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.
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.
Optics are rather a subjective measurement.
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.
This is just simply not true. Questioning gender roles is one of core ideas in feminism and questioning male roles is one big aspects conservatives feel very uneasy with when it comes to feminism.
As such, men are squeezed between the rock and a hard place
Who is putting the expectation on men to be the provider? Feminists? Dude come on. Who made it impossible for a family to live on one salary? Feminist?
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.
Yes and questioning traditional gender roles while providing alternatives is big part of feminism.
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.
No it’s your expectation - not a general one. And there is a rather clear description that clarifies the purpose of this group. I can get that you might not be interested in exploring male problems through the lens of feminism - but it’s beyond me why you have a problem with other doing so.
Also from my personal perspective: I was raised rather feminist/egalitarian and I don’t feel pressure to be a provider but rather want to be a partner. Obviously anecdotal - but an example of a solution to a problem you mentioned, offered by feminism.
Let me rephrase it - feminism is, in its entirety, about women. What it solves for men it only does to make it work for women. It’s a movement about women’s rights, after all. It has never been about men, and blindly following feminism as men is like trying to make a pencil using a blueprint for a hammer.
From my experiences, I don’t face much questioning around men’s issues in the feminist communities, as long as it’s not something directly concerning women, and even then little consideration is given to considering why men act a certain way and what conditions should be changed to prevent it - it most commonly takes a directive approach instead.
Feminists were not the ones who made it impossible to live on one salary - capitalists simply used the fact both people in the family are now working to be able to pay less and extract more profits. But feminists speak little about the fact most of that financial burden still lies on men, or that there is a common expectation for a man to earn more than a woman. For them, it’s commonly a non-issue.
What is beyond me at the end of the day is why people took the movement that is about women, always claims to be about women and historically never been about anyone but women and suddenly pretended it’s about everyone, while it didn’t change the slightest in that regard. Women lead feminism, and men have little input in its development. Women see feminism as a movement about themselves. But when the time comes for someone to point this out, everyone suddenly pretends feminism is about everyone. This community is openly feminist, so, ultimately, it is not for or about men, it’s about what women want men to be.
I, too, have an egalitarian and antisexist background. I have to point that out clearly, because antisexism, while including feminism, is not limited by it, despite what many would make others believe. I am, however, socially pressured to be a provider, and instead do my best to be - exactly - a partner. An equal, not only in joys but in duties as well. And this is surprisingly hard to find someone to share this approach, at least in my area.
Let me rephrase it - feminism is, in its entirety, about women.
Rephrasing the same point does not make it more true. I already got it that it’s your view and I disagree - I don’t think we will find a common ground on this point, which might stem from different personal experience.
blindly following feminism
Blindly following anything is dumb, kind of general rule. And also feminism does not claim to be solution to all problem. Again it’s a sociological framework (that is evolving) to analyze power dynamics in society, from a rather specific point of view. It’s like expecting game theory to solve all your problems.
But feminists speak little about the fact most of that financial burden still lies on men, or that there is a common expectation for a man to earn more than a woman. For them, it’s commonly a non-issue.
It is a non-issue for feminist that men earn more than women? And that women are still financially reliant on man is not a concern for feminists? I think you just fail to see that a lot of points you are mentioning are directly connected to critique feminism is bringing up. And again - no one is stopping men from bringing up those issues - not like men would lack platforms.
What is beyond me at the end of the day is why people took the movement that is about women, always claims to be about women and historically never been about anyone but women and suddenly pretended it’s about everyone
And you will never get it, since you fundamentally misunderstand feminism.
ltimately, it is not for or about men, it’s about what women want men to be.
And yet, men gather here and talk about their issues - and you are the one having a problem with it. While no-one is stopping you from creating a non feminist male issue community and see where it goes. Or you can check one that was around here and see how it ended.
I am, however, socially pressured to be a provider, and instead do my best to be - exactly - a partner. An equal, not only in joys but in duties as well. And this is surprisingly hard.
Guess who is one of the few groups fighting against societal pressure thru narrow gender roles? But than again if you are searching for non feminist women who want to be equal partners and not a provider - I might have an idea why it’s hard.
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.
Optics are rather a subjective measurement.
This is just simply not true. Questioning gender roles is one of core ideas in feminism and questioning male roles is one big aspects conservatives feel very uneasy with when it comes to feminism.
Who is putting the expectation on men to be the provider? Feminists? Dude come on. Who made it impossible for a family to live on one salary? Feminist?
Yes and questioning traditional gender roles while providing alternatives is big part of feminism.
No it’s your expectation - not a general one. And there is a rather clear description that clarifies the purpose of this group. I can get that you might not be interested in exploring male problems through the lens of feminism - but it’s beyond me why you have a problem with other doing so.
Also from my personal perspective: I was raised rather feminist/egalitarian and I don’t feel pressure to be a provider but rather want to be a partner. Obviously anecdotal - but an example of a solution to a problem you mentioned, offered by feminism.
Let me rephrase it - feminism is, in its entirety, about women. What it solves for men it only does to make it work for women. It’s a movement about women’s rights, after all. It has never been about men, and blindly following feminism as men is like trying to make a pencil using a blueprint for a hammer.
From my experiences, I don’t face much questioning around men’s issues in the feminist communities, as long as it’s not something directly concerning women, and even then little consideration is given to considering why men act a certain way and what conditions should be changed to prevent it - it most commonly takes a directive approach instead.
Feminists were not the ones who made it impossible to live on one salary - capitalists simply used the fact both people in the family are now working to be able to pay less and extract more profits. But feminists speak little about the fact most of that financial burden still lies on men, or that there is a common expectation for a man to earn more than a woman. For them, it’s commonly a non-issue.
What is beyond me at the end of the day is why people took the movement that is about women, always claims to be about women and historically never been about anyone but women and suddenly pretended it’s about everyone, while it didn’t change the slightest in that regard. Women lead feminism, and men have little input in its development. Women see feminism as a movement about themselves. But when the time comes for someone to point this out, everyone suddenly pretends feminism is about everyone. This community is openly feminist, so, ultimately, it is not for or about men, it’s about what women want men to be.
I, too, have an egalitarian and antisexist background. I have to point that out clearly, because antisexism, while including feminism, is not limited by it, despite what many would make others believe. I am, however, socially pressured to be a provider, and instead do my best to be - exactly - a partner. An equal, not only in joys but in duties as well. And this is surprisingly hard to find someone to share this approach, at least in my area.
Rephrasing the same point does not make it more true. I already got it that it’s your view and I disagree - I don’t think we will find a common ground on this point, which might stem from different personal experience.
Blindly following anything is dumb, kind of general rule. And also feminism does not claim to be solution to all problem. Again it’s a sociological framework (that is evolving) to analyze power dynamics in society, from a rather specific point of view. It’s like expecting game theory to solve all your problems.
It is a non-issue for feminist that men earn more than women? And that women are still financially reliant on man is not a concern for feminists? I think you just fail to see that a lot of points you are mentioning are directly connected to critique feminism is bringing up. And again - no one is stopping men from bringing up those issues - not like men would lack platforms.
And you will never get it, since you fundamentally misunderstand feminism.
And yet, men gather here and talk about their issues - and you are the one having a problem with it. While no-one is stopping you from creating a non feminist male issue community and see where it goes. Or you can check one that was around here and see how it ended.
Guess who is one of the few groups fighting against societal pressure thru narrow gender roles? But than again if you are searching for non feminist women who want to be equal partners and not a provider - I might have an idea why it’s hard.