The downsides of being a man

[Snowfluke]

Apologies if this has been posted already. I can't see it if it has.

To answer what is probably your first question: this is here because of a quote from the article, " the male equivalent of feminism should also be called feminism "

My first thought, and I say this as a CM fan, was that this was probably a 'trick' question designed to highlight privilege. Actually, it isn't. And I'm now thinking how many of these downsides are actually combated by feminism.

Which kinda begs the question: should it be a bit more about da menz?

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/caitlin-moran-twitter-downsides-man-toxic-masculinity-feminism-reactions-a8593471.html

Radical feminists aim to liberate women and girls by dismantling the political and power structure which systemically oppresses women aka the patriarchy.

The patriarchy is structural, not individual. While it operates to the benefit of men as a class, most, if not all men, experience patriarchy, consciously or not, as detrimental to their psychological and emotional life.

The patriarchy enforces gender stereotypes as a means of ensuring women experience life-long injustice. But men suffer as well from expectations of masculinity they can never meet.

Dismantling the patriarchy would be to the benefit of humans in general. Men have a much better shot at it than women, because it’s their system. So you know blokes, have at it.

But until they’re a good way forward in that little task, I’m not interested in redefining feminism to be more about men.

There’s really nothing I can add to DancelikeEmmaGoldman’s excellent comment.

People are so good at articulating stuff here that it actually gets a bit intimidating Thank you DancelikeEmmaGoldman

I'm not sure I fully understand why you wouldn't do something that you set out as being beneficial to you though.

you think feminists aren't aiming to dismantle patriarchy Snowfluke?

I don't think that's what DancelikeEmmaGoldman said is it?

I know it's not fashionable to say so, but although patriarchy affects men negatively in some ways, I think the really obvious reason that men as a class are so resistant to feminism is that they like male privilege and the benefits of patriarchy for men probably outweigh the downsides.

I think that's a universal truth isn't it MagicMix A first step for men to challenge the patriarchy would be to start doing a bit more bloody laundry etc And we know that's not going very well don't we?

I know. I think the party line from the man-friendly inclusive school of feminism is that it's not a zero sum game and men have nothing to lose from women's liberation.

But men on the whole aren't thick enough to fall for that. Of course loss of privilege is felt as a loss. Feminism would help men in a lot of ways, but they would have to decide that the sacrifice was worth it. Pretending there wouldn't be a sacrifice is not going to work.

Hmm, I'm not sure where you're going with this op. I'm not being disingenuous. Do you mean we should attempt to 'involve' men? Because there are all sorts of organisations trying to help men liberate themselves from the man box.

When you're not being routinely killed, abused or disregarded it's harder to see what you might gain from changing things. And the first thing they'd have to do is acknowledge that they're reaping the rewards of and are complicit in our oppression, an idea which most of them resist (ie NAMALT).

There are far fewer obstacles in their way and still they fail to grasp the nettle so I think we can conclude that they're largely not interested.

I find CM's cool girl feminism irritating.

Trying to find out more about those blokes (in the photo) who were arrested in Washington for lining up in the street and talking about accountability for men in the process of healing the wounds of patriarchy and toxic masculinity (btw googling 'men arrested washington + a combination of relevant words turns up a revolving litany of the usual male violence so I don't know any more about it). (I rolled my eyes about the HERO!!! thing but their statement was good.) They don't need spoon-feeding, they get it. Anyone know more about them? I'd post the video but I'm tentative at best with Twitter and if/how you share tweets outside of Twitter iyswim.

Men are socialised to dominate women and we are socialised to subordinate ourselves to them. Men are welcome to pursue aims that align with feminism, but should not be included in feminism because of the absolute certainty that they will take it over and as a result its mission will be compromised by the reproduction of patriarchal gender relations within it.

Hmm, I'm not sure where you're going with this op.

I guess I'm continuing the conversation on whether men can be feminists. I've read various opinions either way on this.

If the " male equivalent of feminism is feminism " because it liberates men from traditional male socialisation, then does that not suggest an option of " redefining feminism to be more about men. "

I realise that's a provocative statement and I apologise. I'm quoting from DancelikeEmmaGoldman.

However, if we rephrase that in a way that doesn't sound like men taking space from women, then isn't that what's been happening anyway? Men are questioning masculinity in a way that is (probably) unprecedented. Our DSs are, in a great many ways, so different to the generations that preceded them.

None of the men I have known who support the liberation of women would have the cheek to describe themselves as feminists. They just see themselves as decent blokes.

The patriarchy damages men but nothing like as much as it harms women.

Personally I think men (well all of us) would benefit from female socialization. It would make them better dads and partners. It would also mean they'd be willing to seek support for MH and other problems and help keep them out of the criminal justice system.

Patriarchy in my mind, is like a widespread virus that infects everyone.
Men suffer from it: they get a runny nose and a cough. But they also get a boosted libido.
women suffer from it:
They get runny nose, cough, headaches, bloodloss, lung failure and coma. They get no positives.

If we cured the virus, we'd all feel better but most men don't want to lose their boosted libido and some don't even realise it's the illness giving them that boost.

That's my dimwitted analogy anyway.

I'm not sure why it matters. Can they not come up with their own word? Or how about ally? Or supporter? If they want to amplify the message of feminism that's their prerogative. I think this kind of debate or whatever is slightly derailing. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be here asking this question, but in my experience men having this discussion are centering themselves in a 'whyyyyy can't I say it??' way. Feminism is often interesting to men until they are 'allowed in' and then once they see what they need to risk/change they get bored.

BloodyDraculcasonthis that's a passive view of a violent system.

Maybe there is no male equivalent, maybe we're all in this. If you want to own it, like put your name on it, well that's different.
Imagine if women were constantly asking 'what's the female version of patriarchy?' Or capitalism.
Feminism opposes patriarchy. There isn't a male or female version, we can all fight oppression, but in this case women have a perspective that men don't and I think that should be acknowledged and respected. Only a dick insists on being 'included' where he is not invited.

I'm not sure we can accuse CM of derailing feminism. I also think it would be impossible for her to start that conversation without there being parallels and overlap with feminism.

If we say things like that then surely we perpetuate the idea that men need to just stfu about their emotions - which is a fundamental tenet of toxic masculinity and patriarchy isn't it?

My slightly cross tone isn't aimed at you op, it's more that I can't help hearing an undertone of nice girl feminism and whataboutery, which may not be coming from you.
And if I had a penny for every time I've heard/read a discussion about how feminism can include men I'd be rich, but what I tend to hear from men is 'I will call myself a fucking feminist if I want to.'

• Dismantle existing existing toxic power structure ('patriarchy').
• Have no clue what to replace it with.
• Men with severe psychiatric disorders come out of the woodwork.
• Weakened patriarchy no longer capable of enforcing biological sex roles.
• Cue 6' 2" 220 lb trans player thundering across a womens' rugby pitch.
• Shouts 'I'M A WOMAAAAAAN!' whilst crushing the ball with one hand.
• RadFems blame the Patriarchy.

The downside to being a man, a patriarchal man, OP, is that they generally have as much time for this nonsense as RadFems. But they've been socially castrated for exhibiting the kind of toxic masculinity which would have prevented the above scenario from happening in the first place.

Now they just have to sit and watch society go bat shit crazy whilst continuing to get the blame for it.

If we say things like that then surely we perpetuate the idea that men need to just stfu about their emotions - which is a fundamental tenet of toxic masculinity and patriarchy isn't it? How do you get that from anything I've said here?

What we need is a general dismantling of the 'strong man' myth, I think, and men seem to be struggling with doing that on their own. Therefore, I'm willing to have a great sigh and assist. It'll be worth it if it helps my DSs to grow up as not-twats.

Apologies amandadecabernet if I misunderstood what you meant by derailing.

HEAVE a great sigh....

If nothing else maybe it will divert some men from going "Actually I'm a woman". Fighting transgender ideology through the back door, as it were....

Derailing by making feminism all about men.

There is a very long existing reading list for fellas who want to know how to support feminism.

WonderFluid 'Dismantle existing existing toxic power structure ('patriarchy').' Is that over then? I've got so much stuff I could be doing instead, I had no idea.