Manosphere/Redpill Community and the Dehumanization of Straight Men

[Shadowferal]

Pfft...it's like "libertarianism," it has a lot of "meanings." If you want to win the argument, then use targeted words. If you want a useless o-so-public fight because you want to draw lines that encourage emotion rather than reasoning, so you can feel good about yourself being on the "right" side of an argument...then you don't really give a shit about equality.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Feminism is about gender equality and equity. The claim that it acts "at the expense of men" is horseshit redpill propaganda. Literally just misogynist wankery.

To be fair, it somewhat does. In a system where men are the apex of society and women are the slaves, liberating women and elevating them to the same station as men will take something away from men.

However, I am definitely going to support a system with equality for all over one that enslaves minorities and women so that white men can live an easy life.

[Endus]

Pfft...it's like "libertarianism," it has a lot of "meanings."

"Feminism" really only has the one. The others that get brought forward are generally just misogynistic lies pushed to try and falsely discredit the movement.

If you want to win the argument, then use targeted words.

Like "feminism".

If you want a useless o-so-public fight because you want to draw lines that encourage emotion rather than reasoning, so you can feel good about yourself being on the "right" side of an argument...then you don't really give a shit about equality.

You're literally the one pushing for an emotion-based kneejerk over the word, and without being able to explain your issue with the word other than "shitty misogynists lie about things to demean equity movements sometimes". Maybe we should just tell those people to shove off, rather than catering to their entirely dishonest interests.

Literally never heard anyone have a problem with the term "feminism" except extremists pushing anti-equity rhetoric to prop up male-dominated systems.

Also; the "argument"? There is no "argument" in these things. There's no attempt to make an informed, fact-and-reason argument built up from base principles from which to derive a conclusion. The counter-"argument" is just "but what if women are the worse gender?", in different framings.

[Shadowferal]

The ERA...15th Amendment...never ratified not because of men, but women vs women;

Feminist groups maintained that a serious blow was struck toward the idea of gender equity in the United States. They also saw women divided against other women. Despite early gains by the feminist movement, the rise in social conservatism led Americans of both genders to draw limits on a constitutionally mandated equality between the sexes.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The ERA...15th Amendment...never ratified not because of men, but women vs women;

Feminist groups maintained that a serious blow was struck toward the idea of gender equity in the United States. They also saw women divided against other women. Despite early gains by the feminist movement, the rise in social conservatism led Americans of both genders to draw limits on a constitutionally mandated equality between the sexes.

You're trying to get that quote to do a lot of heavy lifting for you...and the bolded bit directly counters your claim that it was "women vs women"

[Muzjhath]

Questions such as?

I'm not really a fan of Feminism either, as it attempts to empower women at the expense of men, arguing oppression and all that. This whole idea that men and women can and should be the same in all areas and spheres of life is... well, a bit of a gullible pipe dream, to put it nicely.

Parental leave. The rights of fathers to take time of work to be with their children. The rights of fathers in divorce court. Taking men serious when they file charges for rape. Spousal violence against men by women. The rights of LGBTQ+ people.
The right for men to fucking show emotions (other than rage) as adults ...
Just as a few examples.

[Shadowferal]

You're trying to get that quote to do a lot of heavy lifting for you...and the bolded bit directly counters your claim that it was "women vs women"

Well, as long as you're cherry picking...

The fight over the Equal Rights Amendment did not pit women against men — it pitted two ideologies against each other.

Protective laws like sexual assault and alimony would be swept away. The tendency for the mother to receive child custody in a divorce case would be eliminated. The all-male military draft would become immediately unconstitutional. Those opposed to the ERA even suggested that single-sex restrooms would be banished by future courts. Stop-ERA advocates baked apple pies for the Illinois legislature while they debated the amendment. They hung "Don't draft me" signs on baby girls. The strategy worked. After 1973, the number of ratifying states slowed to a trickle. By 1982, the year of expiration, only 35 states had voted in favor of the ERA — three states shy of the necessary total.

Feminist groups maintained that a serious blow was struck toward the idea of gender equity in the United States. They also saw women divided against other women...

------

Case in point, the most unified "wins" in recent years have rarely come under the "feminist" label. But used better language that was targeted as we see with "Roe v Wade."

[Nymrohd]

Parental leave. The rights of fathers to take time of work to be with their children. The rights of fathers in divorce court. Taking men serious when they file charges for rape. Spousal violence against men by women. The rights of LGBTQ+ people.
The right for men to fucking show emotions (other than rage) as adults ...
Just as a few examples.

Truth be told, most of these are arguments against the standard of toxic masculinity enforced by the patriarchy. Most feminists will agree with those issues.
There are plenty of women out there who are just misandrists disguised as feminists though.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well, as long as you're cherry picking...

[i]The fight over the Equal Rights Amendment did not pit women against men — it pitted two ideologies against each other.

It's not cherry picking... I was just correcting your erroneous statement that it was a "woman vs woman" issue. It was, as the caption on your picture points out, "ideology vs. ideology"

Case in point, the most unified "wins" in recent years have rarely come under the "feminist" label. But used better language that was targeted as we see with "Roe v Wade."

Roe v Wade was always weak. It made an end run around the hot topic of abortion and instead made it a matter of personal privacy.

[Kathandira]

"Egalitarianism advocates that all human beings are fundamentally equal and therefore entitled to the same rights, so feminism is naturally a part of egalitarianism. Yet, feminism is the only movement that focuses actively on gender equality and issues that impact mostly women"

Just throwing this in here to hopefully point it out to anyone who may not understand the difference.

[minteK917]

In large feminist movement does not directly address many men issues. Its not its job either, like i said earlier in the thread, terrible people like andrew tate capitalized on a real issue young adolescent have, that actually goes back even when milenials where raised by baby boomber.

Parents dont wanna give sex ed, dont wanna give relationship advice, courting advice, etc. Add to that the world changed a lot, for women. But male expectations is much the same for most. I gave many examples earlier, but theres like millions. IE a lot of women will still be displeased if you dont "act first " or "didnt try anything" even in 2023. Which just reinforce young men should be "pushy".

Point is we dont really educate young teenage boys on their different experience. We just let the school do what ever it can if anything.

[Pannonian]

Feminism is about gender equality and equity. The claim that it acts "at the expense of men" is horseshit redpill propaganda. Literally just misogynist wankery.

Depends. A few years ago i had a discussion with a good friend who had problems getting a post doc position due to gender incentives (with same qualification women get the job).

His argument: Why should we do this, just make it fair - both have the same chance.

Counter Argument: Yeah, but the whole structure/hierarchy is built on preferring man over women - so if we start NOW then we have parity in 30-40 years. By preferring women now we can achieve equality sooner.

So in a sense it is on the expense of men - but i'd rather call it "sins of the fathers"...

[Endus]

Depends. A few years ago i had a discussion with a good friend who had problems getting a post doc position due to gender incentives (with same qualification women get the job).

His argument: Why should we do this, just make it fair - both have the same chance.

Counter Argument: Yeah, but the whole structure/hierarchy is built on preferring man over women - so if we start NOW then we have parity in 30-40 years. By preferring women now we can achieve equality sooner.

So in a sense it is on the expense of men - but i'd rather call it "sins of the fathers"...

This argument really only works if you start with the presumption, usually just implicitly (as you did here), that "men are entitled to these positions" is the default state. And thus anything that leads to women getting those positions instead "comes at the expense of men."

Also, there really isn't a good reason to try and ignore history or the current status quo before moving forward. That's just climbing up on the backs of the oppressed and then not helping them climb up with you, and pretending this is just a natural state.

[Pannonian]

This argument really only works if you start with the presumption, usually just implicitly (as you did here), that "men are entitled to these positions" is the default state. And thus anything that leads to women getting those positions instead "comes at the expense of men."

Also, there really isn't a good reason to try and ignore history or the current status quo before moving forward. That's just climbing up on the backs of the oppressed and then not helping them climb up with you, and pretending this is just a natural state.

Maybe i worded that wrong, but no, that is not my presumption. I'm talking about the status quo. And that you wont be able to change the structures unless you do the same "unfair" preferring of women that happened to men the last decades.

For your second paragraph: That's what i said?

[Nymrohd]

It is never unfair to favor and provide space and opportunity for those lacking privilege. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of fairness which goes beyond parity.

[Kokolums]

"Egalitarianism advocates that all human beings are fundamentally equal and therefore entitled to the same rights, so feminism is naturally a part of egalitarianism. Yet, feminism is the only movement that focuses actively on gender equality and issues that impact mostly women"

Just throwing this in here to hopefully point it out to anyone who may not understand the difference.

a lot of people define feminism as a totally evil belief that pretends to claim it wants gender equality when it really wants a gender war and if you claim you are a feminist in any way, a lot of people slot you in the crazy bin. even today, only 19% of us women say the term "feminist" describes them very well. the term is incredibly controversial. using that term to describe yourself is a really good way to get slotted as far left. i dont think any us president has ever described themselves as feminist. could be wrong but i dont think so. well i think obama did just as he was leaving office or had just left office.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The war on feminism has most definitely gone right at the heart of the matter - attempting to turn the label of "feminist" into an insult, something nobody wants to be. It pulls support away from the feminists movement by only putting the most extreme displays of bad behavior in the public eye. The reality is that the vast majority of feminists are very nice people with very reasonable opinions. It's the right/manosphere that has led direct attacks on feminism to vilify it.

[LilSaihah]

There's a big discussion about feminism here but it's kinda tangential. It seems farcical on its face to expect feminists to advocate for any of mens' issues. It's up to men to do that.

[Muzjhath]

There's a big discussion about feminism here but it's kinda tangential. It seems farcical on its face to expect feminists to advocate for any of mens' issues. It's up to men to do that.

Except, a lot of "mens' issues" that mens-rights-activists pull up are a direct result of patriarchy.
The mother being the default for getting the children in a divorce? Allimony and how that looks in many nations? The "shame" of male spousal abuse victims not coming forwards?

Almost all of those issues, on a political level, are driven by feminist movements for a more equal outcome.
The MRA's just whine, they seldom never do.

[LilSaihah]

Except, a lot of "mens' issues" that mens-rights-activists pull up are a direct result of patriarchy.

Are they? Higher education rates having tilted to 60:40 in womens' favor isn't a result of patriarchy, and the modern dating market isn't either; that's a team effort.
Even then, I don't really care about the causes, I care about the solutions. Feminists aren't building them and they aren't voting for them.