You could have read the description of community first:
“his community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people,”
But you chose not to which kind of begs the question of you arguing in good faith.
How is giving women a seat at the table taking it away from men?
while vaguely claiming they have power elsewhere
We can go check who is in positions of power around the world if you are inclined to defend this point.
You seem to misunderstand the core concept of feminism, which is not men vs. women it’s people against a specific power structure, which arguably benefits only few while keeping the majority down.
I did read the description - and initially tried to write it off, because in the minds of many people feminism=gender equality movement (it is not).
The point I raise is not that giving women a seat removed it from men in itself, but that feminism tries to sit on two chairs, claiming to be for equality and at the same time doing everything to show only female voices count, because men are presumably “powerful anyway” and don’t need to be heard out.
It is true that the top positions are predominantly taken by men. But does it convert the same way for the average Joe, does he actually have that much power? This place seems to recognize this is not true, yet comes with an answer that feminism (a movement that strongly boasts female voices over male, and often doesn’t consider men as actual allies) will magically resolve it without active men’s contributions by dismantling patriarchy. No it won’t, because it doesn’t work with the issue on the other end. Men are not invited to resolve issues that directly concern them; they are instead forced into the roles feminists have made for them, and this doesn’t work because men have issues and considerations of their own that are not addressed.
Again, feminism (as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it”) - cool. Masculism (as in the same but about men) - amazing. But we can’t have one of them and hope for it to fix stuff for everyone. Either we go united for an actual antisexism, or we need both to be balanced. What happens here is the subversion of the men movements into yet another feminist space. We have enough of that.
Again, feminism (as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it”) - cool. Masculism (as in the same but about men) - amazing. But we can’t have one of them and hope for it to fix stuff for everyone. Either we go united for an actual antisexism, or we need both to be balanced. What happens here is the subversion of the men movements into yet another feminist space. We have enough of that.
This space was created as a space to deal with men issues through the lens of feminism. While you claim that feminism is "as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it” - it is a sociological framework that explains social hierarchy and power structures, that grew over long period of time and gave power to a specific group of people, while disenfranchising other groups to different degrees. This framework can be used to understand problems quite a lot people face today (men and women) but is obviously not a theory of everything. It does not deal with all issues men and women encounter in a modern world. You are free to create your own space for men issues to analyse them from a different point of view. But in my experience such places often deteriorate into basic misogyny.
It is true that the top positions are predominantly taken by men.
How come?
yet comes with an answer that feminism (a movement that strongly boasts female voices over male, and often doesn’t consider men as actual allies) will magically resolve it without active men’s contributions by dismantling patriarchy.
I doubt that this is the conses opinion on this sub - you will have to present some evidence for this claim.
Men are not invited to resolve issues that directly concern them; they are instead forced into the roles feminists have made for them, and this doesn’t work because men have issues and considerations of their own that are not addressed.
Who exactly is stopping men from being involved in resolving their issues? Feminists? I don’t see how - you will have to elaborate on this one.
The point I raise is not that giving women a seat removed it from men in itself, but that feminism tries to sit on two chairs, claiming to be for equality and at the same time doing everything to show only female voices count, because men are presumably “powerful anyway” and don’t need to be heard out.
We seem to have a very different understand and view on feminism and what it’s about.
The optics of feminism are women-focused, it is about women first and foremost and therefore may not be applied to (or rather imposed on?) men unconditionally.
How come?
One of the outcomes of patriarchy is that men are more commonly promoted to higher positions, especially in the top levels, yes. But the other side of this is that men are expected to be providers, to carry the main financial burden, to pay for everything, leaving less to themselves. Feminism mostly covers only one side of this - income inequality - but barely tackles the societal issues that lead to the inequality in expenditures and financial expectations put on men. As such, men are squeezed between the rock and a hard place, and what most ultimately chooses in building a career, even if it doesn’t align with their best personal interest. As a result, even if we eliminate all the glass ceilings that women may face, men will still take higher positions on average because that’s what their conditions dictate. We need to address mens’ input and engage with it if we want to have all elements that would allow us to resolve it. And feminism doesn’t do that.
Men can and should absolutely support feminists while also combating their own discrimination - here we can agree. But naming a place “Men’s Liberation” comes with the expectation that it’s about the males’ issues through the males’ optics, or otherwise it is as liberating as a hostile army.
You could have read the description of community first:
“his community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people,”
But you chose not to which kind of begs the question of you arguing in good faith.
How is giving women a seat at the table taking it away from men?
We can go check who is in positions of power around the world if you are inclined to defend this point.
You seem to misunderstand the core concept of feminism, which is not men vs. women it’s people against a specific power structure, which arguably benefits only few while keeping the majority down.
I did read the description - and initially tried to write it off, because in the minds of many people feminism=gender equality movement (it is not).
The point I raise is not that giving women a seat removed it from men in itself, but that feminism tries to sit on two chairs, claiming to be for equality and at the same time doing everything to show only female voices count, because men are presumably “powerful anyway” and don’t need to be heard out.
It is true that the top positions are predominantly taken by men. But does it convert the same way for the average Joe, does he actually have that much power? This place seems to recognize this is not true, yet comes with an answer that feminism (a movement that strongly boasts female voices over male, and often doesn’t consider men as actual allies) will magically resolve it without active men’s contributions by dismantling patriarchy. No it won’t, because it doesn’t work with the issue on the other end. Men are not invited to resolve issues that directly concern them; they are instead forced into the roles feminists have made for them, and this doesn’t work because men have issues and considerations of their own that are not addressed.
Again, feminism (as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it”) - cool. Masculism (as in the same but about men) - amazing. But we can’t have one of them and hope for it to fix stuff for everyone. Either we go united for an actual antisexism, or we need both to be balanced. What happens here is the subversion of the men movements into yet another feminist space. We have enough of that.
This space was created as a space to deal with men issues through the lens of feminism. While you claim that feminism is "as in “let’s figure out where women are disadvantaged and fix it” - it is a sociological framework that explains social hierarchy and power structures, that grew over long period of time and gave power to a specific group of people, while disenfranchising other groups to different degrees. This framework can be used to understand problems quite a lot people face today (men and women) but is obviously not a theory of everything. It does not deal with all issues men and women encounter in a modern world. You are free to create your own space for men issues to analyse them from a different point of view. But in my experience such places often deteriorate into basic misogyny.
How come?
I doubt that this is the conses opinion on this sub - you will have to present some evidence for this claim.
Who exactly is stopping men from being involved in resolving their issues? Feminists? I don’t see how - you will have to elaborate on this one.
We seem to have a very different understand and view on feminism and what it’s about.
The optics of feminism are women-focused, it is about women first and foremost and therefore may not be applied to (or rather imposed on?) men unconditionally.
One of the outcomes of patriarchy is that men are more commonly promoted to higher positions, especially in the top levels, yes. But the other side of this is that men are expected to be providers, to carry the main financial burden, to pay for everything, leaving less to themselves. Feminism mostly covers only one side of this - income inequality - but barely tackles the societal issues that lead to the inequality in expenditures and financial expectations put on men. As such, men are squeezed between the rock and a hard place, and what most ultimately chooses in building a career, even if it doesn’t align with their best personal interest. As a result, even if we eliminate all the glass ceilings that women may face, men will still take higher positions on average because that’s what their conditions dictate. We need to address mens’ input and engage with it if we want to have all elements that would allow us to resolve it. And feminism doesn’t do that.
Men can and should absolutely support feminists while also combating their own discrimination - here we can agree. But naming a place “Men’s Liberation” comes with the expectation that it’s about the males’ issues through the males’ optics, or otherwise it is as liberating as a hostile army.