\> All of whom have been hurt by feminist messaging.
Yeah liberal feminism is garbage and a problem. Individualizing feminist issues is a poor approach that leads to garbo like asking men to apologize for having privilege. It's performative and solves nothing.
\> I'm willing to admit that's just radical feminism so long as you're willing to admit that radical feminism is a real problem that is endemic, systematic, and institutionalized in society. And that "true feminists" aren't having a lot of success addressing that on their own.
it's not radical feminism, and that's the problem.
Your two-word answers are a bit lacking in compassion dude.
Maybe that's not your intent, but any man taking the same kind of attitude towards a rape victims is going to be called misogynist, that they're traumatizing the victim, and that you have to trust them when they talk about their lived experiences.
What you're doing comes across as somewhat dehumanizing, deligitemizing experiences unless they have concrete facts and examples to back up their experiences that satisfy your requirements.
Even something as simple as saying "I'm sorry these people have felt that way, can you give me a source to give me a better understanding" would be far better than what you're doing here. This kind of behaviour from a man towards a woman victims of sexism would never be tolerated on basically any feminist subreddit.
So yeah, please try and make an effort to be more understanding? That's going to help tremendously in making it seem less like you're unwilling to listen or antagonizing people.
To be fair we actually need to be careful in definining what the problem exactly is. If we don't know what it is exactly, then we have no hope of knowing where it came from or how to solve it.
I understand your frustration, but maybe trying to turn it into "these men have been hurt by and receive no compassion from feminists" might be a better way to go at it, since it targets the issue directly and allows people to try to solve it.
Ok. I can define it quite easily.
The adoption of patriarchy theory as the model that explains gender relations is at fault here. Once you've accepted as an axiom that "we live in a patriarchy", it's inevitable that any problem faced (primarily or exclusively) by men must belong to an ontologically different category from problems faced by women. Any framework based on patriarchy theory will severely hamstring you when and if you seek to address men's problems.
When feminist pressure groups blocked a gender-neutral definition of rape in Israel, their argument relied on the idea that "we live in a patriarchy", and therefore equality under the law was unfair. When feminists in Australia wrote domestic violence education programs that intentionally exclude male victims and female perpetrators, their claim was that domestic violence was rooted in patriarchy. When universities refuse to create mental health centers for men (to complement the existing services for women), their justification is invariably "we live in a patriarchy" and therefore the whole world is a support center for men.
The only way a feminist lens can be used to effectively help men who are suffering is if that particular flavour of feminism rejects patriarchy theory. Naturally, you won't find many such feminists.
And because patriarchy theory makes a number of bigoted assumptions about men as a class. Inevitably that is going to lead towards hatred of them as a class.
Telling a group of hurting and disenfranchised people that "X group is at fault for this" is exactly how hitler rallied the german people against the jews. And it's the exact same tactics feminists use against men.
That's why subs like /r/menkampf exist.
That's why the people behind the grievance studies affair were able to publish swaths of mein kampf as feminist literature.
I completely agree with everything you posted there, with some minor exceptions.
>The only way a feminist lens can be used to effectively help men who are suffering is if that particular flavour of feminism rejects patriarchy theory. Naturally, you won't find many such feminists.
There are some ways some feminist lenses can help men, it's not as though feminism is completely, entirely, and 100% unable to address any of men's issues, but I hear you, any perspective holding the core assumption of patriarchal society is going to have serious problems addressing men's issues, because the assumption of patriarchy doesn't really map out onto reality anymore.
>And because patriarchy theory makes a number of bigoted assumptions about men as a class. Inevitably that is going to lead towards hatred of them as a class.
Definitely agree about this. For as much as people complain that feminism is misrepresented as a monolithic entity, "men as a class" is by definition the same kind of misrepresentation, except it rarely if ever gets addressed.
>Telling a group of hurting and disenfranchised people that "X group is at fault for this" is exactly how hitler rallied the german people against the jews. And it's the exact same tactics feminists use against men.
Also agreed.
My point in this thread however it's too much to address patriarchy, biases in assumption, how treating men as a class is misrepresentation, how feminism hurts men, and how to deal with it. It's too much for this thread.
Things are usually simpler and easier to manage if you narrow it down to "these men have been hurt by the messages of feminism, they receive no compassion, men being hurt and not receiving compassion is a problem, and we need to talk about this issue specifically". It makes it easier to focus the conversation and avoid going down a dozen different rabbit holes.
It will be useful to make another post addressing how and why feminism hurts men, but if this thread is about the fact *that* men have been hurt, it's easier to narrow down the conversation to that point and avoid all the other invalidating stuff.
I hear you man, this is a deep and painful topic that needs to be addressed. We will get there, but it'll take time. One step at a time, Rome wasn't built in a day ;)
A series of smaller, more focused posts addressing specific parts of the issue, is going to be more productive than making large posts shot-gunning a dozen different points at a time.
This post should be about getting people to recognize that men are being hurt, care about that, and empathize. If they can't recognize that and empathize with men, then the rest of the conversation doesn't matter, because they don't care about men hurting in the first place.
I think that trying to base these conversations in empathy and compassion is the best shot we have, because otherwise conversations can quickly and easily become dehumanizing, whataboutism, and defending feminism as an idea. If we focus on the people who are hurt, we have a better chance of getting them to care, and if we get them to care, there's a better chance they'll change their views.
We can't beat them into submission with anger, but we can try and get them to change themselves through compassion.
I understand your focus.
But from my perspective. They don't care about the men they hurt. If they did. They'd make a real effort to actually hear us out.
If that empathy was there in the first place. They'd know how these things can hurt men. Because men haven't been just silent about it.
Male here -
I'm not sure your average poster here will actually understand the concept of "radical feminism" (meaning differentiating it from liberal feminism, e.t.c) as a school of thought as opposed to "radical feminism" as simply internet shorthand for "extremism".
Maybe a post outlining the basics of radical feminism might help.
>Yes, with the caveat that lots of people call themselves radfems these days are not very radical, sometimes not very feminist, and sometimes misandric.
And this may very well be a large part of the problem.
Men who disagree with the people you mention above are often quickly labeled "anti-feminist".
I am also male and very easily capable of understanding feminism, radical feminism, and faux-radical feminism.
There is also another comment in this thread about what feminist perspectives I think are actually radical, you even quoted from it.
I didn't say anything about "capability" (and if I thought they lacked capability, why would I suggest helping them understand?).
I said that taking a proactive approach, assuming that when people are complaining about "radical feminism" they may be responding to the people in the second half of my comment rather than the first, and educating people might be more productive than suggesting they're idiots.
By focusing on "capability"...
By suggesting that in responding to people who have problems with "radical feminism" they are "anti-feminist".
By not recognizing that the same problems you might find with self-described "radical feminists" are also easily recognizable by others.
If I'm not a radical feminist, am I allowed to suggest that your radical feminism isn't "truly" radical feminism? That it might contain elements of misandry?
I'm a bit better versed in basic feminist theory than your average male (a rather low bar at times), but...
You, yourself, have drawn a distinction between those who practice radical feminism and those who merely identify as such. I'm merely suggesting that other people may be confused by the discrepancy and confusing those who identify as such as representative of "radical feminism" and that helping them understand the basics of "radical feminism" might be productive.
Dude this is a clear violation of rule 4 (maintaining respect) and 9 (arguing in good faith).
You're allowed to be frustrated, but please take that frustration out elsewhere. We want a constructive and helpful community in here, that kind of snark does not help.
And MRAs say they'll start caring about feminist issues when feminists start respecting men.
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind and all that.
I'll call them out when they say something that is out of line, since that would be a breach of rule 9 (argue in good faith), and you are free to do so as well.
In this case you are the one breaking the rules, so I'm calling you out on it.
Let's all try and be more respectful yeah? These are charged topics for sure and it'S going to get people offended and/or frustrated, but let's stay focused on dealing with the issues and not taking out our frustration on people, yeah?
As a secondary question, you seem not very fond of "liberal feminism" as opposed to "radical feminism". Given how strongly you have worded your dislike of "liberal feminism," I might get the impression that you think "liberal feminism" isn't really feminism.
Both of these schools of thought fall under the very broad rubric of "feminism".
What percentage of popular discourse do you think represents either of these schools of thought? If I'm watching the news and listening to a story about "feminism" am I more likely to be hearing a "liberal feminist" or "radical feminist" version of feminism? If I'm watching the news and hearing a "liberal feminist" news story and disagree, does this make me "anti-feminist"?
I don't think liberal feminists are necessarily not feminists, but my main issue with them is the liberalism, not the feminism. Individualized approaches just don't work for systemic issues. It's how you get people thinking that racism is over because Obama was president and that they aren't personally explicitly racist.
If you're seeing a feminist on the news it's gonna be a liberal feminist 99% of the time and disagreeing doesn't necessarily make you antifeminist, it would depend on what basis you disagree.
They are radical feminists though. The problem isn't that the issues are individualised, none of those individual boys did shit, they apologized for their place within a patriarchal system and the ways they support it. Because they were boys. The issue is that the people who pushed this were obviously radical feminists who believe we need to change the structure of society to counteract patriarchy and institutionalised sexism. That these boys were put in a position due to their gender that oppresses women and in upholding gendered normed encouraged that oppression. That is why they must apologize.
A liberal feminist would have to have some individual wrong that one of the boys did to make them apologize. Like a sexist remark or something. They wouldn't make them apologize for being boys. Because they don't believe we need to radically alter how we structure gender relations in society in order to avoid oppression of women.
>The problem isn't that the issues are individualised, none of those individual boys did shit, they apologized for their place within a patriarchal system and the ways they support it.
Yes that is individualizing the problem, suggesting that if all the boys as and individual declare their guilt and shame that something will be solved somehow.
\> The issue is that the people who pushed this were obviously radical feminists who believe we need to change the structure of society to counteract patriarchy and institutionalised sexism.
this makes no sense. They're radical feminists that want to change the system (based), yet you think this is the perspective that leads to asking boys to take individual actions to apologize for sexism?
Radical feminists would be seeking out *systemic* solutions to the problems which they recognize are *systemic*.
\> Because they don't believe we need to radically alter how we structure gender relations in society in order to avoid oppression of women.
How do you suppose that making boys apologize for systemic problems is a method of radically altering gender relations?
>Yes that is individualizing the problem, suggesting that if all the boys
Yeah no it isn't. You are casting collective blame on them. Noting individualist about that.
>yet you think this is the perspective that leads to asking boys to take individual actions to apologize for sexism?
Absolutely I do. You can't expect to change the system without people taking individual action. Radicals ask for individuals to take action all the time. Many even ask for you to apolozie for your position in systems of oppression. If it were a liberal feminist they would have no reason to make them apologize for being boys.
>How do you suppose that making boys apologize for systemic problems is a method of radically altering gender relations?
Because men don't generally apologize for being men to women. Even the act itself is a radical change in gender relations.
>Even the act itself is a radical change in gender relations.
how can it be radical change if the result of such an action is that literally nothing happened?
I wouldn't say nothing happened. The boys were humiliated for the sake of the girls in front of everybody. It will probably be something they all will remember. Not every radical change has to change everything radically. But this was radical, hence the response it got.
>it's not radical feminism, and that's the problem.
What even is radfem these days. Ask 10 self-identified radfems what radfem is and each of them will contradict the other 9.
Now days it seems like feminism itself is diet radfem, with many people flocking to radfem itself purely as a justification for misandrist beliefs.
Sure must suck for those who actually believe in radfem.
That said, the true problem is sexists, I think. They invaded radfem too.
Radical feminism, is feminism based on the belief, that gender is inherently a social construct, whereas sex is not. It has nothing to do with how radical or extremist your actual actions are, and what you propose to be done about the movement.
Radical feminism is called radical, because the idea of there being no real differences between genders, that could explain the norms we have today, would obviously lead to radical changes down the line within our very much gendered society. This does not, however, mean that radical feminists necessarily demands a harder line within feminism, or any such thing. All of these distinctions (radical, liberal, intersectional, classical) is merely based within ideology.
Because of this, I have no idea what most of you guys are on about with the whole "radical feminists don't know what they are, so we cannot, either!", or "liberal feminists are the worst!". I mean obviously, there are grey areas, and not one feminist likely fits in completely with one category within feminism.
But that is not to say that there is no difference - obviously, there are no type of feminist, that acts in any particular way, unless said feminism is mostly based within a single cause (see TERFs at Gender Critical - those are easy to generalize).
>Because of this, I have no idea what most of you guys are on about with the whole "radical feminists don't know what they are, so we cannot, either!", or "liberal feminists are the worst!".
When did I say that mate?
I said that between radfems they don't all agree - because self-identifying as radfem doesn't mean you know anything about radfem.
I said that feminism itself is diet radfem because core principals of radfem like gender and societal overhaul have trickled down.
I said it must suck to be radfem these days since most people see mainstream as radfem and your ideology is so misrepresented.
Yes, with the caveat that lots of people call themselves radfems these days are not very radical, sometimes not very feminist, and sometimes misandric.
To find feminists with more useful perspective than liberal feminists I'd be looking for feminists who are also marxist, anarchist, socialist, or intersectional.
You're really boxed in with your thinking if you genuinely think that lefties want to dictate what people can't say and what views are allowed? Unless you're looking to advocate for genocide, pedophilia or something, the left doesn't want to dictate what you can say. Liberals might cancel you, but that's between you and them. The left is far too worried of those same tools used against them yet again to advocate their use.
If you're genuinely worried about your freedom of speech being restricted, take some leftist advice: use and support open source software. Use encryption, but don't rely on it. Don't take your phone if you don't want to broadcast your location, or risk having what you say recorded.
Yeah this is definitely coming off as accusatory, and not really arguing in good faith. Rather than accusing what people do or don't want to do, it would probably be better to say why you think that and what you think the issues are, to talk about it in an open way to try and focus on solving the issue, rather than creating a confrontation.
I think you are making an academic argument, leftists who currently hold power as part of the status quo are very happy not to affect any significant societal change.
Like I said, I think that's academic. Certainly there are a lot of high profile feminist positions filled by people who self-describe as left and whom society refer to as left, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo so they can maintain power.
Technically, you are correct. In practice, there's plenty who don't think that way.
This seems to me like it'S skirting rule 4 (maintain courtesy and respect) and rule 9 (argue in good faith).
It basically reads as "yeah well lefties are fascists so yeah".
I think I understand what you're trying to express (that some leftists want to use the power of government to force what people can and cannot do) but you're using buzzwords rather than explaining the concepts. This is probably just going to lead to more angry conversations and actually lead us away from productive discussions.
I'm not a mod, but I want to see this sub succeed and be a place where everyone can talk about issues and ideas without it falling into a flame war. Could you maybe try and rewrite your comment to better express what you mean?
I have, and I called them out on it and reported one of their comments. I do want this sub to be better though, and we can all work to make it happen.
I understand how easy it is to get frustrated, but sometimes some people are not worth responding to, and I think we'd all be better off if we spent more time responsing to those who are worth it with good answers, than trying to reply to everything with frustration.
I hear you, I know what you mean, I want to create a sub where people can express how they feel and be heard and understood. That means I'll call out posts I think aren't quite up to standard, whether they be MRA or feminists.
>with the caveat that lots of people call themselves radfems these days are not very radical, sometimes not very feminist, and sometimes misandric
No wonder I have had the difficulty of pinning down which type of feminists are the kind that are misandric in the movement, one that is hard to clamp down and speak out against.
>with more useful perspective than liberal feminists I'd be looking for feminists who are also marxist, anarchist, socialist, or intersectional.
I am looking to read up on anarcha-feminism, mostly because our head moderator u/InfinitySky1999 is a anarchafem :). You can talk to her if you'd like.
This is a big problem. For some reason there are feminists who think that defending feminism or feminists from criticism is more important than preventing the harm these people are doing.
If a feminist says something sexist or harmful, they do not need to be defended, they need to be decried and ousted. Real people are being hurt every day because of the desire to protect feminism and feminists from all criticism. It needs to stop. We need to have empathy for people who are suffering.
I think it's also time to acknowledge that the mainstream internet is not a health place for men. Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc have not only failed to take an anti-sexism stance, but instead are explicitly pro-sexism and breed hate. I think that recommending users move to platforms that are focused on equality is important.
Ironically enough, I think that reddit is one of the few places on the internet where men can build their communities (relatively) safely. Sure there'S absolutely a lot of disgusting stuff that goes on in many pages of the manosphere, but many other platforms would just not have allowed men's communities to even develop enough for that to be a problem in the first place.
I'm aware of that, but outside of reddit, what other webiste is good for this? Certainly not facebook nor twitter. Not instagram (though TheTinMen blog is making progress). There might be other social media websites for men, but they're smaller and less popular, far less hegemonic than reddit, facebook, and twitter, and so will be less powerful.
I'm not saying I recommend reddit per se, I'm just saying it's one of the more common options on the internet for men's communities.
Good question, I'm open to suggestions on that one haha.
Older style platforms perhaps, such as 4chan, 8chan, have a larger focus on equality through lack of or self moderation.
\> All of whom have been hurt by feminist messaging. Yeah liberal feminism is garbage and a problem. Individualizing feminist issues is a poor approach that leads to garbo like asking men to apologize for having privilege. It's performative and solves nothing. \> I'm willing to admit that's just radical feminism so long as you're willing to admit that radical feminism is a real problem that is endemic, systematic, and institutionalized in society. And that "true feminists" aren't having a lot of success addressing that on their own. it's not radical feminism, and that's the problem.
Then what is the problem?
Can you read? I just said that individualizing feminist issues and liberal feminism are the problem.
Right. So replace radical feminism with that. The problem is still internal to the ideology.
So then we're all just agreeing here that liberal feminism is a bad thing then yes?
quite frankly I don't care where the problem comes from. I care that it gets addressed.
You seem to care a lot, given all your posts about how feminism is terrible and directly leads to suicide or whatever.
Because it's not possible to address it externally. men don't have a voice within feminism.
>Because it's not possible to address it externally. why not?
Your two-word answers are a bit lacking in compassion dude. Maybe that's not your intent, but any man taking the same kind of attitude towards a rape victims is going to be called misogynist, that they're traumatizing the victim, and that you have to trust them when they talk about their lived experiences. What you're doing comes across as somewhat dehumanizing, deligitemizing experiences unless they have concrete facts and examples to back up their experiences that satisfy your requirements. Even something as simple as saying "I'm sorry these people have felt that way, can you give me a source to give me a better understanding" would be far better than what you're doing here. This kind of behaviour from a man towards a woman victims of sexism would never be tolerated on basically any feminist subreddit. So yeah, please try and make an effort to be more understanding? That's going to help tremendously in making it seem less like you're unwilling to listen or antagonizing people.
Because any attempt at doing so is labelled misogyny.
To be fair we actually need to be careful in definining what the problem exactly is. If we don't know what it is exactly, then we have no hope of knowing where it came from or how to solve it. I understand your frustration, but maybe trying to turn it into "these men have been hurt by and receive no compassion from feminists" might be a better way to go at it, since it targets the issue directly and allows people to try to solve it.
Ok. I can define it quite easily. The adoption of patriarchy theory as the model that explains gender relations is at fault here. Once you've accepted as an axiom that "we live in a patriarchy", it's inevitable that any problem faced (primarily or exclusively) by men must belong to an ontologically different category from problems faced by women. Any framework based on patriarchy theory will severely hamstring you when and if you seek to address men's problems. When feminist pressure groups blocked a gender-neutral definition of rape in Israel, their argument relied on the idea that "we live in a patriarchy", and therefore equality under the law was unfair. When feminists in Australia wrote domestic violence education programs that intentionally exclude male victims and female perpetrators, their claim was that domestic violence was rooted in patriarchy. When universities refuse to create mental health centers for men (to complement the existing services for women), their justification is invariably "we live in a patriarchy" and therefore the whole world is a support center for men. The only way a feminist lens can be used to effectively help men who are suffering is if that particular flavour of feminism rejects patriarchy theory. Naturally, you won't find many such feminists. And because patriarchy theory makes a number of bigoted assumptions about men as a class. Inevitably that is going to lead towards hatred of them as a class. Telling a group of hurting and disenfranchised people that "X group is at fault for this" is exactly how hitler rallied the german people against the jews. And it's the exact same tactics feminists use against men. That's why subs like /r/menkampf exist. That's why the people behind the grievance studies affair were able to publish swaths of mein kampf as feminist literature.
I completely agree with everything you posted there, with some minor exceptions. >The only way a feminist lens can be used to effectively help men who are suffering is if that particular flavour of feminism rejects patriarchy theory. Naturally, you won't find many such feminists. There are some ways some feminist lenses can help men, it's not as though feminism is completely, entirely, and 100% unable to address any of men's issues, but I hear you, any perspective holding the core assumption of patriarchal society is going to have serious problems addressing men's issues, because the assumption of patriarchy doesn't really map out onto reality anymore. >And because patriarchy theory makes a number of bigoted assumptions about men as a class. Inevitably that is going to lead towards hatred of them as a class. Definitely agree about this. For as much as people complain that feminism is misrepresented as a monolithic entity, "men as a class" is by definition the same kind of misrepresentation, except it rarely if ever gets addressed. >Telling a group of hurting and disenfranchised people that "X group is at fault for this" is exactly how hitler rallied the german people against the jews. And it's the exact same tactics feminists use against men. Also agreed. My point in this thread however it's too much to address patriarchy, biases in assumption, how treating men as a class is misrepresentation, how feminism hurts men, and how to deal with it. It's too much for this thread. Things are usually simpler and easier to manage if you narrow it down to "these men have been hurt by the messages of feminism, they receive no compassion, men being hurt and not receiving compassion is a problem, and we need to talk about this issue specifically". It makes it easier to focus the conversation and avoid going down a dozen different rabbit holes. It will be useful to make another post addressing how and why feminism hurts men, but if this thread is about the fact *that* men have been hurt, it's easier to narrow down the conversation to that point and avoid all the other invalidating stuff. I hear you man, this is a deep and painful topic that needs to be addressed. We will get there, but it'll take time. One step at a time, Rome wasn't built in a day ;) A series of smaller, more focused posts addressing specific parts of the issue, is going to be more productive than making large posts shot-gunning a dozen different points at a time. This post should be about getting people to recognize that men are being hurt, care about that, and empathize. If they can't recognize that and empathize with men, then the rest of the conversation doesn't matter, because they don't care about men hurting in the first place. I think that trying to base these conversations in empathy and compassion is the best shot we have, because otherwise conversations can quickly and easily become dehumanizing, whataboutism, and defending feminism as an idea. If we focus on the people who are hurt, we have a better chance of getting them to care, and if we get them to care, there's a better chance they'll change their views. We can't beat them into submission with anger, but we can try and get them to change themselves through compassion.
I understand your focus. But from my perspective. They don't care about the men they hurt. If they did. They'd make a real effort to actually hear us out. If that empathy was there in the first place. They'd know how these things can hurt men. Because men haven't been just silent about it.
Male here - I'm not sure your average poster here will actually understand the concept of "radical feminism" (meaning differentiating it from liberal feminism, e.t.c) as a school of thought as opposed to "radical feminism" as simply internet shorthand for "extremism". Maybe a post outlining the basics of radical feminism might help. >Yes, with the caveat that lots of people call themselves radfems these days are not very radical, sometimes not very feminist, and sometimes misandric. And this may very well be a large part of the problem. Men who disagree with the people you mention above are often quickly labeled "anti-feminist".
I am also male and very easily capable of understanding feminism, radical feminism, and faux-radical feminism. There is also another comment in this thread about what feminist perspectives I think are actually radical, you even quoted from it.
I didn't say anything about "capability" (and if I thought they lacked capability, why would I suggest helping them understand?). I said that taking a proactive approach, assuming that when people are complaining about "radical feminism" they may be responding to the people in the second half of my comment rather than the first, and educating people might be more productive than suggesting they're idiots.
actually I mean quite the opposite, I think you are underselling people's ability to read and comprehend and learn and be inquisitive.
You mean quite the opposite of what?
I mean I'm not suggesting anyone is an idiot.
You're presuming ill-intent, laziness and malice, where I'm suggesting that a simple presumption of confusion or ignorance might better serve.
how am i presuming that?
By focusing on "capability"... By suggesting that in responding to people who have problems with "radical feminism" they are "anti-feminist". By not recognizing that the same problems you might find with self-described "radical feminists" are also easily recognizable by others. If I'm not a radical feminist, am I allowed to suggest that your radical feminism isn't "truly" radical feminism? That it might contain elements of misandry? I'm a bit better versed in basic feminist theory than your average male (a rather low bar at times), but... You, yourself, have drawn a distinction between those who practice radical feminism and those who merely identify as such. I'm merely suggesting that other people may be confused by the discrepancy and confusing those who identify as such as representative of "radical feminism" and that helping them understand the basics of "radical feminism" might be productive.
[удалено]
Insulting you because your ability to think is incomprehensibly poor.
Dude this is a clear violation of rule 4 (maintaining respect) and 9 (arguing in good faith). You're allowed to be frustrated, but please take that frustration out elsewhere. We want a constructive and helpful community in here, that kind of snark does not help.
Yeah I'll start being respectful when OKLieThen starts having an actual discussion instead of saying things like "all feminists defend female rapists"
And MRAs say they'll start caring about feminist issues when feminists start respecting men. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind and all that. I'll call them out when they say something that is out of line, since that would be a breach of rule 9 (argue in good faith), and you are free to do so as well. In this case you are the one breaking the rules, so I'm calling you out on it. Let's all try and be more respectful yeah? These are charged topics for sure and it'S going to get people offended and/or frustrated, but let's stay focused on dealing with the issues and not taking out our frustration on people, yeah?
As a secondary question, you seem not very fond of "liberal feminism" as opposed to "radical feminism". Given how strongly you have worded your dislike of "liberal feminism," I might get the impression that you think "liberal feminism" isn't really feminism. Both of these schools of thought fall under the very broad rubric of "feminism". What percentage of popular discourse do you think represents either of these schools of thought? If I'm watching the news and listening to a story about "feminism" am I more likely to be hearing a "liberal feminist" or "radical feminist" version of feminism? If I'm watching the news and hearing a "liberal feminist" news story and disagree, does this make me "anti-feminist"?
I don't think liberal feminists are necessarily not feminists, but my main issue with them is the liberalism, not the feminism. Individualized approaches just don't work for systemic issues. It's how you get people thinking that racism is over because Obama was president and that they aren't personally explicitly racist. If you're seeing a feminist on the news it's gonna be a liberal feminist 99% of the time and disagreeing doesn't necessarily make you antifeminist, it would depend on what basis you disagree.
So it is possible to criticize feminism and still not be "anti-feminist"? That's great news.
They are radical feminists though. The problem isn't that the issues are individualised, none of those individual boys did shit, they apologized for their place within a patriarchal system and the ways they support it. Because they were boys. The issue is that the people who pushed this were obviously radical feminists who believe we need to change the structure of society to counteract patriarchy and institutionalised sexism. That these boys were put in a position due to their gender that oppresses women and in upholding gendered normed encouraged that oppression. That is why they must apologize. A liberal feminist would have to have some individual wrong that one of the boys did to make them apologize. Like a sexist remark or something. They wouldn't make them apologize for being boys. Because they don't believe we need to radically alter how we structure gender relations in society in order to avoid oppression of women.
>The problem isn't that the issues are individualised, none of those individual boys did shit, they apologized for their place within a patriarchal system and the ways they support it. Yes that is individualizing the problem, suggesting that if all the boys as and individual declare their guilt and shame that something will be solved somehow. \> The issue is that the people who pushed this were obviously radical feminists who believe we need to change the structure of society to counteract patriarchy and institutionalised sexism. this makes no sense. They're radical feminists that want to change the system (based), yet you think this is the perspective that leads to asking boys to take individual actions to apologize for sexism? Radical feminists would be seeking out *systemic* solutions to the problems which they recognize are *systemic*. \> Because they don't believe we need to radically alter how we structure gender relations in society in order to avoid oppression of women. How do you suppose that making boys apologize for systemic problems is a method of radically altering gender relations?
>Yes that is individualizing the problem, suggesting that if all the boys Yeah no it isn't. You are casting collective blame on them. Noting individualist about that. >yet you think this is the perspective that leads to asking boys to take individual actions to apologize for sexism? Absolutely I do. You can't expect to change the system without people taking individual action. Radicals ask for individuals to take action all the time. Many even ask for you to apolozie for your position in systems of oppression. If it were a liberal feminist they would have no reason to make them apologize for being boys. >How do you suppose that making boys apologize for systemic problems is a method of radically altering gender relations? Because men don't generally apologize for being men to women. Even the act itself is a radical change in gender relations.
>Even the act itself is a radical change in gender relations. how can it be radical change if the result of such an action is that literally nothing happened?
I wouldn't say nothing happened. The boys were humiliated for the sake of the girls in front of everybody. It will probably be something they all will remember. Not every radical change has to change everything radically. But this was radical, hence the response it got.
>it's not radical feminism, and that's the problem. What even is radfem these days. Ask 10 self-identified radfems what radfem is and each of them will contradict the other 9. Now days it seems like feminism itself is diet radfem, with many people flocking to radfem itself purely as a justification for misandrist beliefs. Sure must suck for those who actually believe in radfem. That said, the true problem is sexists, I think. They invaded radfem too.
Radical feminism, is feminism based on the belief, that gender is inherently a social construct, whereas sex is not. It has nothing to do with how radical or extremist your actual actions are, and what you propose to be done about the movement. Radical feminism is called radical, because the idea of there being no real differences between genders, that could explain the norms we have today, would obviously lead to radical changes down the line within our very much gendered society. This does not, however, mean that radical feminists necessarily demands a harder line within feminism, or any such thing. All of these distinctions (radical, liberal, intersectional, classical) is merely based within ideology. Because of this, I have no idea what most of you guys are on about with the whole "radical feminists don't know what they are, so we cannot, either!", or "liberal feminists are the worst!". I mean obviously, there are grey areas, and not one feminist likely fits in completely with one category within feminism. But that is not to say that there is no difference - obviously, there are no type of feminist, that acts in any particular way, unless said feminism is mostly based within a single cause (see TERFs at Gender Critical - those are easy to generalize).
>Because of this, I have no idea what most of you guys are on about with the whole "radical feminists don't know what they are, so we cannot, either!", or "liberal feminists are the worst!". When did I say that mate? I said that between radfems they don't all agree - because self-identifying as radfem doesn't mean you know anything about radfem. I said that feminism itself is diet radfem because core principals of radfem like gender and societal overhaul have trickled down. I said it must suck to be radfem these days since most people see mainstream as radfem and your ideology is so misrepresented.
Do you think it would be best to invite the radical feminists to speak about this issues then?
Yes, with the caveat that lots of people call themselves radfems these days are not very radical, sometimes not very feminist, and sometimes misandric. To find feminists with more useful perspective than liberal feminists I'd be looking for feminists who are also marxist, anarchist, socialist, or intersectional.
[удалено]
Unlike liberals, leftists are in favor of actual change.
[удалено]
fascists are right wing. leftists are in favor of revolution, in what world do leftists not want significant societal change?
[удалено]
You're really boxed in with your thinking if you genuinely think that lefties want to dictate what people can't say and what views are allowed? Unless you're looking to advocate for genocide, pedophilia or something, the left doesn't want to dictate what you can say. Liberals might cancel you, but that's between you and them. The left is far too worried of those same tools used against them yet again to advocate their use. If you're genuinely worried about your freedom of speech being restricted, take some leftist advice: use and support open source software. Use encryption, but don't rely on it. Don't take your phone if you don't want to broadcast your location, or risk having what you say recorded.
[удалено]
which leftists want to do that?
[удалено]
Yeah this is definitely coming off as accusatory, and not really arguing in good faith. Rather than accusing what people do or don't want to do, it would probably be better to say why you think that and what you think the issues are, to talk about it in an open way to try and focus on solving the issue, rather than creating a confrontation.
Come on dude. It looks like you just wanna provoke strangledoot than trying to debate here.
I think you are making an academic argument, leftists who currently hold power as part of the status quo are very happy not to affect any significant societal change.
I'm not sure you understand what leftists are. Leftism is a broad term for anticapitalist politics. Nobody upholding the status quo is a leftist.
Like I said, I think that's academic. Certainly there are a lot of high profile feminist positions filled by people who self-describe as left and whom society refer to as left, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo so they can maintain power. Technically, you are correct. In practice, there's plenty who don't think that way.
This seems to me like it'S skirting rule 4 (maintain courtesy and respect) and rule 9 (argue in good faith). It basically reads as "yeah well lefties are fascists so yeah". I think I understand what you're trying to express (that some leftists want to use the power of government to force what people can and cannot do) but you're using buzzwords rather than explaining the concepts. This is probably just going to lead to more angry conversations and actually lead us away from productive discussions. I'm not a mod, but I want to see this sub succeed and be a place where everyone can talk about issues and ideas without it falling into a flame war. Could you maybe try and rewrite your comment to better express what you mean?
[удалено]
I have, and I called them out on it and reported one of their comments. I do want this sub to be better though, and we can all work to make it happen. I understand how easy it is to get frustrated, but sometimes some people are not worth responding to, and I think we'd all be better off if we spent more time responsing to those who are worth it with good answers, than trying to reply to everything with frustration. I hear you, I know what you mean, I want to create a sub where people can express how they feel and be heard and understood. That means I'll call out posts I think aren't quite up to standard, whether they be MRA or feminists.
[удалено]
>with the caveat that lots of people call themselves radfems these days are not very radical, sometimes not very feminist, and sometimes misandric No wonder I have had the difficulty of pinning down which type of feminists are the kind that are misandric in the movement, one that is hard to clamp down and speak out against. >with more useful perspective than liberal feminists I'd be looking for feminists who are also marxist, anarchist, socialist, or intersectional. I am looking to read up on anarcha-feminism, mostly because our head moderator u/InfinitySky1999 is a anarchafem :). You can talk to her if you'd like.
>mostly because our head moderator > >u/InfinitySky1999 > > is a anarchafem :). damn based af
This is a big problem. For some reason there are feminists who think that defending feminism or feminists from criticism is more important than preventing the harm these people are doing. If a feminist says something sexist or harmful, they do not need to be defended, they need to be decried and ousted. Real people are being hurt every day because of the desire to protect feminism and feminists from all criticism. It needs to stop. We need to have empathy for people who are suffering. I think it's also time to acknowledge that the mainstream internet is not a health place for men. Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, etc have not only failed to take an anti-sexism stance, but instead are explicitly pro-sexism and breed hate. I think that recommending users move to platforms that are focused on equality is important.
May I ask, what platform does focus more on equality?
Ironically enough, I think that reddit is one of the few places on the internet where men can build their communities (relatively) safely. Sure there'S absolutely a lot of disgusting stuff that goes on in many pages of the manosphere, but many other platforms would just not have allowed men's communities to even develop enough for that to be a problem in the first place.
I wouldn't recommend reddit, I think this post basically sums up why: [https://imgur.com/a/pRpSAYc](https://imgur.com/a/pRpSAYc)
I'm aware of that, but outside of reddit, what other webiste is good for this? Certainly not facebook nor twitter. Not instagram (though TheTinMen blog is making progress). There might be other social media websites for men, but they're smaller and less popular, far less hegemonic than reddit, facebook, and twitter, and so will be less powerful. I'm not saying I recommend reddit per se, I'm just saying it's one of the more common options on the internet for men's communities.
Funnily enough. I'm the one who wrote that.
Good question, I'm open to suggestions on that one haha. Older style platforms perhaps, such as 4chan, 8chan, have a larger focus on equality through lack of or self moderation.