As a feminist ...

Outrageous_Glove_467 · 2025-09-16T16:45:09+00:00

This shit again…

“Women being left out of the draft is misogynistic” is utterly ridiculous. This comes from a place of sexism within yourself. You are unable to see men as humans, as equal to women.

Feminists will do unfathomable amounts of mental gymnastics to say literally anything is misogynistic, instead of accepting sexism and discrimination happens to men too.

Karmaze · 2025-09-16T16:34:03+00:00

I think it's something fairly simple, in that the Oppressor/Oppressed dichotomy is completely incompatable with any concept of men's well-being or worth as individuals. That's my take at least. There's really no ethical way to exist within that Critical Feminist concept of power. The best you can do is try your best to either be disposable enough to maybe be worth it, or frankly you go full Toxic Masculinity to try and garner enough status and power as to not have this lens actually applied to you. Neither way is good or healthy.

eldred2 · 2025-09-16T16:48:57+00:00

This reads a lot like a troll post, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe you're too young to remember, but there was a time when feminists insisted that the use of gendered terms like policeman, or fireman, or stewardess, led to associating those functions with the gender. So, we as a society adopted gender neutral terms for these functions: police officer, fire fighter, and flight attendant. And sure enough, they were right: Removing the gender from the name helped to overcome some of the sexist notions of who could or should perform those actions.

So, can you explain to me how the use of gendered terms like "toxic masculinity" doesn't do exactly the same thing? That is, associating the toxicity with the gender, rather than the actions? Also, can you help me understand why feminists refuse to adopt gender neutral terms for actions either gender can and do engage in?

From where I'm sitting, the fact that feminists insist on using these kinds of unnecessarily gendered terms to describe unwanted behaviors, indicates that any claim of being in favor of "equality" is disingenuous.

KPplumbingBob · 2025-09-16T16:53:39+00:00

A beautiful example of taking something that is basically a human rights issue, affecting one gender only, and making it about yourself.

It's not about women being perceived as weak. It's about societal expectations put on men to provide, protect and sacrifice.

Most progressive countries do not conscript both genders. Even those that do, women do not serve on the same terms that men do. In case of a war women will not be the ones sent to front lines. It is about male disposability more than anything else.

Easy to say you are for having "no conscription" when it is not the reality for most countries and when it is already men who are forced to do it. Making the whole thing to be a "men vs men in power" issue is just dodging accountability, as usual. For any kind of societal problem, men are supposed to share responsibility, or even solve the problem themselves. But when it is only men who are affected then it is "by other men" and women wash their hands of it. As if they have no role and power in society whatsoever.

MathematicianNext132 · 2025-09-16T16:51:38+00:00

What I think is annoying about the typical feminist is how they talk about men and not really with men. All the assumptions and questions women are asking each other instead of asking us. But also all the generalizations and overdramatization of everything feminist. I am just unwilling to deal with it.

Feminists don't like the idea of mansplaining, in that same regard I don't need a woman to tell me what masculinity is or should be. I do not really care too much about the words feminists use, I care about behaviour. I don't want a woman to tell me it is okey to cry, I want her to show me. I want to see women accepting their crying partner without hesitation or feelings changing. If you can show me that, then I am interested. Words are cheap, that is something I always keep in mind.

I definitely believe that some aspect of how men are being treated has to do with misandry. The idea that in general women are physically weaker is not just some bias, it is a biological reality. Misandry is for me the idea that a man is not worthy of being protected but is replaceable or guilty by association. As if a man starting a war makes other men more guilty. That is misandry.

GltyUntlPrvnInncnt · 2025-09-16T16:46:33+00:00

Please explain toxic femininity

Muki47 · 2025-09-16T16:59:07+00:00

You go on about toxic masculinity, can you share your views on toxic femininity?

nebthefool · 2025-09-16T16:59:47+00:00

Do you have a source on this claim?

The arguments for keeping the draft to men come from a place of "women are weaker / can't possibly be in the military" which comes from this idea of women are inferior.

If not, It would be equally valid to claim that the draft excluding women is due to social pressure on men to "protect women and children". The fact that conservative men are opposing women being added to the draft wouldn't be inconsistent with this line of thinking either. Anecdotally conservative's tend to more rigidly adhere to strict gender roles than left wing individuals.

Personally I think feminism teaches you to have precisely one explanation for every single social issue and one solution, invariably "more feminism". It's brilliantly like religion, everything is the fault of godlessness, or the patriarchy, or sinners, or misogyny. Everything will be solved if everyone just becomes a christian/a feminist(delete whichever is appropriate).

I do think feminism provides an occasionally useful lense through which to view society, but there's a lot of times that it does not provide an adequate explanation.

Like people will unironically learn that men are falling so far behind in education, that men are overwhelmingly incarcerated and given harsher sentences, that men are the majority of the homeless and still go "sounds like misogyny to me".

zodiacthrow · 2025-09-16T16:38:34+00:00

You really need to stop with "actually draft stems from misogyny" argument. No. It's both misogyny AND misandry.

If you analyze the matter of maternity and motherhood with this approach, you can see how quickly the whole narrative falls apart. "Actually, the notion of 'the primary carer of a child should be mothers' comes from the notion that 'men make terrible parent', so forcing/pressuring women to become mothers is not misogyny, it's actually misandry". It's BOTH. The notion that fathers are not good parents is a misandry, and the societal and cultural pressure that pushes women into roles of motherhood they did not want is misogyny. Likewise, the notion that women make terrible fighters is misogyny, and societal and cultural elements that force men into military to die for the profits of the few rich and powerful is inarguably misandry. These are just different sides of the same coin.

And please, do away with the "but this is men on men violence" rhetoric. A LOT of misogyny practiced in modern society are perpetrated by women, on other women. A lot of mothers perpetrate misogyny against their daughters and daughters in laws. Lot of women in school bully other women for not fitting "ideal female physique". Hell, the entire premise of the movie mean girls is toxic femininity and women-on-women misogyny. If you understand that patriarchy causes harm on men, then idk why your next step in the thought process is "oh but this is men harming men, so it's not misandry" like???

Not to mention, this glosses over various ways in which women participate in patriarchal structure to force men into being drafted, feminist or not. Hillary Clinton, Margaret Thatcher, Giorgia Meloni, etc. And even outside of powerful female figures, there were things like white rose movement by the suffragates who shamed men into fighting in WW1. Rather than reducing this into men vs women triabalistic dynamic, maybe it's time for many feminists to realize what it actually means to create a united front against patriarchal system that oppresses and harms both genders.

PassengerCultural421 · 2025-09-16T16:54:27+00:00

Keeping women out of the draft is the result of misogynistic thinking, and it's an example of when misogyny can also hurt men. Conscription is a men vs the men in power issue and not a men vs women issue."

What the Hellie?

SpicyMarshmellow · 2025-09-16T17:26:52+00:00

Toxic Masculinity: The academic definition that you describe is fine. I have no qualms with the observation that traditional masculinity can be harmful. But there's one caveat.

The exact same concept as applied to women is called internalized misogyny. So I think it implies something further that what is called internalized misogyny for women is differentiated as toxic masculinity for men. And I've seen confirmation of this implication over on AskFeminists when asked why this disparity in terminology exists, the prevailing response had to do with assigning men as a whole blame for cultural norms. That it would bother them that Internalized Misandry, in their own words, absolves men of responsibility.

My other issue is that the academic definition of toxic masculinity does not match the actual intent and usage of the term the vast majority of the time, even in feminist spaces. And this is one of the most common feminist motte & baileys. When the term is used in a way that is simply disparaging men, and someone criticizes the way the term is being used in that moment, then that person retreats into "You just don't understand what the term means!" and cites the academic definition.

The Draft: I think this sub generally agrees with you as to the facts you're citing. I'd be surprised if you haven't noticed a lot of posts around here criticizing the politics of conservative men. We have LeftWing in the title for a reason.

Whether it's misogyny or misandry... if you're determined to see it as misogyny, then you will, and there's not likely to be anything anyone can do about that. I honestly think society could have a meat grinder at every hospital that they throw newborn males into, and feminists would still try to argue that actually it's because of misogyny. Just about every facet of society is tilted in favor of women today, and the claim is still predominant that we live in a misogynistic society.

Here's a question: If the draft being exclusively male is because of the devaluation of women, then by that logic why aren't women correspondingly seen as more expendable? I know your first thought will be because conservatives value women as incubators. But... ok? What's the whole picture being painted there? Men are meat for the grinder, and women are incubators for more meat for the grinder. Maybe it's not about misandry or misogyny, and it's really just that conservative politics are a death cult in general. Personally, this is why if you look through my post history, I have almost never discussed the draft. Because I don't think the draft is as much about misandry as I think it is about death cults being in control of society.

But where I do have an issue with feminism regarding the draft, is that it's a pretty glaring male issue, among many glaring male issues, and feminists mostly steadfastly refuse to recognize it as one. I've seen alarmism about bodily autonomy just about every goddamn day for several years, but never an acknowledgement from a feminist that men face bodily autonomy issues too. With the way things are right now, I don't think it's far fetched that my son could be drafted for war a month from now. I think being able to choose whether your body is meat for the grinder is squarely an issue of bodily autonomy, and it cannot be argued otherwise with a shred of intellectual honesty.

And then when cornered on this, feminists 99% of the time will deflect by going "Well it's other men doing this, so take it up with your bros, not us!" Which is first of all wildly dishonest, as if there aren't large numbers of conservative women. And second shows that given the opportunity for solidarity with male allies and a sincere united front of progressive vs conservative politics, that showing empathy for men is so repugnant to them that they would rather turn everything into men vs women, alienate male allies, and lose. If that doesn't show hatred of men within the movement, then I don't know what does.

Present_League9106 · 2025-09-16T18:25:00+00:00

This your brain on feminism. Glad to have the reminder

Imakemyownnamereddit · 2025-09-16T19:07:39+00:00

The problem with feminists is there is one person they never hold to account or criticise. The person they see in the mirror.

You probably think the patriarchy is real but if it is, the person enforcing it, is the person you see in the mirror everyday. Talk is meaningless, talk is cheap, talk achieves nothing. What changes the world is actions, including your actions.

Who do you choose to date? Who do you choose to share your bed? Which men do you respect and which men do you treat with disdain? Be honest with yourself and I suspect you won't like the answer.

More than likely the guys you are attracted to and the ones you respect conform to the very toxic stereotypes you claim to oppose.

You might decide to be dishonest with us at this point or maybe you will admit the truth. Yet claim that what you do in your personal life has nothing to with your politics.

Well feminists are the ones who claim the personal is political. If feminist women continue to reward what you label toxic behaviour, why on earth do you expect men to change?

Broken_Castle · 2025-09-16T16:42:28+00:00

The problem with 'toxic masculinity' isnt the idea behind it but the name itself. It sounds aggressive, and often times is used so. Imagine going to a black person and talking about 'toxic black culture' or discussing 'toxic islam' with a Muslim. I would guess in the majority of situations the people would be offended and think you are attacking them for being 'toxic' rather than trying to pinpoint only certain toxic elements of whatever it is you are discussing.

And this is a know issue. Men are offended when they hear toxic masculinity, and a lot of feminists, instead of understanding that this is a bad choice of words if the goal is mutual understanding, instead double down and attack opponents of that phrase.

If you really want to help change a person's outlook or behavior or ideas, maybe dont surround your arguments with offensive sounding terminology.

king_rootin_tootin · 2025-09-16T16:56:27+00:00

Can you give ANY examples of toxic femininity?

country2poplarbeef · 2025-09-16T17:11:10+00:00

Concerning toxic masculinity, do you understand how such a division is very tricky for the one performing this masculinity, and how "positive" masculinity seems more like it's in service to you, and not me living my best self? When you let guys walk over you because femininity is associated with feminism, do you think such feminism is toxic and that you're at fault for your toxic femininity? And more importantly, do you think being called out as such from people who don't really understand what it's like to live feminine to call you out for it? Do you think it could be difficult to actually be proud of being feminine, when any and every misstep labels you and your very being as toxic? It's just not a useful oratory tool.

As for your second point, I don't think you're really in a place to say what is misandry against men any more than I'm able to say what is misogyny against women. When I'm likely to get twice the prison sentence length for the same crime as a woman, that isn't because I'm better than you and women are weak, that is because men are judged to be an inherently criminal element thanks to the anger issues a man should apparently have. The patriarchy might give privilege to men, but that does not mean it thinks men are perfect or that we are superior at everything. Patriarchy confirms over and over again that men are evil, greedy, violent assholes, and that a good man's only real enemy is other men. We're just big enough assholes to hopefully protect the sanctity and kindness of femininity.

Punder_man · 2025-09-16T20:28:57+00:00

What I would say is toxic masculinity...

There's traditional masculinity where men are expected to be the providers, to be emotionally stoic, and so on. And men will put on this act of masculinity, and sometimes this comes naturally, and of course there are aspects of masculinity that benefit you / the people around you. But sometimes the way society pushes men to behave actually harms the men who live up to these expectations, or it is harming society / the people around them. And when there is this harm, that is what is termed toxic masculinity.

So that's point number one, toxic masculinity is acting masculine in a way that hurts you or the people around you. An example might be bottling up emotions because society has said something along the lines of "boys shouldn't cry", or the bro-culture in frats that leads to very extreme hazing. Toxic masculinity is not that all masculinity is inherently toxic, or that men are toxic, or a lot of these variations of "feminists hate men!!!!" posts I see sometimes, it is just that some masculinity is toxic

The problem here is, there is how YOU are defining / using the term "Toxic Masculinity" and then there's the way that women / feminists use the term..
And in my experience the term "Toxic Masculinity" constantly gets misused
These days the term has been used essentially to describe anything a man says or does which a woman does not agree with or takes offense from.

The other problem with the term is, logically if "Toxic Masculinity" exists then surely "Toxic Femininity" also exists right?
But if that's the case we NEVER hear a single feminist discuss "Toxic Femininity"
Hell, most feminists i've met will say "Toxic Femininity exists, its just not called that.. its called "Internalized Misogyny" Or I hear feminists claim "Women can have Toxic Masculinity to"
If that's the case then why are we gendering the term? why not give it a gender neutral term like "Toxic Gender Norms" or "Toxic Gender Roles"?

Most feminists I bring this up with clap back with "Its not on us to censor our language / terms to protect men's feelings!"

Which is a little ironic given how often feminists expect men to change the things we say and do to protect women's feelings no?

Local-Willingness784 · 2025-09-16T18:47:19+00:00

the toxic masculinity people always seem to ignore or flat out lie about how much women and society in general incentivise and want that behaviour from men, whether they say it or not, and i could go on but more people here have better arguments than me, specially when it comes to women telling men what to do and calling it positive masculinity with the twist of it always being in service of women, as if that what we are here for, always.

men being seen as more expendable is a direct result of biology on one hand, and gynocentrism on the other, plus, sometimes when women are incorporated in the military they are expected to be put on "cushier" positions and send the men who would be on those to die on the forefront, plus, its very naive and stupid to say that keeping women out of the military is mysoginy as if dyng on wars was such a fucking privilegue, it reeks of entitlement and ignorance and i dont care if you hate more this place now because of this comments, i dont want to accept this kind of arguments here.

SvitlanaLeo · 2025-09-17T15:05:50+00:00

Even something like what is misogynistic and what is misandrist... these terms are thrown around but often not in the way I expect them to be used

Exactly. We will use them not in the way you expect them to be used. Problems?

So I think it's correct to identify that this is a problem, but I don't think it's coming from misandry

Viewing someones as those who must be legally forced to dangerous compulsory labour is hatred towards them. Viewing men as those who must be legally forced to dangerous compulsory labour is hatred towards men.

The arguments for keeping the draft to men come from a place of "women are weaker / can't possibly be in the military" which comes from this idea of women are inferior. Keeping women out of the draft is the result of misogynistic thinking

There's a lot less hate in "You're useless on the battlefield because you're a woman, your place is in the kitchen" than in "You're a man, I expect you to be a real man and join the army. No? I'll give you a ton of money for it. I'll increase your career chances. Still no? Well, then go to jail for draft evasion." It is far more beneficial for world peace if the "misogyny" of "women are useless on the battlefield" is extended to men and they too are seen as useless on the battlefield.

cheapcheap1 · 2025-09-16T17:00:22+00:00

You sound like a generally level-headed person that I don't disagree with too much. However, as with most level-headed feminists, It sounds like you do not see it when other, less level-headed "feminists" dehumanize men.

>misogyny can harm men

Sure, it's almost trivially true. Hating your peers harms everyone including the hater. But far more often, I find that this sentence is used to deny the existence of misandry, which far more directly harms men. For example, it's not misogyny when men are punished for deviating from the male gender role, it's misandry. It's men being hated for a their gender performance. Bending over backwards to erase male suffering and turn it into "women most affected" is extremely harmful.

>In 2016, the Senate voted on whether to add women to the draft... And it was the conservative men who opposed it!

That sounds great. In my country (Switzerland) "Feminists" keep campaigning against equality like that. They had a big campaign against extending the draft to women, and e.g. they also campaigned and voted against equalizing the retirement age to match that of men (yes, women could retire earlier, despite living longer, and they defended that).

Dark_Prince_of_Chaos · 2025-09-16T17:02:37+00:00

You are not on the good sub for your gynocentric propaganda.

You are still programmed by the misandrist system.

Bilbo332 · 2025-09-16T17:23:34+00:00

As others have said, you're looking at this through the lens that men exist as a privileged group, similar to white people or straight people. In the west, this simply and demonstrably is not the case. The common argument is "men make up the majority of millionaires, politicians, CEOs" etc. But ignores that men make up the majority of the homeless, suicides, the incarcerated, workplace deaths, those addicted to drugs and alcohol. Basically every group you don't want to be a part of is dominated by men. You don't see this in any group that one could call actutally privileged.

Try a thought experiment: write a complete list of things that you would call white privileges. Every last one you can think of. Then go through it, look at the data, and see if it applies more to men or women. The results may surprise you. So while I wouldn't go so far as to call women a privileged group, it's undeniable that men also are not. Not everything has to be viewed from an "oppressor/oppressed" lens.

AbysmalDescent · 2025-09-17T15:32:28+00:00

First of all, who do you think is pushing those gender norms onto men though? Who do you think wants men to be strong, assertive, confident, aggressive, because that's what "real men" are supposed to be? If you're looking for a definition, I would say that toxic masculinity, just like toxic femininity, are traits that are harmful, which are socially accepted or expected out of men and women because of their gender. I would say the only difference between toxic femininity and toxic masculinity, is that toxic femininity is more so a lack of expectations on women, while toxic masculinity is more so a result of hard expectations placed on men.

There are also plenty of women who believe that women are weaker or shouldn't be expected to fight. The idea that women aren't as physically strong or are just too precious to be lost in combat also has nothing to do with the idea that women are inferior. That is your projection, and a projection that is typically coming from an anti-male or antagonistic disposition. Ignoring the fact that women are, generally, weaker than men(which means they would mostly be put in less physically demanding roles either way), most of the arguments I've seen from conservatives about not drafting women is about protecting women first and foremost, or this idea that women's lives are inherently more valuable than men's. That is misandry, not misogyny.

Your inability to recognize misandry, or predisposition to define everything under the lens of misogyny, is keeping you blind to other facts and issues around you. It is not rooted in objectivity or truth, you are putting the presumptions before the facts.

OxygenWaster02 · 2025-09-16T17:00:14+00:00

On the toxic masculinity point, the big gripe we have with the term overall is its lack of application. The issue isn’t that men don’t cry because a defunct socialization pushes them towards stoicism, men are instead systematically denied empathy because we are shoehorned into a provider role on the basis of a gender system constructed around the broader demands of capitalism and industrialization. Pushing men towards “positive masculinity” does little to change this because it completely ignores the broader material facets that create the male condition

This article from a while back does a reasonably good job of dissecting it: https://psyche.co/ideas/talk-of-toxic-masculinity-puts-the-blame-in-all-the-wrong-places

SvitlanaLeo · 2025-09-17T16:02:21+00:00

Conscripting men and excluding women from the draft is not misogyny. This is the aspect where we need to change social attitudes toward men rather than social attitudes towards women.

Langland88 · 2025-09-18T01:30:59+00:00

Can we please stop using the terminology "Toxic Masculinity" already?! That along with "Patriarchy" always kills the discourse. I challenged Feminists over at r/Egalitarianism to not use those terms and they felt the challenge was too disingenuous without realizing how both those terms kill the discourse.

Some-Article1877 · 2025-09-17T02:31:00+00:00

You need to differentiate between academic feminism and that of mainstream. Most feminism today is the latter and it is disingenuous to frame feminism by and large otherwise. There was a post here that highlighted the differences well, I will post it to this comment when I find it.

ChimpPimp20 · 2025-09-18T05:18:31+00:00

Where do I start?

First, you seem to do a good job speaking of toxic masculinity and not healthy masculinity. Can you give us some examples of a healthy version please? I think this can squash the notion that "toxic masculinity is just hating on masculinity" idea.

Secondly, I don't think you understand that you can't just frame everything bad that happens to men and women as "misogyny." Something that I learned from TwoX was that people tend to misuse the term "misogyny" the same way they misuse "ironic." Sexism is the ignorance of a sex (in this case women) while misogyny is the outright hatred of women. You can be ignorant of women without hating them but you can't hate women without ignorance. That's where misogyny comes in. Hate begins when said person doesn't understand something or someone. That ignorance then turns to fear which then transitions into hatred. The countries where women and men are separated during a ceremony tend to hate women a lot, let's be honest. This is also the case with men with no female friends. Also, this whole "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" notion aids in that as well.

On the topic of conscription, I can't stand it when feminists try to take something that affects men and turn it around to have it be something that affects women. You're literally doing the "men dead, women most affected" meme. You can to go to college and have a full degree without the administration slyly putting in a checkmark that states that you agree to conscription. If you don't do that they can jail you for at least 5yrs and fine you a quarter million dollars. The reason people don't really care now is because there's no war in our faces.

Just because someone sees you as weak doesn't mean that they hate you. If you're confused then let me give you a scenario. A group of Islamic terrorists who are against young people getting a secular or western education run into a group of girls, threaten them and let them go only to burn the boys alive. This was Boko Haram. If you remember the "Bring back our girls" phrase, that was them. Everyone and their mom went holding up signs about the missing girls that were taken from their homes. Little did they know that those same girls would've been safe if the public had known about the boys that they murdered before hand.

So I'm going to propose another question to you. If I'm murderous and decide to kill a man and let you live all because you're "too delicate," is this misogyny or sexism? Does me letting you live mean that I hate you? If I truly hate women, why am I letting any of you live? On top of that, the man dying in this situation died from...misogyny? Make it make sense. I think you're confusing benevolent sexism and chivalry to misogyny. It also seems like no matter what, misandry doesn't exist even in a situation where the men are most affected. Believe it or not but I've seen feminists equate awarding a female statutory rapist child support to (you guessed it) misogyny. Again, make it make sense.

On the topic of selective service, I don't any of it involves misandry or misogyny. I think the result of conscription in the states today is due not to a hatred of men and women but ignorance. It's just pure sexism. Men need to do this while women need to do that. Not "I hate women so I'll have the men do this." This doesn't mean that there aren't civilians and politicians with hatred in their heart. I'm just saying that we can't label everything as one thing since that isn't always going to be the case.

Lanavis13 · 2025-09-16T16:57:08+00:00

First, welcome to the sub. Hopefully, people make sure to give you the same respect back that you show them. Now on to your points.

"What I would say is toxic masculinity..."

When it comes to toxic masculinity, I refer to it as either gender roles, internalized misandry, and/or the consequences of the aforementioned. Similar to how many feminists never would say toxic femininity unless pressed (and even then, they might not). They would refer to things that could be ascribed to toxic femininity as internalized misogyny and/or gender roles. I find terms like toxic masculinity to implicitly and (depending on the feminist) explicitly be used to blame men for their own restrictive gender roles and the consequences of the misandry (or female-focused mindsets) of other men.

A question for you: would you start using the term "toxic femininity" proactively and primarily to refer to things like internalized misogyny and gender roles; or would you still refer to just use internalized misogyny and gender roles to make it clear that you're not blaming femininity or women? I am of the mindset that words should be clear what they mean even without a deep dive into them, especially when there are counterpart terms (i.e. internalized misogyny) for other groups that already do the same. Considering how many people - men AND women - view toxic masculinity as some type of negative judgment against men/masculinity as a whole, I believe other terms - such as internalized misandry - is best used instead.

"The second point I wanted to make is that misogyny can harm men...I don't think it's coming from misandry"

First, this is a major disagreement. Forcing men and men alone to be physically, mentally, and (if you believe in a god) spiritually traumatized is derived from misandry in function if not intent in all the same ways one would be reasonably view forcibly impregnating women to be derived from misogyny. One can use the logic of it being a necessity for societies, but it still singularly harms and exploits one sex while the other is free of that burden.

"And it was the conservative men who opposed it! Women on both sides of the aisle were in support"

First, men can be misandrist as well so even if it only was men against it, that would not make it any less misandrist. Also, unless I missed something, your link doesn't support your implied claim that only men was against it and that all women on both sides were for it. I'm tackling your implied claim because your explicit claim of "X number of conservative men were against it and X number of women on both sides were for it" doesn't support your point at all. After all, there could still be women on both sides against it (and there probably were) and there could be conservative men for it (and there probably were).

The GOP is NOT "Conservative men". The GOP is conservative politicians (men and women) voted by men and women. In other words, the actions of the GOP are supported by and due to men and women. If all women stopped voting for the GOP after this, your implied claim might have more weight. Alas, as it stands, it does not.

"The arguments for keeping the draft to men come from a place of 'women are weaker / can't possibly be in the military'"

This is an assumption you're making about the reasoning behind everyone who disagrees with forcing women to be drafted despite being okay with the same thing being done to men. Your very link points to that the decision to keep conscription male-only in the USA was due to a love of women and wanting them only in the army if those women chose to do so. From your very link, here is a quote:

'I have the utmost respect and deepest appreciation for the young women who bravely volunteer to serve our country, but I am adamantly opposed to coercing America’s daughters to sign up for the Selective Service at 18 years of age,' Sessions said."

Also, here's two last questions for you: do you believe women and men are, on average, physically equal to each other in terms of physical strength? Do you believe that women, on average, can reach the same (or higher) physical peaks as men in terms of strength and endurance?

_-_010_-_ · 2025-09-18T03:47:32+00:00

I'm saying this from a feminist perspective, so I hope you can take this constructively, even if it's written in a way to challenge you to do better.

It's so strange coming to this sub as a left leaning feminist who also believes in men's rights thinking we'd agree on most points and realizing the conversation is so disconnected from what my views are

What you're missing is that your approach is more important than individual points. Feminism is built on the experience of women with the goal of helping women. Which isn't bad in itself, but it creates problems when trying to use it to help men. If you're trying to liberate men, but the way you speak gives the impression that you're deceitful or self-serving, then your points don't land.

harming society / the people around them. And when there is this harm, that is what is termed toxic masculinity

But who defines what is a harmful or toxic kind of masculinity? If women in the feminist movement are the ones who coined the popular understanding of the term, without consulting the men this is supposed to apply to, then clearly it's going to be biased and focus on the parts hurting "society" aka women and not on what's hurting those men. So by invoking it, you're trying to express support for men, but it comes across as attempting to impose your idea of masculinity on men, an idea aiming to reduce harm on women with no regard for the men this masculinity is imposed upon. Even if you were in agreement on the points themselves, you can expect such an approach to be met with hostility.

And I don't think you're correct on toxic masculinity. By failing to correctly understand masculinity, and blindly trying to do something, feminists are doubling down twice as hard on enforcing patriarchal roles. All the talk of toxic masculinity is demonizing those men most in need of support, while glorifying patriarchal men and aiding them in maintaining their position in patriarchy.

Keeping women out of the draft is the result of misogynistic thinking, and it's an example of when misogyny can also hurt men.

Misogyny and misandry are two sides of the same coin, so in that sense you're correct. But trying to frame it in this way comes across as trying to turn male exploitation into male privilege. "men killed, but only because we see women as unworthy of being filled by bullets in some foreign oil field". Feminists are correct in opposing the draft and have the much preferable position over conservatives, but they can't benefit from it because they stumbled into that by chance rather than by developing the correct understanding.

No, conscription is not a men vs women issue, but you just made it one. You need a better understanding of patriarchy, that sees the full picture and not just what affects women.

And it was the conservative men who opposed it!

Ignoring that expanding the draft was the wrong choice... Stop comparing yourself to conservatives. My hamster is better than conservatives on men's issues, and I don't have a hamster. If you want to be seen as a progressive movement for equality, then you have to be at the forefront, have the most forward-thinking and progressive understanding in all of society. Not the second-worst.

CaptSnap · 2025-09-20T23:05:49+00:00

heh whats toxic masculinity?

Toxic masculinity is when men are expected to devalue their time and ultimately even their lives to benefit women. Its just the natural assumption that of course youre the guy so you are automatically worth less... your opinions (in left spaces), your life, your feelings, your pain, your time...everything. Women dont just deserve this, they need it.

From your post:

traditional masculinity where men are expected to be the providers (for women and children, its never not ever framed as providers for themselves)

to be emotionally stoic (for women)

An example might be bottling up emotions because society has said something along the lines of "boys shouldn't cry" (because no one gives a shit and its not going to improve your situation the way it will for women. It doesnt take a genuis to figure out crying just makes everyone realize youre a problem instead of a solution and re-assign your value accordingly.)

And maybe let's talk about conscription (definitely toxic masculinity, its the literal definition of the disposable sex) even in countries that do conscript women they give them the easy jobs....which even in the work force we give women the easy jobs. We talk about women making 70% what men make like its statistically accurate but we dont ask if how much of a pay raise youd have to take to work longer hours, commute further, take less time off, take less sick leave, be away from home more, work more weekends, pick up more shifts, and have about a 20x more chance of literally dieing on the job.

Heres this from the askreddit thread yesterday Women, what's something men do that they don't realize makes women feel safe or unsafe?

Some Top responses:

Walking down the sidewalk alongside a stranger, and he shifted over so he was between me and the agitated-looking person we were approaching. Neither of us acknowledged it, but it definitely made me feel safer. (where did he learn to do that? how come we live in a patriarchy and we didnt teach women to put their fucking bodies between a man and danger?)

Neither driver would leave, they stayed until morning and called a wrecker to come get me. They stayed until me and the car were on the road.

Young woman gets on the lift and i follow in... i had just arrived for a conference and checked in on my way to to the room.... I'm a big guy 6ft 3" 250lbs and i had a suitcase rolling with me...She presses "6" and i think "great, my floor too!"...She glances at me, i guess expecting me to hit a floor button?..... Then it hits me, she is now scared/on alert....Of course, the elevator didnt stop at either 1,2,3,4 or 5...The doors open at 6 and she walks out.....Of course she turns right towards "Rooms"... Sigh (toxic masculinity is feeling bad for existing as male)

I had a fantastic interaction with a Domino's delivery driver recently. I usually step out on my porch when I know something's about to be delivered so my dogs don't lose their minds. When the driver saw me he said very loudly, "hi, this is Oliver approaching with a delivery from Domino's!" And he kept up a loud conversation, kind of narrating every move he made before he did it. It made me feel like he was aware that I could be uncomfortable with a man walking towards me in the dark, and he took steps to make sure that I knew he was there and that he wasn't trying to sneak up on me. That all made me feel pretty safe. (its almost infantalizing to women what depths the guys will sink to in order to placate women's bigotry...like fucking imagine if we expected just black guys to act like this so white women didnt get scared? I mean we literally used to....but yeah we still kinda do too)

Thats what toxic masculinity is. Its boys realizing they arent equal to women and will never be equal to women. That women are wonderful. That women and men like women better than anyone likes men and thats their lot in life. They will do the hard work, they will get maimed or killed, they will put their own literal safety and lives on the line so women FEEL safe. And they will still be denigrated and watch as women prefer bears to them. They will be ignored or told be silent so women who now excel in practically every aspect of sociological data we compile, can speak as the truely "oppressed". Its literally Emperor's New Clothes bullshit.

SaltSpecialistSalt · 2025-09-20T08:17:55+00:00

oh. another coward who hides their post history

TurkeyFisher · 2025-09-16T16:36:11+00:00

I don't disagree with anything said here, though I'm not really going to go around advocating for women to join the draft. That just means more people have to be in the draft and will be resentful for it, it doesn't really benefit men so it's not "male advocacy." There's lots of different opinions in this group though.

Similarly though, I've heard many variations of feminist viewpoints, and while you might have a nuanced view of toxic/non-toxic masculinity, I've definitely encountered feminists who seem to believe all masculinity is toxic. A good example is the recent discourse over "mankeeping" and whether men are "too emotionally reliant on their romantic partners." When I expressed to someone I know that I thought the notion was a double standard and just a regressive inversion of the "my annoying emotional wife" trope, they basically told me I was being overly sensitive and needed to "examine myself" if it bothered me.

The frustration with modern feminism here mostly comes from a) men being told they are part of an oppressive group when most of us haven't personally contributed to that oppression and have tried to behave as egalitarians, and b) as a result our opinions and concerns get dismissed as less valid or unimportant because we are part of the oppressive group.

CeleryMan20 · 2025-09-20T14:34:08+00:00

Misogyny literally means hate of women. Sexist beliefs that men are stronger, women need protection, that men belong in the military and women don't, are not misogyny. Neither is benevolent sexism misogyny. It's even possible to "have the idea of women are inferior" and still like women. I don't see a mechanism whereby actual women-hating hurts men. Except maybe that being surrounded by woman-haters could lead oneself to become a woman-hater, which is unhealthy.

Conversely, the man-hating that has become rife online directly hurts men and boys.

Suddenly_Sisyphus42 · 2025-09-21T16:47:41+00:00

This has to be a troll post. Please don't feed it.

s_jholbrook · 2025-09-18T20:11:19+00:00

u/MasterpieceNew7000 Hey, thanks for coming over here and having the conversation. It's really important that those of us on the left be able to talk through contentious issues like these.

I apologize for some of the rude responses you've gotten. Even if we strongly disagree on some things, just know some of us here are very open to your questions, and to listening to your point of view.

ExternalGreen6826 · 2026-06-18T13:22:17+00:00

every civilisation relies on a scapegoat

Ak47press

princess_casamassima · 2025-09-18T20:16:02+00:00

I’ve definitely oversimplified Connell’s work for the sake of it being in a Reddit comment, but I really recommend you read more on how it’s been adapted and reformed in contemporary research. There are dozens of more nuances in the hierarchy, depending on the theorist and the population they’re studying. Connell’s work was based off white Australian and American men, and lacks a lot of nuance from that perspective.

The idea of a hegemonic culture is really interesting, but i believe its more complex than that, I’d like to hear more about how you define ‘deserving status’ and ‘deserving function’ though, because i don’t want to assume my position in a way that puts words in your mouth.

princess_casamassima · 2025-09-18T20:45:45+00:00

I’ve oversimplified Connell’s theory for the sake of a Reddit comment, of course, but I recommend you look into if you’re interested, there’s been modern developments of the theory that get much more nuanced in their classifications of the masculinity hierarchy. Connell’s theory was developed with the framework of white Australian and American men in the 1990s, which naturally means it’s a good place to start, but is dependent on the society and culture of the population of men studied, which is why Connell and other masculinity theorists have continued to rework and develop the theory.

Your idea of a hegemonic culture built on “desiring function” and “desiring status” is interesting to me, but before I form a response I wonder if you could clarify further, for fear I take a position that puts worlds in your mouth.

princess_casamassima · 2025-09-19T12:22:14+00:00

I don’t necessarily disagree with your theory of statusism, I do think it’s a very interesting way of viewing societal structures. I do think you misunderstood intersectionality however. Egalitarianism is a philosophical position, whereas intersectionality is an analytical framework. Intersectionality is a way of analysing how individuals’ identities are privileged or oppressed, by situating it within a wide range of social structures. It absolutely includes class, caste, and employment.

If I’m understanding your theory of statusism, then it explains why a celebrity goes to “rehab” when they are caught driving under the influence, but a regular person gets a prison sentence. The position they occupy in society gives them a privilege that others are not afforded. That’s also explained by intersectionality, although it developed in response to black women in employment law, it revolutionised the social sciences and has greatly expanded beyond race and gender.

I also don’t disagree with your position on academia, it’s dominated by theories from the global north, it places those who can afford to get degrees above others, and they set the standards for the rest of society. Academia is well aware of this fact, there’s dozens of papers on the inaccessibility of research, especially in the social sciences, where our research is locked behind a paywall to those we are trying to help. Any academic who says otherwise is, in my opinion, outdated and detached from the goal of progress.

princess_casamassima · 2025-09-19T19:28:19+00:00

If you’re going to pretend that men and women experience similar forms of IPV then I’m not interested in engaging with this discussion any further. I’m not for a moment denying that men can face abuse in their relationships, and I’ve known men in my life that have, but if you think that at any point in history the abuse rates have been comparable then this discussion is fruitless and best and wilfully ignorant at worst.

Countless studies have proven that the most dangerous place for a woman is her own home, that she is more likely to be killed by a current or ex partner, and across the UK and the US 85-89% of IPV victims are women, and that’s only the ones that report their abuse, as an estimated 24% of cases are reported to the police.

Equal divorce laws save women’s lives, and financial independence means they are not trapped in marriages where they can’t afford to leave. As a woman, being able to go to work, make my own money, decide who I marry and decide if I divorce them, and vote in elections is a privilege that women before me died for me to have, and I’m not interested in disrespecting their memory to spoon feed basic history to you.

princess_casamassima · 2025-09-18T07:56:34+00:00

I’m also a feminist that stumbled upon this subreddit, but I think it’s important to clarify a couple of things that you’re saying.

The first thing any sociologist worth their salt is taught in their first gender class is that gender is a) socially constructed, meaning our concept of what is feminine and masculine has been determined by society, and has changed across different time periods and across different countries or societies and b) to study gender is not just to study women, but to study men as well, gender is a construct that includes an entire spectrum of identities.

‘Toxic masculinity’, is better explained as a function of ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’, from R.W. Connell’s masculinity theory. Connell’s theory on a nutshell is that there is a socially-imposed hierarchy of masculinity, at the top is ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’, which is an almost unattainable ‘ideal’, this is where non-academic terms like “toxic masculinity” developed out of. Men in society are expected to try and achieve this Hegemonic status, despite its detriments. Other masculinities follow underneath this, Complicit Masculinity, where one doesn’t achieve these ideals, but doesn’t object against them, Marginalised Masculinity, reserved really for men of colour or disabled men, who are impacted by other forms of social marginalisation and cannot achieve the ‘ideal’ that way, and Subordinate Masculinity, men who possess qualities, such as effeminate traits, who have their masculinity societally ‘frowned upon’ because of this.

Masculinity, like femininity, operates within the patriarchy, the societal, political and economic gender order where men hold more relative power than women. This rigid gender order is detrimental to everyone, it restricts and oppresses the freedoms of both women and men. It is also upheld by both women and men, which is important to recognise, there are men who don’t believe women should work, and should ‘serve her husband’, and there are women who marry those men, and who vote in governments who want to strip women’s rights at legislative levels. There are also women who want their partner to achieve unattainable forms of masculinity, who look down on ‘weakness’ in their partner, and who teach rigid gender roles to their children, perpetuating the cycle.

SarcasticallyCandour · 2025-09-16T16:36:41+00:00

Id say drafting men is an economic issue. If lots of women die the population of the country plummets rapidly.

Moreso than any sexist roles.

I think youve picked out one or two issues which are the least of mens problems.

No_Editor_4328 · 2025-09-17T00:01:03+00:00

I feel like giving her downvotes are not helpful.Considering she is trying to learn.Also. I feel like we should give her more upvotes so we can have a bigger conversation and have it more recommended to more people. I am a little meal advocate, but I don’t think the down votes are necessary.

Title	As a feminist ...
Author	MasterpieceNew7000
Upvotes	0
Comments	526
Date	September 16, 2025 6:41 AM UTC (10 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/1nia6lt/as_a_feminist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/as-a-feminist.1562103 https://theredarchive.com/post/1562103

Comments