This might be controversial in a subreddit focused on gender-based organising, but the more I think about it the more I feel like trying to solve 'men's issues' from a 'men's rights' perspectives takes already wicked issues and makes them uphill battles.

Why do I say we can learn this from feminism? It's obvious that feminism as a movement has been extremely successful, which seems to undermine my whole point. The key distinction here is that for decades the targets of feminist agitation were primarily legal. It is impossible to deny that in the 19th century, men and women were equal before the law. Just like slavery abolitionism, universal suffrage, aristocratic privilege, etc. the existence of people holding unequal rights before the law created a tension within liberal democracies which expressed themselves as political movements. But the key aspect here is the legal aspect. Feminism has been most successful in granting women access to the public sphere, allowing them economic independence from men. This was achieved throughout most of the developed world by the latter half of the 20th century.

With a few exceptions, most of the 'civil rights' battles of the 20th century have genuinely been won---which has lead to the various attendant movements morphing into 'social movements' rather than movements with concrete political aims. While the fight for rights undoubtly effects society and culture at large, they also have an 'objective' component via the law. Lacking this, 'feminism' becomes primarily a cultural label indicating what is essentially a 'special interest group' for women, suggesting particular views on social issues like 'workplace culture', 'representation in movies' etc.

What I am questioning is how successful this 'cultural' turn has been. Although there is undeniably a different culture around gender compared to 20, 30 years ago, many of the same issues (workplace sexual harassment, domestic violence, abortion) have been continually relitigated for over half a century at this point. Furthermore, there is obvious negative polarisation around 'feminism' where all manner of male-interest groups, even 'left-wing' ones such as this subreddit, have a negative view of 'feminism' altogether.

Seeing this, I really question whether a 'men's rights' or 'men's issues' movement wouldn't just replicate the same issues of its contemporaries. Even if there are genuine issues of 'rights' such as relate to paternity, I think most people here acknowledge the need for something that goes beyond narrow legal battles and into social issues. 'Feminism' as it exists today owes its existence to the inertia of the movement throughout the 20th century, and there are numerous pieces of cultural and historical context which explain its success, including: women's higher in-group preference, the prevailing Liberal Democracy in the West, the development of home labour-saving devices, the de-industrialisation of Western economies, etc. These things do not apply to us, and do not set a model we can follow.

Frankly, I am not sure what the future will hold, but in my gut I feel that gender-based organising is a dead-end. For example, there has been discussion surrounding 'the male loneliness epidemic' and I think this needs to be qualified. IMO the cause of this epidemic is a general breakdown and atomisation of society---men, at least certain men, are for numerous reasons more susceptible to this, and are therefore 'canaries in the coal mine' so to speak. This issue is therefore a society-wide issue with a gendered component. By gendering this issue oxygen is taken out of the room; it polarises an issue that doesn't need to be.

I think the challenge we face is that by gendering issues they are made more relatable and emotionally salient, but also thereby a wedge is driven right down the middle of the population. I think part of extricating ourselves from the bind we're in will involve being 'bigger people' and avoiding gender-based organising, but I am open to discussion.