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
You are still just complaining about the intersection of patriarchy and capitalism. What you are saying is feminist theory. We are still in agreement here, though I disagree with the way you word it.
For example. You say that the average women wants to live like Instagram models. You are right, but that is due to patriarchy creating the cultural expectations that men are unable to meet in the modern world due to capitalisms squeeze. It is women simply trying to meet their side of the expectation.
Feminism is in part about how patriarchy binds both genders by expectations. People generally focus on the way it binds women. However it fucks men over as well. We are expected to have money, we are expected to "provide" weather in the classical sense of a family or in the modern sense of just having the money to meet consumerist whims, it doesn't really matter which one your talking about, it's still patriarchy.
When patriarchy is normally discussed it's about how men are privileged and women are oppressed. And while even as a, as the incels like to say, "low value man" you do have some societal privileges, it is very often ignored that patriarchy oppresses us men as well for not meeting those expectations. In this case, having money. Which we don't because capitalism funnels money into fewer and fewer hands, making fewer and fewer men able to achieve those expectations.
I hope I explained this well and didn't talk in too many circles. Like I said. Wombo combo of capitalism and patriarchy that tag team to fuck over men.
This is where we disagree, and it's not just the words that we use. Women are greedy, too. They like the nice things men buy them. They don't care about the true cost of consumerism because they've been conditioned to ignore it.
This is why I agree with you insomuch as women aren't able to think for themselves. I don't put that expectation on them. People richer than us do. Even though I'm able to rise above their influence, the average person cannot. This goes doubly-so for women because women have been encouraged for generations to function as one entity as much as possible.
That's still not disagreeing with me though. You are agreeing fundamentally with what I am saying, but you don't understand what the words mean. You have a false consciousness of your own that is at this moment blocking you from understanding what mean by "patriarchy".
The only difference in what we are saying is that you don't know the big fancy words and theory backing it up and instead replace it with anti women language that you have picked up and understood. At the core, past the language and operating on pure ideas, we are saying the same thing.
Side note that's why I loathe that word. The concept, roughly Butler forwards, makes perfect sense but the term is atrocious because it right-out invites misunderstanding, as in, if you take a dictionary and look up the components you get nowhere close to the "normative force wafting through overall society" thing but plain "rule of fathers", if even that, plenty of people misunderstand it as "rule of men". I know it's due to history and not deliberate obscurantism but it still sucks. Something like "the spirit of oppression" comes way closer to the modern definition, including the animist metaphysics it invokes.