Men's Liberation
This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality.
Rules
Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people
Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren't talking over men expressing their own lived experiences.
Be productive
Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed.
Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting:
- Build upon the OP
- Discuss concepts rather than semantics
- No low effort comments
- No personal attacks
Assume good faith
Do not call other submitters' personal experiences into question.
No bigotry
Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated.
No brigading
Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues.
Recommended Reading
- The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity, And Love by bell hooks
- Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements by Michael Messner
Related Communities
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
view the rest of the comments
While there are some points worth discussing in the article, I want to raise an issue with the community itself, since it's actually fairly adjacent.
If you look through it, majority of posts in the community that calls itself "Men's Liberation" is really not about, well, men's liberation. It's about how men should adapt to the realities of modern feminism, without getting a set at the table to discuss how it affects them and what they would've done differently. It just straight up mirrors feminist talking points and rephrases them to have "men" in the name.
This is very much why feminism is often hated: not because it gives women seat at the table, but because it takes the seat away from men, while vaguely claiming they have power elsewhere (but do they?).
Don't get me wrong: feminism tackles important questions, but it always looks at issues through the women's perspective, which might miss the unique circumstances men find themselves in and their angle with the issues raised. Since the community claims to come from the men's side (it's in the name), I find it deeply disingenuous and concerning.
If I’m not mistaken, this was the initial concept behind the community, no? The idea that this “manosphere” bullshit is a response to the erasure of men in the misguided attempt to bow to third (fourth now?) wave feminism.
In a nutshell, the plot of feminism got lost in the greater society as a whole finally trying to adopt some of its principles via straight up ^virtue^ ^signaling.^ ~~—fuck I can’t think of the phrase people use—value posturing? Ethics acting? I’m sure you all know the phrase I’m searching for, right wingers popularized it.~~
But point is, it’s true. And yes, it happens on the white left, but its most devious incarnation is in corporate America. Putting a woman of color in your ad is not equality. Taking aunt jemima off your bottle isn’t erasing racism. It’s just lip service to something akin to progress to boost their bottom line.
So in this world of a bunch of meaningless putting women in the spotlight to say they’ve done it, young men are feeling like they don’t matter. So when you have the liberal world saying “shut up now, a woman is talking,” young men don’t hear “okay, it’s on my generation to take this and smile because there is a long history of women not getting a seat at the table.” Young men hear the most misguided of the fourth wave feminists shouting “men are pigs” and “oh a woman killed her husband? Good, one less man in the world,” and they don’t see much pushback on it. And their brains aren’t fully developed, so they don’t understand that this behavior, in context…well, it’s still very stupid and wrong, but they see society writ large mostly embracing this or laughing it off.
So what do they do? Where do they turn? To the people telling them that women, actually, are the ones who are trash and they need to shut up and get back in the kitchen. Because, to their eye, the world does seem to be trying to go out of its way to “oppress” men. When you hear those fucksticks say “white men are the most oppressed group,” young men don’t understand why that should be laughed off. Because, again, their young brains aren’t developed and hey don’t have centuries of history understood. They hear one side saying “whatever it’s just some white man,” and they hear the other saying “it’s okay to be a man, it’s actually great and you deserve everything.”
Who the fuck do we think they’re gonna listen to?
The term you're looking for is 'virtue signalling'. It's a shame it got assigned a political bias, because it's a handy term for what makes rainbow capitalism so infuriating.
Another big point that needs to be made is that engagement driven social media algorithms have pushed the most controversial content to the top, giving it an oversized representation. Then there are also those with vested interests in preventing unity who are more than happy to jump on any opportunity to stoke division.
Not sure exactly how the lemmy.ca community came to be but I suppose it's a continuation of the subreddit, vox has the original story in form of an interview:
You mean, virtue signaling?
I agree with you in that the less avenues we have for men to speak up and be listened to, the more radical they will become, and instead of coming with constructive and useful criticisms, they will instead follow everyone who says "the other side is a problem, so now it's your time to violently state your way".
One thing though - no one should be silenced or mistreated for the acts of previous generations. Those young men hold no relation to what happened there in the past, and those young women are not its victims, either. "Reverse" discrimination is just discrimination based on arbitrary concept, and acts of other people in other times should never be seen as a supporting argument here.
Oh, I absolutely agree with you. What I was trying to say there was that they’re not able to see the situation, as it is, through the lens of history. They don’t have the capacity for that kind of understanding. I’m not exactly saying that unequal treatment is good and fair.
However, after a long period of inequality, there is kind of a necessary middle point between inequality and equity where there has to be a balancing of the scales. We’ve all seen that sort of infographic/web comic where they’re showing the people looking over the fence, where inequality has the white boy standing on all the blocks and the others standing on one or none, and then under the “equality” header, they’re all standing on the same amount of blocks, and then under “equity,” the tall kid gets exactly enough o see over the fence, the short kid gets more, etc?
I mean, that is the main goal, right? Equity? There comes a time, especially after a long period of inequality, where those blocks have to get doled out. There has to be a time, after a long period of people not getting a seat at the table, where those disenfranchised people who have been historically kept out of the room get intentionally put in that room, given one of the seats at the table. And for all intents and purposes, there are only so many seats at any given table. See what I’m saying?
Now, these are all solutions under a capitalist system. Solutions to work within a system that is inherently flawed and inequitable. The answer is dismantling that system. But if we’re talking about jobs, positions of power, places at the capitalist table, etc., there is going to be a period of righting the wrongs, of giving those limited number of seats to people who belong to groups who have historically been kept out. But that’s talking about solutions within a flawed, unjust system. Because under capitalism, it is a hierarchy. And putting people in higher positions within it is the solution under capitalism—because you’re placing people still in a hierarchy, where others will be exploited at the hands of, now, the people who have suffered the exploitation the worst.
It makes no sense. You’re absolutely right.
So I think that’s what you are butting up against. It is that’s still inherently unfair because it requires overlooking the previously dominant groups, no matter that people didn’t choose to be born into the oppressor group, and they shouldn’t bear the pushback their ancestors catalyzed.
And rightly so, you should butt up against that because the system is built to be unfair. It thrives and literally operates on exploitation. So the solution you’re looking for is one that doesn’t involve hierarchy or capitalism. And I’m with you there. But we’re unfortunately talking about life under capitalism, so without demolishing that whole system in favor of a more equitable and just and healthy system, there will be inequality to right the imbalance. Should it be that way? No. But capitalism and hierarchy are forcing our hand here. But I’m with you, all the way.
Capitalism is not only a system of discrimination in itself, it is deeply interested in worsening existing issues to divide and conquer. Also, more controversies - more engagement - more profit! This artificially fuels the existing conflicts between people, and that's one reason it should be dismantled.
I think with a multitude of factors that form what we call "privilege", visible and invisible, known and unknown, we cannot adequately assess who is the most discriminated anymore. And when that time comes (mind you, after a century of women fighting for their rights and rightfully forcing into their seats at the table), the time comes to come together and genuinely care for the other, while not forgetting yourself.
The times of suffragettes are over. Men, women, nonbinary people all have unique circumstances and problems they face. And this is worth discussing together. I remember at one time, maybe just 5-10 years ago, it was more common to go and do exactly that, to band together under the wider antisexist banner, for men to care of women's issues and for women to care for men's. And it worked well, but was seemingly sabotaged - I assume - in the name of controversy, division and, ultimately - profit.
I think when hearing about feminism and Men Liberation is to understand how feminist talk about the Patriarchy. I would really recommend The Will To Change by bell hooks. She does a great job explaining how the Patriarchy system harms men. It helps me to understand when people are talking about the Patriarchy they are talking about the "imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy" which is its full name. See below quote from bell hooks.
Talking about the intersections of gender, race, class etc. is called Intersectionality which is what modern feminist are talking about. It talks about how one can be both discriminated and benefit from others being discriminated at the same time. This how you get the case of typically rich white powerful females using the language of feminism to support the patriarchal systems that keep them in power by dominating those who are below them.
Thanks, I am aware of patriarchy and the way it harms men. I don't take the issue with men going against it, and it should absolutely be dismantled as it screws pretty much everyone, women and men.
What I do take issue with is that many just adopted the feminist approach and expect women to fix it for everyone, despite the fact feminism is and always has been about women, and what it does for men is rather collateral. Men are commonly not seen by feminists as someone whose voice matters much inside the movement, and if men don't have much representation in it, we can't expect it to be fair to us.
As per intersectionality, I've always found its ties with feminism concerning, much for the same reasons. Intersectional feminists are concerned with the issues of Black women, for example, but are Black men proportionally covered? We should accept that a white disabled man and a black able woman are both disadvantaged, and do our best to help everyone who is disadvantaged by any means. Intersectionality shouldn't focus on women, or Black people, or disabled, or poor, or someone with mental issues, or anyone is particular; it should be about recognizing everything that drags people down and figuring out what can be done to shorten the divide.
I do think there can be more done to help Men within feminist spheres. I think one of the hard parts from a woman's perspective is "Not all Men" men taking over debates in female circles and "Man-o-sphere" bros taking over any man and man discussion. Its good to have communities to discuss these things
I think focusing on feminism as the sole antisexist movement is inherently extremely imbalanced, as feminism was not made with men in mind to begin with, and the best you can hope for is being a secondary supporter in what's written by the women for the women.
There was a good wave around a decade ago of feminists and masculists uniting to combat all forms of antisexism, in all directions. Men got more educated in womens' issues, women got more educated in mens', and people were genuinely attempting to resolve the complex issues that form on both sides while supporting each other.
But then loud and proud feminism (as opposed to reasonable and equality-oriented one) came back again to destroy it. Whether it's more contentious and thereby boosted by the algorithms of social media on which most of us feeds, or there was some genuine shift that initiated it, or both - but peace has yet again lost its place to a dictate, and the dictate caused a reaction - so now instead of feminists and masculists working together we have feminists trying to impose their view on men (of which I suspect this place as well), and radicalized young men saying "fuck it, we're not heard and we'll make ourselves heard", which roughly translates into "we ignore what harms patriarchy does us and are set for revenge through it, not realizing we're just diving deeper into the mud pile".
One of the main points of discipline of /r/menslib back on reddit and now here is to avoid, at all costs, saying "all feminists", as more MRAy places are prone to do, which in turn do tend to have a discipline regarding "all women", that'd be incel and Tate bro talk. Maybe such an approach could be mirrored and cause something beautiful. Like a disarmament treaty of sorts.
I agree. No talking about whole subsets of populations.
I mean there is a duality in patriarchy, that each issue that touches on a woman also touches on a man. If you don't understand how feminism is two halves a whole, and how it is actually a mirror for us to investigate our own masculinity, then I don't know how to help you on your path to liberation.
Of course there is!
But that's the very issue I take. The problems around gender stereotypes, patriarchy etc. are a complex combination of factors on both sides - and the only way to untangle this is to listen to both sides. Men should absolutely scrutinize their behavior using what women can share; but so should women hear male voices to see what can be changed on their end.
We can't expect to find a common ground under the dictate of one side. Men didn't manage to solve the issue of women back in the pre-feminism era, because they thought they knew better. Now women repeat the same mistake, thinking they hold the keys to the solution and not bothering asking men on what they think about it.
Dude you want to honestly argue that male voices are not present enough in general population? Where do you live?
Male (and female) voices are different.
If you go in line with the patriarchal system and keep your mouth shut about genuine issues you might have, you'll face no shortage of attention.
The second you go against this formula, you'll likely find yourself severely ostracised. Try talking about how cool it is to be a househusband, or how knitting is actually good, and try to find an audience. Tell people around that you pursue passion over money, and good luck building a family. Tell anyone about things in which men are genuinely disadvantaged - and then not be claimed as a whiny hypocritical bitch.
As a woman, go full tradwife and you'll be praised. Talk about the joy of maternity and people will translate it. Go gentle, don't contest the positions of power, and you'll get your attention very briefly.
It's not a male vs female thing. It's about men and women for/against patriarchy, and while women have managed to overcome a significant share of gender stereotypes, men have not, and it's not that feminism is there to help.
That is not my experience, and I'm sorry if it's yours. But than again you are talking about normalizing pressure from the conservative society that tries to preserve traditional gender roles. That one is not on feminism. And there are men in position of power with platforms and I would argue there are quite diverse male voices, if you inclined to look for them.
I'm not sure that this is the experience most women make. Seems a bit magnetosphery influenced perception.
I really don't get why feminism which tries to diversify gender roles does not help men. It helped me.
I'm not saying all the issues I raise are caused by feminism, I just note it doesn't help to solve them.
Feminism diversifies female gender roles, and what it does for men is collateral. It's not a movement about men. Diversity in gender roles and expressions for everyone is part of wider antisexism, which counts both inputs for the greater good of both genders (and also nonbinary people).
Sorry but this has not been my experience, but even if it was, I don't see how that's a "man" problem. We are not here to talk about how women should change, but men. You either accept the situation and make the best of it, or you look for excuses not to engage in the subject.
What's so "Men Liberating" in it, then?
This is not "Feminism for Men 101".
Isn't getting rid of traditional roles and being able to chose your own role liberating?
It is, yet it's not quite what this place offers. It just trades one model for the other, while squeezing men between two of them, both of which they should seemingly follow simultaneously.
But it is. Also again - no-one is stopping you from creating a non feminist male space and see where it goes. I think there was even one around on lemmy - see for your self how it ended. I really don't understand your problem with dudes talking about mens issues from feminist perspective.
Because it is disingenuous. Most feminism frames the world in terms of women's interests and experiences, and elevates them above men's. It doesn't seem a middle ground or acknowledge the difference in the sexes. It just sort of adopts 'women are wonderful' bias through and through, without realizing that women can be, and often are, awful people.
Liberation requires acknowledging our shared humanity outside of identity labels, but that type of thinking isn't emotionally motivating for people because it can't take a 'us vs them' approach.
Exactly!
Screw everyone who tries to put feminism as a band-aid for everything, and screw twice everyone who tries to take men's movements and turn them into yet another feminist think tank, pretending it's about men.
We need to consider both sides if we want to form any sort of balanced view, or to actually achieve anything on the grounds of gender equality.
Women are people. Men are people. Let's figure out how to coexist in a way that makes everyone happy.
If it does not acknowledge the difference in the sexes how does it value womens interest/experiences over mens? Like dude, get some basic logic going.
You could have read the description of community first:
"his community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people,"
But you chose not to which kind of begs the question of you arguing in good faith.
How is giving women a seat at the table taking it away from men?
We can go check who is in positions of power around the world if you are inclined to defend this point.
You seem to misunderstand the core concept of feminism, which is not men vs. women it's people against a specific power structure, which arguably benefits only few while keeping the majority down.
I did read the description - and initially tried to write it off, because in the minds of many people feminism=gender equality movement (it is not).
The point I raise is not that giving women a seat removed it from men in itself, but that feminism tries to sit on two chairs, claiming to be for equality and at the same time doing everything to show only female voices count, because men are presumably "powerful anyway" and don't need to be heard out.
It is true that the top positions are predominantly taken by men. But does it convert the same way for the average Joe, does he actually have that much power? This place seems to recognize this is not true, yet comes with an answer that feminism (a movement that strongly boasts female voices over male, and often doesn't consider men as actual allies) will magically resolve it without active men's contributions by dismantling patriarchy. No it won't, because it doesn't work with the issue on the other end. Men are not invited to resolve issues that directly concern them; they are instead forced into the roles feminists have made for them, and this doesn't work because men have issues and considerations of their own that are not addressed.
Again, feminism (as in "let's figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it") - cool. Masculism (as in the same but about men) - amazing. But we can't have one of them and hope for it to fix stuff for everyone. Either we go united for an actual antisexism, or we need both to be balanced. What happens here is the subversion of the men movements into yet another feminist space. We have enough of that.
This space was created as a space to deal with men issues through the lens of feminism. While you claim that feminism is "as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it” - it is a sociological framework that explains social hierarchy and power structures, that grew over long period of time and gave power to a specific group of people, while disenfranchising other groups to different degrees. This framework can be used to understand problems quite a lot people face today (men and women) but is obviously not a theory of everything. It does not deal with all issues men and women encounter in a modern world. You are free to create your own space for men issues to analyse them from a different point of view. But in my experience such places often deteriorate into basic misogyny.
How come?
I doubt that this is the conses opinion on this sub - you will have to present some evidence for this claim.
Who exactly is stopping men from being involved in resolving their issues? Feminists? I don't see how - you will have to elaborate on this one.
We seem to have a very different understand and view on feminism and what it's about.
The optics of feminism are women-focused, it is about women first and foremost and therefore may not be applied to (or rather imposed on?) men unconditionally.
One of the outcomes of patriarchy is that men are more commonly promoted to higher positions, especially in the top levels, yes. But the other side of this is that men are expected to be providers, to carry the main financial burden, to pay for everything, leaving less to themselves. Feminism mostly covers only one side of this - income inequality - but barely tackles the societal issues that lead to the inequality in expenditures and financial expectations put on men. As such, men are squeezed between the rock and a hard place, and what most ultimately chooses in building a career, even if it doesn't align with their best personal interest. As a result, even if we eliminate all the glass ceilings that women may face, men will still take higher positions on average because that's what their conditions dictate. We need to address mens' input and engage with it if we want to have all elements that would allow us to resolve it. And feminism doesn't do that.
Men can and should absolutely support feminists while also combating their own discrimination - here we can agree. But naming a place "Men's Liberation" comes with the expectation that it's about the males' issues through the males' optics, or otherwise it is as liberating as a hostile army.
Optics are rather a subjective measurement.
This is just simply not true. Questioning gender roles is one of core ideas in feminism and questioning male roles is one big aspects conservatives feel very uneasy with when it comes to feminism.
Who is putting the expectation on men to be the provider? Feminists? Dude come on. Who made it impossible for a family to live on one salary? Feminist?
Yes and questioning traditional gender roles while providing alternatives is big part of feminism.
No it's your expectation - not a general one. And there is a rather clear description that clarifies the purpose of this group. I can get that you might not be interested in exploring male problems through the lens of feminism - but it's beyond me why you have a problem with other doing so.
Also from my personal perspective: I was raised rather feminist/egalitarian and I don't feel pressure to be a provider but rather want to be a partner. Obviously anecdotal - but an example of a solution to a problem you mentioned, offered by feminism.
Let me rephrase it - feminism is, in its entirety, about women. What it solves for men it only does to make it work for women. It's a movement about women's rights, after all. It has never been about men, and blindly following feminism as men is like trying to make a pencil using a blueprint for a hammer.
From my experiences, I don't face much questioning around men's issues in the feminist communities, as long as it's not something directly concerning women, and even then little consideration is given to considering why men act a certain way and what conditions should be changed to prevent it - it most commonly takes a directive approach instead.
Feminists were not the ones who made it impossible to live on one salary - capitalists simply used the fact both people in the family are now working to be able to pay less and extract more profits. But feminists speak little about the fact most of that financial burden still lies on men, or that there is a common expectation for a man to earn more than a woman. For them, it's commonly a non-issue.
What is beyond me at the end of the day is why people took the movement that is about women, always claims to be about women and historically never been about anyone but women and suddenly pretended it's about everyone, while it didn't change the slightest in that regard. Women lead feminism, and men have little input in its development. Women see feminism as a movement about themselves. But when the time comes for someone to point this out, everyone suddenly pretends feminism is about everyone. This community is openly feminist, so, ultimately, it is not for or about men, it's about what women want men to be.
I, too, have an egalitarian and antisexist background. I have to point that out clearly, because antisexism, while including feminism, is not limited by it, despite what many would make others believe. I am, however, socially pressured to be a provider, and instead do my best to be - exactly - a partner. An equal, not only in joys but in duties as well. And this is surprisingly hard to find someone to share this approach, at least in my area.
Rephrasing the same point does not make it more true. I already got it that it's your view and I disagree - I don't think we will find a common ground on this point, which might stem from different personal experience.
Blindly following anything is dumb, kind of general rule. And also feminism does not claim to be solution to all problem. Again it's a sociological framework (that is evolving) to analyze power dynamics in society, from a rather specific point of view. It's like expecting game theory to solve all your problems.
It is a non-issue for feminist that men earn more than women? And that women are still financially reliant on man is not a concern for feminists? I think you just fail to see that a lot of points you are mentioning are directly connected to critique feminism is bringing up. And again - no one is stopping men from bringing up those issues - not like men would lack platforms.
And you will never get it, since you fundamentally misunderstand feminism.
And yet, men gather here and talk about their issues - and you are the one having a problem with it. While no-one is stopping you from creating a non feminist male issue community and see where it goes. Or you can check one that was around here and see how it ended.
Guess who is one of the few groups fighting against societal pressure thru narrow gender roles? But than again if you are searching for non feminist women who want to be equal partners and not a provider - I might have an idea why it's hard.
I don't think there's much ground to disagree or misunderstand on my first statement - feminism, by its very name and definition, is a movement of women (fem-) against gendered oppression of women (misogyny, a form of sexism). The umbrella term is antisexism, which covers all kinds of sexism and includes feminism, masculism and, arguably, movements for the rights of nonbinary people. As per personal opinions, I strongly prefer a united antisexist front that could tackle the issues from both sides, and find the rest highly unproductive and divisive.
Exactly. And a very narrow one at that. Feminism is a movement driven by women, and, first and foremost, it takes into account the experiences of women. Trying to solve two-sided gendered issues only from the feminist angle is like taking masculist theory and trying to explain everything stemming from experiences of men.
Feminists do critique uneven pay, which I did mention. They do care about financial independence. However, they do not actively combat the issue beyond this point - it's not a feminist problem when a man is still expected to provide a higher income, even when a woman is able to pay for herself. By essentially omitting this angle, feminists miss out on one of the key pieces behind why men are more likely to get a higher office. This very expectation of needing to spend more drives more men into high-earning careers, and, on the other end, in some cases they are more likely to be promoted exactly because they are commonly seen as main providers, and so it is recognized they need it more.
My problem is that feminism here is wrapped in a foil that disguises it for some sort of men's movement, which might be enticing for some and gets some people engaged into genuinely believing feminism is the ultimate answer to sexism, for men and women. I have witnessed some of the more aggressive overtakings of the Internet spaces by some of the feminists, and believe this is one of the ultimate manifestations of a broken antisexist movement. The result? Men have little to no say in the wider antisexist movement that is now almost unilaterally feminist, and many of those silenced turn to patriarchy instead. Good job.
I'm searching for someone who, like me, still believes in that an antisexist movement should be united. I am feminist in the sense of "women should get all the practical and real rights men have, and should get a say in all spheres of life", and I am masculist in the sense of "men should get all the practical and real rights women have, and should get a say in all spheres of life". And I don't believe either is worth a dime without the other.