It’s two different arguments. Individually there are many people who see women having it better then themselves and of course they will be upset when society is saying they don’t. Empathy here is understanding both sides have some valid points. Men do have a lot of problems in society. An entire generation left behind because many social programs focused only on boosting women while forgetting men. Telling those men to suck it up or that they’re wrong isn’t the answer. It’s only going to radicalize sides. Both sides should be addressed.

Don’t they usually end up doing it themselves?

The only thing the guy said was wrong was that it’s reverse sexism. If he said “so your main concern is improving things for women? That’s not egalitarian unless you believe women have it much worse than men today.” It’s someone misinformed being told he’s an enemy. Ragebait

I watched it happen because I saw it happening and read the (too few) news reports that pointed out that it was indeed happening.

But it’s like climate change. It seems to go in one ear and out the other for the vast majority of the population.

I hate the Kremlin so much. I hope the whole russia will crumble and disappear.

The question should be asked to YOU, not me.

Of course I do. But you don’t, I wonder why would you approach me in bad faith unless…

You want to smear me.

I am on the feminist side, firmly. But at the same time I think it’s extremely necessary to update terminology.

The feminist side is really good at reckognizing the power of words and demanding that actually accurate wording is used… when they are on the receiving end of bad wording.

At the same time that side seems to be totally oblivious to bad wording when it affects their opponents.

Take for example “toxic masculinity”. Literally taken, that word means that masculinity is toxic. But that’s not at all what the concept is about. It’s about a misguided understanding of masculinity which is problematic. Why not just use “machismo”, or maybe “toxic machismo”? Suddenly the word is not an attack against all men, but against a subset defined by specific behavior. Done.

Or “mansplaining”. Woman can and do exhibit that behavior too. Just try being a young father and bring your toddler to a circle of older women. The correct word would be “overexplaining”, and suddenly it clearly describes the problem without unnecessarily tieing it to a gender.

Fighting rhethoric like that is great if you want to get into a fight and make sure that you alienate the other, but it’s utterly useless to further your cause.

Well some people literally just don’t realize that other people have problems they don’t have, and don’t look into it further or are actively told it’s not a problem. Source: me from 13 to 16 until I watched a lot of speeches on it and talked to friends irl about it.

Neat way to categorize those who don’t walk in lockstep with you as the enemy. I seek equality but refuse to be associated with a movement that sees me as a threat for my gender. Is your anger real or is it caused by cognitive dissonance trying hold egalitarian ideals in an inherently unegalitarian framework.

I mean, the phrase wasn’t good either, hence why you also ended up thinking that.

Black Lives Also Matter would have been much better, as it alludes that there is enough prejudice that society must be reminded, and the acronym is BLAM, which could be used as onomatopoeia invoking gun shots, which directly ties to the causes original protests against the police. It also sounds more of a plea for help than it does an aggressive simple statement - which considering the movement aimed to be peaceful, is the kind of sound you’d want.

The truth is these kinds of things heavily rely on optics, and BLM was a very bad choice of slogan. People forget even the whole Rosa Parks thing was carefully orchestrated for a reason - you need good causes, good figures, and good slogans for rallying support.

BLM is so bad I wonder if the push to use it was some kind of counter psy-op to then push things like All Lives Matter to help discredit it, because I swear I heard the BLAM acronym being used as well in the beginning. I would imagine such authorities would have learned well how to discredit such movements ever since the days and success of the Civil Rights era.

I thought the ~ would suffice

All lives matter people: All houses matter!

Others: But that one is on fire… shouldn’t the firefighters work on it first?

All lives matter people: No! All houses matter and that one is mine!!!

Short comparison that kind of gets the point across. I think it was from some comedy show like John Stewart or John Oliver and the like.

Obviously

It’s almost like things can happen independently of one another, and that it’s wrong either way. Nobody is saying “sexual assault against men doesn’t exist” when they say “1 in 3 women have experienced sexual assault”.

It’s depressing that we have to point out such basic ideas.

Empathy gap in action. You just dismissed a SA survivor because they don’t agree with you and are male. Think on this for a bit.

Wish I had more than one upvote to give. Movements and groups name themselves after their targeted focus, yet you never see someone going up to the teacher’s union rep and saying “but shouldn’t you also care about the other jobs?”

Say what you will about PETA (I’m sure I could say a lot), but you never see someone criticising them for their “narrow minded focus solely on the welfare of animals, without regard for the ethical treatment of humans, plants and fungi”

You’ll never catch someone criticising a homeless shelter for not doing enough to shine light on the prevalence of gun violence.

So why does anyone treat these bad-faith criticisms as anything more or less than attempts to silence the already-marginalised groups for which these movements are advocating?

the goal is so vague that everyone can be on it.

Could you elaborate on why that is a bad thing? I’m sort of confused why you wouldn’t want everyone to be in on it. To be clear, I don’t think we really need to change the goal, I just think the wording is unfortunate.

But again, I think we honestly shouldn’t focus on this small disagreement of the words, as long as we agree on the idea itself. We may not agree on feminism or egalitarianism as words, but I think we both agree on the much more important ideas behind it.

It may also be that I’m coming at this discussion from a Danish perspective, which is very different from an American perspective (I’m assuming you’re american, sorry if that’s not correct). We usually use a word like “ligestilling” which translates as “equality” rather than use a term like feminism.

Every. Single. Time.

Y’all really don’t get why subdividing makes movements weaker.

Here, I’ll give you an easy way to see the flaw I your argument. Apply it to this flag:

According to your logic, this flag shouldn’t be used, because it’s more vague than just the lesbian or trans flag for example.

Yet, the reason this flag is used is because unity is more powerful than division. All those groups are more powerful in fighting for their rights together than they are separate.

And that’s the flaw behind modern feminism - the issues feminism was created to tackle have been greatly delt with. While some certainly do still exist, they are now also caused by things other than a patriarchy, such as oligarchy. And thus tackling the issues that affect women too in modern times needs the involvement of other groups as well, such as unions and even anarchists, to effectively combat.

In such, movements and groups like these would more be much more effective in modern society reforming under an umbrella one such as egalitarianism, much like the LGBTQ+ ones have.

Multiple causes together are more powerful than a single ones divided. Continuing this insistence is literally missing the forest for the trees.

Or the org “No one should shoot anyone in the back”, every so often making a statement to gangsters, but having to spend most of its time pursuing cops.

Makes sense why the phrase is instead “ACAB”.

I completely agree with what you’re saying. However, on the other hand, “black lives matter” and “feminism” are equally exposed to the “all lives matter” and “equality” rebuttals from people that want to shut them down.

I think some progress could be made if those championing equality made a concerted effort to gain ownership of the “all lives matter” and “equality” slogans/campaigns, and then used that ownership to point out the problems (all lives matter, and black lives are currently being stepped on, etc.)

Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men

Yes.

One of the big ones that has been in active discussion is toxic masculinity (the social expectation that men act a certain way and more importantly that men not act a certain way), which has detrimental effects on boys and men, who in many cases grow up emotionally stunted and unable to cope with their emotions in a productive, safe, and healthy way. These feminist organizations are big on how to raise boys, how to talk to men about emotions, and other topics that relate to the mental and emotional health of boys and men.

In a related push, a big portion of pushing openness in certain spaces also has the effect of becoming more welcoming for certain men. Trying to make veteran spaces, science/technology/engineering spaces, sports/fitness/athletic spaces, business networking spaces, and other traditionally male-dominated spaces more open to women is often about opening things up to a lot more men, as well, especially men who don’t fit the stereotypes of those spaces.

For example, sometimes a gym that is intimidating to women can also be intimidating to lots of men. Recognizing and addressing the factors that drive away women also have the intended purpose of reducing barriers that we know affect men, as well.

I’m fully, unabashedly feminist. I’m also a straight cis man who fits a lot of male stereotypes (playing and watching sports, lifting weights, a career path through multiple male dominated professions), who recognizes that society leaves behind a lot of men who don’t fit this mold, and I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children), actively parent my son in a way that I hope will help him grow up to be a good man living a good life with fulfilling relationships with those around him, etc.

There’s no separating feminism from broader societal gender roles and expectations. And the things I do for my daughter are closely overlapping with the things that I do for my son.

So… look, I hate having to pick at something that I generally agree with, but it wasn’t illegal for women to have bank accounts or credit cards or whatever prior to 1974. It just became illegal to discriminate against women for bank accounts as of the 1974 law.

I get that it’s a subtle distinction, but the reason it is important is because there are those who would think that as long as the government isn’t actively oppressing a group, then it’s doing fine (“it was illegal for women to have bank accounts, now it’s not. Job’s done!”), as opposed to recognizing that it is people who oppress others and it is the government’s job (like it was in 1974) to prevent it.

Banks (most, anyway) did not allow women to have bank accounts or lines of credit. And they’d do it again (or some other discriminatory bullshit) without government regulation.

There is value in feminisim because women’s rights are “new” and that is to say that there are people alive who grew up in a time where women’s rights were considered a joke.

I’d like to remind everyone that men’s rights are new too. For example, in the UK, women got rights to vote in 1928. Men got it in 1918, a whole 10 years earlier.

Most of the population was (and continues to be) under the boot of the wealthy, their rights immaterial.

Why do you think there are two sides and one of them is blaming men?

The problems with deciding things are “equal-ish” have already been well addressed, so I just want to point out - just because the billionaire class might use a topic as a wedge issue against us doesn’t excuse us from working to fix it.

They might be setting fire to houses as a distraction, but the houses are still on fire. The people inside can’t wait for us to find and deal with whoever hired the arsonists.

Things are already equal

My friend, go outside.

Dumb and wrong

That’s false. If you want to make everyone equal, you close the pay gap.

To me, egalitarianism is making sure neither group is treated unfarly, so they should both receive the same pay for the same work, but also the same punishment for the same crime, etc.

The gap doesn’t just remain in that scenario, you actually increase the gap making it even worse.

The only wage gap we should be focusing on now is the gap between ultra rich capitalists and the worker class.

Anything else we can worry after we take care of that dumpster fire.