5 ms·

Women as an "interest group" have been incredible at PR this last century. Men, on the other hand, have yet to realize that they can't coast on the existing his

Women as an "interest group" have been incredible at PR this last century. Men, on the other hand, have yet to realize that they can't coast on the existing historic momentum and have to start speaking up. It doesn't help that folks who attempt to represent men's rights are instantly smeared as either pathetic incel losers, or as alt-right oppressor misogynists. There's no in-between that I'm aware of. From what I can tell, shame is the main weapon used against men who claim that men's rights have a justifiable place in society. No healthy "meninism" exists as of today the same way it does for women, and I suspect this is causing all sorts of problems.

rdtwo 5y ago
Yep mens right is a cesspool of toxicity but so is much of the modern women’s movement one is just tolerated and the other crushed
kansface 5y ago
Doesn't Jordan Peterson occupy that niche?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- MathCodeLove 5y ago
  He does, but he's painted as some awful far-right figure head for daring to mention mens issues and protesting legally compelled speech. Anyone who takes the time to listen to what he has to say knows his views are actually quite reasonable and mild.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    >Anyone who takes the time to listen to what he has to say knows his views are actually quite reasonable and mild. Unlike his acolytes. He is careful in his language but seems happy for his followers to mis-interpret it.
    - MathCodeLove 5y ago
      Why do you say that? He's careful in his speech not because he's trying to subtly mislead anyone, but the very same people who attempt to smear him would love to have the opportunity to criticize an incorrect word choice. Using the term "acolytes" is intellectually dishonest here and shows poor faith. Its conjures images of blind, zealous followers. No one who espouses hate can also truly be his "acolyte". He's publically denounced such individuals multiple times.
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        Because he seems to spend no time correcting what he'd claim are massive misconceptions among his fans. Ultimately, Peterson is famous because of reactionary politics. He got attention for opposing legislation protecting trans people and has been riding the "anti-woke" train ever since. That he also has written self help material is just happenstance.
        calumetregion 5y ago
        The anti-woke train has a lot of steam because humans are great at recognizing patterns over time, and are evolved to do this, which is why this stuff eventually reaches WaPo, NYT, et al.
        UncleMeat 5y ago
        Regardless of whether that is true, I'm not talking about the merits of Peterson's "anti-wokeness". Instead I'm pointing out that it is the foundational component of his following and he actively cultivates this.
        SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        I think Peterson would say he is simply the beneficiary of handling it correctly when Woke Culture attacks him, and his public persona with respect to wokeness has been shaped more by their actions than his. Personally I'm not sure - is there a clear action of his that you'd point to as cultivating an anti-woke bent or is your assessment based more on outcomes?
adriand 5y ago
Feminism isn’t about putting women ahead of men though. It’s about creating equity. Feminism is needed because of the ongoing power imbalance between the sexes. There are still very few arenas in which men do not enjoy the advantage. The men’s rights stuff is toxic because it’s about conflict. It’s about pushing back against feminism, which is essentially fighting against equity. With that said, I see nothing wrong with fighting for the interests of boys and men. I, too, want to see boys succeed (I have a son!) But it’s not about his rights. It’s about his opportunities and the support and so on, that he gets. It isn’t feminism that is holding boys and men back, it’s that we live in an inequitable society. That makes feminists allies, not enemies. I agree with your parent commenter, kodah, that gender blaming is reductive. I recognize that the way I phrased my views could have been better: perhaps a more constructive way of putting it is to say that the present situation is one that men have both the responsibility to improve, and the power to do so.
- hiptobecubic 5y ago
  This post pretty much perfectly reflects their point. "Arguing for men's rights is bad because it's all about squashing women, otherwise they'd be arguing for women's rights, which is actually just arguing for everyone's rights." This just isn't a reasonable way to frame it at all. There aren't many places where men have a clear and systematic disadvantage in society, but there are some and arguing that there shouldn't be is not all about conflict.
  - dlp211 5y ago
    Then make those arguments, few do without coming full of baggage.
    - setr 5y ago
      The baggage is assumed, whether or not it exists, and regardless of whether you bring it. Of course, that’s true for any argument held between strangers, for both participants.
- mecha_ghidorah 5y ago

rdtwo 5y ago

Yep mens right is a cesspool of toxicity but so is much of the modern women’s movement one is just tolerated and the other crushed

kansface 5y ago

Doesn't Jordan Peterson occupy that niche?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
MathCodeLove 5y ago
He does, but he's painted as some awful far-right figure head for daring to mention mens issues and protesting legally compelled speech. Anyone who takes the time to listen to what he has to say knows his views are actually quite reasonable and mild.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  >Anyone who takes the time to listen to what he has to say knows his views are actually quite reasonable and mild. Unlike his acolytes. He is careful in his language but seems happy for his followers to mis-interpret it.
  - MathCodeLove 5y ago
    Why do you say that? He's careful in his speech not because he's trying to subtly mislead anyone, but the very same people who attempt to smear him would love to have the opportunity to criticize an incorrect word choice. Using the term "acolytes" is intellectually dishonest here and shows poor faith. Its conjures images of blind, zealous followers. No one who espouses hate can also truly be his "acolyte". He's publically denounced such individuals multiple times.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      Because he seems to spend no time correcting what he'd claim are massive misconceptions among his fans. Ultimately, Peterson is famous because of reactionary politics. He got attention for opposing legislation protecting trans people and has been riding the "anti-woke" train ever since. That he also has written self help material is just happenstance.
      - calumetregion 5y ago
        The anti-woke train has a lot of steam because humans are great at recognizing patterns over time, and are evolved to do this, which is why this stuff eventually reaches WaPo, NYT, et al.
        UncleMeat 5y ago
        Regardless of whether that is true, I'm not talking about the merits of Peterson's "anti-wokeness". Instead I'm pointing out that it is the foundational component of his following and he actively cultivates this.
        SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        I think Peterson would say he is simply the beneficiary of handling it correctly when Woke Culture attacks him, and his public persona with respect to wokeness has been shaped more by their actions than his. Personally I'm not sure - is there a clear action of his that you'd point to as cultivating an anti-woke bent or is your assessment based more on outcomes?

adriand 5y ago

Feminism isn’t about putting women ahead of men though. It’s about creating equity. Feminism is needed because of the ongoing power imbalance between the sexes. There are still very few arenas in which men do not enjoy the advantage. The men’s rights stuff is toxic because it’s about conflict. It’s about pushing back against feminism, which is essentially fighting against equity. With that said, I see nothing wrong with fighting for the interests of boys and men. I, too, want to see boys succeed (I have a son!) But it’s not about his rights. It’s about his opportunities and the support and so on, that he gets. It isn’t feminism that is holding boys and men back, it’s that we live in an inequitable society. That makes feminists allies, not enemies. I agree with your parent commenter, kodah, that gender blaming is reductive. I recognize that the way I phrased my views could have been better: perhaps a more constructive way of putting it is to say that the present situation is one that men have both the responsibility to improve, and the power to do so.

hiptobecubic 5y ago
This post pretty much perfectly reflects their point. "Arguing for men's rights is bad because it's all about squashing women, otherwise they'd be arguing for women's rights, which is actually just arguing for everyone's rights." This just isn't a reasonable way to frame it at all. There aren't many places where men have a clear and systematic disadvantage in society, but there are some and arguing that there shouldn't be is not all about conflict.
- dlp211 5y ago
  Then make those arguments, few do without coming full of baggage.
  - setr 5y ago
    The baggage is assumed, whether or not it exists, and regardless of whether you bring it. Of course, that’s true for any argument held between strangers, for both participants.
mecha_ghidorah 5y ago