this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
206 points (100.0% liked)

Men's Liberation

86 readers
5 users here now

This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality.

Rules

Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people

Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren't talking over men expressing their own lived experiences.


Be productive

Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed.

Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting:

  • Build upon the OP
  • Discuss concepts rather than semantics
  • No low effort comments
  • No personal attacks


Assume good faith

Do not call other submitters' personal experiences into question.


No bigotry

Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated.


No brigading

Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues.

Recommended Reading
Related Communities

!feminism@beehaw.org
!askmen@lemmy.world
!mensmentalhealth@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Kokomheart@lemmy.ca
spaduf@slrpnk.net
Veraticus@lib.lgbt
206
You don’t hate women and feminism. You hate capitalism. (makemenemotionalagain.substack.com)
submitted 1 month ago by spaduf@slrpnk.net to c/mensliberation@lemmy.ca
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dumples@midwest.social 23 points 1 month ago

I think this article does a great job talking about there isn't enough examples and models of an non-toxic masculinity out there. Women are told and have examples about many different ways to be women. Thanks to work of female feminists for years being childless, a stay at home mother, working a "feminine" job, working a "masculine" job, etc. are all valid options for women and are celebrated by women.

For men there is celebration of only one kind of man. We need more examples and celebrations of the varieties of men out there. I think this is especially true for straight men. I think straight men should borrow some of these examples from both the Gay community and from women. I personally as a straight man have found a lot of acceptance and value from how Gay men value diverse bodies types of men. I find it validating to me own experience and women are starting to do the same. We as men need to start celebrating each other in the ways that women do. After doing this enough and making it safe enough for women to join in a lot of good examples can be set for young men to see there are multiple celebrated options of masculinity. I think it might be hard for straight men to understand they are not the best at this and we should follow the lead of other but it is best course of options.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

While there are some points worth discussing in the article, I want to raise an issue with the community itself, since it's actually fairly adjacent.

If you look through it, majority of posts in the community that calls itself "Men's Liberation" is really not about, well, men's liberation. It's about how men should adapt to the realities of modern feminism, without getting a set at the table to discuss how it affects them and what they would've done differently. It just straight up mirrors feminist talking points and rephrases them to have "men" in the name.

This is very much why feminism is often hated: not because it gives women seat at the table, but because it takes the seat away from men, while vaguely claiming they have power elsewhere (but do they?).

Don't get me wrong: feminism tackles important questions, but it always looks at issues through the women's perspective, which might miss the unique circumstances men find themselves in and their angle with the issues raised. Since the community claims to come from the men's side (it's in the name), I find it deeply disingenuous and concerning.

[–] dumples@midwest.social 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think when hearing about feminism and Men Liberation is to understand how feminist talk about the Patriarchy. I would really recommend The Will To Change by bell hooks. She does a great job explaining how the Patriarchy system harms men. It helps me to understand when people are talking about the Patriarchy they are talking about the "imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy" which is its full name. See below quote from bell hooks.

Patriarchy is a political-social system that insists that males are inherently dominating, superior to everything and everyone deemed weak, especially females, and endowed with the right to dominate and rule over the weak and to maintain that dominance through various forms of psychological terrorism and violence. -The Will to Change, Chapter 2 pg 39

Talking about the intersections of gender, race, class etc. is called Intersectionality which is what modern feminist are talking about. It talks about how one can be both discriminated and benefit from others being discriminated at the same time. This how you get the case of typically rich white powerful females using the language of feminism to support the patriarchal systems that keep them in power by dominating those who are below them.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thanks, I am aware of patriarchy and the way it harms men. I don't take the issue with men going against it, and it should absolutely be dismantled as it screws pretty much everyone, women and men.

What I do take issue with is that many just adopted the feminist approach and expect women to fix it for everyone, despite the fact feminism is and always has been about women, and what it does for men is rather collateral. Men are commonly not seen by feminists as someone whose voice matters much inside the movement, and if men don't have much representation in it, we can't expect it to be fair to us.

As per intersectionality, I've always found its ties with feminism concerning, much for the same reasons. Intersectional feminists are concerned with the issues of Black women, for example, but are Black men proportionally covered? We should accept that a white disabled man and a black able woman are both disadvantaged, and do our best to help everyone who is disadvantaged by any means. Intersectionality shouldn't focus on women, or Black people, or disabled, or poor, or someone with mental issues, or anyone is particular; it should be about recognizing everything that drags people down and figuring out what can be done to shorten the divide.

[–] dumples@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I do think there can be more done to help Men within feminist spheres. I think one of the hard parts from a woman's perspective is "Not all Men" men taking over debates in female circles and "Man-o-sphere" bros taking over any man and man discussion. Its good to have communities to discuss these things

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

One of the main points of discipline of /r/menslib back on reddit and now here is to avoid, at all costs, saying "all feminists", as more MRAy places are prone to do, which in turn do tend to have a discipline regarding "all women", that'd be incel and Tate bro talk. Maybe such an approach could be mirrored and cause something beautiful. Like a disarmament treaty of sorts.

[–] dumples@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago

I agree. No talking about whole subsets of populations.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think focusing on feminism as the sole antisexist movement is inherently extremely imbalanced, as feminism was not made with men in mind to begin with, and the best you can hope for is being a secondary supporter in what's written by the women for the women.

There was a good wave around a decade ago of feminists and masculists uniting to combat all forms of antisexism, in all directions. Men got more educated in womens' issues, women got more educated in mens', and people were genuinely attempting to resolve the complex issues that form on both sides while supporting each other.

But then loud and proud feminism (as opposed to reasonable and equality-oriented one) came back again to destroy it. Whether it's more contentious and thereby boosted by the algorithms of social media on which most of us feeds, or there was some genuine shift that initiated it, or both - but peace has yet again lost its place to a dictate, and the dictate caused a reaction - so now instead of feminists and masculists working together we have feminists trying to impose their view on men (of which I suspect this place as well), and radicalized young men saying "fuck it, we're not heard and we'll make ourselves heard", which roughly translates into "we ignore what harms patriarchy does us and are set for revenge through it, not realizing we're just diving deeper into the mud pile".

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

If I’m not mistaken, this was the initial concept behind the community, no? The idea that this “manosphere” bullshit is a response to the erasure of men in the misguided attempt to bow to third (fourth now?) wave feminism.

In a nutshell, the plot of feminism got lost in the greater society as a whole finally trying to adopt some of its principles via straight up ^virtue^ ^signaling.^ ~~—fuck I can’t think of the phrase people use—value posturing? Ethics acting? I’m sure you all know the phrase I’m searching for, right wingers popularized it.~~

But point is, it’s true. And yes, it happens on the white left, but its most devious incarnation is in corporate America. Putting a woman of color in your ad is not equality. Taking aunt jemima off your bottle isn’t erasing racism. It’s just lip service to something akin to progress to boost their bottom line.

So in this world of a bunch of meaningless putting women in the spotlight to say they’ve done it, young men are feeling like they don’t matter. So when you have the liberal world saying “shut up now, a woman is talking,” young men don’t hear “okay, it’s on my generation to take this and smile because there is a long history of women not getting a seat at the table.” Young men hear the most misguided of the fourth wave feminists shouting “men are pigs” and “oh a woman killed her husband? Good, one less man in the world,” and they don’t see much pushback on it. And their brains aren’t fully developed, so they don’t understand that this behavior, in context…well, it’s still very stupid and wrong, but they see society writ large mostly embracing this or laughing it off.

So what do they do? Where do they turn? To the people telling them that women, actually, are the ones who are trash and they need to shut up and get back in the kitchen. Because, to their eye, the world does seem to be trying to go out of its way to “oppress” men. When you hear those fucksticks say “white men are the most oppressed group,” young men don’t understand why that should be laughed off. Because, again, their young brains aren’t developed and hey don’t have centuries of history understood. They hear one side saying “whatever it’s just some white man,” and they hear the other saying “it’s okay to be a man, it’s actually great and you deserve everything.”

Who the fuck do we think they’re gonna listen to?

[–] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month ago

The term you're looking for is 'virtue signalling'. It's a shame it got assigned a political bias, because it's a handy term for what makes rainbow capitalism so infuriating.

Another big point that needs to be made is that engagement driven social media algorithms have pushed the most controversial content to the top, giving it an oversized representation. Then there are also those with vested interests in preventing unity who are more than happy to jump on any opportunity to stoke division.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

Not sure exactly how the lemmy.ca community came to be but I suppose it's a continuation of the subreddit, vox has the original story in form of an interview:

I had gotten really into observing the online gender wars. It was entertaining for a while, and then it started to get pretty depressing. You had people on both sides of these issues who are passionate about the parts that they care about — but what they're really passionate about is arguing, and making the other side look bad.

After a while, I realized that I either needed to stop observing it or I needed to try to help fix it. So I started thinking that what we needed was an actual solutions- and positivity-focused men's group, where we could talk about these issues that are so important but ditch some of the bad habits of what we've seen before.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You mean, virtue signaling?

I agree with you in that the less avenues we have for men to speak up and be listened to, the more radical they will become, and instead of coming with constructive and useful criticisms, they will instead follow everyone who says "the other side is a problem, so now it's your time to violently state your way".

One thing though - no one should be silenced or mistreated for the acts of previous generations. Those young men hold no relation to what happened there in the past, and those young women are not its victims, either. "Reverse" discrimination is just discrimination based on arbitrary concept, and acts of other people in other times should never be seen as a supporting argument here.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. What I was trying to say there was that they’re not able to see the situation, as it is, through the lens of history. They don’t have the capacity for that kind of understanding. I’m not exactly saying that unequal treatment is good and fair.

However, after a long period of inequality, there is kind of a necessary middle point between inequality and equity where there has to be a balancing of the scales. We’ve all seen that sort of infographic/web comic where they’re showing the people looking over the fence, where inequality has the white boy standing on all the blocks and the others standing on one or none, and then under the “equality” header, they’re all standing on the same amount of blocks, and then under “equity,” the tall kid gets exactly enough o see over the fence, the short kid gets more, etc?

I mean, that is the main goal, right? Equity? There comes a time, especially after a long period of inequality, where those blocks have to get doled out. There has to be a time, after a long period of people not getting a seat at the table, where those disenfranchised people who have been historically kept out of the room get intentionally put in that room, given one of the seats at the table. And for all intents and purposes, there are only so many seats at any given table. See what I’m saying?

Now, these are all solutions under a capitalist system. Solutions to work within a system that is inherently flawed and inequitable. The answer is dismantling that system. But if we’re talking about jobs, positions of power, places at the capitalist table, etc., there is going to be a period of righting the wrongs, of giving those limited number of seats to people who belong to groups who have historically been kept out. But that’s talking about solutions within a flawed, unjust system. Because under capitalism, it is a hierarchy. And putting people in higher positions within it is the solution under capitalism—because you’re placing people still in a hierarchy, where others will be exploited at the hands of, now, the people who have suffered the exploitation the worst.

It makes no sense. You’re absolutely right.

So I think that’s what you are butting up against. It is that’s still inherently unfair because it requires overlooking the previously dominant groups, no matter that people didn’t choose to be born into the oppressor group, and they shouldn’t bear the pushback their ancestors catalyzed.

And rightly so, you should butt up against that because the system is built to be unfair. It thrives and literally operates on exploitation. So the solution you’re looking for is one that doesn’t involve hierarchy or capitalism. And I’m with you there. But we’re unfortunately talking about life under capitalism, so without demolishing that whole system in favor of a more equitable and just and healthy system, there will be inequality to right the imbalance. Should it be that way? No. But capitalism and hierarchy are forcing our hand here. But I’m with you, all the way.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

Capitalism is not only a system of discrimination in itself, it is deeply interested in worsening existing issues to divide and conquer. Also, more controversies - more engagement - more profit! This artificially fuels the existing conflicts between people, and that's one reason it should be dismantled.

I think with a multitude of factors that form what we call "privilege", visible and invisible, known and unknown, we cannot adequately assess who is the most discriminated anymore. And when that time comes (mind you, after a century of women fighting for their rights and rightfully forcing into their seats at the table), the time comes to come together and genuinely care for the other, while not forgetting yourself.

The times of suffragettes are over. Men, women, nonbinary people all have unique circumstances and problems they face. And this is worth discussing together. I remember at one time, maybe just 5-10 years ago, it was more common to go and do exactly that, to band together under the wider antisexist banner, for men to care of women's issues and for women to care for men's. And it worked well, but was seemingly sabotaged - I assume - in the name of controversy, division and, ultimately - profit.

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I can’t think of the phrase people use—value posturing? Ethics acting?

Virtue signalling.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

That’s the one

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean there is a duality in patriarchy, that each issue that touches on a woman also touches on a man. If you don't understand how feminism is two halves a whole, and how it is actually a mirror for us to investigate our own masculinity, then I don't know how to help you on your path to liberation.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Of course there is!

But that's the very issue I take. The problems around gender stereotypes, patriarchy etc. are a complex combination of factors on both sides - and the only way to untangle this is to listen to both sides. Men should absolutely scrutinize their behavior using what women can share; but so should women hear male voices to see what can be changed on their end.

We can't expect to find a common ground under the dictate of one side. Men didn't manage to solve the issue of women back in the pre-feminism era, because they thought they knew better. Now women repeat the same mistake, thinking they hold the keys to the solution and not bothering asking men on what they think about it.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Sorry but this has not been my experience, but even if it was, I don't see how that's a "man" problem. We are not here to talk about how women should change, but men. You either accept the situation and make the best of it, or you look for excuses not to engage in the subject.

[–] Allero@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

What's so "Men Liberating" in it, then?

This is not "Feminism for Men 101".

[–] shoulderoforion@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I don't hate capitalism, it's better than feudalism, and the human race's attempts at communism have failed so spectacularly descending into absolute tyranny and corruption putting the sins of capitalism to shame. I also don't hate women, or feminism, there are some women I hate, but it's an individual judgement.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think the point is that unbridled capitalism is creating increasing wealth inequality that many straight, white men are feeling but aren't accurately attributing to their being on the losing end of wealth inequality. This could be ameliorated with any number of policies in a capitalist system, such as a more progressive tax code, better labor protections, or universal healthcare, but the US employs none of these, and straight, white men are largely blaming women, immigrants, and LGBTQ people instead of the class of people keeping them poor.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It’s not just the US that is feeling this.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, but this article is about the US specifically. There's also a global right-wing propaganda machine contributing to this problem

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 6 points 1 month ago

Fair.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Capitalism is feudalism with rule by grace of money instead of grace of god. Don't confuse it with having a market economy, especially a well-regulated one: Capitalism is when there's unbridled capital accumulation, unbridled accumulation of economical and political power. Capitalism is when the 0.1% exist and, in the broader sense, capitalism is that set of memes which infect the majority to put up with that nonsense.

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

Found the stockholm syndrome victim.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 5 points 1 month ago

Capitalism is that abusive boyfriend that keeps bringing up your super abusive ex so you know how lucky you are to have him.

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago

Wow great read

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, women do their part to contribute to consumerism.

The main reason why guys want money is so they can be more appealing to women.

[–] Cube6392 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

that's patriarchy, which enforces capitalism. that's not the natural order. that's how we're programmed

[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

Bro that is Feudalism and Tribalism as well. You'd rather marry your daughter off to a rich man, than a poor one. That's nothing new to Capitalism. Except women now have the choice to do that themselves.

[–] john89@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

🥱

Genuinely feels like feminists come here just to argue with men, lol.

Goodbye.

[–] Cube6392 6 points 1 month ago

men's lib is part of the feminist movement

[–] dumples@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not all feminists are women. This is a feminist men forum and so it will contain feminist men talking with other men about feminism.

[–] Cube6392 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

more people need to know that feminism is for everyone, and that it's not necessarily against anyone. if feminism feels against you, the question becomes what is it about you that feminists find harmful. and i want to make it clear, i don't jive with everyone who calls themselves a feminist. i'm not on board with TERFs and i'm not on board with #GirlBoss feminists who present feminism as some form of neo-patriarchy in a similar vein to neo-colonial approaches to racial justice where we do colonialism from a place of revenge. and before you say this stance is an attack on traditional masculinity, understand that no, it's just a critique of toxic masculinity. there's a difference. the difference is Tim Walz and JD Vance. both are really good examples of these two kinds of masculinity. Tim Walz is really and truly into "guy" stuff. he likes hunting, he coaches football, he's the breadwinner for his family. none of us are bothered that he's all those things. why? because he doesn't want to dictate to anyone what it means to be a man. do you know who does? JD Vance. none of us are bothered he wears makeup, looks like he's never done a day's work in his life, or that he fucked a couch. we're bothered that he doesn't take accountability, promotes a singular version of performing masculinity, and that that version of masculinity includes inflicting harm on others. arguably even, Tim Walz is more traditionally masculine than JD Vance. but still, he's the one feminists respect and appreciate.

i desperately hope this reaches someone. i hope someone reads this and it starts them on a journey. waking up from false consciousness is the hardest thing to do, and the only real way to do it is to go out and befriend people the system treats worse than you, and to really listen to what they have to say. and i don't just mean hear. i mean come in with not just an open mind, but an open heart. come with a notebook if you have to. treat them like the subject of an interview, but also treat them like a respected and loved family member. and if they say they aren't the ones to teach you something say, "i understand. can you direct me to some good resources so i can start shifting my perspective. i obviously haven't been exposed to this"

because ultimately that's the thing. we are all products of our lived realities. and all of our lived realities include hegemonic propaganda that tells us patriarchy, racism, capitalism, and nationalism are all inescapable natural realities when they are not. we evolved empathy for a reason. our emotions toward others are our antidotes. think about that the thing that comes up in WWI diaries that haunted surviving soldiers the most was what they found in enemy trenches: not monstrous brutes, but instead young boys, just like themselves, trying to survive. they felt that way, they felt that horror, because the violence of this system benefits a select few, so the system must subvert our own best interests. when they felt that horror they were experiencing the confrontation of the cognitive dissidence the terror of the violence of the system instills in all of us. they were on the edge of realizing that the root cause of WWI, nationalism, is a big dumb stupid tool that keeps any of us from ever breaking free

[–] dumples@midwest.social 2 points 4 weeks ago

I recommend people read "feminism is for everyone" by bell hooks. It's wonderful and a simple read

[–] P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 1 month ago (3 children)

What is this community about? I have read the sidebar, but I have not understand it...

[–] spaduf@slrpnk.net 16 points 1 month ago

Put simply, this is a community dedicated to criticism of the gendered constraints placed on men.

[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago

As an outsider: "Feminism for men". It currently exists as a counter to Men's Rights, which was a movement deemed "too problematic" by the Feminists. Whether it is too problematic is something I'll leave up to the reader. I for one think they're just really good at trolling (and sometimes they were assholes).

[–] spaduf@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago

Put simply, this is a place for criticism of the oppressive gendered expectations placed on men with a focus on intersectionality.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 month ago

Were the MAGA shitheads to suddenly realize the real reasons why they are angry, there would be a chaotic overthrow of society. That's probably also not what we want. We want an ordered change to the system. But given that we can't do that without class solidarity, the chaotic overthrow would also be acceptable.

[–] Free_Opinions@feddit.uk 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I hate none of the three.

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago

Not sure why you’re being downvoted for a difference in opinion, I think we should try to converse with people who have different views, lest we are just an echo chamber.

With that in mind, do you support the current version of capitalism which is very laissez faire? Or are you in favour of the system if it is regulated more than we do now.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

I do hate that it's called feminism, though

Guarantee a lot more people would believe the whole "it's about equality for BOTH sexes line" if it wasn't named for one sex already (on top of the many women I've heard say "it's called feminism, get in line for rights, men" which isn't helpful either)

I and those I associate with use egalitarian for that reason, even at feminist events. Usually goes over smoothly with one or two assholes who absolutely fit the mold chuds imagine, sadly