getting nothing but crumbs.

If feminism could actually recognize men's issues and work to address them, that would be fantastic.

The problem is that it doesn't, it milks men of their time, money, and energy to help women, gives promises to help men, but those promises have amounted to very little so far. I see no reason why this extortion that blatantly favours women and feminism to stop, because women and feminism benefit too much from it.

I therefore have very little hope for feminism to actually start caring about men rather than seeing men as useful labour force to do send and do what they don't want to do themselves.

[–]IcyTrapezium -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

It’s strange to think of someone thinking women have been emancipated from gender roles. Women are certainly more allowed to express masculine traits than men are to express feminine traits. Femininity is denigrated. Women have been allowed more advancement in the workplace in the last fifty years, but they are still generally expended to also do the majority of child rearing and meal prep/cleaning/laundry as well.

[–]BCRE8TVE 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Femininity is denigrated.

Is it really more denigrated than masculinity is denigrated?

Women have been allowed more advancement in the workplace in the last fifty years, but they are still generally expended to also do the majority of child rearing and meal prep/cleaning/laundry as well.

And men are still expected to do the bulk of the heavy lifting, the bulk of putting themselves in harm's way to protect, the bulk of the dying, the bulk of the earning, the bulk of the emotional comforting, while largely being denied the same understanding and compassion they're expected to give, and if we speak up about it we're told we're being misogynistic and we should shut up.

I agree with you that women being expected to work and raise children and cook and do laundry is absolutely a lot, but in many cases the workload is split somewhat evenly. Many of the studies tracking hours spent on household chores in the home don't take much account of the household chores spent on the outside of the home (vehicle maintenance, mowing the lawn, maintaining property) and often forget to take time in transit to and from work into account as well. When that is done, the hours spent working is close to 50/50 between men and women in most of the developed world.

I agree with you that there is still some inequality and unfairness, it's not perfect everywhere, but I'm wary of the "women are always victims" narrative, because it tends to passively or actively push the notion that men are not and cannot be victims, or that men do not or cannot face hardships.

Truth is, life is harsh for most everyone. Society doesn't really give a shit about male suffering however, but is trying to bend over backwards to accommodate women. Men don't have that luxury.

[–]IcyTrapezium 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I agree women aren’t always victims and men face a lot of struggles that aren’t talked about! You make a lot of good points. I just disagree with the idea that women have been “largely emancipated” from gender roles.

As for which gender expression is “more” denigrated… they are very differently denigrated. But there is certainly a reason little girls are allowed to play football and little boys are discouraged by adults (of both sexes) from playing with dolls.

[–]BCRE8TVE 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

I agree women aren’t always victims and men face a lot of struggles that aren’t talked about! You make a lot of good points.

Thanks for this, and sorry if I seem too confrontational. It's a frustrating point I've been arguing for too long with people who refuse to even consider the notion, I hope that frustration didn't leak out too much here.

I just disagree with the idea that women have been “largely emancipated” from gender roles.

I mean fair enough, what makes you say that women have not been largely emancipated? Also, do you think men have been emancipated from their gender roles?

As for which gender expression is “more” denigrated… they are very differently denigrated. But there is certainly a reason little girls are allowed to play football and little boys are discouraged by adults (of both sexes) from playing with dolls.

Very true that the genders are differently denigrated, but unfortunately the prevailing narrative in society is that the male gender is not denigrated at all (some go so far as to say that the male gender cannot be denigrated) while saying that the female gender is denigrated by anything and everything under the sun. I don't think there's a single problem on earth that could not be spun in such a way to make it look like women are most affected. Reminds me of the quote by Hillary Clinton that women are the primary victims of war because they lose their fathers, brothers, and sons. Nevermind the men who are actually dying, clearly those most affected are the women, right?

So yeah, both genders are denigrated in different ways, it's just that society does not talk about and seems rather hostile to considering the very possibility that men are denigrated, while spending lots of time, money, and effort addressing how women are denigrated.

[–]IcyTrapezium -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Yes. I agree. bell hooks often says in her lectures something to the effect of “don’t get confused. Patriarchy hates men and especially boys.” Part of the male gender role is being a good solider for the upper classes. It’s disgusting and Clinton’s quote is cringe. She could have talked about how women in war are treated (horrifically, some are made into sex slaves for years) without cheapening the horror men face in war.

I think the male gender is revered and then mocked when it doesn’t meet that ideal. It’s comparable to the Madonna/whore dichotomy. Not the same, but a similar love/hate relationship.

Feminism came first because women as a group held less power in such an obvious way that could be pointed to that it was easier to organize. Meanwhile (often working class) men were being drafted into a war to protect capitalism. Many men knew it was wrong, but they didn’t CONCEPTUALIZE it as sex based oppression, even though it IS. The way mothers who sacrificed for their children and didn’t involve themselves in politics or a professional life were idealized, so were soldiers. Feminists stopped falling for it and noticed how gendered it was. For whatever reason, most men didn’t see the problem with male gender roles for themselves. One could argue that’s because they didn’t want to give up the power they had in a male-dominated society? But maybe not!

Gender roles can be destructive to both men and women in different ways. Sometimes gender expectations can psychologically destroy a man. This is stating the obvious here, but in the real world the harms of hegemonic masculinity aren’t considered often.

I need to learn to write better! And no I don’t think men or women are currently emancipated from oppressive gender roles. Not at all

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminism came first because women as a group held less power in such an obvious way that could be pointed to that it was easier to organize.

When you don't have any power, you can't organize, its pre-emptively shut down. Nobody cares. You're kicked while down, shot maybe even literally.

Men as a class are the ones who don't have power. Largely because they've been de-empowered, forced to conceptualize their self as not-gendered. Heck, in all policies and laws that talk about gendered violence, they explicitly only mention women. Apparently men have no gender.

Male on female DV in Spain is gendered violence, female on male DV is not, though. Legally. Since 2004.

[–]BCRE8TVE 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes. I agree. bell hooks often says in her lectures something to the effect of “don’t get confused. Patriarchy hates men and especially boys.”

It's a shame that the majority of feminists I've talked to or heard about, only ever really just pay lip service to that notion. They act as though bell hooks already covered it, we acknowledge that patriarchy hurts men, now that's done we move on to focus back on women without sparing an ounce of effort to actually help men.

I also find it rather weird how one can believe at once that it is called a patriarchy, with a society organized around and dominated by men, while also believing that that self-same patriarchy also hates men and boys. Like, how can a patriarchy be made for men to dominate, while simultaneously hating men? I don't know how they square that contradiction, and every time I have brought it up or seen it brought up it was basically hand-waved away.

It’s disgusting and Clinton’s quote is cringe. She could have talked about how women in war are treated (horrifically, some are made into sex slaves for years) without cheapening the horror men face in war.

Completely agree, but cheapening the horrors men face and blowing out of proportion female suffering is just the way society works. Kinda weird thing for a male-dominated patriarchy to do.

Gender roles can be destructive to both men and women in different ways. Sometimes gender expectations can psychologically destroy a man.

Completely agree. It just frustrates me that discussion of gender roles almost by default excludes men, and that male gender roles seem to only be quantified and measured by women, and that they ignore the men who are going through and living those male gender roles unless those men agree with the women already.

This is stating the obvious here, but in the real world the harms of hegemonic masculinity aren’t considered often.

They're only really considered when it harms women, when the harms of hegemonic masculinity, or whatever the next buzzword becomes, harms men, it's deflected and blamed back at men with virtually no effort made to actually address the situation. In the real world men suffer, but men's suffering is just an acceptable status quo that feminism seems to have very little interest in actually addressing.

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

It can hate men and elevate men at the same time because it can be disproportionately hard on weak men or men who can be exploited by other more powerful men. Soldiers are used by other men in power to further their interests. Why not harness the patriarchal ideal of a strong capable man who gloriously overpowers his (or his masters) enemies? Complimenting the poor (the meek shall inherit the earth… just not now) and women and lower class men who are cannon fodder makes perfect sense when you factor in exploitation.

Women are used but also elevated above men in a different way. When it’s done to women, it’s called being put on a pedestal. “Angels of the household” who need to stay in the house. Open women’s doors, protect and provide for us, but also…. Men know what’s best and women should shut up and follow men’s leadership. Paternalism basically. Patriarchy loves women but it hates women. I grew up around Pentecostals. If you ask then why women can’t have leadership roles in the church they will look you in the face and say “women are too pure for that.” The whole “power will sully women” thing still exists in conservative communities. Those women think it’s a compliment and they aren’t gonna wanna give up the “privilege” of not being decision makers in their OWN LIVES. Their husbands who get shit on at work in their low paying jobs get to come home and be king of the castle. These same men will talk up chivalry while being domineering with their wives and children.

It’s complicated 😂 but a system can elevate a class while also abusing them. Think poor southern whites pitted against poor blacks. Keeps the poors in their place by giving them someone to be better than.

[–]BCRE8TVE 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It can hate men and elevate men at the same time because it can be disproportionately hard on weak men or men who can be used by other men.

It can't hate men and elevate men at the same time, because you can't elevate people you hate ;)

The thing is, patriarchy elevates SOME men, but hates MANY men. That'S the flaw in discussing patriarchy theory, because they rarely if ever make that crucial distinction. The moment that distinction is made, it reveals the one thing patriarchy theory works hard to erase, and it is the CLASS issues inherent in society, that patriarchy theory misattributes to gender.

I absolutely hear you on the hating some and elevating others, and I have absolutely no issues with that framing because it is absolutely correct.

The problem is patriarchy theory and/or its proponents obfuscate that to focus on the oppression of women while paying lip service to men's issues at best, or ignoring them entirely, despite the fact that most of the victims of patriarchy that suffer the most, are men.

Can't have a male-dominated society if most of the people at the bottom of society, are male. It's a blatant apex fallacy.

Completely hear you about conservative/religious groups, but to be fair it's kinda enshrined in the religious texts. 1 Timothy 2:12. I don't believe in any god, I believe all religious texts were written by men, so I can blame men for writing that in the holy books, but it'S more complicated than just "men wanted power and so they enslaved women for it".

It’s complicated 😂

Oh I completely agree.

It's just that more often than not, for feminists, it's complicated for women, so we need lots of study and scholars to explain exactly how oppressed and victimized women are, but nobody gives a shit about the men. The men don't get the benefit of "it's complicated" in the discussion because we're not even allowed at the discussion in the first place.

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

bell hooks often says

Bell Hooks is a supremacist pig.

[–]AvoidPinkHairHippos 28 points29 points30 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's an upvote cuz I can tell you're coming from a truly positive place. Thank you.

Problem: If most feminists were like you, then we egalitarians would have much less qualms embracing your ideology. Unfortunately, you are a very rare sect in your ideology, and vastly outnumbered in almost all levels of sociopolitical stratas by actual misandrists: colleges, tech, entertainment, journalism, NGOs, and even political parties

Until the day comes when most feminists not only say, but act and advocate and uphold the values you've espoused, I'm afraid these are just empty words

This goes for the OP too

EDIT: and they can start by explicitly and regularly using the word Misandry and misandrist. That's the first step.

But of course, even that first step is unacceptable to them

[–]uptheline-83 22 points23 points24 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nina Power wrote in "What Do Men Want" that men and women have lived together for millenia and none of us would be here if that weren't the case. So the idea that instead of having a confrontation we might have a movement based on mutual respect and understanding doesn't seem impossible to me. The objection from the feminists I talked to was that this was a call for "quietism" and that I couldn't be an ally if I was "tone policing" any expressions of hatefulness. That's where I reluctantly gave up trying to be an "ally", lest I be called a "fake ally".

[–]BCRE8TVE 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So the idea that instead of having a confrontation we might have a movement based on mutual respect and understanding doesn't seem impossible to me.

Completely agree, but like you experienced, feminism is unwilling to extend that respect and understanding to men, so feminism cannot be that movement.

[–]Blauwpetje 28 points29 points30 points 3 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

It’s literally the ‘patriarchy hurts men too’-narrative. Most feminists actually support this and state men would actually be happier if they gave up their ‘gender role’. This doesn’t work and never worked. It ignores a lot of cultural and biological dynamics, f ex that less masculine men are tolerated by many people, but considered less attractive by most women, even feminists. And it ignores that the last half century, men have been harmed more by feminist laws and propaganda than by traditional roles.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Another issue I see a lot is they only talk about the patriarchy harming men in the context of things like "men not being able to wear the color pink".

They ignore all of the actual issues that men care about. Because honestly when you start to add everything up, men seem to have a lot more against them than women do. So the only way to hold onto their victim ideology is to ignore all the very real and relevant ways men are disadvantaged in society.

They also don't tend to push for real solutions. They just go on and on about the patriarchy. And then when MRA groups push for concrete legislative changes that would fix these problems, seemingly in opposition to "the patriarchy", they start whining about how that's not the right way to do it, and that in fact we should keep things the way they are instead of trying to advance society forward.

If you want men to take your ideology seriously, you need to speak towards actual men's issues, and push for real world change instead of blind platitudes about the patriarchy.

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

and push for real world change instead of blind platitudes about the patriarchy.

👆 This.

[–]azazelcrowley 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is certainly extremely revealing. They retreat to "Patriarchy hurts men too" when you bring up actual issues men face and have prepared responses if you talk about them.

But if they don't know that you know, they will either pretend men don't face issues until you point out you're not an idiot, or they will list trivial ones first.

It is an insight into their psychology and how they're either operating in bad faith and simply want to diminish and excuse away mens issues and don't like to admit they even exist.

I take "Patriarchy hurts men too" more seriously from a feminist who opens the discussion on that with some serious issues. (Though inevitably they reveal some other fucked up insight into how misandrist they are. I can count on one hand the number of feminists I don't think are misandrists except by technicality of identifying with the feminist movement.).

[–]OGBoglord 11 points12 points13 points 3 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

And it ignores that the last half century, men have been harmed more by feminist laws and propaganda than by traditional roles.

Traditional gender roles are why a generation of young Ukrainian men were barred from leaving their country while the women weren't, why men are expected to initiate romance and be the breadwinner, why men are shamed for not leaving the house after they graduate, why men are expected to protect women even at the cost of their own safety.

So much of what male advocates focus on relates to society's ideals for who a man ought to be and what he's supposed to do; there is no question that countless men would be a great deal happier and healthier if they weren't pressured to conform to their gender role. This isn't to say that men shouldn't perform the behaviors that are associated with their role if they want to; if a man wants to be the breadwinner that's his and his partner's business.

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

What you call ‘traditional gender roles’ are largely, though not totally, biological differences. F ex especially in countries where there is a draft, society could make it less self-evident it’s almost only men dying in battlefield. But I doubt if it’s society that causes largely men going to war.

[–]OGBoglord 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Ukrainian Men, and only the men, being barred from leaving their country so they can fight in the war is a gendered role imposed by a societal institution (the Ukrainian government).

[–]Blauwpetje 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don’t deny that.

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

I would hope not. Clearly then, traditional gender roles such as this are still inflicting extreme harm on the men of today, not because of biological differences but because of cultural norms perpetuated by society.

Biology determines that men be, generally speaking, physically stronger than women, but it is the Ukrainian government that determined for women, even women without children, to have no civic duty to defend their own country, leaving male civilians to shoulder that burden themselves.

[–]iainmf 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I recall someone saying that men's rights should be the fifth wave of feminism, but I can't see how feminism could ditch the misandry in the movement.

Here's a quote from the Men Engage Alliance, a group of hundreds of feminist organisation 'working' with men and boys:

​

Critical Dialogue on Engaging Men and Boys in Gender-Justice

This report was developed by MenEngage Alliance, based on a 3-day online dialogue held in April 2016 in which 134 people from 39 countries participated.

…

There was disagreement about how and why men are or should be motivated to be involved in work on women’s rights and gender justice. Some contributors were clear that we should not highlight the benefits of gender equality for men themselves, because they should not be doing this work out of self-interest, and need instead to learn to give something up. They argued that, in their experience, men involved in gender justice work are doing so because they care about other people’s lives, and about the pain and the suffering women experience because of sexism. They stressed that it should be altruism that is fuelling the commitment to change. We should be careful about prioritizing men and boy’s sense of comfort with this work, or their centrality to it.

…

I would suggest that we do not need to engage men and boys by first convincing them that gender justice is in their own best interest. In many ways, it is not. And it does not address the individual’s reality that they will have to give some stuff up, if men and women are to be really equal.

Chuck Derry - Gender Violence Institute, USA

…

It was noted that economic insecurity could destabilize gender power relations and lead to violence or create a backlash from men as they lose some of their power and privilege. This is key to addressing the growing number of regressive groups of ‘angry men’, and to understanding their ‘pain’, whether this is real pain or simply the loss of privilege. Some contributors saw it as important to understand men’s needs and vulnerabilities and the links to socio-political developments in order to prevent men from undermining women’s rights and gender justice.

​

As you can see, even when feminists 'engage' with men and boys, their goal is to change them. They don't care about men and boys as human beings, only as barriers to women's rights.

[–]I_am_not_a_defect 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They are literally advocating for indoctrination. But they have a smile on her face and are using flowery words to make it seem reasonable. Fuck these people.

[–]Raining_Hope 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How 'bout we stop trying to fit it into a feminist box, and just say what the issues are that would help both sexes. That way it's not about being pro feminist or not, but us about looking at practical issues and resolving them. If it's an actual issue then stop trying to push it as a feminist thing, because that's getting in the way. If the issues relating to men are different, (many of them are) from what women face as issues, then it's better to focus on those as their own thing instead of trying to merge them in a movement that has a lot of distrust already for not valuing men or treating them well.

[–]RockmanXX 17 points18 points19 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

violence (which also makes for a much higher suicide success rate)

The Female Suicide attempt rate stats are inflated by counting acts of non-lethal self-harm by women as "Suicide Attempt" and also by counting multiple attempts by the same woman, this creates the illusion of more women being suicidal. You're also ignoring the fact that men are less likely to admit self-harming or attempting suicide, which further skews the stats.

It is by now well known that women are punished for non-gender normative ‘unfeminine’ behaviour, such as appearing more concerned with their career

No they're not, stop lying. This is not the 1950s or Afghanistan, we live in an era of dual income households.

[–]iainmf 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also, men self-harm in ways that fall outside of the 'self-harm' category. For examples, punching a wall, intentionally exercising to the point of pain/injury, doing deliberately reckless things hoping to get injured etc.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter