I just read this title. And I started laughing for 5 minutes. Because of how contradictory and ironic the title sounds. Think about it. Because of the oppressor vs oppressed dichotomy and intersectionality. Feminists often compared the oppression of women to the oppression of minorities and LGBTQ people.

But this is when irony that ends up f*cking it up for feminists come in with the phase "Feminism can help men too". Feminists have shot themselves in the foot here. Like imagine a BLM activist saying anti racism can help white people too. Or a LGBTQ person saying Pride can help straight people too. This all sounds ridiculous. Which makes the phase "feminism is for men too" even more funnier. Because a lot of Feminists strongly believe in the oppressed vs oppressor dichotomy.

So it's a double edged sword. We all know Feminists give lip service to men issues for the most part. But with the phase "feminism is for men too" they can control the narrative around men issues. For example, they can just say men issues are the result of toxic masculinity (which is just men having undesirable traits to them). And try to frame the the solutions for men issues as "positive masculinity" (which is just a sneaky way to get men to adhere to traditional male gender roles).

But the double edged sword put them in a double bind here. Because of the oppressed vs oppressor dichotomy. How can "Feminism be for men" if women are oppressed? Why would the oppressed ever want to help the oppressor?(🤔). So this is a situation where is hard for them to have that "I want to have my cake and want eat it too" mentality lol.

They want to say "feminism can help men too", because again they want to control the narrative around men issues. But at the same time, the oppressed vs oppressor dichotomy tells them that men don't need help or have any struggles. So feminists have put themselves in a double bind here.

This is funny because all feminists have to do is not be hell bent on holding onto the status quo of male gender roles. And they wouldn't be in this double bind anymore. But since they won't do that. Because male gender roles are a part of the narrative. Since they think male gender roles are the solutions to men issues, and use male gender role expectations as a way to "help" men.

Now if we talk about how some oppressed groups are less oppressed and other groups. Then that would be a whole different conversation, that would end up getting you a lot of disagreements. Since you are making an "oppression Olympics" game here.

So the only solution here. Is to make all oppressed groups have the same equal level of oppression. But the phase "feminism is for men too" doesn't make sense in this context. Because again why would the oppressed want to help the oppressors? I thought oppressors couldn't have issues, with the identity that gives them so much privilege in society. So how does that work? (🤔).

But again they want to gatekeep men issues with the phase "feminism is for men too". Since they want to be the the ones that decide what the roots cause of men issues are. And also decide what are the solutions to men issues too. And of course they have interest actually helping men. They just want to control the narrative around men issues, in order to maintain the status quo.

In conclusion.

I think some feminists have gotten themselves in a paradox here.