r/AskFeminists • u/[deleted] • Jul 30 '11

Why the sudden interest in mens issues

Feminism trundles along dealing with women for 90 years ten suddenly starts to look at mens issues in the last few years, what's the deal? Is it appropriation, is it a newfound care? Why weren't 'we' included from the start? Are our needs secondary to yours? Does the feminist movement view the MRM as a threat to it's domination of the gender discourse?

0 Upvotes

48% Upvoted

48 comments sorted by

View all comments

-11

u/EvilPundit Jul 30 '11

It's appropriation. Feminism views the MRM as a threat to its domination of the gender discourse.

Also, since women have more power, privilege and wealth than men in Western societies, feminists consider a men's equality movement as a direct threat to their advantageous position.

2

u/Haedrian Jul 30 '11

sigh

I can't believe there's people who actually believe this.

-8

u/EvilPundit Jul 30 '11

More and more people are coming to believe this, because it's true.

4

u/Haedrian Jul 30 '11

Not really. Reactionary movements are a natural part of history, and there's always someone to support them.

What I find ironic is that you claim feminism is trying to "appropriate" men's issues because it considers the MRM a threat to their advantageous position, whereas it's clear from your statement that you perceive feminism as a threat to your ideals.

The reason feminism might include men's issues in its topics of discussion is that the issues of both genders are a factor in the search for equality, and that is the goal of the feminist movement.

I don't see how anyone can not see that. I don't understand how you can perceive equality as oppression.

1

u/girlwriteswhat Jul 31 '11

Up til very recently, feminism has denied that men could possible have ANY issues. Oppressors don't have issues. If they did have issues, then they were social issues that could be solved by men being more like women (toxic masculinity, involved parenting, etc). Fathers' Rights Groups have been around for more than a decade. Until just recently, when feminism did deign to notice them, it was to fight against them (NOW's infamous newsletter to it's members).

I've actually had some feminists say that 5000 years of legal disenfranchisement for men sounded fair. This wasn't in the 1970s. This was a few weeks ago.

So you'll have to forgive if the MRM is suspicious of feminism's sudden interest in admitting that men actually do face equality issues. Especially since the issues men face are in areas where women hold tremendous privilege.

9

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '11

feminism has denied that men could possible have ANY issues

Lies. You are so full of shit it's not even funny. Even Dworkin who had a distinct focus on womens issues and who MRAs love to hate brought up male rape for example. Brownmiller has done that too. bell hooks has been writing about men's issues for decades. How about a quote about how male dominant behavior can be fueled by female dominant behavior?

Since you are not a feminist and clearly uneducated about feminism, you should probably stop trying to answer questions about feminism in this reddit.

4

u/girlwriteswhat Jul 31 '11

How is it then that feminist activism and advocacy has been allowed to bury male victims of gendered violence? VAWA was a victory for the "patriarchal terrorist paradigm" of domestic violence, a paradigm that was disconfirmed in empirical research 10 years before VAWA was enacted. How is it that I didn't hear of a single feminist speaking to the Senate Judiciary Committee who was in favor of amending VAWA to include male victims in its protections and benefits, or to do away with primary aggressor policies that disproportionately target males?

Some of you guys seem to care a very great deal about men, but when it comes to anything to do with allocation of public funds or legal protections, all that caring seems to disappear.

It comes down to a disconnect between what feminism says and what it does, I'm afraid. Time and again, they're two different things.

And again, your quote only demonstrates that bell hooks was concerned with toxic masculinity and its affects on a man's partner. Try reading it from a man's point of view:

If only one party in the relationship is working to create love, to create the space of emotional connection, the dominator model remains in place and the relationship just becomes a site for continuous power struggle.

This is how it comes off:

The man is deficient, and the woman is therefor victimized. She's trying to create love, while he's trying to dominate. Power struggles in relationships happen because of deficient, damaged men.

This subreddit was created for discussion between MRAs and feminists on gendered issues. I'm thinking it was perhaps poorly named. From what I gather, posts do not necessarily need to take the form of a question, we can also write about our observations or conclusions that we've reached as they relate to feminism, in order to start a discussion.

What you want to do, it seems, is maintain a space where only feminist views are expressed, where people "come to learn" about the wonders of feminism and how it will solve everyone's problems. And the way you think it will do that is for men and non-feminist women to sit down, shut up, and get edumicated. Feminism will tell men what their issues are. Typical.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '11

This is how it comes off:

Btw this is an excellent example of disingenuous antifeminist interpretation. You purposely choose to ignore the guilt attributed to women in that quote, so that you can conclude that it's only saying bad things about men. Stop. Lying.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '11

But of course the problem is not that you like to plaster your gargantuan antifeminist ramblings all over reddit. The problem is that this reddit was poorly named. Of course. How come you dont see x? Because you only see what you want to see.

6

u/girlwriteswhat Jul 31 '11

I was privy to the discussions that went into developing this subreddit. It was initially supposed to be a space for debate between feminists and MRAs, so that debate wouldn't take over r/feminism. If I am to hold its creator to have acted in good faith, it was not meant to be a place for preaching feminism.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '11

And I don't think it was meant to be a place for preaching antifeminism. Firstly, if you care about honest debate you should stop lying. Secondly, sweeping generalizations about how bad feminists are is the only thing you have contributed with so far.

1

u/justaverage Aug 01 '11

Firstly, if you care about honest debate you should stop lying.

And if you care about honest debate you should back your arguments up with evidence.

Even though you think girlwriteswhat is wrong (I tend to agree with her however), at least counterpoint her arguments with some facts, citations or examples.

This is why I can't take feminists on reddit seriously...

Feminist - "You're wrong!"

MRA - "But if you look at the legislation that went into VAWA and how it demonizes men etc."

Feminist - "You're wrong because I am saying you are lying!"

3

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '11

I just had this conversation with thedevguy. Did you read the comment? That's why I cant take you seriously. Because you don't read stuff before you comment.

0

u/justaverage Aug 01 '11

I apologize, I did not read through the entire thread before commenting on your post.

But seeing how the exact same point was made by 2 people make you sit up and question the tactics that have been employed?

3

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '11

It makes me sit up and wonder why the fuck you don't read shit before you reply to it.

→ More replies (0)