this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
-41 points (18.5% liked)

Men's Liberation

1850 readers
1 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
 

Why are we continuing to use biased language?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nac82@lemm.ee -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

If semantics isn't a real problem, why do you oppose the changing of semantics so desperately to the point of insulting/diminishing those that discuss it?

You're literally part of a "men's right group" while simultaneously using the literal phrase for it as an insult because of Toxic Feminism.

The first step of an inclusive society that listens to each others issues is already being failed by your ideology that is asking it of others. The feminist movement that inherently shits on men's rights are in no way representative of an inclusive group of left minded people. Recently, these groups are being labeled as the new right wing online pipeline for women.

It seems like you want to have and eat cake here.

If it is such a common problem, why is there no common inclusive response?

[–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Re-read my last comment, follow the link, read some definitions. You either missed or skipped the point I made on my previous comment that we are not on a “men’s rights group”. You’re kind of illustrating my point for me here. Feel free to point out at the “insult” I made, I’ll gladly retract if there is genuinely one. I can’t find it.

[–] nac82@lemm.ee -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're misreading my response. The "men's rights group" is the insult I'm talking about.

You are ashamed to participate in advocating for men because of Toxic feminist perspectives I'm addressing.

[–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I’m sorry, but I think it’s the other way around. As I mentioned in my previous comments, “men’s liberation” and “men’s rights” just both happen to be names referring to specific movements that both advocate for men’s interests, but largely disagree on the causes.

If you still genuinely think I’m somehow ashamed of advocating for men just cause I don’t agree with the ideas of the MRM in particular, this idea that feminism as a whole is somehow either obsoleted by the existence its extremist elements, rather than just being a parallel fight, then… what are we arguing over, exactly?

[–] nac82@lemm.ee -2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I feel like I wrote what I intended to say very specifically and then clarified when there was confusion about our disagreement.

Feel free to address my point about how the phrase "men's rights" became such a toxic branded phrase due to an ideology that hated men having any form of organized action addressing the harms men face.

It was a label created outside pointed inwards. By definition, this is a "men's rights movement" space, and an outside force is equally capable of branding it under the same title for the exact same reasons.

The disagreement here was your unity with said toxic viewpoints.

I feel like all of this has now been written out 3 times, so I will wait for you to respond to it before engaging further.

[–] spaduf@slrpnk.net 4 points 7 months ago

"Men's rights" has literally always had a toxic connotation.

The term "men's rights" was used at least as early as February 1856 when it appeared in Putnam's Magazine. The author was responding to the issue of women's rights, calling it a "new movement for social reform, and even for political revolution", which the author proposed to counter with men's rights.[12] Ernest Belfort Bax wrote The Legal Subjection of Men in 1896, deriding the women's rights movement as a farcical effort by women—the "privileged sex"—to prove they were "oppressed."