Feminism for men/Effective activism

Moderators: Enigma, Sonic#

User avatar
rowan
member
member
Posts: 9567
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 11:01 2004
Location: US

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by rowan » Wed Sep 21, 10:00 2016

Yeah my friend has lived in a lot of different places, has family in a lot of locations (including the South), and also is Black. I'm going to take her experiences of a Black woman over experiences of people who are not Black.

ETA: My point is that even in liberal places, you can make an impact and are not always "preaching to the choir"
spacefem wrote:All your logical argue are belong to us!

User avatar
Nerd1987
member
member
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 0:01 2015

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Nerd1987 » Wed Sep 21, 11:42 2016

This thread is all over the place. Having said that, it's one of the few I've read every last sentence. A lot of good info here.

My thoughts: If you are a man talking to another man I like the angle of "it's shitty but...". Like it's shitty but you have to admit blah blah blah

in small doses. Don't try to convert someone in one sitting.

As far as who has visited what neighborhoods for long enough to really feel what it's like, I don't know how you can speculate on that.

Sign standing: good advice not to use a generic message because way too many people don't like male feminists. If it's a specific and sympathy provoking message, no one can say stuff. I personally don't have the guts to try something until I psych myself into thinking I'm more than competent at the material (more reading), but if you can do it, rock on.

Caitoz

Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 19:28 2016
Contact:

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Caitoz » Thu Sep 22, 2:08 2016

Men only become feminists when they become deeply curious about the female plight. Without wide-open curiosity, they can compartmentalize and make any kind of conceptual finaglings they need to to make it seem like women don't have it that bad and that things are more or less equal, or even that women have it better than men. There's not really anything anyone can do to make that curiosity happen, though; it probably most often comes from a man truly loving a woman.

filmmakingally

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 0:40 2016

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by filmmakingally » Thu Sep 22, 5:43 2016

Sonic# wrote:(1) Try not to double post, please.

(2) I understand that you may have wanted to explain your perceptions of race in your area, but did you really have to call rowan's friend naive in order to do so? On the basis of so little information about her friend? Would it be fair to me to say that you don't really know the South, as you don't currently live here, and probably only went into certain neighborhoods which don't represent the general composition of the city?
In the future, if I have an added thought after my initial post, yes I'll choose to edit my first post. Sorry, I didn't realize that that mattered, but I'll totally do that if that is the standard here.

My comments on Rowan's friend weren't based on any information, or lack thereof, on that person. My comments were based on my experiences in life, and the way that Rowan represented her friends' comments. If they truly said that about Seattle, then yes they're rather naïve to the way that race relations play out in America.

Spend some time in Richmond, VA, the capitol of the Confederacy, where they have large monuments to the "heroes" of the Confederacy right in the heart of the city, on public land. Spend a little time on the North side of the city, then try to tell me that blacks have it rough in Seattle. And Richmond is one of the most progressive cities in the South.

Spend some time in Memphis, then try telling me that black people are treated poorly in Seattle.

It seems like every damn week an innocent black man is murdered by police, on camera. Almost all of them have happened in the South (surprise).

And no, your assumption is wrong - in both of the cities that I lived in the South, I ventured to all neighborhoods, no matter the demographic. The South is backwards as shit, just admit it. The South is currently trying to elect a white supremacist to the presidency of the United States.

I stand by my prior comments. Anyone who thinks that ethnic minorities are worse off in Seattle than other places in America are horribly misinformed. Shit, spend a day in Oakland, are you kidding me?! There are 13-year-old "prostitutes" walking the streets of Oakland. I put quotation marks around it because actually, they're slaves. Literally. Oh hey, guess which city's police department partnered with the FBI to break up a sex-slavery ring? Oh, that'd be Seattle. Y'all should basically just make us the new capitol of America.
rowan wrote:Yeah my friend has lived in a lot of different places, has family in a lot of locations (including the South), and also is Black. I'm going to take her experiences of a Black woman over experiences of people who are not Black.
That's fine. I'm definitely not here to prove myself to you, though I'd point out that there can sometimes be a great deal more complexity to somebody's life experiences than their skin color. But you don't know me, so of course it's more sensible for you to trust the judgement of your friend, who also happens to be black. No hard feelings on my end. :)
rowan wrote:ETA: My point is that even in liberal places, you can make an impact and are not always "preaching to the choir"
I appreciate that. I hate to say it, but I'm very likely chickening-out on the sign-holding idea. However, I've put in a request with my boss to start letting me have Saturdays off. As a restaurant worker, I can never join in any of the rallies, because they're scheduled during regular-people off-times, and that's when I work. I really hope he'll honor that request, because I'm tired of talking but doing nothing.
Nerd1987 wrote:As far as who has visited what neighborhoods for long enough to really feel what it's like, I don't know how you can speculate on that.
Wait, does 15 years of my adult life only count as visiting? That's 15 years of living in neighborhoods that are filled with poverty. And then I go to serve rich people to make money, and I'm good at it. The rich people think I'm one of them, cuz they're stupid assholes.
Caitoz wrote:Men only become feminists when they become deeply curious about the female plight. Without wide-open curiosity, they can compartmentalize and make any kind of conceptual finaglings they need to to make it seem like women don't have it that bad and that things are more or less equal, or even that women have it better than men. There's not really anything anyone can do to make that curiosity happen, though; it probably most often comes from a man truly loving a woman.
Please don't speak for me.

I feel like the conversation has moved away from the original intent. Is that my fault? If so, I'm sorry.

Is it time for men to start forming feminist groups for men? Serious question. Maybe we can best "convert" non-feminists in an atmosphere where they won't be scared of being accused of being sexist, and I don't mean to say that I've seen any of that here. I just think a lot of men might avoid the subject because they like living their sheltered lives where everything is awesome.

*I've edited this post SO MANY times, haha. Okay, I gotta stop now. Best wishes to all who are taking part in this conversation, and thank you for sharing your thoughts. :)

User avatar
melsbells
member
member
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 6:45 2014
Location: Finland

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by melsbells » Thu Sep 22, 15:02 2016

filmmakingally wrote:It seems like every damn week an innocent black man is murdered by police, on camera. Almost all of them have happened in the South (surprise).
Florida, California, Texas, Maryland, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Louisiana [http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/states]

Those are the ten states where police in the U.S. have killed the most black people since 2013. Which ones do you consider to be southern states?
filmmakingally wrote:And no, your assumption is wrong - in both of the cities that I lived in the South
I think that's exactly what Sonic was saying,that you shouldn't make assumptions about someone else's experiences (Rowan's friend) in the same way that it wouldn't be fair for Sonic to make those assumptions about you.

On topic: Convincing someone to be a feminist should be more about the issues and less about the label. Only after there is concern about issues can someone think about taking on the label. There's been a lot of good advice in this thread. I want to add the nuance that speaking up for a woman who is being overlooked can sometimes be patronizing. Consider drawing attention to it in such a way that the woman's voice is heard. Asking follow-up questions is one possibility that's been brought up. Or even just, "Can you repeat that last then you said?"

User avatar
rowan
member
member
Posts: 9567
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 11:01 2004
Location: US

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by rowan » Thu Sep 22, 15:26 2016

Sorry didn't mean to derail, what I really wanted to point out with my friend's experiences is that even in "liberal" places, you can totally make an impact. That was unclear in my post.
spacefem wrote:All your logical argue are belong to us!

filmmakingally

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 0:40 2016

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by filmmakingally » Fri Sep 23, 13:56 2016

melsbells wrote:I think that's exactly what Sonic was saying,that you shouldn't make assumptions about someone else's experiences (Rowan's friend) in the same way that it wouldn't be fair for Sonic to make those assumptions about you.
Yep, that's true. I was definitely kinda judgmental there, and I shouldn't have done that. My apologies to anyone I might have offended.
melsbells wrote:On topic: Convincing someone to be a feminist should be more about the issues and less about the label. Only after there is concern about issues can someone think about taking on the label. There's been a lot of good advice in this thread. I want to add the nuance that speaking up for a woman who is being overlooked can sometimes be patronizing. Consider drawing attention to it in such a way that the woman's voice is heard. Asking follow-up questions is one possibility that's been brought up. Or even just, "Can you repeat that last then you said?"
THIS is exactly the reason why I'm here. That's a perspective I could never understand, without having it explained to me by someone who has lived it.

Rowan, I think it was I who derailed. I'm sorry, I have a tendency to do that, and it's not intentional. Best regards to all.

filmmakingally

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 0:40 2016

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by filmmakingally » Fri Sep 30, 1:44 2016

melsbells wrote:
filmmakingally wrote:On topic: Convincing someone to be a feminist should be more about the issues and less about the label. Only after there is concern about issues can someone think about taking on the label. There's been a lot of good advice in this thread. I want to add the nuance that speaking up for a woman who is being overlooked can sometimes be patronizing. Consider drawing attention to it in such a way that the woman's voice is heard. Asking follow-up questions is one possibility that's been brought up. Or even just, "Can you repeat that last then you said?"
I really appreciate both of those pieces of advice. Thanks!

Oleg
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 4:57 2016

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Oleg » Wed Oct 19, 5:01 2016

Feminism for men is actually real. The Victorian government will introduce a mandatory feminist program to teach brainwash students about “male privilege”. They will be teaching boys that masculinity is toxic, and that it encourages “control and dominance” over women. This program will be funded by taxpayers at a cost of $21.8 million. Just read an article and you will get it: [link deleted - personal advertisement]

User avatar
Unvoiced_Apollo
member
member
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Sep 9, 9:54 2015

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Unvoiced_Apollo » Wed Oct 19, 6:38 2016

Oleg wrote:Feminism for men is actually real. The Victorian government will introduce a mandatory feminist program to teach brainwash students about “male privilege”. They will be teaching boys that masculinity is toxic, and that it encourages “control and dominance” over women. This program will be funded by taxpayers at a cost of $21.8 million. Just read an article and you will get it: [link deleted - personal advertisement]
No one believes masculinity intself is toxic. What is being referred to as "toxic masculinity" are when traits valued among men (strength, assertiveness, ambition, etc.) override traits required to not only recognize health issues (and therefore seek help) but also just be a decent human being.

User avatar
rowan
member
member
Posts: 9567
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 11:01 2004
Location: US

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by rowan » Wed Oct 19, 9:09 2016

I would also like to point out that Victoria is no longer Queen.
spacefem wrote:All your logical argue are belong to us!

filmmakingally

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 0:40 2016

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by filmmakingally » Thu Oct 20, 0:38 2016

I'm not sure if there's much use in even responding to trolls like this. How often does this happen around here?

If we knew them, then yes, talk to them. Just today, I had to spend about half an hour trying (unsuccessfully) to explain to him how the use of the word "bitch" cannot be compared to the use of the word "asshole", and it should never be done. He's my brother, so I'll try again. Which, I guess that gets us back on topic, haha. Perhaps the most effective form of male feminism is just having frank chats with the other men who are close to us.

Total strangers on the internet who are clearly just trying to stir up the pot? Nah.

deVire
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 5:00 2016

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by deVire » Tue Oct 25, 3:48 2016

re: Feminism for Men/Effective Activism

As a newbie to this forum, from England in the UK, may I add my perspective from this side of the 'pond'?

Whilst the objective of making men more sympathetic to the notion of feminist values is, in my opinion, not only desirable but imperative the reality is that it is not likely to be achieved as a short-term objective. Human nature is such that it will only be adopted by a substantial number of males over a protracted period of time. Personally, I have come across a lot of men who have paid lip-service to the concept of gender equality when in a social environment where it was the most appropriate response but, their subsequent words and actions have revealed an ingrained male gender-biased stance. This is not a case of trying to attribute blame; these men have, through no fault of their own, been brought up as members of a society where male values have always had a higher status. For them to begin to change their position regarding gender equality en-mass it would not only need education in the merits of the subject but also recognition that for them to each acknowledge this potential for a realignment of gender roles, as a member of their male peer group, would no longer be seen as being akin to an act of treason against all men. Men have, notionally, been 'in charge' of society for millennia, they are the gender who have determined the rules that life's game has always been played by; why would they willingly accept a reversal of the rules of the game and, at the same time, hand the ball over to the other side?

For a true change in the nature of men, and thus the interrelationship between men and women, the reality is that it may well take generations and a sense of determination amongst the would-be revolutionaries – thus this time-frame would make them, perhaps, not revolutionaries but more like 'evolutionaries' . Not the sort of time-line that most feminists would, ideally, find acceptable. At an evolutionary level though, a change of relative values between the genders within a generation or two would, nonetheless, indicate a meteorically fast timetable for the re-ordering of society .

I have spent very many years motivated by, and researching into, gender equality and have come to the conclusion that there is no quick fix. When it comes to such radical change as global gender equality, revolution will not work; indeed, it is more likely to cause a form of civil war between the genders – but, some form of a more rapid mode of the evolution process could be applied to our gender roles and may well be the way to resolve the situation, the way to find a long term solution.

Exactly how this permanent re-ordering of social and gender-biased roles might be best achieved is another very interesting, complex and potentially controversial subject as is whether society as a whole could, or should, find the motivation to prioritise feminism above all else.

User avatar
Enigma
member
member
Posts: 3749
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 10:22 2004
Location: Canada

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Enigma » Thu Oct 27, 15:23 2016

filmmakingally wrote:I'm not sure if there's much use in even responding to trolls like this. How often does this happen around here?.
All the time. And yeah, there often isn't.
"Human beings are amazing... we might be horrible, horrible, but we're wonderful too. Otherwise, why go on?"

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3008
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Aum » Thu Oct 27, 17:17 2016

I have no relationship to the trolls in this thread, the topic itself is important to me.

The main issue with feminism in relationship to its usefulness to men is that it's run by women. Yeah there are male allies, but they are not part of the core. Sacred spaces for men to develop themselves, experience rites of passage, and have male eldership are crucial in order to change the way that men are relating to themselves and others in the modern world. Men are being held back too, just in a different way, and perhaps a more insidious way. There is very little ritual left in society to boost boy psychology into man psychology, and feminism will never be able to provide this. As evidenced by how many grown up boys are running around ruling the world.

Feminists have rightly pointed out patriarchy and how its values around male dominance have injured both women and men. However, in their radical critique of patriarchy, some feminists conclude that masculinity in its roots is essentially abusive, and that the softening, nurturing elements that are needed come only from the feminine side of the equation (whether as part of the yin/yang that exists in all of us, or directly by shifting the focus to female power). It may not be an overt claim, or it may be; feminism contains a lot of female woundedness surrounding relations to men, as it should, because it is a space for women to get right with themselves. IMO this is essentially why some men backlash against feminism, even with strawmen. There is a subconscious desire to ascend from boyhood into manhood but they resent a female-dominated philosophy's critique that does not provide eldership or rites of passage to men. Pointing out the problem over and over doesn't help us understand or change who we are, fundamentally.

There is a sense, whether real or imagined, that feminism is trying to take ownership of men, because in dismantling patriarchy it does not outwardly delineate what is right for transpersonal male ascendancy. On the surface it looks like removing what little rites men have without providing adequate replacements. In other words, some feminists, in their critique of patriarchy, are not sensitive to male inadequacy. Men who have not had proper rites and guidance from boyhood into manhood, and are thus dysfunctional in one or more areas, are being triggered. When triggered, they may blame feminism, which is what causes the endless circular attacks that even this forum experiences. When really, men are trying to articulate a wound or a void that has not been adequately addressed by society or feminism, and they misdirect their feelings at feminists. Compounding this problem is that a lot of feminists push the notion of male privilege so hard that it invalidates some core male development issues. We all know that patriarchy is a system, it's not supposed to target individuals, but a lot of men *are* targeted when they air grievances. Remember, feminism has had 100+ years in existence, the past 60 of which have been intensely revolutionary. Men have had nothing.

Whether or not feminists want to admit it, there are often internal critiques aimed at men's groups, especially when men are trying to reclaim power from how feminists are framing the male struggle. (As an example, claiming men are privileged so their struggle doesn't compare.) A lot of men, despite their patriarchal privilege, feel impotent and incapable of taking control of their own lives and can't really identify where these feelings are coming from. They do all of the status quo things that are expected of men, only to experience personal breakdowns somewhere along the line. The male process is shamed and suppressed, both by patriarchy and by feminism, because it's assumed that men are already A-OK due to their eminent privilege.

I've been reading the book "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover" by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette, and I find its assessment of modern male psychologically really astute, if a bit categorical. The "godhood" that men are trying to experience through pseuo-rites of passage (sports, gangs, money, sex, etc.) are taking place in the absence of proper male modeling. There are aspects to being men that feminism can't address, we have root natures in our DNA that create specific archetypical complexes within us as we attempt to mature that must be nurtured by the surrounding community and society, or we will go astray. So while feminism attempts to equalize the playing field, and does make a sincere go at trying to speak up for marginalized men, it's not really getting at the root concerns of men because its primary wisdom base is dealing with women.

A lot of men react negatively to feminism because they are subconsciously reacting to the over-mothering they received, because their fathers were absent or impotent. The mothers had to fulfill roles that only men can fulfill, but due to the cyclical degredation of male rites in society, the issues men experience are endlessly perpetuated. As the mature female archetypes stabilize in society and rise to ascendancy, they are role modeling a lot more for men. Women in many respects are already fulfilling mature roles, because feminism has restored many of their rites. Because men haven't caught up, it means that the presence of women in a young man's life will naturally be more eminent... and this IMO is where some of the resentment comes from. They are starving for male eldership but all they are getting now is female eldership, WHICH IS NEEDED TOO, but it can feel emasculating in the absence of man psychology.

Look at MRAs... they are an attempt to gather men into a place where they can talk about male concerns. But there is so much boy psychology happening. All the archetypes are playing out in a shadow way. Rather than kings we are seeing tyrants. Rather than warriors we are seeing masochists and sadists. Rather than magicians who can discern justly, we are seeing manipulators. Rather than lovers who are in their hearts, we are seeing addicts and impotents. It's the blind leading the blind. MRAs show us, if anything, that the very man psychology that is needed to guide boys into being men is lacking in society... rendering men aimless. There is a nebulous need for them to congregate and figure this out, but without guidance there is a lot of breakdown.

Feminism, at its core, can't deal with this problem, so it either pretends the problem isn't real, it's being exaggerated, or it looks for flaws in the male psychology through the lens of feminist theory to dismiss it -- a lens that was designed by and for women. Men doing this important work should be allies to feminists. Women's empowerment and men's empowerment support one another. Just like feminism wants the equality of everyone, so should men's support groups. However, they need to both respect each other's sacred spaces and foci as well. Men and women are equal but we have different developmental needs.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.

filmmakingally

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 0:40 2016

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by filmmakingally » Fri Oct 28, 1:12 2016

Aum wrote:I have no relationship to the trolls in this thread, the topic itself is important to me.

The main issue with feminism in relationship to its usefulness to men is that it's run by women. Yeah there are male allies, but they are not part of the core. Sacred spaces for men to develop themselves, experience rites of passage, and have male eldership are crucial in order to change the way that men are relating to themselves and others in the modern world. Men are being held back too, just in a different way, and perhaps a more insidious way. There is very little ritual left in society to boost boy psychology into man psychology, and feminism will never be able to provide this. As evidenced by how many grown up boys are running around ruling the world.

Feminists have rightly pointed out patriarchy and how its values around male dominance have injured both women and men. However, in their radical critique of patriarchy, some feminists conclude that masculinity in its roots is essentially abusive, and that the softening, nurturing elements that are needed come only from the feminine side of the equation (whether as part of the yin/yang that exists in all of us, or directly by shifting the focus to female power). It may not be an overt claim, or it may be; feminism contains a lot of female woundedness surrounding relations to men, as it should, because it is a space for women to get right with themselves. IMO this is essentially why some men backlash against feminism, even with strawmen. There is a subconscious desire to ascend from boyhood into manhood but they resent a female-dominated philosophy's critique that does not provide eldership or rites of passage to men. Pointing out the problem over and over doesn't help us understand or change who we are, fundamentally.

There is a sense, whether real or imagined, that feminism is trying to take ownership of men, because in dismantling patriarchy it does not outwardly delineate what is right for transpersonal male ascendancy. On the surface it looks like removing what little rites men have without providing adequate replacements. In other words, some feminists, in their critique of patriarchy, are not sensitive to male inadequacy. Men who have not had proper rites and guidance from boyhood into manhood, and are thus dysfunctional in one or more areas, are being triggered. When triggered, they may blame feminism, which is what causes the endless circular attacks that even this forum experiences. When really, men are trying to articulate a wound or a void that has not been adequately addressed by society or feminism, and they misdirect their feelings at feminists. Compounding this problem is that a lot of feminists push the notion of male privilege so hard that it invalidates some core male development issues. We all know that patriarchy is a system, it's not supposed to target individuals, but a lot of men *are* targeted when they air grievances. Remember, feminism has had 100+ years in existence, the past 60 of which have been intensely revolutionary. Men have had nothing.

Whether or not feminists want to admit it, there are often internal critiques aimed at men's groups, especially when men are trying to reclaim power from how feminists are framing the male struggle. (As an example, claiming men are privileged so their struggle doesn't compare.) A lot of men, despite their patriarchal privilege, feel impotent and incapable of taking control of their own lives and can't really identify where these feelings are coming from. They do all of the status quo things that are expected of men, only to experience personal breakdowns somewhere along the line. The male process is shamed and suppressed, both by patriarchy and by feminism, because it's assumed that men are already A-OK due to their eminent privilege.

I've been reading the book "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover" by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette, and I find its assessment of modern male psychologically really astute, if a bit categorical. The "godhood" that men are trying to experience through pseuo-rites of passage (sports, gangs, money, sex, etc.) are taking place in the absence of proper male modeling. There are aspects to being men that feminism can't address, we have root natures in our DNA that create specific archetypical complexes within us as we attempt to mature that must be nurtured by the surrounding community and society, or we will go astray. So while feminism attempts to equalize the playing field, and does make a sincere go at trying to speak up for marginalized men, it's not really getting at the root concerns of men because its primary wisdom base is dealing with women.

A lot of men react negatively to feminism because they are subconsciously reacting to the over-mothering they received, because their fathers were absent or impotent. The mothers had to fulfill roles that only men can fulfill, but due to the cyclical degredation of male rites in society, the issues men experience are endlessly perpetuated. As the mature female archetypes stabilize in society and rise to ascendancy, they are role modeling a lot more for men. Women in many respects are already fulfilling mature roles, because feminism has restored many of their rites. Because men haven't caught up, it means that the presence of women in a young man's life will naturally be more eminent... and this IMO is where some of the resentment comes from. They are starving for male eldership but all they are getting now is female eldership, WHICH IS NEEDED TOO, but it can feel emasculating in the absence of man psychology.

Look at MRAs... they are an attempt to gather men into a place where they can talk about male concerns. But there is so much boy psychology happening. All the archetypes are playing out in a shadow way. Rather than kings we are seeing tyrants. Rather than warriors we are seeing masochists and sadists. Rather than magicians who can discern justly, we are seeing manipulators. Rather than lovers who are in their hearts, we are seeing addicts and impotents. It's the blind leading the blind. MRAs show us, if anything, that the very man psychology that is needed to guide boys into being men is lacking in society... rendering men aimless. There is a nebulous need for them to congregate and figure this out, but without guidance there is a lot of breakdown.

Feminism, at its core, can't deal with this problem, so it either pretends the problem isn't real, it's being exaggerated, or it looks for flaws in the male psychology through the lens of feminist theory to dismiss it -- a lens that was designed by and for women. Men doing this important work should be allies to feminists. Women's empowerment and men's empowerment support one another. Just like feminism wants the equality of everyone, so should men's support groups. However, they need to both respect each other's sacred spaces and foci as well. Men and women are equal but we have different developmental needs.
I'm sorry but I disagree with so much of this. First of all, I think it would be a really bad idea for feminists to even think of aligning themselves with, or to even try and learn anything from, Men's Right's Activists. Any dude who is even slightly educated, regardless of whether or not they identify as feminist, laughs at those fools. They have failed at manhood.

There is no struggle of being a man. We've got it good. There are ways in which our society and culture has been failing us, this is true. More of us end up in the school-to-jail pipeline, and those who don't end up in jail tend to fair worse in school. This, of course, is mostly a problem for men of color. I don't see that as a failure of boys but a failure of our public school system to properly deal with the needs of boys.

I guess maybe I should also mention our discriminatory child-custody laws. But that's about it. Beyond that, it's kinda awesome being a man.

Why do so many men reject feminism? Because they don't realize all of the things they're doing that are sexist. In my experience, I think the overwhelming majority of sexist men think that they're being fair to women, and in their minds it's not their fault that women are acting all crazy. They're so used to the patriarchy, they're so accustomed to being in control, that they simply tune women out. Their voices are not worth listening to.

I can speak to this on a personal level, though to a smaller degree than what we might typify as overtly sexist behavior. I din't really start to become feminist until a good friend of mine kept getting frustrated about how I would constantly interrupt her. I didn't realize I was doing it. It took me many months to realize that I was treating her differently in group conversations than I was men. I thought I was treating her fairly, but it took a good number of emotional protests on her part for me to finally examine my own behavior and realize what I was doing. At first, I thought she was just being overly-emotional. I think most men just fail to get over the initial phase of thinking that women are being overly-emotional because the patriarchal attitude of not listening to women is so ingrained in their numbskulls.

I think this best way for us to overcome this obstacle is for male feminists to just start talking to men who are not.

User avatar
Nech
member
member
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 13:50 2015
Location: Canada

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Nech » Fri Oct 28, 9:58 2016

We should try to have these conversations without referring to things like "manhood". Because not only is it ambiguous at best, most things that can be counted under the term are misogynist ideals (i.e. protecting your lady, being the bread winner, sexual prowess, etc.) or things that can't be controlled (i.e penis size, body type, etc.). It also feeds back into the dangerous notion that each sex has a set of guidelines to follow, but female or male none actually applies.

(I was going to respond more in depth to Aum but can't quite articulate what I want well enough, so I'll jump in further down the line. :) )
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So just shut up, and bring some water.

filmmakingally

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 0:40 2016

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by filmmakingally » Fri Oct 28, 10:14 2016

Nech wrote:We should try to have these conversations without referring to things like "manhood". Because not only is it ambiguous at best, most things that can be counted under the term are misogynist ideals (i.e. protecting your lady, being the bread winner, sexual prowess, etc.) or things that can't be controlled (i.e penis size, body type, etc.). It also feeds back into the dangerous notion that each sex has a set of guidelines to follow, but female or male none actually applies.

(I was going to respond more in depth to Aum but can't quite articulate what I want well enough, so I'll jump in further down the line. :) )
That's a fair point. I think my comments were sort of a knee-jerk reaction. I think it'd be more fair for me to state that Men's Rights Activists are not really accepted among their peers of other men, insofar as them complaining about the supposed woes of man. Though I wish more men would be open to feminism, I'm glad that most of us do not care for Men's Rights Activists.

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3008
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Aum » Fri Oct 28, 20:22 2016

filmmakingally wrote:Any dude who is even slightly educated, regardless of whether or not they identify as feminist, laughs at those fools. They have failed at manhood.
I'm not talking about MRAs in their current form, I'm talking about them in their idealized form... what they could be, what they're supposed to be. I've attended many men's groups like the Mankind Project and others on the west coast that contain healthy modeling. These groups are safe spaces for men to articulate the issues I'm describing. They have what they call "Warrior Weekends" where men gather for intensive workshops to plow through some of the core issues, like which rites we are missing in our lives, and how to rectify it. The fact is, men don't treat women like shit if they have proper male modeling. Feminism CAN'T provide that, and it HASN'T. I love feminism and will always consider myself a feminist, but it's an incomplete system FOR MEN. Female privilege *within* feminism prevents feminism from seeing that. Feminists like yourself are so stuck in the patriarchal pedagogy of your own philosophy that you project a world where men have no struggles of their own, which is not true. So in a way, men who are doing work to rectify their own patriarchal biases are attacked by both the patriarchy (for being weak or not following the status quo), and by feminists who accuse them of simply being a counter-culture to feminism or for crying about nothing. The fact that you call them fools and laugh at their shortcomings underscores the very problem that men face. They don't have rites of passage and proper eldership into manhood, so they come up short; in turn, they are mocked by other forms of activism for coming up short. Vicious cycle complete. All those men in the MRAs who are racist, misogynist, hating feminism... they basically hate themselves. They are acting out a boy psychology of incompletion. Making fun of them won't remedy it. There's plenty of research that talks about how boys without good male modeling grow up to be angry or delinquent. We have a society of absent or inadequate father figures. No wonder men are so effed up?

Most studied feminists agree that men experience oppression as well under patriarchy, but it is so weakly defined as to be nearly useless. Yes, we all know about men falling behind in education, being subjected to violence more (from other men), and being more likely to end up in jail. Again, these are SYMPTOMS of root developmental issues, relating back to the way men raise boys, and the way boys are initiated into manhood. Without men making active attempts to come together and examine their collective wounds, as a demographic, then patriarchy will never go away.

You know... I went to a feminist conference two years ago here in Canada, and men raised some male related issues at the conference. Some men know they are misogynist and don't want to be that way anymore. Some men need help examining the way their fathers brought them up, either as weaklings or as violent people. There are male abusers who DON'T want to abuse anymore but they can't get at the roots. You know what the women at the conference said? "Go form your own group." At the time I thought WTF... but now? I understand. Men need to do this work with men.

I highly, highly, highly recommend reading the book, "King Warrior Magician Lover". It's an incomplete work but it was one of the first major attempts in the 1990's to begin creating an archetypical framework for men to relate to, and heal through. It's one of the modalities that the Mankind Project uses.
filmmakingally wrote:There is no struggle of being a man.
That's simply untrue. Yes we live in a system that grants men a lot of privilege, but the very perception of privilege is what prevents proper ascension into manhood. 'Men have it good so they don't need help'... and I'm not talking about externalities, I'm talking about their connection with themselves and how they relate to their own sense of personal power. Most men are operating at a dysfunctional level because the rites of passage from the traditional world for men have been gutted and replaced with pseudo-rites or rites that instill dysfunctional archetypes of behaviour. Patriarchy has brought us this. It also has to do with how male power has been externalized into the material world.

In many indigenous cultures, boys undergo death rituals at puberty. There are rites which denote their manhood, their responsibilities, and they are inducted into the older male order of the tribe. They then begin to receive lessons from the male group on how to conduct themselves. Modern men almost always lack some or all of these rites... the male lineages in their families have had their psyches broken at some point along the way and never recovered. And it's on a wide scale -- obviously!
filmmakingally wrote:Why do so many men reject feminism? Because they don't realize all of the things they're doing that are sexist. In my experience, I think the overwhelming majority of sexist men think that they're being fair to women, and in their minds it's not their fault that women are acting all crazy. They're so used to the patriarchy, they're so accustomed to being in control, that they simply tune women out. Their voices are not worth listening to.
Well, it's a multifaceted issue, so I don't claim that there is one "issue" against feminism. But what you've done here is setup a binary that relates men to feminism, when I am talking about men as a stand-alone subject. This is the polarity problem that I referred to in my previous post. I'm not talking about men being sexist toward women; that is only a symptom of a deeper problem, an issue with self-relation. Remove women from the picture for a second, and just look at men as a demographic. Don't relate it to patriarchy, or feminism, or attitudes toward women. There are queer and gay men who have the same issues on a developmental level

I had to nix the rest of your post because you're going into a discussion about sexism, which is not what I am talking about at all.
Nech wrote:We should try to have these conversations without referring to things like "manhood". Because not only is it ambiguous at best, most things that can be counted under the term are misogynist ideals (i.e. protecting your lady, being the bread winner, sexual prowess, etc.) or things that can't be controlled (i.e penis size, body type, etc.). It also feeds back into the dangerous notion that each sex has a set of guidelines to follow, but female or male none actually applies.
It's equally as dangerous to say that there is no way to easily define manhood, so we should stop trying. I agree that it's up to each person to self-define their identity. However, there are also instinctual behaviours hard-coded into our DNA that require us to receive certain kinds of nurturing in order to develop into functional adults. When we don't have that nurturing, we don't thrive. There are definitely ways to delineate male psychology in tangible and practical ways. We know this because therapists do it all the time. Dealing with self-identified men and self-identified women has different characteristics in a therapeutic environment, whether or not feminists want to admit it. Trans men deal with these same issues in an intersectional way. Anyone who experiences themselves as a man is coming face to face with personal development struggles that, as a group, we are only beginning to articulate in ways that feminism has been doing for 60+ years.

Btw, you did the exact same thing as the above poster did... you began placing men's issues on a polarity axis relating to women, tying it to misogyny. I understand why you did this. What I'm trying to get you to see is that as long as you look at male development through a feminist lens, you will always be bringing it back to women, rather than examining men as their own group. This very approach is why men continue to be denied their own sovereign process, and why feminism alienates them. They might not be able to identify it as that, but that's 100% what it is. Even the misogynist men are acting out something from a deeper part of themselves, against feminism, that is really rooted in their relationship to themselves as men.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.

User avatar
Nech
member
member
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 13:50 2015
Location: Canada

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Nech » Fri Oct 28, 23:29 2016

Aum wrote:It's equally as dangerous to say that there is no way to easily define manhood, so we should stop trying. I agree that it's up to each person to self-define their identity. However, there are also instinctual behaviours hard-coded into our DNA that require us to receive certain kinds of nurturing in order to develop into functional adults. When we don't have that nurturing, we don't thrive.
I didn't say it should stop being defined if that's your wish, but it definitely should not be used as if it is already defined. And from my understanding, genetic differences between the genders attribute to illness and disorders, not to behaviour. The whole "women are more nurturing" argument has been torn apart so many times for that very reason. That same ideology is used by PUA's because they think that all women can be manipulated a certain way but now a female form of PUA using pretty much the same techniques has popped up and shows as well that it's not gendered behaviour, it's human behaviour. I think there can be perceived expectations at play and there can be societal conditioning, but gender and genetics plays no role on behaviour itself.
Aum wrote:Btw, you did the exact same thing as the above poster did... you began placing men's issues on a polarity axis relating to women, tying it to misogyny. I understand why you did this. What I'm trying to get you to see is that as long as you look at male development through a feminist lens, you will always be bringing it back to women, rather than examining men as their own group. This very approach is why men continue to be denied their own sovereign process, and why feminism alienates them. They might not be able to identify it as that, but that's 100% what it is. Even the misogynist men are acting out something from a deeper part of themselves, against feminism, that is really rooted in their relationship to themselves as men.
No, what I did was state that the current predominant form of "manhood" comes from very sexist roots. If you ask people on the street what it means, you're going to get some very similar answers to my examples, which aren't "men's issues", they're ideological thinking birthed in misogyny. The portion I quoted above above reminds me a lot of this post I came across, and could easily be something the image was in response to. I really don't think men need "their own sovereign process".
Aum wrote:Feminists like yourself are so stuck in the patriarchal pedagogy of your own philosophy that you project a world where men have no struggles of their own, which is not true.
Also this reads very much like an "ALL LIVES MATTER" type argument, not sure if that was your intended message or not. But if it was...
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So just shut up, and bring some water.

filmmakingally

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 0:40 2016

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by filmmakingally » Sat Oct 29, 1:42 2016

Okay, Aum, you're a Men's Rights Activist. So what are you doing on a feminist forum? These two philosophies do not jibe with each other.

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3008
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Aum » Sat Oct 29, 12:07 2016

Nech wrote:I didn't say it should stop being defined if that's your wish, but it definitely should not be used as if it is already defined. And from my understanding, genetic differences between the genders attribute to illness and disorders, not to behaviour.
That's simply not true. There are differences in both men and women on the genetic level that affect their behaviours. Behavioral neuroscience delineates these quite clearly. What we have to be careful of is assigning societal roles to people based on these differences. People should not have limited opportunities or privileges because of these differences. We should not force personality stereotyping onto people because of these differences. But the differences exist nonetheless. To emphasize, I'm talking about sex and not gender. Gender is identity, sex is in-born. There are behavioral characteristics tied to sex that shouldn't be ignored. There are things that men experience, universally, all over the world regardless of race or creed, that can be identified. You can go to the remotest jungles and men are still doing the same rites of passage with one another, to establish their places in society and their responsibility/accountability to the village. The reason why modern men are so dysfunctional, PARTLY, is we have lost these rites, partly as systems of power have denied them to men, and partly because we have forgotten.

On the topic of gender, if you look at Maoist China, they tried to erase the genders completely. Men and women were expected to fulfill the exact same roles. If you visit China now, men and women are living out what we would consider to be the 1950's traditional gender roles. On the surface it looks like they are on the same linear progression that we are, but they aren't. They're trying to reclaim gender separation that was taken from them, because it's been acknowledged that men and women have differences that should be expected. There are pros and cons to this... because it's creating expectations in their society about what men and women should be. On the other hand, they can finally express themselves through gendered differences. They warn western feminists not to erase genders because there are uniquenesses which can arise from each gender.

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into a big debate on what sex and gender are. That's up for people to decide. My focus here is on the self-identified experience of male inadequacy and incapability in the modern world, and its roots in lack of male eldership, male modeling, and rites of passage.
Nech wrote:The whole "women are more nurturing" argument has been torn apart so many times for that very reason. That same ideology is used by PUA's because they think that all women can be manipulated a certain way but now a female form of PUA using pretty much the same techniques has popped up and shows as well that it's not gendered behaviour, it's human behaviour. I think there can be perceived expectations at play and there can be societal conditioning, but gender and genetics plays no role on behaviour itself.
You're talking about patriarchal applications to these sex differences. That's what is pathological and causing problems in our society. Patriarchy itself comes from the destruction of sacred masculinity in society. If you psychoanalyze most male leaders of huge companies, or countries, they are exhibiting boyhood complexes that never reached ascendancy into manhood. The dysfunction is systemic, from top to bottom. What I'm talking about is normal behaviours that arise in the sexes as they develop and come to maturity. Men can be nurturing too. In fact, the nurturing masculine is an archetype that is missing or simply not promoted in our society. Anyone who has raised boys or girls knows there are differences in how they behave. They need slightly different modeling, different rituals, different acknowledgments of their character. But they should be treated equally on the human level and have the same opportunities. (Btw I don't know what PUAs are but I parsed your argument anyway.)

Again, you're parroting the feminist stuff and that's not what I'm talking about. Remove women from the picture and just look at what's going on in the core of self-identified men. That's what me and others are trying to get at.
Nech wrote:No, what I did was state that the current predominant form of "manhood" comes from very sexist roots. If you ask people on the street what it means, you're going to get some very similar answers to my examples, which aren't "men's issues", they're ideological thinking birthed in misogyny. The portion I quoted above above reminds me a lot of this post I came across, and could easily be something the image was in response to. I really don't think men need "their own sovereign process".
Again, you're pointing out pathological forms of manhood created by patriarchy, you're not talking about healthy male modeling. All the problems you mention are the very reason why the mature masculine desperately needs to be addressed, to make an attempt to reintroduce the long-lost structures whose absence are the root cause of why men are having self-relational problems that cause them to behave the way they do. A lot of men are taking personal responsibility by forming groups and associations to address this. They're not MRAs.

Those pathologies are NOT birthed in misogyny, they are birthed in absent male eldership and initiatory rites of passage. Again, misogyny is a symptom and not the root cause. And again, you're relating men's issues to women, rather than examining male pathologies as a stand-alone. It's clear you can't do this because you aren't versed in what wounded masculinity even looks like. I am trying to educate you, but you're combating it because you perceive it as a threat to feminism -- but it isn't, it's actually complimentary to feminism.
Nech wrote:Also this reads very much like an "ALL LIVES MATTER" type argument, not sure if that was your intended message or not.
*face palm*

Ok, obviously what I'm saying is going way over your head. I'll just stop right here.

Read the book I mentioned, if you're not scared of educating yourself and opening your mind to what men are going through. I doubt you will though, you seem pretty convinced that everything that's wrong with men only relates to women.
filmmakingally wrote:Okay, Aum, you're a Men's Rights Activist. So what are you doing on a feminist forum? These two philosophies do not jibe with each other.
Mankind Project is not an MRA. Check your ignorance.

Your reaction is reminiscent (I wrote feminiscent, how hilarious) of the feminist disgust toward any attempt to organize men into better systems that try to be right with themselves. I despise MRAs but I understand where their grotesqueness comes from. There are a lot of men who have a vague awareness that something is wrong with men as a group and are trying to come together to fix that. Naturally, when a bunch of men with a dysfunctional relationship to their own masculinity, who have not had proper rites of passage leading them from boyhood to manhood, get together, they're going to have all their dirty laundry on full display. All this underscores is the dire need for eldership and guidance, and not that their core perception is wrong. We should defend ourselves if they attack us... but laugh at them as a group? That's inhumane and wrong.

Feminists perceive that men organizing in this fashion are merely trying to reclaim power from women, which is actually true in some cases. There are misguided groups of men who perceive that their wounded masculinity is because of feminism's progression. These are the very men who lack guidance into healthy masculinity. This includes the Republicans and their misogynist laws, rape apologists, etc. They are all acting out against an invisible oppression that they know not, because they have not yet self-identified their own wounded masculinity. So unfortunately, people like me doing the REAL work, are having to fight the patriarchy and some feminists at the same time, even though feminists should be our allies. IMO patriarchy is WAY, WAY more threatened by men reclaiming their sense of self than women. Mature men who are in their proper place of eldership and discernment would completely dismantle the current establishment, taking it away from the narcissists and masochists running the show. In a world with healthy male modeling and eldership, such narcissists would have been singled out and reformed before they ever had a chance to make it remotely close to power. But these men run the show now. Hence why men are kept impotent... and unfortunately, some aspects of feminism are playing into that without realizing it. It's because women have internalized misandry that is a result of how they have been treated by these wounded men. It's easier to believe that men loving/respecting women is an end in of itself, rather than acknowledge that men, as a group, are just as wounded as women are. Because to admit that means that feminism has come face to face with its own limitations.

Feminism CANNOT repair men. It also reveals that the premise of feminism - that women are oppressed and merely trying to come up to the bar of freedom and achievement that men are already at - is incorrect. We know this is incorrect because of how women are now surpassing men in some areas. If men were already at the ceiling then why are women moving beyond? Clearly there is something about the potential of boyhood and manhood that, in of itself, is not being addressed. And it's not because feminism has quashed us, it's because there's something intrinsically lacking in men themselves.

I'm not an activist, I'm simply a man who has had to deal with his own wounded masculinity in a world that is lacking in proper structures to address it. I've never joined an MRA group in my life. I have, however, joined men's healing circles that discuss and address these things. They are vulnerable safe spaces where these subjects are talked about in depth. You have no idea how much this work gets mocked by people like you and other feminists. You have no comprehension of how sacred masculine space is lacking in our modern world. None. You just mock it because you don't understand it. It's the same reason why nobody else is participating in this forum discussion. I'm not a mouth foaming MRA, I'm not a misogynist, and I'm completely in my power as a man talking about things that relate to men which feminism can't touch. That completely alienates feminists. They can't categorize me into a patriarchal archetype so they don't know what to do with me. I've seen it a million times and so have other men like me. I'm committing one of the biggest taboos in feminism by talking about core male issues. You just don't do that because it reveals that feminism can't truly be for men as it claims. Which is actually OK... it's time that men took responsibility for healing themselves.

The reason why I'm on this forum is because I'm also a feminist. I will fight and die for women to be free, if necessary. Just like I will fight and die for men to be free, if necessary. We all deserve full embodiment, empowerment, and rightful placement in the world. You can't be for empowerment for just one group. It's all or nothing. My focus in my life at this time, however, is on men.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.

filmmakingally

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 0:40 2016

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by filmmakingally » Sun Oct 30, 2:22 2016

Aum wrote:I'm not an activist, I'm simply a man who has had to deal with his own wounded masculinity in a world that is lacking in proper structures to address it. I've never joined an MRA group in my life. I have, however, joined men's healing circles that discuss and address these things. They are vulnerable safe spaces where these subjects are talked about in depth. You have no idea how much this work gets mocked by people like you and other feminists. You have no comprehension of how sacred masculine space is lacking in our modern world. None. You just mock it because you don't understand it. It's the same reason why nobody else is participating in this forum discussion. I'm not a mouth foaming MRA, I'm not a misogynist, and I'm completely in my power as a man talking about things that relate to men which feminism can't touch. That completely alienates feminists. They can't categorize me into a patriarchal archetype so they don't know what to do with me. I've seen it a million times and so have other men like me. I'm committing one of the biggest taboos in feminism by talking about core male issues. You just don't do that because it reveals that feminism can't truly be for men as it claims. Which is actually OK... it's time that men took responsibility for healing themselves.
Hahaha, WWWOOOOOOOOWWWWW!!! For someone who claims not to be a Men's Rights Activist, you sure are active in promoting men's rights. And for someone who claims to be feminist, you sure do seem to be at odds with feminism.

Yes, I know how much groups like yours are mocked, because I'm one of the people mocking them. Oh, dear lordy, I'm so glad that you don't represent the majority of American men.

Why do you need a weekend of safe space in order to discuss your "wounded masculinity"? What the fuck does that even mean?! Seriously, how in the flying fuck can masculinity be wounded? Please explain that to me. I think you'll have a very difficult time doing so without revealing your patriarchal tendencies.

Do you think that your group is the first to conceive the idea that men should share their feelings with each other?! Hahahaha, that's why we laugh at you! Because the rest of us have always been sharing our feelings with each other! It's called "friendship", and basically every adult man has a best friend with whom they share their deepest most private feelings.

You guys need a weekend and camping and group activities with counselors to do the thing that the rest of us just do on a regular basis. Good luck catching up.

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5363
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Sonic# » Sun Oct 30, 7:01 2016

feministally, can you cool it with questioning the place of Aum on this forum? I don't always agree with him, but he's been a member for years, and his intentions are genuine. Meanwhile you're setting a very antagonist example, asking him to "catch up" to your superior handling of emotional maturity.

User avatar
Nech
member
member
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 13:50 2015
Location: Canada

Re: Feminism for men/Effective activism

Post by Nech » Sun Oct 30, 10:40 2016

I want to preface this by sharing that I am a man, since there did seem to be tones in your response that made it seem you thought otherwise Aum. I know what "masculinity" requires, what it's like to have it wounded and so forth. Also that I live in a Canadian city, and you seem to be writing from an American perspective (I'm assuming on a few things, I'll clarify in my post), so that might change our views and experiences pretty drastically. At least from what I've witnessed first hand of American "masculinity".
Aum wrote:My focus here is on the self-identified experience of male inadequacy and incapability in the modern world, and its roots in lack of male eldership, male modeling, and rites of passage.
I'm not sure what is meant by male inadequacy here and I can only think of sexual performance or perhaps in a body sense way, while incapability brings to mind that a man cannot easily single handedly support/supply for a family anymore (on one income). One half of the coin is an offspring to the corporate selling mentality, where to buy the most product you have to feel like you need it. This is not a male only problem and it's not a man's job to solve it alone, to think or even imply that removes the gravitas from groups that are not strictly male driven (this applies beyond Feminism). Lack of role models is a problem, especially in America (it doesn't seem so bad in Canada), but again that is a societal symptom that does not affect just men. I'm assuming you weren't being repetitive with male eldership and male modeling, but a quick search for male eldrship brings up almost exclusively religious definitions and references to scripture. If that was not your meaning, can you elaborate? If you were talking in an ideological framework when speaking of eldership, a single religion will not solve a multicultural societies issues. Also, you keep speaking of rites of passage, do you have examples? A lot of the ones I can think of off the top of my head (getting into a fist fight, getting a car, getting a job, getting a family) don't apply for a lot of men anymore since society has changed and personal development isn't as linear for most people anymore (which I stand by is a good thing). They are also not sex specific anymore either. I'll mention it again later, but one cannot look at these issues in a vacuum anymore and unless I've misinterpreted what you're referring to (I very well might have) that is what you are implying should be done.
Aum wrote:You're talking about patriarchal applications to these sex differences. That's what is pathological and causing problems in our society. Patriarchy itself comes from the destruction of sacred masculinity in society.
I can't agree that patriarchy comes from the destruction of sacred masculinity. I can't agree that masculinity is destroyed or even under attack. I simply don't understand the argument at all. That's not to say I haven't come across people who believe it should be destroyed, but as soon as we start talking it turns out they are speaking of toxic masculinity which is something else entirely and does no longer hold a place in our society moving forward. But that does not equate to masculinity as a whole being attacked, except by outliers who are ignorant or extremists, and it's just best not to pay them any mind. They are not representative of an active attack against masculinity.
Aum wrote:(Btw I don't know what PUAs are but I parsed your argument anyway.)
Sorry I often assume someone's level of surrounding ideologies is similar to mine, I should of definitely not have used the shorthand both times that's my bad. :(

PUA= Pick up artist. They're a group of people who believe that actions and reactions are scripted into genetics and they can perform X>Y>Z to pick up a girl. They seem to be predominately men, although there is a female chapter that has popped up recently using pretty much the exact same tactics but claiming they're sex specific. Toronto has had some issues with them in one of our big malls here, so that's probably why they got put on my radar honestly.
Aum wrote:Remove women from the picture and just look at what's going on in the core of self-identified men. That's what me and others are trying to get at.
But you can't just remove half the worlds population from the picture and expect to come up with a coherent solution. Men do not operate in a vacuum, and you can't expect to solve a problem like that in this day and age. The intersectionality of the issues can't be ignored anymore.
Aum wrote:Ok, obviously what I'm saying is going way over your head. I'll just stop right here.

Read the book I mentioned, if you're not scared of educating yourself and opening your mind to what men are going through. I doubt you will though, you seem pretty convinced that everything that's wrong with men only relates to women.
No there is more to address then just what affects or relates to women. Much like the "all houses matter" thing I linked before, you give water to the burning house. Giving extra attention to the one on fire does not mean others do not matter or do not exist. This is a faulty logic that is popping up a lot in media and "mirror" causes like with MRA's, the All lives matter people etc. Attention can even be split between the two. But solutions can't be found in a vacuum and a good chunk of the issues men deal with will be solved with feminism ideologies.

Do you have any sources besides "Read that book"? I could throw book titles at you all day and keep you reading for well over a decade on relevant material (I studied this in University, trust me I have sources...lol), but that's not an effective way to have a forum discussion. Perhaps you can elaborate on the definitions you seem to be pulling from this book? So at least I can understand in a loose sense what you are referencing.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So just shut up, and bring some water.

Locked