Required reading for male feminists

Post Reply New Topic

I get what everyone is saying about some feminists being radical.

But from everything I'm seeing, it looks a lot like radical feminism has become mainstream feminism.



I know this is a YouTube video, but Brittany Sellner has the data to back up everything she says.

The rational wiki of Brittany Sellner is not exactly positive, it shows that she is alt-white and a white nationalist, so I think her framing should be taken with some salt.

The thing is that mainstream feminism is not disputing that those problems you listed earlier do not exist, and the main problem associated with how groups like MRA use these issues is that they often don't have any answers to them. You probably could associate things like a shorter than average lifespan on men because of toxic masculinity, where they are expected to act tough, keep all their problems bottled up inside and not seek help like going to a doctor. This one of the type of things feminism calls out as toxic masculinity, while other groups that fight them will say things like men should just be allowed to act like men and take offense to a Gillette commercial.

Men treated as disposable over women is an aspect of the patriarchy, which can sound ironic if you think that the patriarchy is just about giving men power, but it often about keeping in systems that mostly keep the most powerful men in power while selling the narrative that men are stoic and strong. That men should provide for their families and women should be the caretakers at home. If you want men to have equality in child custody cases and sentencing where men are otherwise treated as more dangerous, you are going to want to break that system where men are the workers and women are the caretakers, which is mostly coming through with feminism.

But are the anti-feminist stuff you are watching actually advocating for these changes attitudes. For instance Brittany in one sentence belittled the validity of a career woman over being a mother, so men should still be the breadwinners, and then just gives largely the answer to fight against any discussion over toxic masculinity. She might have worded it nicely, but it still sounds like her answer is just to perpetuate a dichotomy of male and female roles and not have introspection of what toxic masculinity is, because apparently toxic masculinity is all masculinity.

So basically, blame men for men's problems. Just like they blame men for everything else.



I'm not saying I agree with her right wing stances. But as I said before, she does show the data that backs up what she is saying about how men are treated. These right wingers and MRAs wouldn't be my first choice, but nobody on the left will talk about men's issues.

If feminists took all the issues men face seriously, they wouldn't be constantly shouting about how "privileged" we are.



And how many times have feminists belittled the validity of being a mother over being a career woman?

No?
It is about blaming the patriarchy. Just because the patriarchy might on average benefit men more, push masculinity and strong and femininity as weak, it does not mean that men are not also victimised by it. It is like you don't understand feminism principles at all and how gender equality should help everyone.




Regardless of whether you say that you agree with their stances, you are being influenced by their rhetoric. That data she brought up does not inherently have to support her anti-feminist agenda, as I said she does not actually prescribe any answers other than a vague idea of be nice to men, after she spent the first part creating a narrative that feminism is inherently anti-men.

Modern feminism is all for men being able to be open about their feelings and not needing to keep to a rigid idea of masculinity. Look into things like MRA like Brittany mentioned, and you will see that they are all for things like men acting like men. And a lot of that is just a click away from incels that push the idea that their lack of success in romance is because women are shallow and think that they deserve women to date them




It is not about one being more valid than the other, it is about choice, it always has been in feminism. That a couple could even decide that the man could be the primary caretaker.

Let me ask you a question, what do you think the term "toxic masculinity" means?

I only linked that video because of the data it contained. I would've chosen a video on this matter from a more left-leaning perspective if I could find one.



Feminists have attacked countless women for making choices they don't like, whether that choice was to focus on home and family life or star in porn.



Social attitudes that enforce that men must be tough, behave violently, suppress their emotions, and otherwise avoid anything that would make them appear feminine.

Btw, women do play a large role in enforcing toxic masculinity. Particularly when it comes to mating choices.

To clarify: What the anti-prostitution feminists believe is that all prostitutes have been forced into it. Based on that belief, the anti-prostitution feminists generally favor the "Swedish model" -- decriminalizing prostitutes themselves but criminalizing their clients and employers, and they favor programs to help prostitutes transition to other kinds of work.

So their belief is not self-contradictory. But it is nevertheless wrong. I knew some ex-prostitutes when I was younger, and they were definitely not forced into it.

... which is actually a correct viewpoint for many people.

It becomes a problem only if you adopt it as a some sort of total life philosophy, and thus an excuse not to work on developing your strengths. But that was not its original intended purpose.

The concept of "intersectionality" makes sense in the context of an alliance of overlapping civil rights movements, which was its original context.

It also makes sense as a sociological term, when analyzing social hierarchies.

The term "intersectionality" is consistent with (and may have been ultimately derived from?) mathematical set theory, as in the intersection of two or more sets.

People sound really uneducated when they say 'nowadays radical feminism is normalised...'

BS.

SJW style, liberal feminism (the kind I like btw) is normalised.

If a woman decides that she hates anyone who is AMAB, mainstream feminists will just call her a transphobe.

If she decides to run off into nature and form a female only commune, even if it is a trans inclusive one, people - including feminists - will think of her as being a bit strange.

If you read the books by the more fringe aspects of the 1970s feminists, this stuff was being advocated for... Around the same time that the black rights movement was talking about 'back to Africa' and white socialists were living together in communes. When was the last time, honestly, you heard of someone going to live in a commune & splitting everything off & calling the cat the 'head of the household' (ok that last one is cute).

This was ages ago. My mother's childhood.

When educated people say 'radical feminism' they don't mean 'extreme feminism' they mean 'roots feminism'. Back to its roots. Its roots being standing up for androgynous personality, cis females. An extremely narrow focus type thing. Useful in some ways sure but still really narrow & blind to other aspects.

Modern feminism is intersectional and that is a good thing.

It's 2021. Valerie was writing over 50 years ago! When my mother was a baby!

Second wave feminism sucks, no arguments here.

Explains a lot.

Makes me wonder what people study at university where they don't come across more academic sources for this stuff than bloody youtube lol.

I think that the majority of those cases of being criticised is if a woman rather than just choosing to focus on family they implied that it is the role of the wife/mother/woman. They act like it is more moral to have that role. And I have already talked before about what a SWERF is, and that you can find feminists within the porn community and stuff, we call out those feminists as SWERFs, and if you have not heard that word, I don't know what to tell you. Feminism is again about choice, and with associated beliefs in also trying to reduce coercion.

I think that you will find that feminism and much of the similar Left wing ideology is pretty sex positive, while the conservatives and otherwise right wing are much more into the likes of slut shaming. Recent movements are especially focusing on stopping women from fighting each other on stereotypes, such as criticism of the "not like other girls" trope, where you would see girls shaming others for being a bimbo or something. Some of my favourite inversions of this were showing that they can be supportive for what they like, up to and including being girlfriends, because it is unfortunate that girls/women are made to tear at each other. And femineity can have different forms in different people.




And feminism does more to fight these things than those who criticise feminism. That video you had of Brittany saying all those facts literally finished off with saying that the fix is to shut down any discussion of toxic masculinity, to cancel anything that does, and frame the topic like it is a criticism of all masculinity. She is an example of what you should be referring to as women can play a role in enforcing toxic masculinity.

And, not an attack or anything, but you saying that a problem from women are their "mating choices" in perpetuating toxic masculinity, is a big red flag. It sounds a whole lot like incel ideology, with saying that all men want bad boys or something like that, and it can give people ideas of what real reasons might be that women don't act too nicely. Sure, there are some shallow women out there, but no more than men, although women generally are under more pressure to worry about their appearance. Incels will often blame feminism as some element of corrupting women into not giving them a chance or something, they often don't realise that they can be projecting some misogyny based on their own issues that will have women reacting badly.

One is not-misogynist if they just do things like tip their fedora and go "m'lady", it is often these ideas of what being respectful to women is about. Most of the time they want to be treated as equals, and if they pick up that you are not doing that they might push back in ways that incels often think is just shallow. I have heard that confidence is the most important part, not pulling some sort of trick you might find from a pick up artist who tells you how to woo the ladies. Of course you can still find shallow women, but if that is a problem they don't have to be worth your time, if you want other people (such as the other genders) to be kind, start with yourself in not projecting other people as shallow or that you want something in return. None of this could apply to you, and if it doesn't that is great, but I think you need to start by stop stereotyping women by saying they are the cause of problem by their "mating choices"

Yeah, that is what is mostly attributed some of the toxic elements that boiled down to just a redefining of what femineity should be in the opposite direction that removed choice. Perhaps some element was warranted as course correction, but it left a number of groups behind, which later waves have tried to correct.

So basically they're failing to listen to what these prostitutes are telling them.

I don't mean overgeneralize. I just meant that its a common trend in dating culture.

When we are discussing “second wave feminism” are we discussing the “Women’s Liberation Movement” of the late 60s and 70s, Gloria Steinem etc? That did not suck. The main emphasis was that women should not be stuck at home serving their husbands, they are capable and should have the option to have careers and be compensated equally to men. They were anti porn because at the time and probably still the industry was very exploitative and dangerous to the prostitutes who were often teenage runaways picked up off the street. One felt like one would catch a venereal disease(if you did not get mugged first) just by walking in Times Square.

It was “third wave feminism” in the early 90s(think Riot grrrls) that had a more sex positive emphasis and viewed prostitutes more as people using their freedom of choice and not solely as victims.

“Radical feminism” at this point is a pejorative meaning whatever the person attacking it means at the moment. I would view it as generally what the OP is describing things like males are born rapists, traditional male values are toxic always.

I'm talking about 1 the extreme ends of that and 2 people who are outdated and still think that it is ok to be like that now (mostly old women remnants of the 1970s) and 3 lack of intersectionality.

Things like communes which were female only. Or lesbianism for political reasons rather than reasons of inherent desire. Or telling trans women they can't be women. Or talking over women who want to stay home/want to be sex workers. Or writings like SCUM - misandrist violence isn't ok.

When I say 'radical feminism', I mean 'extreme end, second wave'.

Cutting yourself off entirely from the opposite sex isn't healthy. Whether that's an all female commune which never interacts with men or it's MGTOW.