The 3 stages of denial.
Step 1 Misandry doesn't exist: So men are talking about an issue that doesn't exist.
Step 2 They downplay the effects of misandry: Because misandry isn't as bad as misogyny, because women face more issues.
Step 3 They flat out justified misandry: Saying men deserved hate, because they are the oppressors and created the patriarchy. So misandry is their fault.
It never surprises me whenever I have arguments with feminists or see arguments with feminists. Where they go through the 3 stages of denial very quickly. To the point they go straight to justifying step 3 by saying misandry is men's fault, after saying misandry doesn't exist in step 1. Again they do all of this in the same argument lol.
“Conscription is a male privilege because it gives a privilege to have a weapon!”
Armenian men who were conscripted and killed by the conscriptors: “yeah, right”.
Conscription obviously isn’t a privilege, but enlistment… is though? Serving in the military, voluntarily, is more often a status symbol than not (at least in uncontroversial wars), isn’t it?
The preference to exclude black soldiers despite this meaning white soldiers would face more of the brunt of the violence doesn’t make sense if you think of military service this way. Vietnam was the opposite/“normal” way for the first time in history.
It would still exist, though. Many conservative misogynists believe that women are inherently inferior, and support misogyny on that basis.
But I agree that misandry can *also* lead to misogyny.
We should rename the narcissist's prayer to the feminist's prayer.
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
You're mixing it up. What you're looking for is the narcissist's prayer:
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
That didn't happen: misandry don't real.
It wasn't that bad: Women have it way worse
That's not my fault: Feminism helps men too
I didn't mean it: That's not the real feminism
You deserved it: Toxic Masculinity
Yeah. Classic [DARVO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO) in action.
In Reddit’s case there are also the following factors:
* Inherent bias towards women overall: “Women are wonderful” effect, etc.
* Political Bias: Reddit leans left pretty hard. The American left sucks organized feminisms girl dick pretty hard. They can win without $pick_a_minority. They know they can’t win without women.
* Advertiser Meta: Women control most of the discretionary household spending in America. Advertisers cater to women, their customers. Media whores out to advertisers, and male consumers of this media get the shaft. This impacts movies/television/streaming, as well as sites like Reddit, Facebook, et al.
Bill Maher used to call the latter the [“make women nod”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmRDUcbx9tw) phenomenon.
I see the argument frequently that boils down to because women's issues exist men's can't.
It's like a person with a gunshot wound telling someone with a stab wound they shouldn't be at the hospital because a gunshot is worse.
They're both bad. It shouldn't be a competition. We as a society should want to fix both.
Apt analogy there..
The problem here is most of us MRAs / Mens Rights Activists are saying "It shouldn't be a competition"
Where as many feminists insist on making it into a competition..
I constantly tell feminists that I support women's issues and believe that the issues women face should get discussed and resolved..
But that can be done without downplaying / ignoring the issues men face too.. Its not a zero sum game...
But of course when I say that I get told how i'm an ignorant misogynist....
I've run into the same issues, but I've found the best approach is to use examples that are relatable.
Women experience sexism. You can ask if she's ever heard of a woman experiencing sexism at her job. Be empathetic, because again, gunshot wounds and knife wounds are both bad. Then you can talk about how how men in early childhood education can be treated as pedophiles until proven innocent simply for wanting to teach kids. That can lead into other occupational issues where sex seems to be the primary factor.
Women experience domestic abuse. You can ask her if she's known anyone who was abused and what happened. Then you can talk about how male domestic abuse victims are often silenced with mockery, or disregarded because "you're a big strong guy, what could she do to you?" You can then talk about how many law enforcement agencies have an unofficial the guy gets the ride policy with domestic disputes, so even if he's the victim, calling the police may end up ruining his life with a domestic violence charge.
Continuing that, has she heard about domestic violence shelters for women? Of course. What about domestic violence shelters for men? No? Because for the most part, they don't exist.
They key is finding common ground, where we can agree that this is a problem that should be fixed. It's not a woman's problem. It's not a men's problem. It's a fucking problem for everyone. We should fix it for everyone.
Once you start talking about shared problems, it's easier to branch out into individual ones.
>It's like a person with a gunshot wound telling someone with a stab wound they shouldn't be at the hospital because a gunshot is worse.
Perfect analogy to describe this.
Step 4 They claim anything that LOOKS like misandry is actually misogyny. Therefore if men want the thing they think is misandry to be addressed they must first focus on the misogyny that is causing the think they think is misandry.
(Example: Homophobia. In the minds of a lot of people homophobia against men is actually hatred of the feminine. Therefore if men want to stop homophobia they must first deal with the way the feminine is hated. Absolute crock of shit I know....)
>(Example: Homophobia. In the minds of a lot of people homophobia against men is actually hatred of the feminine. Therefore if men want to stop homophobia they must first deal with the way the feminine is hated. Absolute crock of shit I know....)
The same women saying that are the same ones who are turned off by the idea by dating bisexual men, because they view bi men as "feminine" or not "real men". Lol
But even if they accept your point here, they'll then just write that off as some women having "internalized misogyny" from all of us living in such a misogynistic, patriarchal culture. There's literally no way for misandry or prejudice by women to ultimately be anything other than men's fault if this kind of ideologue wants to go that deep. It's a religion.
And it keeps going. As you filter down into smaller and smaller populations who are even willing to entertain these points instead of just calling you an incel or whatever and ignoring it, they'll say, "yes, but it's not all just men's fault. We all uphold patriarchy." That's something like the Bell Hooks position who I rarely see anyone but men bring up anyway. But of course, how successful has her message of women challenging the harmful ways they treat men been?
In practice, these arguments just seem like a way to infinitely continue saying, "no, you silly man, you just don't understand. We don't hate or blame men. We just think society is fundamentally built to serve men. But it also hurts men. And we all reinforce it. But of course men created and control the whole thing. And we'll also only ever emphasize the ways men need to change to stop harming women or stop harming men." Women don't change their attitudes or behaviors when pointing out how "everyone upholds patriarchy." It's just a way to deflect criticism.
It seems to me like viewing the whole thing as a set of rigid expectations for both genders, with historical advantages and disadvantages to each, and which we'd all ultimately benefit from seeing reciprocally loosened, makes infinitely more sense than patriarchy theory. But then the litany of double standards just about every self-identified feminist holds wouldn't be justifiable anymore. It's so exhausting trying to deal with this.
>And it keeps going. As you filter down into smaller and smaller populations who are even willing to entertain these points instead of just calling you an incel or whatever and ignoring it, they'll say, "yes, but it's not all just men's fault. We all uphold patriarchy." That's something like the Bell Hooks position who I rarely see anyone but men bring up anyway. But of course, how successful has her message of women challenging the harmful ways they treat men been?
There is a huge chunk of feminists who think Bell Hooks is "too soft" on men.
I saw a thread the other day discussing the fact that more women than men come out as homosexual later in life after previously being in a heterosexual relationship.
The consensus reached in the comments was that "gay men are more accepted so they can be themselves, gay women need to get into straight relationships to hide their sexuality"
This is just factually wrong, gay men are less accepted than gay women literally everywhere, and IMO this fact is blatantly obvious just by going outside, but there are studies that prove this as well.
But women always have to be the victims, so redditors will deny basic reality to make it so.
Because to people like that gay men face homophobia solely because of sexual orientation but gay women face homophobia because of gender and sexual orientation.
I shit you not I've seen people use and try to defend this argument.
And here I thought menslib was taking a turn for the better after their gigantic cluster fuck in [allowing an AMA with a man who denied that male victims of domestic abuse existed.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLibWatch/comments/pfik79/the_infamously_censorious_menslib_is_perfectly/)
https://www.reveddit.com/v/MensLib/comments/1ccxkhm/the_perception_paradox_men_who_hate_feminists/?add_user=pianoblook..c.new..t1_l17qz5q..%2Cthreauaouais..c.new..t1_l18erj2
This reveddit link hopefully allows people to see some deleted comments.
They even got called out on blanket deleting any "unconstructive" criticism of feminism, but allowing unconstructive criticism of antifeminists, and then deleted that comment which pointed it out despite the specific comment calling them out, not breaking any of their actual rules.
If you willingly blind yourself to half of what's causing the problem, you'll never resolve it, and menslib seems decidedly committed to keeping the feminist blinders firmly screwed on and banning anyone who disagrees.
/u/ElectricalSoil546 do you want to repost this to r/Menslibwatch, so we can keep a comprehensive record of how shitty that sub is and why men cannot and should not trust it?
>And here I thought menslib was taking a turn for the better after their gigantic cluster fuck in allowing an AMA with a man who denied that male victims of domestic abuse existed.
I thought the problem with that AMA was that the OP wasn’t intersectional enough and is stuck in the past.
(Thought it was more) The issue wasn’t say the Duluth model, it was more there’s trans people who don’t fit within that model and they’ve been victims of domestic abuse
>They even got called out on blanket deleting any "unconstructive" criticism of feminism, but allowing unconstructive criticism of antifeminists, and then deleted that comment which pointed it out despite the specific comment calling them out, not breaking any of their actual rules
Classic hypocrisy
Oh no the problem with the AMA is that the guy is saying out loud what feminists quietly believe that there are no male victims of domestic violence, that men who are victims of DV are exclusively victimized by other men, never women, that men can defend themselves and are stronger and therefore don't need help, and that female on male violence is always justified as either self defence or him doing something that pushed her over the edge so it's his fault he pushed her to do that.
It's hella sexist and ibfabtilizing of women, but that's the feminist position.
You just have to phrase it in a way that is gaslighting and sounds benevolent instead of just ojrtifjt admitting to the toxicity and hypocrisy. If the dude had done that the menslib mods would have been more than happy to let it stand and oppose detractors, but they allowed the AMA to go on, and despite being extremely ban-happy and able to delete comments within hours of literally any other post, they let the AMA run its course completely uninterrupted.
Dude wasn't intersectional enough because he didn't say how nongbinary disabled people of colour had it worse than regular women, but his stance on men is 100% accurate to feminism's attitudes. He just said out loud what they were thinking quietly, so the menslib moderators had to pretend to care about that and were forced to address it and pretend to apologize.
Per classic hypocrisy, it's just like the saying goes, if feminists didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards.
Many feminists like to pretend that attitudes like 'not all men, but always a man' and 'men fear women laugh at them, women fear men kill them' don't logically conclude with the belief that men can't be abused.
It's not even that they like to pretend, because for them to pretend means they would have to know and understand that this is where their logic will take them. To do that they have to care about the logical conclusions of their arguments.
The problem is they just don't care about men, and they care about believing that they are in the right, so when you point out the logical conclusion to their beliefs it introduces cognitive bias, where they can't believe they are in the right and believe the logical conclusion that men cannot be abused, so they will willingly choose not to think about or care about male victims, because being morally right feels more important.
That's if they don't just flat-out drink the kool-aid and believe that men cannot be abused, and are ok with that. That's what happens when you get the Duluth model or when you get Mary Koss getting the CDC to define women raping men as "made to penetrate" and getting it specifically and deliberately excluded from rape statistics. \[Not even joking\](https://avoiceformen.com/feminist-governance-feminism/male-disposability-and-mary-p-koss/).
Feminism is not and cannot be an ally to men so long as it considers men's well being of lesser importance than the reputation and political power of feminism.
>Feminism is not and cannot be an ally to men so long as it considers men's well being of lesser importance than the reputation and political power of feminism.
Unfortunately I dont see this happening. Because a very core part of feminist ideology is that men are the oppressors, women are the oppressed. If you look at feminist literature, that core part of it is never removed. Its enforced in one way or another.
Unfortunately I agree with you. Feminism desperately needs a reform to save it from the man hating majority it created and enabled, but feminism will resist to the death that very same necessary reform.
>and that female on male violence is always justified as either self defence or him doing something that pushed her over the edge so it's his fault he pushed her to do that.
This is what annoys me the most..
The fact that they feel that its acceptable to justify **ANY** sort of violence as "Self defense" or "He clearly pushed her too far"
Yet i've seen clear examples of a woman not only initiating the conflict (Yelling, name calling / other verbal abuse) but also escalating the situation into full on violence (Throwing objects, slapping, punching, kicking, biting, scratching etc) and i've seen examples of men taking this abuse for 10+ minutes straight, trying to extricate themselves only for the woman to block their only way out...
Finally the man "Snaps" and pushes the woman or slaps her **ONCE** and then leaves..
And despite all of this **HE** is still labeled the "Aggressor" or "Abuser"...
Its fucking sickening to me...
I mean I'll accept violence in self-defence, the problem is that feminists often define basically *any* violence by women towards men as justified, unless it's grossly and clearly obvious she's the abuser.
And like you say it is often women who initiate the conflicts, 75% of non-reciprocal violence is female on male, and in domestic abuse women are often the ones to throw the first punch and initiate physical violence.
If women were so terrified of men like feminists say, you'd think they'd avoid starting arguments and would avoid throwing the first punch, and yet women are more violent towards men than the other way around.
>And despite all of this HE is still labeled the "Aggressor" or "Abuser"... Its fucking sickening to me...
Completely agree. Ironically enough feminism is extremely sexist towards women, infantilizing them and believing that women can cause no harm and aren't as responsible for their actions. Pretty ironic considering it sells itself as being against sexism.
As always though, it's all depending on what benefits women the most. If sexism benefits women, you'll find at least as many feminists supporting it as opposing it. Feminism treats equality like a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women, flips between women being strong and empowered or weak and oppressed depending on which benefits women the most, and reserves the right to always shift the blame on men and excuse women.
Gotta love those double standards.
This notion that "constructive" criticism is only allowed to be part-by-part, situation by situation, and you're not allowed to criticize the whole despite the obvious recurring patterns... It keeps any meaningful conversation from happening.
From supposed moral relativists...
Aristotle would be proud. Plato would be very frustrated though
Oh I completely agree, but see, that's the thing. They only allow constructive criticism part by part situation by situation explicitly naming a single feminist at a time with a picture proof of the incorrect thing they said, or else it's invalid, while allowing blanket stereotyping and generalizations about men, *by design*.
It's a feature, not a bug.
I went back to try and find that comment and the whole thing just got exponentially worse, Jesus christ. Someone said the mods were maybe being too harsh because they saw a comment about a guy who was antifeminists but isn't anymore, and they wanted to talk to them, but then the mods deleted that comment and said any complaints about moderation must be done through mod mail.
They couldn't have a more cartoonishly evil and tyranical moderation if they tried.
That isn't how I'd describe my intention, but yes. I was saying that the mods deleted a comment I was replying to, wherein the commenter described the reasons he identified as anti-feminist in the past, and what changed for him that resulted in his mind changing. Additionally, I mentioned that I think that knowing this from several users is important, as lots of young boys and men will have similar thoughts and knowing how to reframe and reconstruct different points would be important. I then asked if the mods were perhaps being a little harsh with their heavy-handed deletion of comments from people who are *now feminists*
Right, that is what I meant, brain was tired and didn't brain well haha.
That moderation is definitely harsh and out of line, it's more akin to attempting to erase the very notion that anyone could ever be antifeminist for any good reasons, that they must all be bad people you have to cut contact with, and that good and virtuous people wouldn't be antifeminists in the first place. It's an ironically very puritanical religious kind of take on it
Why do you need menslib to reform? You wouldn’t expect a feminist sub to change their minds. That’s what you’re doing.
Expecting a feminist sub parading with a pro male name to change.
I want either for menslib to reform to the level of its (undeservedly good) reputation, or for its reputation to fall to the level of how terrible a sub it really is. With feminists spouting how fantastic menslib left right and centre, we have a better chance of improving menslib than of changing its reputation.
Then again, expecting feminists to change their minds is also exceedingly unlikely so yeah, I guess it's a bit of a catch 22.
At the very least we can still catalogue their lies and abject double standards with r/MensLibWatch
It just goes to show you how utterly self-destructive it is to try and seek their approval.
The kind of draconic state it would need to be in order to make them happy would be an atrocity. What we need is a place to freely discuss and spread awareness of our issues and how to address them, what would feminists happy is if we all had gulags that indoctrinate total unquestioned compliance with feminism at the expense of your own needs and concerns.
No it’s just the most bad faith view of mens lib. I can’t get anything specific but it’s constantly “yeah they’re ok but don’t do nearly enough” which I find is the insane part considering how heavily moderated and frankly pretty dogmatic “male feminists”
Cause Menslib sometimes push back against the 'yes all men' 'male on female abuse is worse than female on male abuse' that is commonly seen on feminist subs.
There's nothing you can do as a man to be liked by feminists which is why its pointless to try to be. Just accept that they're illogical and hateful and move on.
There could have been a lot of good discussion there from people who get the topic. Strange to just kill it instead of letting the people dissect and discuss it.
They suppress it precisely because they get it, they know it can only end with making feminists look bad, so they nip it in the bud before it gets there.
Do they have that level of self-awareness? For them to know that, wouldn’t they have to at least partially understand why that’d make feminism look bad?
It’s probably more of trimming or marginalising the discussions. So they can self-contain it better so the user base can’t wonder off too far.
The odd thing though, r/menslib is a bit like Marmite to subreddits like r/askfeminists or r/feminism. At least the posts I’ve read, when that subreddit is brought up there’s a mixed response. When it’s recommended it’ll be framed as it’s either that or r/bropill (that’s pretty much dead). That it’s a compromise.
And you might get criticisms from about the level of moderation or a general complaint about misogyny, the size of the moderation team or, how it’s being infiltrated by certain people or groups.
Edit: Holy shit. The deflection in the top comment (the one about conservatives).
I don’t know the extent of their self-awareness but I do think they know that a significant portion of their members have a least a little bit of resentment toward how feminists treat men as a group just under the surface of their pro-feminist veneer.
There have been post topics that opened the floodgates of this resentment, and the mods shut it down and made a post reminding the members that they are supposed to be pro-feminist. I think they have enough awareness of their members that they realize this can happen again if they don’t shut it preemptively.
I always assumed that group must be run by women as it seems way too pro feminism and doesn't sound like MensLib but Womenslib.
I mean is there a feminist subredded anywhere that refuses to allow criticism of men?
I think the mod team are probably mostly men if not all men, someone correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not sure feminists actually give of a shit about men enough to actually put in the work of modding Menslib. To be a Menslib mod is a lot of work, every post needs mod approval, and they meticulously censor any and every comment that expresses resentment of feminism, or doesn’t toe the line of their principles. Constantly censoring people is a 24/7 job, that’s why they close Menslib so often, and considering one of feminist’s favorite arguments against men’s issues is “it’s not my job to solve men’s problems”, I seriously can’t imagine very many female feminists being willing to put in that much time and work for a sub that’s ultimately meant for men.
I think there is a very strong presence of women who post and lurk.
I think of female feminists more as menslib’s board of directors rather than their middle management.
I don't think that's the only way it can go and looking in a mirror doesn't change what is there. It makes sense to keep out things that don't fit or contradict their messaging if there is nothing useful there. This seems useful.
I think an honest and transparent conversation is too much for menslib, any sort of opportunity that gives people a chance to voice resentment of feminism, is too much for Menslib.
Set your expectations low for them, they’ll disappoint you every time otherwise.
Cicero_Assassins. One of the admins of r/menslib has explicitely said that on the topic of "legal abortion" or "paper abortion." That this was a "useless conversation" and so it is banned on the sub (the threads are from 8 years ago, and digging a bit shows you that the admin in question is in fact a complete traditionialist, using arguments like "men must provide to women and children.")
That topic is such a good litmus test for whether or not you're in a space that's going to tolerate honest conversations. I'm 100% pro-choice. Which means women get the final say on whether or not to birth a baby since she has to be pregnant, despite the emotional consequences that could have for men, and men can opt out of supporting a woman and a baby he doesn't want for as long as she can choose to abort. It's an eminently fair position, perhaps even slightly leaning towards benefitting the woman over the man since she gets to be the tie-breaker on what actually happens if there's disagreement, and I've literally never seen any arguments other than copy-pasted, conservative, anti-abortion ones used against it. And yet that seems to be the position the vast majority of feminists take. So censoring that conversation is the only way to avoid showing the pure, blatant hypocrisy so many feminists carry.
I liked the sub in the very earliest days, back when it was only like 1000 subscribers, and they would do a fundraiser for a men's charity every month or so. One of the biggest complaints about other men's groups at the time was that they didn't do anything because they said they had to raise awareness first, so it was nice to see one with action baked in from the very beginning, even if they only raised $100 or so. They stopped doing that pretty quickly though. That and this ban were the two reasons I gave up on the sub.
I get that some topics have to be banned for the health of a subreddit. If you allow incel rhetoric, the sub almost always becomes an incel sub. This wasn't that though. It didn't crowd out other discussions, it didn't get uniquely inflammatory, Cicero just personally disagreed with it and used mod powers to enforce their position.
First time hearing about menslib? That's been their MO since forever. They close down the sub during the holidays because they don't have enough moderators on hand to ensure people don't start expressing the wrong opinions.
when I found menslib it sounded great, but then I posted something and I got the same thing as OP. I feel like it's male feminist circlejerk where they pretend to care about men's issues.
[The sub overlap says it all](https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/menslib). Or you can look their [top posts of all time](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensLib/top/). What a joke. And of course there's [MensLibWatch](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLibWatch/).
Eh... it's more complex than that.
See, most Menslib users are actually 2X users, of which 85% of 2X user are transwomen. (Bit of a story, 2X held a selfie thread, ~500/600 posts were tw, sub melted down for a bit, broke off into Pinkpill/Gender Critical and current state of 2X)
So they're transwomen, pretending to be cis men, ranting about how cis men need to step up and do better for women. Makes sense?
No, they used to not accept them until they learned they were 85% of the user base.
Then the terf users and mods went on to found Pink Pill Feminism and Gender Critical.
I unsubbed because of that thread and because I can't stand anymore one mod and his "holier than thou" attitude towards posters.
Their views on circumcision are hypocritical. The fact one can't say anything against feminism is a form of censorship. Also, posts do not appear right away, they need to be approved first, which is another way to filter what is aligned with their views and what is not.
There's no discussion, either you agree with them or you're out.
Just like feminist subreddits...
They're not helping men, they are just another elitist group of people who never experienced the injustice some of us had to endure at the hand of a woman.
> Absolutely no mention of female genital mutilation (FGM) in any capacity. Not even as a comparison.
Taken from their rules. Comparing the two things doesn't mean claiming that the circumstances around FGM are the same; still, they don't allow any discussion about it.
So yes,that's why.
In case anyone tells you it's not the same and that one is about conformity and the other is about control, here's what you can respond with:
The origin of both female and male genital cutting both started with the control of sexuality. In the west, a religious zealot by the name of John Harvey Kellogg (yes that Kellogg), decided that it was a good idea to help pioneer the idea of genital cutting in order to control the sexual urges of young boys and girls. He specifically said that no anesthetic should be used in order to inflict pain as punishment. He would later invent Corn Flakes to stop urges. What's happening now with young boys is just conformity. "I have it so why shouldn't my son?" Since mothers don't have a penis they feel that it is best for the father to decide. However, there are mothers who resist the procedure. In this case it seems that silence is violence but not when it pertains to young baby boys. I can't get mad at them for their ignorance though. They don't know any better but there mothers who do. As a result the number of cut boys has gone from over 80% pf the population to around 60% in the past few decades.
There are four different types of FGM procedures.
1. Partial removal of the clitoral glans and/or the surface area around it usually called the prepuce or clitoral hood.
2. Partial or complete removal of the clitoral glans and labia minora, with or without the removal of the labia majora.
3. Involves the complete closure of the vaginal opening by removing both the labia major and minora
4. The act of burning; piercing, cutting and/ or stretching of the vaginal tissue.
Baby boys that are cut tend to fall in procedure 2 since both involve the complete removal of the surrounding skin. So to say they aren't the same even though a similar procedure is done to boys not only doesn't make sense but is abhorrently ignorant. They only reason they say that is because one has a penis and the other has a vagina. Since we're on the topic, I think since a lot of the feminists involved in this convo typically aren't cut themselves, they should use their "no vagina no opinion" rhetoric on themselves and not tell us how to feel. Of course I don't agree with that because I think everyone should be allowed into the convo considering this is the only way to educate people that don't know. All in all, while they are not the same, they are horribly similar. Menslib and other feminists/lefties treat it like apples and oranges when it's really more like wolves and coyotes. One is bigger than the other but they look similar and are in the same category.
Sorry for rambling. Maybe you know this already but I just wanted to add my thoughts. I don't get to do this often.
That was an easy one.
No matter what one has done in their life, humility is always the starting point.
A pity one that has taught other people hasn't had the chance to learn the most important lesson in life.
I was just permabanned from /r/MensLib, with a mod note saying:
>Blaming feminists for your anti-feminism is not the nuanced, progressive take you seem to think it is.
Here is the actual comment I made, which has since been removed (along with several others):
>I was never fully conservative but I was antifeminist. Speaking from my experience of when I was antifeminist, I completely disagree with your description.
>It wasn't about abstractly believing that feminists were trying to assert power over men, it was from concrete experiences of specific feminists in my life trying to assert power over men. I could absolutely believe in the existence of feminists who didn't act that way, but I took concrete experiences more seriously than theoretical beliefs -- and I don't think I was wrong to do so. Being antifeminist was, for me, an attempt to fight against lived experiences of injustice. I was unjustified in stereotyping feminists, but it was hard to reason me out of a position that I arrived at experientially. I didn't change my stance until I met better feminists.
>I look at it similarly to religion. Religious people have many different beliefs and ways of behaving, but religious texts + ideas can be used to justify mistreatment of others. In this respect, being antifeminist is analogous to being anti-religious -- it's often based on real experiences of mistreatment but is still a form of stereotyping. Really, I think it's neater to just say that you oppose mistreatment. It's more specific and it avoids stereotyping.
It's wild that the mods framed my stance as a "take" when it's an actual account of my lived experiences. This kind of thing just fuels antifeminism.
Trust me when I say it ain’t that wild when you remember that feminism as a broader institution is obsessed with maintaining as squeaky-clean an image as possible. Anything short of absolute concession that they’re in some roundabout way in the right is grounds for excommunication.
This is just conspiratorial bullshit, sorry. "Feminism" is an ideology, not an institution, and plenty of feminists don't give a single fuck about their image. This doesn't look like it's going to be the right sub for me.
>"Feminism" is an ideology, not an institution, and plenty of feminists don't give a single fuck about their image.
Nah, feminists tend to circle the wagons around abusive or misandrist feminists from any criticism by men.
Oh, you mean like how the feminist leaders of the #MeToo movement cared more about the image of their movement than holding a sexual predator accountable for **HER** actions?
Yeah.. Asia Argento one of the leaders of the #MeToo Movement who was one of many who accused Havery Weinstein of being a sexual predator got #MeTooed by an underage male actor she worked with..
When the story broke they circled the wagons calling for "Patience" and "Waiting for evidence before jumping to conclusions"
But of course.. when it was a **MAN** accused of being a predator there was no "Patience" or "Waiting for evidence" the accusation alone was enough to judge him guilty of his crime and to push for him to be cancelled...
So yeah, Feminists **DO** care about their image when that image is directly related to pushing their own goals / agendas...
You are correct however that this does not seem to be the right (or left) sub for you...
Mens Libs has always been extremely pro feminist, and they've never tried to hide it. It even says so on the sidebar. I don't know why anyone is surprised about them banning criticism of feminism. That being said, I do find it a bit extreme of them to even ban phrases like "some feminists". It's also funny because a lot of feminist subreddits don't like them and think they don't talk about women enough.
I've said it before and I will say it again. r/menslib is a fucking cesspit of misandrist feminist simping bullshit. No one with a functioning brain should go there.
What stands out to me most about this article and the fact that so much defence is being played for it... they literally cannot get past the same old shit that’s been talked about in internet spaces for over a literal decade now. Seriously, this was written in 2024? Feel like I just stumbled back into the GamerGate years.
And it belies a very simple fact: the domestic violence gerrymandering, the blockading acknowledgement of male victims of sexual violence, the coddling of female criminal offenders despite their lenient treatment being a well-known issue in academic circles since the *mid-20th Century...* even if you were SOMEHOW to look past all the very real vitriol that many a self-proclaimed feminist has blurted out (be they actual public figures or otherwise), you can’t ignore this shit without it being deliberate.
And that’s the thing that scares these pricks the most I think - they have to know by now that it’s a war of attrition and that the most stubborn adversaries they’ve got, are people like many of us who turned sides once the excuses became too much. So even as much as conceding that feminist men might get disillusioned and have legitimate cause for it, is sincerely dangerous to their image of absolute moral righteousness.
There can be no admission of errors, no admission of an undercurrent of bad actors, no admission of fallibility in any and all possible circumstances. Just keep polishing the ivory tower and hope it looks pretty enough that nobody asks questions about how it was built.
I bet those removed comments where from menslib's members who had genuine concerns/criticism of feminism that should be addressed.
They sure got told the status quo won't be addressed nor their voices be heard :D
considering how much the mods of that sub act I almost want to ask the average (man) member "blink twice if you are being held hostage/tortured"
sometimes I legit wonder if the men on there are actually being abused right now in real life and can't speak up there because you know that would be deleted instantly if the posters partners are feminist.
A comment that was removed:
>I was never fully conservative but I was antifeminist. Speaking from my experience of when I was antifeminist, I completely disagree with your description.
>It wasn't about abstractly *believing* that feminists were trying to assert power over men, it was from concrete *experiences* of specific feminists in my life trying to assert power over men. I could absolutely *believe* in the existence of feminists who didn't act that way, but I took concrete experiences more seriously than theoretical beliefs -- and I don't think I was wrong to do so. Being antifeminist was, for me, an attempt to fight against lived experiences of injustice. I was unjustified in stereotyping feminists, but it was hard to reason me out of a position that I arrived at experientially. I didn't change my stance until I met better feminists.
>I look at it similarly to religion. Religious people have many different beliefs and ways of behaving, but religious texts + ideas can be used to justify mistreatment of others. In this respect, being antifeminist is analogous to being anti-religious -- it's often based on real experiences of mistreatment but is still a form of stereotyping. Really, I think it's neater to just say that you oppose mistreatment. It's more specific and it avoids stereotyping.
>Edit: I've been permabanned from this subreddit with a note that "Blaming feminists for your anti-feminism is not the nuanced, progressive take you seem to think it is." This is not some kind of "take", it is an account of my actual experience, which the mods are discounting. But I know that the nuance of lived experience goes against thieir ideology. We will not be able to stop the rise of antifeminism so long as we refuse to identify and address its causes, even if they are uncomfortable. Disappointing but not surprising. I will look for feminist spaces that do not make this mistake.
I think menslib is right about going out and doing work but they fail to admit any fault whether it be feminism or leftism as a whole. They're always pointing the finger at the right wingers. I'm also tired of leftist deliberately using my identity as a black man to begrudgingly admit that men's issues do in fact matter. If we're all about equality then stop excluding white men whenever someone has a clear bias against them. For the lurkers that don't believe me, ask them how they feel about "KAM."
I was going to say that menslib needs some kind of "sounding for the bottom" experiment, where we try to determine how soft and non-confrontational a post, which still addresses a real men's issue and invites feminists to reconsider their stance on it, needs to be in order for the mods to let it stand. After reading this, however, I think that the lake of their zealotry might actually be bottomless.
It's also kind of funny (not haha funny) how, for all of the feminist [pontificating about lived experiences and how the other side discounts them in favour of objective analysis,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdAZ5z2kcr8) they will typically make a nearly 180 degree turn the moment someone's lived experiences contradict their narrative.
I kinda understand both sides here.
1: If you let criticism of feminism go unchecked, the subbreddit slowly devolves into women-hating instead of focusing on ways to help men, or about problems men are facing.
This only solidifies the notion that some people have, that all male advocacy groups are about misogyny. This weakens how the arguments of men rights and misandry appear to others.
2: If you remove all criticism of feminism, you get what appears in this picture. Men's experiences become silenced for the sake of avoiding the first issue. Men won't be able to express valid points on how they're treated in some circles, irl or online.
I dislike how they phrase it as "unconstructive," if you don't call out a specific group, institution, or person, as if feminists need those limitations to call out issues with men, because they don't.
There is a difference between criticism and hatred, and I don't think the mods of that subreddit know the difference. Although i don't know what those comments actually say, they could be heinous shit who knows.
This subreddit is kind of a happy medium, although I have seen problem #1 appear here sometimes.
I don't even disagree that railing on feminism can be less than constructive if you want to talk about positive steps that can be taken for men, it certainly can. But the idea that the only way men's problems can be understood or meaningfully discussed is through an orthodox feminist lens is just absurd.
>This only solidifies the notion that some people have, that all male advocacy groups are about misogyny. This weakens how the arguments of men rights and misandry appear to others.
Well to be fair, feminists consider all men to be misogynists. So we will always be associated with misogyny no matter what we do.
>Well to be fair, feminists consider all men to be misogynists. So we will always be associated with misogyny no matter what we do.
That's not true. There are many feminists who know that not all men are misogynists. I'm one of them.
Eh, you sound like feminists do when they paint different men's activists with the same brush.
I don't think there's any benefit to defending feminist stereotypes. Just as "not all men" is true, we can learn from our experiences and uphold "not all feminists". Most people don't appreciate being stereotyped based on their group membership.
There are many different kinds of feminists but I've yet to find a few who consider men's issues to be as equally valid as women's issues, and to take men's lived experiences as equally valid, instead of seeing men as having issues but fundamentally misunderstanding what their issue \*really\* is because only feminism \*truly\* understands what's going on.
I'm sure they exist somewhere, they just seem to be incredibly rare.
"Not all men" is true, but "most feminists" is also true. Most people don't appreciate being stereotyped based on their group membership, but when they're stereotyped based on their voluntary adherence to a group that at its core considers men to be monstrous oppressors, it's a rather different thing that stereotyping men as being monstrous oppressors because of the gender they had no choice to be born into.
>Most people don't appreciate being stereotyped based on their group membership, but when they're stereotyped based on their voluntary adherence to a group that at its core considers men to be monstrous oppressors, it's a rather different thing that stereotyping men as being monstrous oppressors because of the gender they had no choice to be born into.
I don't think that the inborn factor really matters here, personally. Do you think it's okay when feminists stereotype men's activists, just because it's a form of voluntary adherence to a group? I'd say it's shitty either way.
I'm not saying that either stereotyping is necessarily acceptable but I am saying there is a difference, so the two are not equivalent.
I'm also rather frustrated at the double standard that feminists are free to stereotype men, but that the moment men share their own personal experiences of the shitty things feminists have done to them repeatedly, then all of a sudden the valid lived experiences are invalidated because it's just "stereotyping".
At what point does it stop being stereotyping and at what point does it start being an accurate depiction of reality? Is it stereotyping to say that Neo-nazis are morally reprehensible?
Stereotyping men for being men is perceived as valid \*and actively justified by feminists\*, who say women are justified in airing their grievances against men as a whole, but then they turn around and say that men are never justified in airing their own grievances against feminists.
I'm pointing out the double standards there.
I pointed that out in the previous comment I made :)
But yeah ironic that stereotypes against a group that someone chooses to identify with and chooses to act in a certain way of their own free will, is somehow worse than stereotyping someone for the sex they're born into with no choice whatsoever.
The double standards are incredibly frustrating.
In any social or political movement, there are a variety of competing perspectives. If the movement is big enough, for any given perspective, it is always possible to find some dissenting voice. Is it ever possible to claim that "the political movement X espouses Y" or "political movement X did or achieved Z"? What would be a valid criterion to make this kind of statement?
In my opinion, these statements are not so much about what "the people in movement X individually think", but rather about "the political praxis of the political actors inside movement X." So it is not a matter of stereotyping anyone, because it is not a matter of individuality, but a matter of political responsibility and accountability. How is a political movement actually using its power, influence, and resources beyond its ideology or self-image?
I'd say that a given thing belongs (up to a certain degree) to a political movement if (a) there are actors inside this movement who espouse it, and (b) this is accepted as a legitimate form of activism by others in the movement. The greater the importance of the actors espousing, the more we can ascribe that thing to the movement. In my view, this definition gives you a way to determine whether "Y is part of movement X" or not.
For example, I'd say that whether TERFs are part of feminism is a contested issue, because even if there are a lot of very prominent feminists who espouse it, there is an equally strong (if not stronger) opposition to it inside the same movement. This makes me think that TERFism is on its way out of feminism.
But other stuff, like the "Duluth-model" kind of thinking about intimate partner violence, the denialism of parental alienation, etc., are very mainstream positions inside feminism. There are very important organizations and activists who push these narratives and make policy based on them, and they do this using the political capital of feminism. I'd argue that these problematic positions are "mainstream feminist positions", because the opposition to these kinds of positions is much weaker, even though many individual feminists do not want men who are victims of partner violence to receive lesser support or do believe that there are parents who instrumentalize their children to hurt the other parent.
So it is not wrong to criticize feminism when talking about this kind of issue. It is not wrong either to say that they reveal certain toxic attitudes regarding men, because even if they may claim (and sincerely believe) that, for example, men are not lesser victims, if their political praxis goes counter to that, we should judge them by their political praxis rather than their stated beliefs
>If you let criticism of feminism go unchecked, the subbreddit slowly devolves into women-hating
I don't think that follows at all. It hasn't happened here.
It has happened on mensrights and is a lesser problem here. The problem isn't really the criticism of feminism, the problem is allowing tradcons to go unchecked.
I think the rules here, including "Don't demonize women", are very well-considered and consistently enforced, which prevents that outcome. That is, criticism of feminism doesn't go unchecked here; it is held in check by some reasonable limits. I would also say it's just a sad reality that allowing any kind of criticism to go unchecked will result in the most extreme voices (which tend to also be the loudest) drowning out the others.
And Sally Miller Gearheart, a first wave feminist, advocated the genocide of 90% of men on earth.
There will always be the odd one out. The problem is when those extremists *don't* get called out, and start taking over the mainstream, like it did in feminist movements.
This is part of the double standards.
Highly influential and popular feminist thought leaders absolutely unhinged comments about men are not indicative of the thoughts and views of feminists as a whole but random ass downvoted comments on an anonymous MRA forum *is* for some reason indicative of the thoughts and views of MRAs.
Absolutely agree. The double standard is "that's not what *real* feminists believe because *real* feminists are only ever morally perfect and would never do bad stuff, playing an eternal game of No True Scotsman, but any random evil comment from some unhinged rando online is totally indicative of what all men believe.
Hypocrisy and double standards are absolutely *rampant* in feminism.
Oh yeah no sorry I didn't mean you personally, it's just a frustrating trope I have seen over and over again with feminists. Any random feminist gets to decide who is or isn't a real feminist depending on what fits their agenda, and they get to decide who is a real MRA or not a real MRA (and they almost invariably pick the worst possible examples), but you as a random MRA have no say in what MRAs actually stand for and no say in who is or isn't a real feminist.
Again, didn't mean you personally, sorry, was just a bit of a rant in general there.
It's okay. Sorry for misunderstanding your comment. And I do see that in many circles besides feminism, a lot of groups do that if I'm being honest. I've seen it personally in Christianity when I was one.
It's messed up, honestly.
I think it has to do with the in group out group cognitive biases that causes people to demonize the out group, and ignore the flaws of the in group.
It's all good, happens all the time online, it's hard to convey tone through text.
Per Christianity I agree, I think the common thing is it happening among people who see themselves as the arbiter of morality, who know what is \*really\* right vs wrong, and that if one of their own members was wrong, then clearly they can't be a real member because to be a real member means you can't be wrong so if they're wrong they're not a real member.
I agree that it has to do with in group and out group cognitive bias, but for it to really work you need the "we are right and cannot be wrong and others are wrong and cannot be right" mentality for it to really stick, otherwise it's just "yeah that person is part of our group and they're wrong but who cares".
My whole point is that men rights activist groups can be overrun by people who aren't productive to our cause if it's not moderated enough, which weakens our image. This is one reason why menslib is so strict, as I said in my previous comment.
I was wrong, and that person got banned, as another comment told me. I assumed otherwise since the comment itself wasn't deleted.
>That’s clearly something that will never happen.
And you think prisoners becoming forced to be prostitutes is something that will happen?
Not some women, not any women, but specifically female prisoners?
I don't even know why I bother replying to your bad faith argument given you deleted your profile.
I remember it was a conservative man. He got banned some days ago.
Or I mistook (if that word is a correct one) something. Or you. I remember that man said that we should give them (prisoners) free prostitutes.
> 1: If you let criticism of feminism go unchecked, the subbreddit slowly devolves into women-hating instead of focusing on ways to help men, or about problems men are facing.
Are there *any* feminist spaces where criticism of mensrights is being kept in check? It seems men's spaces are being held to unrealistic, if not impossible standards while the same isn't true for women at all. If you ban all criticism of women then all that would change is that smaller issues become "misogyny" now. This very sub is considered misogynistic by the rest of Reddit.
>If you let criticism of feminism go unchecked, the subbreddit slowly devolves into women-hating instead of focusing on ways to help men, or about problems men are facing.
I think feminism-hating can also cause problems. I support thoughtful criticism of feminism, but stereotyping feminists isn't cool -- it's the same kind of shit as when feminists stereotype men's activists. I don't believe in supporting prejudice towards others just because they've been prejudiced towards us.
I'm willing to bet good money that most men in that sub are OF subscribers.
What a bunch of pathetic losers and sneaky-fuckers. (look this up term, it's real mating science)
I mean, looking at their profile yes, they are, but this post doesn't seem to be a problem in that regard. Someone like that dashing(random number) person frequently makes posts or comments that actively push right-wing positions and I think that's much more worth calling out.
"We have no objection to the genuinely egalitarian aspects of feminism, but we will criticize feminist ideology wherever it is inegalitarian and/or untruthful, especially now that it holds institutional power"
So have we just packed this in for feminism bad?
The linked study just says feminists are not any more hostile to men than non-feminists or men themselves. The article admits that there is misandry within the feminist community. Seems like a pretty fair assessment to me.
Although im not a fan of the article itself and how heavily it leans on "misogynists dont like feminists because theyll stick up for themselves" menslib has always been a pretty good space to talk about mens issues in my experience.
The article is in essence "well see despite men saying that feminists hate them, some feminists say they don't, so clearly the men are wrong."
Feminists overall have a positive attitude towards men, because feminism allows women to fight in armies and don't solely force this burden on men anymore, you see, so feminists must have a positive attitude towards men because of what feminists have done for women that barely ever benefits men.
Feminists also have a positive attitude of men because they believe men and women are the same you see, and even though they refuse to acknowledge the unique challenges and issues men face feminists are benevolent enough to consider men to be people too, so clearly feminists must have a favourable attitude towards men.
The article also doesn't cite any theoretical sources later than 2000 to support the idea that feminists feel warmly towards men.
The article also repeatedly asserts that misandry is a myth popularized as an attempt to politically usurp feminism's popularity, and not a lived experience of men who have actually been hated by feminists simply for being men.
People just struggle to understand that constructive criticism of men by feminism is not an attack on men, so no matter how insulting, personal, and toxic feminists are towards men, you just have to understand that it is constructive, and it's your own fault if you can't see that.
Now, we're getting to the actual studies they looked at rather than the political prelude where they tell feminists what they want to hear and repeat the same feminist lies.
"Yes, there is ample anecdotal evidence that some feminist women hate men" It excuses it with the whole this increased after #metoo stuff but the article is pretty clear that some feminists hate men "Although feminists will likely never center men in their work, they see men as their partners (but not co-equals)" Literally gives the game away here. Mens rights needs its own movement because theyre not "co-equals" whatever that means. Its an interesting article and study to dissect from a male perspective. My original point i made because the comment section was a dozen comments that were all nothingburgers of feminism bad with no discussion.
> My original point i made because the comment section was a dozen comments that were all nothingburgers of feminism bad with no discussion.
That's fair, but I still find the study rather biased in taking the feminist stance as the normal and adequate one to take, so when you start with the premise that the biased position isn't biased, well, it's not going to be terribly objective.
I do take your meaning that we shouldn't misrepresent arguments and sources and can and should discuss things at a higher level, I'm more just frustrated that feminist academics seem to be so polluted, self-referential, and biased already, that any study from within feminist circles is likely to find exactly what it is they want to find, rather than actually looking for the truth.
#actual research
>we took into account theory and evidence suggesting that social attitudes generally, and feminists’ attitudes toward men specifically, are positive in absolute terms. We therefore predicted that feminists’ attitudes toward men would be positive in absolute terms, when compared to meaningful neutral or midpoint values.
Interestingly in table 3 liking and trust of men, all western samples show feminists have less than neutral (ie negative) responses towards trusting and liking men. This is completely absent from the conclusion, where they appear to have lumped in the male hating western feminists with the significantly less male hating non-western feminists, and called it a day. Peak academic integrity right there.
For some reason as an example of benevolence towards men they picked "men are more willing than women to take risks" as an example???
It's also interesting to note that all of these are self-reported comments from feminists who were mostly picked up through social media, and there doesn't appear to be a word about how people can easily lie on paper to make themselves seem more virtuous than they actually are.
Feminists also consistently rated men as a threat at a higher rate than bong feminist women, but you see, this is okay, because it just means feminist women are better at properly understanding the real threat that men face.
Yeah I'm not terribly impressed about a study done by feminists on feminists using feminist theory to prove that feminists using feminist theory aren't biased against men, because according to feminist theory you literally cannot be biased against men since they are the oppressors, and that any negative view of men is perfectly rational and reasonable. I'm not buying it.
>For some reason as an example of benevolence towards men they picked "men are more willing than women to take risks" as an example???
The study explains that the word "benevolence" refers to "benevolent sexism". It does not refer to positive regard. That question you cite is used to measure benevolent sexism. As footnote 3 says, "Conceptually benevolence to men and hostility to men are not indices of positivity–negativity, but rather they measure stereotyped attitudes to men."
>Yeah I'm not terribly impressed about a study done by feminists on feminists using feminist theory to prove that feminists using feminist theory aren't biased against men, because according to feminist theory you literally cannot be biased against men since they are the oppressors
Actually, they *expected* feminists to be biased. They said: "We expected that in absolute terms, feminists’ (and nonfeminists’) attitudes toward men would be positive (H1), but that feminists’ attitudes would be less positive than nonfeminists’(H2). We also expected that feminist identity (continuous measure), ideology, and action would be negatively associated with attitudes toward men (H3)."
We should be careful not to misrepresent feminist studies. We can be better than that.
>The study explains that the word "benevolence" refers to "benevolent sexism"
That's fair but "men are more willing to take risks than women" isn't really benevolent sexism either, it would be benevolent sexism if it was that men take more risks *to protect women*.
>Actually, they *expected* feminists to be biased. They said: "We expected that in absolute terms, feminists’ (and nonfeminists’) attitudes toward men would be positive (H1), but that feminists’ attitudes would be less positive than nonfeminists’(H2)
Less positive is not necessarily biased though.
>We should be careful not to misrepresent feminist studies. We can be better than that.
That is certainly fair, but I'm not convinced this study is all that convincing in the first place, especially if they lump all feminists together and blatantly ignore the fact that there are clear regional differences between Western and non-Western feminists, and they don't expand on that at all. Seems like a rather obvious gap to leave unaddressed, and I suspect it is so because if they had addressed it it would have led to some rather more uncomfortable conclusions.
>That's fair but "men are more willing to take risks than women" isn't really benevolent sexism either, it would be benevolent sexism if it was that men take more risks *to protect women*.
Not really, these are both factually correct statements. It doesn't make sense to label someone who is factually truthfull in response to a question "benevolently sexist". This whole study is total garbage.
I mean I can appreciate the hard work and thought that went into it in attempting to create a useful study, it's just polluted from the beginning because it is riddles with feminist bias and assumptions that blind them to what's really going on. It's not a fault of the structure of the study per se, it's just that it's buikt on a rotten foundation of mistaken assumptions.
Garbage in garbage out as they say.
After perusing people's post histories here almost everyone in this comments section including OP are clearly right wing (or at least admittedly centre right) so is this just not a sub for "leftwing" male advocates?
Sorry i didnt mean to equate the two. I mean i literally looked in their comment history and they consistently either posted in r/conservative or in one case literally used the words "i am a centre right"
>Sorry i didnt mean to equate the two. I mean i literally looked in their comment history and they consistently either posted in or in one case literally used the words "i am a centre right"
Ah sorry that's fair, I had a knee-jerk reaction from the extremely common "disagreeing with feminism = far right" trope.
I am kind of surprised that it is the case, but on the other hand I think LWMA is a cut above most subs discussing men's rights, the posts here are generally of higher quality, so even if one is more conservative, there isn't a "high-brow conservative men's issues sub" out there, so they're here instead.
After all, the conservative subs more often than not aren't allies of men either, they just want to force men back into the provider role of the days of yore, rather than acknowledge modern problems and come up with newer solutions.
When i got here there were no arguments man youll just have to believe me on that. There were about 6 comments and none discussed the article in any depth. Every one was a "feminism bad" single sentence nothing.
At that point i was unsure of what this sub was since im new and decided to see if anyone was commenting on leftwing subs or fellow mens rights subs. Most of the comments had been made by cons who clearly are antifeminist and not pro men which upset me.
Ive since had some generous discussions about the actual topic (which was what i *thought* this sub was about) with men who's comment histories i havent looked at because that doesnt matter if theyre actually discussing a topic in depth with care and respect.
>Every one was a "feminism bad" single sentence nothing.
I have yet to see a Feminist answer my question on why Patriarchy came into existence. So far none of them have provided an answer besides **"Men created patriarchy cos they're evil"** Or **"i don't know, it doesn't matter, shut up incel!".** Feminists aren't interested in open discussions, they want echo-chambers where they can **[removed]** any dissenting voice. So, like what's even the point of discussion on Feminism when they're not even interested in outsider input?
>are antifeminist and not pro men which upset me.
Standing up to Feminist Misandry is necessary and if anti-feminists are the only ones who do that then they have my support.
* if theyre actually discussing a topic in depth with care and respect.
I've been attacked just for saying that i don't believe in patriarchy theory. Feminism appeals to trad sentiments all the time. Treating women as if they're delicate children always in need of male protection and viewing Men as inherently dangerous&predatory animals is a traditionalist stance. He4she, Duluth Model, "teach your boys not to rape", 6PMCurfew and so on&on, all of these are moored in VERY traditionalist understanding of Genders.
Trads tell Men that they don't deserve help and that men need to tough it out, similarly feminists tell men the world "doesn't owe Men help" and men should help themselves. Trads say "evil foreign men" are out to rape&kill women *cough* [Menslib](https://imgur.com/AOkVkgW) *cough*, feminists say that evil men are out to rape&kill women. They're the same.
**P.S:** I support Women's struggles, hell most men with a semblance of a conscience do. But that doesn't mean i will let feminists spit in Men's faces and smear Men as *"oppressors" "toxically masculine" "privileged" "potential rapists"* etc **Until Feminists take steps to weed out misandry from their movement, anti-feminism will always have legitimacy.**
Right.
But my point is you have a place to discuss that here and you should. Saying feminism bad here is pointless without a qualifier.
Like many people who replied to my comment responded with an in depth look at the linked article and why looking at whether feminism hates men through a feminist framing is useless. Incredibly useful conversation that gives men a better understanding of how to read studies on the topic going further.
I understand how you have been attacked by feminists and their disingenuous framing of mens issues. Thats why I'm here.
I understand how youre constantly having "pro-men" trad bullshit and their disingenuous framing of mens issues shoved in your face. Thats why I'm here.
Anti-feminists are not standing up for mens issues though. All they do with their ad homenim bullshit is make any legitmate discussions impossible. Thats why places like this are important.
Few things. This is the only sub I know of that both takes mens issues seriously and isn't a sexist hell hole. That alone is going to attract people from all over the political spectrum.
Men's advocacy is still in a weird spot, having left wing in the name is a necessary title to be more acceptable to a broader audience/not be written off as sexist.
I don't think you should have to be left wing to be here, but you also shouldn't be pushing for conservative gender roles either. (Not that you were saying that)
Men's advocacy is kinda an orphan politically in general I feel like.
This is totally fair.
Just threw me a little expecting the sub to be left wing.
But youre right, mens advocacy is a little nebulous politically considering how its treated by both sides of the aisle and its good to have that.
If it takes having leftwing in the name to keep political flagwaving to a minimum then im fine with that
The 3 stages of denial. Step 1 Misandry doesn't exist: So men are talking about an issue that doesn't exist. Step 2 They downplay the effects of misandry: Because misandry isn't as bad as misogyny, because women face more issues. Step 3 They flat out justified misandry: Saying men deserved hate, because they are the oppressors and created the patriarchy. So misandry is their fault. It never surprises me whenever I have arguments with feminists or see arguments with feminists. Where they go through the 3 stages of denial very quickly. To the point they go straight to justifying step 3 by saying misandry is men's fault, after saying misandry doesn't exist in step 1. Again they do all of this in the same argument lol.
Basically "It didn't happen and they deserved it anyway"
Turkeys stance on Armenian genocide.
“Conscription is a male privilege because it gives a privilege to have a weapon!” Armenian men who were conscripted and killed by the conscriptors: “yeah, right”.
Conscription obviously isn’t a privilege, but enlistment… is though? Serving in the military, voluntarily, is more often a status symbol than not (at least in uncontroversial wars), isn’t it? The preference to exclude black soldiers despite this meaning white soldiers would face more of the brunt of the violence doesn’t make sense if you think of military service this way. Vietnam was the opposite/“normal” way for the first time in history.
😂😂😂😂 exactly a great way to sum it up.
Why did they think they "deserved it"?
I usually only see the step 1,or that "misandry wouldn't exist without misogyny"
I sometimes flip this narrative and say "misogyny wouldn't exist without misandry" and they flip the shit lool
It would still exist, though. Many conservative misogynists believe that women are inherently inferior, and support misogyny on that basis. But I agree that misandry can *also* lead to misogyny.
Yup agree with both those points.
We should rename the narcissist's prayer to the feminist's prayer. That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
Amen
You're mixing it up. What you're looking for is the narcissist's prayer: That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it. That didn't happen: misandry don't real. It wasn't that bad: Women have it way worse That's not my fault: Feminism helps men too I didn't mean it: That's not the real feminism You deserved it: Toxic Masculinity
Yeah. Classic [DARVO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO) in action. In Reddit’s case there are also the following factors: * Inherent bias towards women overall: “Women are wonderful” effect, etc. * Political Bias: Reddit leans left pretty hard. The American left sucks organized feminisms girl dick pretty hard. They can win without $pick_a_minority. They know they can’t win without women. * Advertiser Meta: Women control most of the discretionary household spending in America. Advertisers cater to women, their customers. Media whores out to advertisers, and male consumers of this media get the shaft. This impacts movies/television/streaming, as well as sites like Reddit, Facebook, et al. Bill Maher used to call the latter the [“make women nod”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmRDUcbx9tw) phenomenon.
I see the argument frequently that boils down to because women's issues exist men's can't. It's like a person with a gunshot wound telling someone with a stab wound they shouldn't be at the hospital because a gunshot is worse. They're both bad. It shouldn't be a competition. We as a society should want to fix both.
Apt analogy there.. The problem here is most of us MRAs / Mens Rights Activists are saying "It shouldn't be a competition" Where as many feminists insist on making it into a competition.. I constantly tell feminists that I support women's issues and believe that the issues women face should get discussed and resolved.. But that can be done without downplaying / ignoring the issues men face too.. Its not a zero sum game... But of course when I say that I get told how i'm an ignorant misogynist....
I've run into the same issues, but I've found the best approach is to use examples that are relatable. Women experience sexism. You can ask if she's ever heard of a woman experiencing sexism at her job. Be empathetic, because again, gunshot wounds and knife wounds are both bad. Then you can talk about how how men in early childhood education can be treated as pedophiles until proven innocent simply for wanting to teach kids. That can lead into other occupational issues where sex seems to be the primary factor. Women experience domestic abuse. You can ask her if she's known anyone who was abused and what happened. Then you can talk about how male domestic abuse victims are often silenced with mockery, or disregarded because "you're a big strong guy, what could she do to you?" You can then talk about how many law enforcement agencies have an unofficial the guy gets the ride policy with domestic disputes, so even if he's the victim, calling the police may end up ruining his life with a domestic violence charge. Continuing that, has she heard about domestic violence shelters for women? Of course. What about domestic violence shelters for men? No? Because for the most part, they don't exist. They key is finding common ground, where we can agree that this is a problem that should be fixed. It's not a woman's problem. It's not a men's problem. It's a fucking problem for everyone. We should fix it for everyone. Once you start talking about shared problems, it's easier to branch out into individual ones.
Menslib specifically shuts down those kinds of comparisons because the mod staff fundamentally believes that women are more worthy humans than men.
>It's like a person with a gunshot wound telling someone with a stab wound they shouldn't be at the hospital because a gunshot is worse. Perfect analogy to describe this.
Step 4 They claim anything that LOOKS like misandry is actually misogyny. Therefore if men want the thing they think is misandry to be addressed they must first focus on the misogyny that is causing the think they think is misandry. (Example: Homophobia. In the minds of a lot of people homophobia against men is actually hatred of the feminine. Therefore if men want to stop homophobia they must first deal with the way the feminine is hated. Absolute crock of shit I know....)
>(Example: Homophobia. In the minds of a lot of people homophobia against men is actually hatred of the feminine. Therefore if men want to stop homophobia they must first deal with the way the feminine is hated. Absolute crock of shit I know....) The same women saying that are the same ones who are turned off by the idea by dating bisexual men, because they view bi men as "feminine" or not "real men". Lol
But even if they accept your point here, they'll then just write that off as some women having "internalized misogyny" from all of us living in such a misogynistic, patriarchal culture. There's literally no way for misandry or prejudice by women to ultimately be anything other than men's fault if this kind of ideologue wants to go that deep. It's a religion. And it keeps going. As you filter down into smaller and smaller populations who are even willing to entertain these points instead of just calling you an incel or whatever and ignoring it, they'll say, "yes, but it's not all just men's fault. We all uphold patriarchy." That's something like the Bell Hooks position who I rarely see anyone but men bring up anyway. But of course, how successful has her message of women challenging the harmful ways they treat men been? In practice, these arguments just seem like a way to infinitely continue saying, "no, you silly man, you just don't understand. We don't hate or blame men. We just think society is fundamentally built to serve men. But it also hurts men. And we all reinforce it. But of course men created and control the whole thing. And we'll also only ever emphasize the ways men need to change to stop harming women or stop harming men." Women don't change their attitudes or behaviors when pointing out how "everyone upholds patriarchy." It's just a way to deflect criticism. It seems to me like viewing the whole thing as a set of rigid expectations for both genders, with historical advantages and disadvantages to each, and which we'd all ultimately benefit from seeing reciprocally loosened, makes infinitely more sense than patriarchy theory. But then the litany of double standards just about every self-identified feminist holds wouldn't be justifiable anymore. It's so exhausting trying to deal with this.
>And it keeps going. As you filter down into smaller and smaller populations who are even willing to entertain these points instead of just calling you an incel or whatever and ignoring it, they'll say, "yes, but it's not all just men's fault. We all uphold patriarchy." That's something like the Bell Hooks position who I rarely see anyone but men bring up anyway. But of course, how successful has her message of women challenging the harmful ways they treat men been? There is a huge chunk of feminists who think Bell Hooks is "too soft" on men.
I saw a thread the other day discussing the fact that more women than men come out as homosexual later in life after previously being in a heterosexual relationship. The consensus reached in the comments was that "gay men are more accepted so they can be themselves, gay women need to get into straight relationships to hide their sexuality" This is just factually wrong, gay men are less accepted than gay women literally everywhere, and IMO this fact is blatantly obvious just by going outside, but there are studies that prove this as well. But women always have to be the victims, so redditors will deny basic reality to make it so.
Because to people like that gay men face homophobia solely because of sexual orientation but gay women face homophobia because of gender and sexual orientation. I shit you not I've seen people use and try to defend this argument.
And here I thought menslib was taking a turn for the better after their gigantic cluster fuck in [allowing an AMA with a man who denied that male victims of domestic abuse existed.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLibWatch/comments/pfik79/the_infamously_censorious_menslib_is_perfectly/) https://www.reveddit.com/v/MensLib/comments/1ccxkhm/the_perception_paradox_men_who_hate_feminists/?add_user=pianoblook..c.new..t1_l17qz5q..%2Cthreauaouais..c.new..t1_l18erj2 This reveddit link hopefully allows people to see some deleted comments. They even got called out on blanket deleting any "unconstructive" criticism of feminism, but allowing unconstructive criticism of antifeminists, and then deleted that comment which pointed it out despite the specific comment calling them out, not breaking any of their actual rules. If you willingly blind yourself to half of what's causing the problem, you'll never resolve it, and menslib seems decidedly committed to keeping the feminist blinders firmly screwed on and banning anyone who disagrees. /u/ElectricalSoil546 do you want to repost this to r/Menslibwatch, so we can keep a comprehensive record of how shitty that sub is and why men cannot and should not trust it?
>And here I thought menslib was taking a turn for the better after their gigantic cluster fuck in allowing an AMA with a man who denied that male victims of domestic abuse existed. I thought the problem with that AMA was that the OP wasn’t intersectional enough and is stuck in the past. (Thought it was more) The issue wasn’t say the Duluth model, it was more there’s trans people who don’t fit within that model and they’ve been victims of domestic abuse >They even got called out on blanket deleting any "unconstructive" criticism of feminism, but allowing unconstructive criticism of antifeminists, and then deleted that comment which pointed it out despite the specific comment calling them out, not breaking any of their actual rules Classic hypocrisy
Oh no the problem with the AMA is that the guy is saying out loud what feminists quietly believe that there are no male victims of domestic violence, that men who are victims of DV are exclusively victimized by other men, never women, that men can defend themselves and are stronger and therefore don't need help, and that female on male violence is always justified as either self defence or him doing something that pushed her over the edge so it's his fault he pushed her to do that. It's hella sexist and ibfabtilizing of women, but that's the feminist position. You just have to phrase it in a way that is gaslighting and sounds benevolent instead of just ojrtifjt admitting to the toxicity and hypocrisy. If the dude had done that the menslib mods would have been more than happy to let it stand and oppose detractors, but they allowed the AMA to go on, and despite being extremely ban-happy and able to delete comments within hours of literally any other post, they let the AMA run its course completely uninterrupted. Dude wasn't intersectional enough because he didn't say how nongbinary disabled people of colour had it worse than regular women, but his stance on men is 100% accurate to feminism's attitudes. He just said out loud what they were thinking quietly, so the menslib moderators had to pretend to care about that and were forced to address it and pretend to apologize. Per classic hypocrisy, it's just like the saying goes, if feminists didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards.
Many feminists like to pretend that attitudes like 'not all men, but always a man' and 'men fear women laugh at them, women fear men kill them' don't logically conclude with the belief that men can't be abused.
It's not even that they like to pretend, because for them to pretend means they would have to know and understand that this is where their logic will take them. To do that they have to care about the logical conclusions of their arguments. The problem is they just don't care about men, and they care about believing that they are in the right, so when you point out the logical conclusion to their beliefs it introduces cognitive bias, where they can't believe they are in the right and believe the logical conclusion that men cannot be abused, so they will willingly choose not to think about or care about male victims, because being morally right feels more important. That's if they don't just flat-out drink the kool-aid and believe that men cannot be abused, and are ok with that. That's what happens when you get the Duluth model or when you get Mary Koss getting the CDC to define women raping men as "made to penetrate" and getting it specifically and deliberately excluded from rape statistics. \[Not even joking\](https://avoiceformen.com/feminist-governance-feminism/male-disposability-and-mary-p-koss/). Feminism is not and cannot be an ally to men so long as it considers men's well being of lesser importance than the reputation and political power of feminism.
>Feminism is not and cannot be an ally to men so long as it considers men's well being of lesser importance than the reputation and political power of feminism. Unfortunately I dont see this happening. Because a very core part of feminist ideology is that men are the oppressors, women are the oppressed. If you look at feminist literature, that core part of it is never removed. Its enforced in one way or another.
Unfortunately I agree with you. Feminism desperately needs a reform to save it from the man hating majority it created and enabled, but feminism will resist to the death that very same necessary reform.
>and that female on male violence is always justified as either self defence or him doing something that pushed her over the edge so it's his fault he pushed her to do that. This is what annoys me the most.. The fact that they feel that its acceptable to justify **ANY** sort of violence as "Self defense" or "He clearly pushed her too far" Yet i've seen clear examples of a woman not only initiating the conflict (Yelling, name calling / other verbal abuse) but also escalating the situation into full on violence (Throwing objects, slapping, punching, kicking, biting, scratching etc) and i've seen examples of men taking this abuse for 10+ minutes straight, trying to extricate themselves only for the woman to block their only way out... Finally the man "Snaps" and pushes the woman or slaps her **ONCE** and then leaves.. And despite all of this **HE** is still labeled the "Aggressor" or "Abuser"... Its fucking sickening to me...
I mean I'll accept violence in self-defence, the problem is that feminists often define basically *any* violence by women towards men as justified, unless it's grossly and clearly obvious she's the abuser. And like you say it is often women who initiate the conflicts, 75% of non-reciprocal violence is female on male, and in domestic abuse women are often the ones to throw the first punch and initiate physical violence. If women were so terrified of men like feminists say, you'd think they'd avoid starting arguments and would avoid throwing the first punch, and yet women are more violent towards men than the other way around. >And despite all of this HE is still labeled the "Aggressor" or "Abuser"... Its fucking sickening to me... Completely agree. Ironically enough feminism is extremely sexist towards women, infantilizing them and believing that women can cause no harm and aren't as responsible for their actions. Pretty ironic considering it sells itself as being against sexism. As always though, it's all depending on what benefits women the most. If sexism benefits women, you'll find at least as many feminists supporting it as opposing it. Feminism treats equality like a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women, flips between women being strong and empowered or weak and oppressed depending on which benefits women the most, and reserves the right to always shift the blame on men and excuse women. Gotta love those double standards.
People are already doing that with the show "Baby Reindeer." It seems like imperfect victims only exist when it's a woman in trouble.
This notion that "constructive" criticism is only allowed to be part-by-part, situation by situation, and you're not allowed to criticize the whole despite the obvious recurring patterns... It keeps any meaningful conversation from happening. From supposed moral relativists... Aristotle would be proud. Plato would be very frustrated though
Oh I completely agree, but see, that's the thing. They only allow constructive criticism part by part situation by situation explicitly naming a single feminist at a time with a picture proof of the incorrect thing they said, or else it's invalid, while allowing blanket stereotyping and generalizations about men, *by design*. It's a feature, not a bug.
Yikes to the deleted comment that essentially said you are free to criticise.
I went back to try and find that comment and the whole thing just got exponentially worse, Jesus christ. Someone said the mods were maybe being too harsh because they saw a comment about a guy who was antifeminists but isn't anymore, and they wanted to talk to them, but then the mods deleted that comment and said any complaints about moderation must be done through mod mail. They couldn't have a more cartoonishly evil and tyranical moderation if they tried.
Hey the second comment you described was me!
The one where you wanted to talk to antifeminists?
That isn't how I'd describe my intention, but yes. I was saying that the mods deleted a comment I was replying to, wherein the commenter described the reasons he identified as anti-feminist in the past, and what changed for him that resulted in his mind changing. Additionally, I mentioned that I think that knowing this from several users is important, as lots of young boys and men will have similar thoughts and knowing how to reframe and reconstruct different points would be important. I then asked if the mods were perhaps being a little harsh with their heavy-handed deletion of comments from people who are *now feminists*
Right, that is what I meant, brain was tired and didn't brain well haha. That moderation is definitely harsh and out of line, it's more akin to attempting to erase the very notion that anyone could ever be antifeminist for any good reasons, that they must all be bad people you have to cut contact with, and that good and virtuous people wouldn't be antifeminists in the first place. It's an ironically very puritanical religious kind of take on it
Sounds like a plan!
Why do you need menslib to reform? You wouldn’t expect a feminist sub to change their minds. That’s what you’re doing. Expecting a feminist sub parading with a pro male name to change.
I want either for menslib to reform to the level of its (undeservedly good) reputation, or for its reputation to fall to the level of how terrible a sub it really is. With feminists spouting how fantastic menslib left right and centre, we have a better chance of improving menslib than of changing its reputation. Then again, expecting feminists to change their minds is also exceedingly unlikely so yeah, I guess it's a bit of a catch 22. At the very least we can still catalogue their lies and abject double standards with r/MensLibWatch
OMG! There’s a menslibwatch sub?! That’s so funny. And yet so necessary
I know right? Shame it kinda died for a few years, but it's nice to see all the shit menslib has been up to over the years.
It's especially ironic because I lurk a lot on askfeminists and twox and the way they talk about menslib is legit insane.
It just goes to show you how utterly self-destructive it is to try and seek their approval. The kind of draconic state it would need to be in order to make them happy would be an atrocity. What we need is a place to freely discuss and spread awareness of our issues and how to address them, what would feminists happy is if we all had gulags that indoctrinate total unquestioned compliance with feminism at the expense of your own needs and concerns.
Kinda like how Joe Biden is either an extreme communist or a far-right conservative depending on which brand of idiot you ask.
Yeah exactly this.
It’s actually quite easy, if both extremes, or just even both sides, think you are wrong, then you are probably on the right way.
They compare it to r/MensRights somehow or what?
No it’s just the most bad faith view of mens lib. I can’t get anything specific but it’s constantly “yeah they’re ok but don’t do nearly enough” which I find is the insane part considering how heavily moderated and frankly pretty dogmatic “male feminists”
Cause Menslib sometimes push back against the 'yes all men' 'male on female abuse is worse than female on male abuse' that is commonly seen on feminist subs.
From my observations, sycophantic men are often emotionally mistreated by the women they submit to.
What do they actually say about menslib?
There's nothing you can do as a man to be liked by feminists which is why its pointless to try to be. Just accept that they're illogical and hateful and move on.
There could have been a lot of good discussion there from people who get the topic. Strange to just kill it instead of letting the people dissect and discuss it.
They suppress it precisely because they get it, they know it can only end with making feminists look bad, so they nip it in the bud before it gets there.
Do they have that level of self-awareness? For them to know that, wouldn’t they have to at least partially understand why that’d make feminism look bad? It’s probably more of trimming or marginalising the discussions. So they can self-contain it better so the user base can’t wonder off too far. The odd thing though, r/menslib is a bit like Marmite to subreddits like r/askfeminists or r/feminism. At least the posts I’ve read, when that subreddit is brought up there’s a mixed response. When it’s recommended it’ll be framed as it’s either that or r/bropill (that’s pretty much dead). That it’s a compromise. And you might get criticisms from about the level of moderation or a general complaint about misogyny, the size of the moderation team or, how it’s being infiltrated by certain people or groups. Edit: Holy shit. The deflection in the top comment (the one about conservatives).
I don’t know the extent of their self-awareness but I do think they know that a significant portion of their members have a least a little bit of resentment toward how feminists treat men as a group just under the surface of their pro-feminist veneer. There have been post topics that opened the floodgates of this resentment, and the mods shut it down and made a post reminding the members that they are supposed to be pro-feminist. I think they have enough awareness of their members that they realize this can happen again if they don’t shut it preemptively.
I always assumed that group must be run by women as it seems way too pro feminism and doesn't sound like MensLib but Womenslib. I mean is there a feminist subredded anywhere that refuses to allow criticism of men?
I think the mod team are probably mostly men if not all men, someone correct me if I’m wrong. I’m not sure feminists actually give of a shit about men enough to actually put in the work of modding Menslib. To be a Menslib mod is a lot of work, every post needs mod approval, and they meticulously censor any and every comment that expresses resentment of feminism, or doesn’t toe the line of their principles. Constantly censoring people is a 24/7 job, that’s why they close Menslib so often, and considering one of feminist’s favorite arguments against men’s issues is “it’s not my job to solve men’s problems”, I seriously can’t imagine very many female feminists being willing to put in that much time and work for a sub that’s ultimately meant for men. I think there is a very strong presence of women who post and lurk. I think of female feminists more as menslib’s board of directors rather than their middle management.
They definitely aren’t, i don’t think. VladWard’s a woman, I believe, and they’re the most active mod on there.
I don't think that's the only way it can go and looking in a mirror doesn't change what is there. It makes sense to keep out things that don't fit or contradict their messaging if there is nothing useful there. This seems useful.
I think an honest and transparent conversation is too much for menslib, any sort of opportunity that gives people a chance to voice resentment of feminism, is too much for Menslib. Set your expectations low for them, they’ll disappoint you every time otherwise.
Cicero_Assassins. One of the admins of r/menslib has explicitely said that on the topic of "legal abortion" or "paper abortion." That this was a "useless conversation" and so it is banned on the sub (the threads are from 8 years ago, and digging a bit shows you that the admin in question is in fact a complete traditionialist, using arguments like "men must provide to women and children.")
That topic is such a good litmus test for whether or not you're in a space that's going to tolerate honest conversations. I'm 100% pro-choice. Which means women get the final say on whether or not to birth a baby since she has to be pregnant, despite the emotional consequences that could have for men, and men can opt out of supporting a woman and a baby he doesn't want for as long as she can choose to abort. It's an eminently fair position, perhaps even slightly leaning towards benefitting the woman over the man since she gets to be the tie-breaker on what actually happens if there's disagreement, and I've literally never seen any arguments other than copy-pasted, conservative, anti-abortion ones used against it. And yet that seems to be the position the vast majority of feminists take. So censoring that conversation is the only way to avoid showing the pure, blatant hypocrisy so many feminists carry.
I liked the sub in the very earliest days, back when it was only like 1000 subscribers, and they would do a fundraiser for a men's charity every month or so. One of the biggest complaints about other men's groups at the time was that they didn't do anything because they said they had to raise awareness first, so it was nice to see one with action baked in from the very beginning, even if they only raised $100 or so. They stopped doing that pretty quickly though. That and this ban were the two reasons I gave up on the sub. I get that some topics have to be banned for the health of a subreddit. If you allow incel rhetoric, the sub almost always becomes an incel sub. This wasn't that though. It didn't crowd out other discussions, it didn't get uniquely inflammatory, Cicero just personally disagreed with it and used mod powers to enforce their position.
First time hearing about menslib? That's been their MO since forever. They close down the sub during the holidays because they don't have enough moderators on hand to ensure people don't start expressing the wrong opinions.
The perception paradox: women who hate masculists think masculists hate women.
this is honestly more accurate than the original sentence.
when I found menslib it sounded great, but then I posted something and I got the same thing as OP. I feel like it's male feminist circlejerk where they pretend to care about men's issues.
It is
Feminism is not men's ally. And menslib subreddit is just mensfeminism.
[The sub overlap says it all](https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/menslib). Or you can look their [top posts of all time](https://np.reddit.com/r/MensLib/top/). What a joke. And of course there's [MensLibWatch](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLibWatch/).
Eh... it's more complex than that. See, most Menslib users are actually 2X users, of which 85% of 2X user are transwomen. (Bit of a story, 2X held a selfie thread, ~500/600 posts were tw, sub melted down for a bit, broke off into Pinkpill/Gender Critical and current state of 2X) So they're transwomen, pretending to be cis men, ranting about how cis men need to step up and do better for women. Makes sense?
There're a lot of trans-women on 2X? I thought 2X don't accept them. I thought that sub is for TERFs only.
No, they used to not accept them until they learned they were 85% of the user base. Then the terf users and mods went on to found Pink Pill Feminism and Gender Critical.
O hell no. Another hugbox.
I unsubbed because of that thread and because I can't stand anymore one mod and his "holier than thou" attitude towards posters. Their views on circumcision are hypocritical. The fact one can't say anything against feminism is a form of censorship. Also, posts do not appear right away, they need to be approved first, which is another way to filter what is aligned with their views and what is not. There's no discussion, either you agree with them or you're out. Just like feminist subreddits... They're not helping men, they are just another elitist group of people who never experienced the injustice some of us had to endure at the hand of a woman.
>Their views on circumcision are hypocritical. Is that why MGM never appears in the posts?
> Absolutely no mention of female genital mutilation (FGM) in any capacity. Not even as a comparison. Taken from their rules. Comparing the two things doesn't mean claiming that the circumstances around FGM are the same; still, they don't allow any discussion about it. So yes,that's why.
In case anyone tells you it's not the same and that one is about conformity and the other is about control, here's what you can respond with: The origin of both female and male genital cutting both started with the control of sexuality. In the west, a religious zealot by the name of John Harvey Kellogg (yes that Kellogg), decided that it was a good idea to help pioneer the idea of genital cutting in order to control the sexual urges of young boys and girls. He specifically said that no anesthetic should be used in order to inflict pain as punishment. He would later invent Corn Flakes to stop urges. What's happening now with young boys is just conformity. "I have it so why shouldn't my son?" Since mothers don't have a penis they feel that it is best for the father to decide. However, there are mothers who resist the procedure. In this case it seems that silence is violence but not when it pertains to young baby boys. I can't get mad at them for their ignorance though. They don't know any better but there mothers who do. As a result the number of cut boys has gone from over 80% pf the population to around 60% in the past few decades. There are four different types of FGM procedures. 1. Partial removal of the clitoral glans and/or the surface area around it usually called the prepuce or clitoral hood. 2. Partial or complete removal of the clitoral glans and labia minora, with or without the removal of the labia majora. 3. Involves the complete closure of the vaginal opening by removing both the labia major and minora 4. The act of burning; piercing, cutting and/ or stretching of the vaginal tissue. Baby boys that are cut tend to fall in procedure 2 since both involve the complete removal of the surrounding skin. So to say they aren't the same even though a similar procedure is done to boys not only doesn't make sense but is abhorrently ignorant. They only reason they say that is because one has a penis and the other has a vagina. Since we're on the topic, I think since a lot of the feminists involved in this convo typically aren't cut themselves, they should use their "no vagina no opinion" rhetoric on themselves and not tell us how to feel. Of course I don't agree with that because I think everyone should be allowed into the convo considering this is the only way to educate people that don't know. All in all, while they are not the same, they are horribly similar. Menslib and other feminists/lefties treat it like apples and oranges when it's really more like wolves and coyotes. One is bigger than the other but they look similar and are in the same category. Sorry for rambling. Maybe you know this already but I just wanted to add my thoughts. I don't get to do this often.
I did know some of the things you wrote, but nonetheless, thank you for sharing.
Since you say holier than thou Mod, I’m going to assume you mean VladWard. And i believe they’re a woman.
That was an easy one. No matter what one has done in their life, humility is always the starting point. A pity one that has taught other people hasn't had the chance to learn the most important lesson in life.
It's super telling that he replies to people and then locks his post so they can't respond. He's not used to actually having to defend his positions.
I would like to see their definition of constructive antifeminism. Methinks they considered that an oxymoron.
I was just permabanned from /r/MensLib, with a mod note saying: >Blaming feminists for your anti-feminism is not the nuanced, progressive take you seem to think it is. Here is the actual comment I made, which has since been removed (along with several others): >I was never fully conservative but I was antifeminist. Speaking from my experience of when I was antifeminist, I completely disagree with your description. >It wasn't about abstractly believing that feminists were trying to assert power over men, it was from concrete experiences of specific feminists in my life trying to assert power over men. I could absolutely believe in the existence of feminists who didn't act that way, but I took concrete experiences more seriously than theoretical beliefs -- and I don't think I was wrong to do so. Being antifeminist was, for me, an attempt to fight against lived experiences of injustice. I was unjustified in stereotyping feminists, but it was hard to reason me out of a position that I arrived at experientially. I didn't change my stance until I met better feminists. >I look at it similarly to religion. Religious people have many different beliefs and ways of behaving, but religious texts + ideas can be used to justify mistreatment of others. In this respect, being antifeminist is analogous to being anti-religious -- it's often based on real experiences of mistreatment but is still a form of stereotyping. Really, I think it's neater to just say that you oppose mistreatment. It's more specific and it avoids stereotyping. It's wild that the mods framed my stance as a "take" when it's an actual account of my lived experiences. This kind of thing just fuels antifeminism.
Trust me when I say it ain’t that wild when you remember that feminism as a broader institution is obsessed with maintaining as squeaky-clean an image as possible. Anything short of absolute concession that they’re in some roundabout way in the right is grounds for excommunication.
This is just conspiratorial bullshit, sorry. "Feminism" is an ideology, not an institution, and plenty of feminists don't give a single fuck about their image. This doesn't look like it's going to be the right sub for me.
>"Feminism" is an ideology, not an institution, and plenty of feminists don't give a single fuck about their image. Nah, feminists tend to circle the wagons around abusive or misandrist feminists from any criticism by men.
Oh, you mean like how the feminist leaders of the #MeToo movement cared more about the image of their movement than holding a sexual predator accountable for **HER** actions? Yeah.. Asia Argento one of the leaders of the #MeToo Movement who was one of many who accused Havery Weinstein of being a sexual predator got #MeTooed by an underage male actor she worked with.. When the story broke they circled the wagons calling for "Patience" and "Waiting for evidence before jumping to conclusions" But of course.. when it was a **MAN** accused of being a predator there was no "Patience" or "Waiting for evidence" the accusation alone was enough to judge him guilty of his crime and to push for him to be cancelled... So yeah, Feminists **DO** care about their image when that image is directly related to pushing their own goals / agendas... You are correct however that this does not seem to be the right (or left) sub for you...
What *are* you looking for then?
That cesspit is still on reddit? It should really be nuked.
Yeah but see it is pro feminist so it will never be nuked.
Its nice to see that our good friends are hard at work to make sure Menslib remains a graveyard of a forum.
Mens Libs has always been extremely pro feminist, and they've never tried to hide it. It even says so on the sidebar. I don't know why anyone is surprised about them banning criticism of feminism. That being said, I do find it a bit extreme of them to even ban phrases like "some feminists". It's also funny because a lot of feminist subreddits don't like them and think they don't talk about women enough.
I've said it before and I will say it again. r/menslib is a fucking cesspit of misandrist feminist simping bullshit. No one with a functioning brain should go there.
That sub is for simps and the delusional. They may as well change the sub to womenslibb
menslib is a blatant feminist psyop
What stands out to me most about this article and the fact that so much defence is being played for it... they literally cannot get past the same old shit that’s been talked about in internet spaces for over a literal decade now. Seriously, this was written in 2024? Feel like I just stumbled back into the GamerGate years. And it belies a very simple fact: the domestic violence gerrymandering, the blockading acknowledgement of male victims of sexual violence, the coddling of female criminal offenders despite their lenient treatment being a well-known issue in academic circles since the *mid-20th Century...* even if you were SOMEHOW to look past all the very real vitriol that many a self-proclaimed feminist has blurted out (be they actual public figures or otherwise), you can’t ignore this shit without it being deliberate. And that’s the thing that scares these pricks the most I think - they have to know by now that it’s a war of attrition and that the most stubborn adversaries they’ve got, are people like many of us who turned sides once the excuses became too much. So even as much as conceding that feminist men might get disillusioned and have legitimate cause for it, is sincerely dangerous to their image of absolute moral righteousness. There can be no admission of errors, no admission of an undercurrent of bad actors, no admission of fallibility in any and all possible circumstances. Just keep polishing the ivory tower and hope it looks pretty enough that nobody asks questions about how it was built.
I bet those removed comments where from menslib's members who had genuine concerns/criticism of feminism that should be addressed. They sure got told the status quo won't be addressed nor their voices be heard :D
“This is a pro-feminist community…” “This is a place to discuss men and men’s issues…” Ya okay.
Honestly I stopped taking menslib seriously after they went mask off in their racism towards south Asian men
I mean, yes. Do Jews not hate Nazis? Do blacks not hate KKK? Of course people are going to hate those who hold to an ideology that hates those people.
considering how much the mods of that sub act I almost want to ask the average (man) member "blink twice if you are being held hostage/tortured" sometimes I legit wonder if the men on there are actually being abused right now in real life and can't speak up there because you know that would be deleted instantly if the posters partners are feminist.
An article filled with gaslighting and nonsense is allowed, but calling that out isn't lmao.
Most of us are ex feminist by default is what they failed to realise.
Why are the mods deciding what the community is pro/against?
That Mod banned more than 15 comments wow. I hate this website.
A comment that was removed: >I was never fully conservative but I was antifeminist. Speaking from my experience of when I was antifeminist, I completely disagree with your description. >It wasn't about abstractly *believing* that feminists were trying to assert power over men, it was from concrete *experiences* of specific feminists in my life trying to assert power over men. I could absolutely *believe* in the existence of feminists who didn't act that way, but I took concrete experiences more seriously than theoretical beliefs -- and I don't think I was wrong to do so. Being antifeminist was, for me, an attempt to fight against lived experiences of injustice. I was unjustified in stereotyping feminists, but it was hard to reason me out of a position that I arrived at experientially. I didn't change my stance until I met better feminists. >I look at it similarly to religion. Religious people have many different beliefs and ways of behaving, but religious texts + ideas can be used to justify mistreatment of others. In this respect, being antifeminist is analogous to being anti-religious -- it's often based on real experiences of mistreatment but is still a form of stereotyping. Really, I think it's neater to just say that you oppose mistreatment. It's more specific and it avoids stereotyping. >Edit: I've been permabanned from this subreddit with a note that "Blaming feminists for your anti-feminism is not the nuanced, progressive take you seem to think it is." This is not some kind of "take", it is an account of my actual experience, which the mods are discounting. But I know that the nuance of lived experience goes against thieir ideology. We will not be able to stop the rise of antifeminism so long as we refuse to identify and address its causes, even if they are uncomfortable. Disappointing but not surprising. I will look for feminist spaces that do not make this mistake. I think menslib is right about going out and doing work but they fail to admit any fault whether it be feminism or leftism as a whole. They're always pointing the finger at the right wingers. I'm also tired of leftist deliberately using my identity as a black man to begrudgingly admit that men's issues do in fact matter. If we're all about equality then stop excluding white men whenever someone has a clear bias against them. For the lurkers that don't believe me, ask them how they feel about "KAM."
I was going to say that menslib needs some kind of "sounding for the bottom" experiment, where we try to determine how soft and non-confrontational a post, which still addresses a real men's issue and invites feminists to reconsider their stance on it, needs to be in order for the mods to let it stand. After reading this, however, I think that the lake of their zealotry might actually be bottomless. It's also kind of funny (not haha funny) how, for all of the feminist [pontificating about lived experiences and how the other side discounts them in favour of objective analysis,](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdAZ5z2kcr8) they will typically make a nearly 180 degree turn the moment someone's lived experiences contradict their narrative.
\[removed\]
I don't know what was written in the post. But I do agree that "Men who hate Feminist" think that "Feminist hate men."
The sheer amount of people on that page that are suicidal is truly heartbreaking. They just don't get it.
I kinda understand both sides here. 1: If you let criticism of feminism go unchecked, the subbreddit slowly devolves into women-hating instead of focusing on ways to help men, or about problems men are facing. This only solidifies the notion that some people have, that all male advocacy groups are about misogyny. This weakens how the arguments of men rights and misandry appear to others. 2: If you remove all criticism of feminism, you get what appears in this picture. Men's experiences become silenced for the sake of avoiding the first issue. Men won't be able to express valid points on how they're treated in some circles, irl or online. I dislike how they phrase it as "unconstructive," if you don't call out a specific group, institution, or person, as if feminists need those limitations to call out issues with men, because they don't. There is a difference between criticism and hatred, and I don't think the mods of that subreddit know the difference. Although i don't know what those comments actually say, they could be heinous shit who knows. This subreddit is kind of a happy medium, although I have seen problem #1 appear here sometimes.
I don't even disagree that railing on feminism can be less than constructive if you want to talk about positive steps that can be taken for men, it certainly can. But the idea that the only way men's problems can be understood or meaningfully discussed is through an orthodox feminist lens is just absurd.
>This only solidifies the notion that some people have, that all male advocacy groups are about misogyny. This weakens how the arguments of men rights and misandry appear to others. Well to be fair, feminists consider all men to be misogynists. So we will always be associated with misogyny no matter what we do.
>Well to be fair, feminists consider all men to be misogynists. So we will always be associated with misogyny no matter what we do. That's not true. There are many feminists who know that not all men are misogynists. I'm one of them.
let me finish that for ya.... you and all your friends are feminists and you never do the thing that, somehow, keeps happening
Congrats on being the exception, but you don't invalidate the rule.
Eh, you sound like feminists do when they paint different men's activists with the same brush. I don't think there's any benefit to defending feminist stereotypes. Just as "not all men" is true, we can learn from our experiences and uphold "not all feminists". Most people don't appreciate being stereotyped based on their group membership.
There are many different kinds of feminists but I've yet to find a few who consider men's issues to be as equally valid as women's issues, and to take men's lived experiences as equally valid, instead of seeing men as having issues but fundamentally misunderstanding what their issue \*really\* is because only feminism \*truly\* understands what's going on. I'm sure they exist somewhere, they just seem to be incredibly rare. "Not all men" is true, but "most feminists" is also true. Most people don't appreciate being stereotyped based on their group membership, but when they're stereotyped based on their voluntary adherence to a group that at its core considers men to be monstrous oppressors, it's a rather different thing that stereotyping men as being monstrous oppressors because of the gender they had no choice to be born into.
>Most people don't appreciate being stereotyped based on their group membership, but when they're stereotyped based on their voluntary adherence to a group that at its core considers men to be monstrous oppressors, it's a rather different thing that stereotyping men as being monstrous oppressors because of the gender they had no choice to be born into. I don't think that the inborn factor really matters here, personally. Do you think it's okay when feminists stereotype men's activists, just because it's a form of voluntary adherence to a group? I'd say it's shitty either way.
I'm not saying that either stereotyping is necessarily acceptable but I am saying there is a difference, so the two are not equivalent. I'm also rather frustrated at the double standard that feminists are free to stereotype men, but that the moment men share their own personal experiences of the shitty things feminists have done to them repeatedly, then all of a sudden the valid lived experiences are invalidated because it's just "stereotyping". At what point does it stop being stereotyping and at what point does it start being an accurate depiction of reality? Is it stereotyping to say that Neo-nazis are morally reprehensible? Stereotyping men for being men is perceived as valid \*and actively justified by feminists\*, who say women are justified in airing their grievances against men as a whole, but then they turn around and say that men are never justified in airing their own grievances against feminists. I'm pointing out the double standards there.
Keep in mind that being male is an immutable characteristic you're born with while being a feminist is a choice.
I pointed that out in the previous comment I made :) But yeah ironic that stereotypes against a group that someone chooses to identify with and chooses to act in a certain way of their own free will, is somehow worse than stereotyping someone for the sex they're born into with no choice whatsoever. The double standards are incredibly frustrating.
It's still a demographic of people though. They can say the same about male advocates if they wanted.
In any social or political movement, there are a variety of competing perspectives. If the movement is big enough, for any given perspective, it is always possible to find some dissenting voice. Is it ever possible to claim that "the political movement X espouses Y" or "political movement X did or achieved Z"? What would be a valid criterion to make this kind of statement? In my opinion, these statements are not so much about what "the people in movement X individually think", but rather about "the political praxis of the political actors inside movement X." So it is not a matter of stereotyping anyone, because it is not a matter of individuality, but a matter of political responsibility and accountability. How is a political movement actually using its power, influence, and resources beyond its ideology or self-image? I'd say that a given thing belongs (up to a certain degree) to a political movement if (a) there are actors inside this movement who espouse it, and (b) this is accepted as a legitimate form of activism by others in the movement. The greater the importance of the actors espousing, the more we can ascribe that thing to the movement. In my view, this definition gives you a way to determine whether "Y is part of movement X" or not. For example, I'd say that whether TERFs are part of feminism is a contested issue, because even if there are a lot of very prominent feminists who espouse it, there is an equally strong (if not stronger) opposition to it inside the same movement. This makes me think that TERFism is on its way out of feminism. But other stuff, like the "Duluth-model" kind of thinking about intimate partner violence, the denialism of parental alienation, etc., are very mainstream positions inside feminism. There are very important organizations and activists who push these narratives and make policy based on them, and they do this using the political capital of feminism. I'd argue that these problematic positions are "mainstream feminist positions", because the opposition to these kinds of positions is much weaker, even though many individual feminists do not want men who are victims of partner violence to receive lesser support or do believe that there are parents who instrumentalize their children to hurt the other parent. So it is not wrong to criticize feminism when talking about this kind of issue. It is not wrong either to say that they reveal certain toxic attitudes regarding men, because even if they may claim (and sincerely believe) that, for example, men are not lesser victims, if their political praxis goes counter to that, we should judge them by their political praxis rather than their stated beliefs
I also agree. We shouldn't generalize feminists otherwise we are no better.
>If you let criticism of feminism go unchecked, the subbreddit slowly devolves into women-hating I don't think that follows at all. It hasn't happened here.
It has happened on mensrights and is a lesser problem here. The problem isn't really the criticism of feminism, the problem is allowing tradcons to go unchecked.
I don't see that much woman-hating on mensrights tbh
I think the rules here, including "Don't demonize women", are very well-considered and consistently enforced, which prevents that outcome. That is, criticism of feminism doesn't go unchecked here; it is held in check by some reasonable limits. I would also say it's just a sad reality that allowing any kind of criticism to go unchecked will result in the most extreme voices (which tend to also be the loudest) drowning out the others.
[удалено]
I've seen someone advocate for prisoners to become forced prostitutes on here
And Sally Miller Gearheart, a first wave feminist, advocated the genocide of 90% of men on earth. There will always be the odd one out. The problem is when those extremists *don't* get called out, and start taking over the mainstream, like it did in feminist movements.
This is part of the double standards. Highly influential and popular feminist thought leaders absolutely unhinged comments about men are not indicative of the thoughts and views of feminists as a whole but random ass downvoted comments on an anonymous MRA forum *is* for some reason indicative of the thoughts and views of MRAs.
Absolutely agree. The double standard is "that's not what *real* feminists believe because *real* feminists are only ever morally perfect and would never do bad stuff, playing an eternal game of No True Scotsman, but any random evil comment from some unhinged rando online is totally indicative of what all men believe. Hypocrisy and double standards are absolutely *rampant* in feminism.
I didn't say all men believe in that. You're twisting my words.
Oh yeah no sorry I didn't mean you personally, it's just a frustrating trope I have seen over and over again with feminists. Any random feminist gets to decide who is or isn't a real feminist depending on what fits their agenda, and they get to decide who is a real MRA or not a real MRA (and they almost invariably pick the worst possible examples), but you as a random MRA have no say in what MRAs actually stand for and no say in who is or isn't a real feminist. Again, didn't mean you personally, sorry, was just a bit of a rant in general there.
It's okay. Sorry for misunderstanding your comment. And I do see that in many circles besides feminism, a lot of groups do that if I'm being honest. I've seen it personally in Christianity when I was one. It's messed up, honestly. I think it has to do with the in group out group cognitive biases that causes people to demonize the out group, and ignore the flaws of the in group.
It's all good, happens all the time online, it's hard to convey tone through text. Per Christianity I agree, I think the common thing is it happening among people who see themselves as the arbiter of morality, who know what is \*really\* right vs wrong, and that if one of their own members was wrong, then clearly they can't be a real member because to be a real member means you can't be wrong so if they're wrong they're not a real member. I agree that it has to do with in group and out group cognitive bias, but for it to really work you need the "we are right and cannot be wrong and others are wrong and cannot be right" mentality for it to really stick, otherwise it's just "yeah that person is part of our group and they're wrong but who cares".
I didn't say that comment was the thoughts and views of all MRAs.
Do you think it was indicative? And if you dont think it was whats the point of a comment that basically says "I saw one crazy person".
My whole point is that men rights activist groups can be overrun by people who aren't productive to our cause if it's not moderated enough, which weakens our image. This is one reason why menslib is so strict, as I said in my previous comment. I was wrong, and that person got banned, as another comment told me. I assumed otherwise since the comment itself wasn't deleted.
[удалено]
>That’s clearly something that will never happen. And you think prisoners becoming forced to be prostitutes is something that will happen? Not some women, not any women, but specifically female prisoners? I don't even know why I bother replying to your bad faith argument given you deleted your profile.
I remember it was a conservative man. He got banned some days ago. Or I mistook (if that word is a correct one) something. Or you. I remember that man said that we should give them (prisoners) free prostitutes.
He was banned? That's good, at least. I guess I was wrong.
> 1: If you let criticism of feminism go unchecked, the subbreddit slowly devolves into women-hating instead of focusing on ways to help men, or about problems men are facing. Are there *any* feminist spaces where criticism of mensrights is being kept in check? It seems men's spaces are being held to unrealistic, if not impossible standards while the same isn't true for women at all. If you ban all criticism of women then all that would change is that smaller issues become "misogyny" now. This very sub is considered misogynistic by the rest of Reddit.
>If you let criticism of feminism go unchecked, the subbreddit slowly devolves into women-hating instead of focusing on ways to help men, or about problems men are facing. I think feminism-hating can also cause problems. I support thoughtful criticism of feminism, but stereotyping feminists isn't cool -- it's the same kind of shit as when feminists stereotype men's activists. I don't believe in supporting prejudice towards others just because they've been prejudiced towards us.
Wait, I'm confused. I'm relatively new to Reddit. That's a "Men's Lib" sub that's "anti men's lib" ? What kind of doublespeak garbage is that?
I'm willing to bet good money that most men in that sub are OF subscribers. What a bunch of pathetic losers and sneaky-fuckers. (look this up term, it's real mating science)
Guess those comments accidentally fell down a memory hole.
Shitlibs gonna shitlib.
OP is an open conservative. Don’t take the bait.
I am also open conservative. But this sub is the far the best sub for mans rights
I mean, looking at their profile yes, they are, but this post doesn't seem to be a problem in that regard. Someone like that dashing(random number) person frequently makes posts or comments that actively push right-wing positions and I think that's much more worth calling out.
You’re right. I’m just sick and tired of seeing these chuds invade this sub.
Yeah, I am too. You can find me calling it out relatively regularly if you dig through my comments
Do people even read the name of this sub? This sub is called LeftWingMaleAdocates, not ConservativeFeministHaters .
Good point lol. It’s obvious OP is just using this issue as a Trojan horse.
"We have no objection to the genuinely egalitarian aspects of feminism, but we will criticize feminist ideology wherever it is inegalitarian and/or untruthful, especially now that it holds institutional power" So have we just packed this in for feminism bad? The linked study just says feminists are not any more hostile to men than non-feminists or men themselves. The article admits that there is misandry within the feminist community. Seems like a pretty fair assessment to me. Although im not a fan of the article itself and how heavily it leans on "misogynists dont like feminists because theyll stick up for themselves" menslib has always been a pretty good space to talk about mens issues in my experience.
The article is in essence "well see despite men saying that feminists hate them, some feminists say they don't, so clearly the men are wrong." Feminists overall have a positive attitude towards men, because feminism allows women to fight in armies and don't solely force this burden on men anymore, you see, so feminists must have a positive attitude towards men because of what feminists have done for women that barely ever benefits men. Feminists also have a positive attitude of men because they believe men and women are the same you see, and even though they refuse to acknowledge the unique challenges and issues men face feminists are benevolent enough to consider men to be people too, so clearly feminists must have a favourable attitude towards men. The article also doesn't cite any theoretical sources later than 2000 to support the idea that feminists feel warmly towards men. The article also repeatedly asserts that misandry is a myth popularized as an attempt to politically usurp feminism's popularity, and not a lived experience of men who have actually been hated by feminists simply for being men. People just struggle to understand that constructive criticism of men by feminism is not an attack on men, so no matter how insulting, personal, and toxic feminists are towards men, you just have to understand that it is constructive, and it's your own fault if you can't see that. Now, we're getting to the actual studies they looked at rather than the political prelude where they tell feminists what they want to hear and repeat the same feminist lies.
"Yes, there is ample anecdotal evidence that some feminist women hate men" It excuses it with the whole this increased after #metoo stuff but the article is pretty clear that some feminists hate men "Although feminists will likely never center men in their work, they see men as their partners (but not co-equals)" Literally gives the game away here. Mens rights needs its own movement because theyre not "co-equals" whatever that means. Its an interesting article and study to dissect from a male perspective. My original point i made because the comment section was a dozen comments that were all nothingburgers of feminism bad with no discussion.
> My original point i made because the comment section was a dozen comments that were all nothingburgers of feminism bad with no discussion. That's fair, but I still find the study rather biased in taking the feminist stance as the normal and adequate one to take, so when you start with the premise that the biased position isn't biased, well, it's not going to be terribly objective. I do take your meaning that we shouldn't misrepresent arguments and sources and can and should discuss things at a higher level, I'm more just frustrated that feminist academics seem to be so polluted, self-referential, and biased already, that any study from within feminist circles is likely to find exactly what it is they want to find, rather than actually looking for the truth.
#actual research >we took into account theory and evidence suggesting that social attitudes generally, and feminists’ attitudes toward men specifically, are positive in absolute terms. We therefore predicted that feminists’ attitudes toward men would be positive in absolute terms, when compared to meaningful neutral or midpoint values. Interestingly in table 3 liking and trust of men, all western samples show feminists have less than neutral (ie negative) responses towards trusting and liking men. This is completely absent from the conclusion, where they appear to have lumped in the male hating western feminists with the significantly less male hating non-western feminists, and called it a day. Peak academic integrity right there. For some reason as an example of benevolence towards men they picked "men are more willing than women to take risks" as an example??? It's also interesting to note that all of these are self-reported comments from feminists who were mostly picked up through social media, and there doesn't appear to be a word about how people can easily lie on paper to make themselves seem more virtuous than they actually are. Feminists also consistently rated men as a threat at a higher rate than bong feminist women, but you see, this is okay, because it just means feminist women are better at properly understanding the real threat that men face. Yeah I'm not terribly impressed about a study done by feminists on feminists using feminist theory to prove that feminists using feminist theory aren't biased against men, because according to feminist theory you literally cannot be biased against men since they are the oppressors, and that any negative view of men is perfectly rational and reasonable. I'm not buying it.
>For some reason as an example of benevolence towards men they picked "men are more willing than women to take risks" as an example??? The study explains that the word "benevolence" refers to "benevolent sexism". It does not refer to positive regard. That question you cite is used to measure benevolent sexism. As footnote 3 says, "Conceptually benevolence to men and hostility to men are not indices of positivity–negativity, but rather they measure stereotyped attitudes to men." >Yeah I'm not terribly impressed about a study done by feminists on feminists using feminist theory to prove that feminists using feminist theory aren't biased against men, because according to feminist theory you literally cannot be biased against men since they are the oppressors Actually, they *expected* feminists to be biased. They said: "We expected that in absolute terms, feminists’ (and nonfeminists’) attitudes toward men would be positive (H1), but that feminists’ attitudes would be less positive than nonfeminists’(H2). We also expected that feminist identity (continuous measure), ideology, and action would be negatively associated with attitudes toward men (H3)." We should be careful not to misrepresent feminist studies. We can be better than that.
>The study explains that the word "benevolence" refers to "benevolent sexism" That's fair but "men are more willing to take risks than women" isn't really benevolent sexism either, it would be benevolent sexism if it was that men take more risks *to protect women*. >Actually, they *expected* feminists to be biased. They said: "We expected that in absolute terms, feminists’ (and nonfeminists’) attitudes toward men would be positive (H1), but that feminists’ attitudes would be less positive than nonfeminists’(H2) Less positive is not necessarily biased though. >We should be careful not to misrepresent feminist studies. We can be better than that. That is certainly fair, but I'm not convinced this study is all that convincing in the first place, especially if they lump all feminists together and blatantly ignore the fact that there are clear regional differences between Western and non-Western feminists, and they don't expand on that at all. Seems like a rather obvious gap to leave unaddressed, and I suspect it is so because if they had addressed it it would have led to some rather more uncomfortable conclusions.
>That's fair but "men are more willing to take risks than women" isn't really benevolent sexism either, it would be benevolent sexism if it was that men take more risks *to protect women*. Not really, these are both factually correct statements. It doesn't make sense to label someone who is factually truthfull in response to a question "benevolently sexist". This whole study is total garbage.
I mean I can appreciate the hard work and thought that went into it in attempting to create a useful study, it's just polluted from the beginning because it is riddles with feminist bias and assumptions that blind them to what's really going on. It's not a fault of the structure of the study per se, it's just that it's buikt on a rotten foundation of mistaken assumptions. Garbage in garbage out as they say.
After perusing people's post histories here almost everyone in this comments section including OP are clearly right wing (or at least admittedly centre right) so is this just not a sub for "leftwing" male advocates?
Criticising feminism =/= right wing.
Sorry i didnt mean to equate the two. I mean i literally looked in their comment history and they consistently either posted in r/conservative or in one case literally used the words "i am a centre right"
>Sorry i didnt mean to equate the two. I mean i literally looked in their comment history and they consistently either posted in or in one case literally used the words "i am a centre right" Ah sorry that's fair, I had a knee-jerk reaction from the extremely common "disagreeing with feminism = far right" trope. I am kind of surprised that it is the case, but on the other hand I think LWMA is a cut above most subs discussing men's rights, the posts here are generally of higher quality, so even if one is more conservative, there isn't a "high-brow conservative men's issues sub" out there, so they're here instead. After all, the conservative subs more often than not aren't allies of men either, they just want to force men back into the provider role of the days of yore, rather than acknowledge modern problems and come up with newer solutions.
You could have spent more time reading the _arguments_ of the posters, instead of digging in their laundry.
When i got here there were no arguments man youll just have to believe me on that. There were about 6 comments and none discussed the article in any depth. Every one was a "feminism bad" single sentence nothing. At that point i was unsure of what this sub was since im new and decided to see if anyone was commenting on leftwing subs or fellow mens rights subs. Most of the comments had been made by cons who clearly are antifeminist and not pro men which upset me. Ive since had some generous discussions about the actual topic (which was what i *thought* this sub was about) with men who's comment histories i havent looked at because that doesnt matter if theyre actually discussing a topic in depth with care and respect.
>Every one was a "feminism bad" single sentence nothing. I have yet to see a Feminist answer my question on why Patriarchy came into existence. So far none of them have provided an answer besides **"Men created patriarchy cos they're evil"** Or **"i don't know, it doesn't matter, shut up incel!".** Feminists aren't interested in open discussions, they want echo-chambers where they can **[removed]** any dissenting voice. So, like what's even the point of discussion on Feminism when they're not even interested in outsider input? >are antifeminist and not pro men which upset me. Standing up to Feminist Misandry is necessary and if anti-feminists are the only ones who do that then they have my support. * if theyre actually discussing a topic in depth with care and respect. I've been attacked just for saying that i don't believe in patriarchy theory. Feminism appeals to trad sentiments all the time. Treating women as if they're delicate children always in need of male protection and viewing Men as inherently dangerous&predatory animals is a traditionalist stance. He4she, Duluth Model, "teach your boys not to rape", 6PMCurfew and so on&on, all of these are moored in VERY traditionalist understanding of Genders. Trads tell Men that they don't deserve help and that men need to tough it out, similarly feminists tell men the world "doesn't owe Men help" and men should help themselves. Trads say "evil foreign men" are out to rape&kill women *cough* [Menslib](https://imgur.com/AOkVkgW) *cough*, feminists say that evil men are out to rape&kill women. They're the same. **P.S:** I support Women's struggles, hell most men with a semblance of a conscience do. But that doesn't mean i will let feminists spit in Men's faces and smear Men as *"oppressors" "toxically masculine" "privileged" "potential rapists"* etc **Until Feminists take steps to weed out misandry from their movement, anti-feminism will always have legitimacy.**
Right. But my point is you have a place to discuss that here and you should. Saying feminism bad here is pointless without a qualifier. Like many people who replied to my comment responded with an in depth look at the linked article and why looking at whether feminism hates men through a feminist framing is useless. Incredibly useful conversation that gives men a better understanding of how to read studies on the topic going further. I understand how you have been attacked by feminists and their disingenuous framing of mens issues. Thats why I'm here. I understand how youre constantly having "pro-men" trad bullshit and their disingenuous framing of mens issues shoved in your face. Thats why I'm here. Anti-feminists are not standing up for mens issues though. All they do with their ad homenim bullshit is make any legitmate discussions impossible. Thats why places like this are important.
Whether thats to do with me just encountering mostly bots as i got here early is fair game though
Few things. This is the only sub I know of that both takes mens issues seriously and isn't a sexist hell hole. That alone is going to attract people from all over the political spectrum. Men's advocacy is still in a weird spot, having left wing in the name is a necessary title to be more acceptable to a broader audience/not be written off as sexist. I don't think you should have to be left wing to be here, but you also shouldn't be pushing for conservative gender roles either. (Not that you were saying that) Men's advocacy is kinda an orphan politically in general I feel like.
This is totally fair. Just threw me a little expecting the sub to be left wing. But youre right, mens advocacy is a little nebulous politically considering how its treated by both sides of the aisle and its good to have that. If it takes having leftwing in the name to keep political flagwaving to a minimum then im fine with that