10
11

The basis of Men's Lib (self.MensLib)

Russelsteapot42 が 投稿

I understand that this community exists in a contentious place, both politically and historically, and that's why I want to be a part of it. The most efficient way to effect change is to place yourself in a crack in the rhetoric of society and give both sides a solid push, but this is also a great way to get crushed between them.

That said, I think there are some ideas we have to come to a consensus on, if we want Men's Lib to be a successful movement, and I think the first thing we need to agree on, unequivocally, is that Men are actually in need of Liberation.

Liberation, not just 'getting over ourselves' or 'accepting feminism' or what have you, but that men need to be liberated. To me, it seems impossible to hold this position if you do not accept that men are among the oppressed: not by women exclusively, or by men, but by a society that expects us to fit in a rigidly defined gender role, and harshly punishes those who stray from it.

I think people who refuse to accept this basic premise aren't really part of this movement.

全 49 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]dermanus 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

We need liberation from gender roles the same way women have been pursuing it. They're not all the way there yet, but they have got a head start on us.

The specific things holding us back are different but the restrictive attitudes are the same.

I never understood the attitude that if you just fix one then the other will happen naturally.

[–]Man-jusri 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed. My understanding of the purpose of this sub was to apply a particular ideological and conceptual framework (feminism) in understanding how men are oppressed.

[–]roe_ 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agree-ish. But probably not in the way most of this sub imagines.

I want people to be free to abdicate the roles of their gender, but I also want people to be free to embrace them. But many feminists (and especially male feminists) think that abdicating gender roles has to go along with hating patriarchy, and this is where I disagree. I would like to see the freedom to not conform to gender roles get decoupled from the shaming of the history of masculinity.

I want to be free of men's perceived history as the oppressors of women - I don't want to revalourize patriarchy particularly, but I want it understood that it wasn't men oppressing women, it was men and women participating in a system that was probably the best that could be devised, given the constraints and goals they had to work with and achieve.

I can't be proud, as a man, if I am not proud of the history of men - if I think I am the descendant of violent oppressors.

[–]nubyrd 0ポイント1ポイント  (22子コメント)

Not really. Experiencing negative side effects resulting from the oppression of other groups isn't really the same as oppression itself.

And "liberation" is a rather broad term. I don't think it implies anything about oppression being a prerequisite.

[–]dermanus 5ポイント6ポイント  (17子コメント)

I guess the question I would ask you is whether or not oppression requires an oppressor, or if it can happen as a result of passive outside forces.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't say 'passive outside forces' so much as things like tradition and social convention. People can be complicit in their mutual oppression.

An example I've used before: imagine a society in which, by traditional arrangement, the first children of any family are only allowed to fish to earn a living, and the second children are only allowed to make or mine salt (and alternating for the subsequent children.)

In this situation, both groups need each other to survive the winter, so each group has cause to resent the other for the power this gives them. Both are oppressed, and both are participating in their mutual oppression. The only way to end this situation is for people on both sides to allow themselves and the other group participate in those actions forbidden to them by social convention.

[–]nubyrd 2ポイント3ポイント  (15子コメント)

I think there needs to be an oppressor, or an oppressive societal structure which systematically disadvantages a particular group.

Groups who are advantaged under this system might face issues directly as a result of this structure, but it's not oppression, because it's a side effect of the system, not a core disadvantage which the system is set up to perpetuate.

[–]dermanus 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think there needs to be an oppressor, or an oppressive societal structure which systematically disadvantages a particular group.

OK, so an oppressor is not required, it can happen through things like cultural forces or pressures?

Groups who are advantaged under this system might face issues directly as a result of this structure, but it's not oppression, because it's a side effect of the system, not a core disadvantage which the system is set up to perpetuate.

Are systems set up for the purpose of perpetuating those advantages or disadvantages, or are those a byproduct of some other systemic goal (like survival)?

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (13子コメント)

Groups who are advantaged under this system might face issues directly as a result of this structure,

Are you saying that all men are universally advantaged in all ways under this system? That the purpose of this system is to advantage all men over all women?

[–]nubyrd 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

Are you saying that all men are universally advantaged in all ways under this system? That the purpose of this system is to advantage all men over all women?

Not in all ways. And not "all men over all women", as men can belong to lots of disadvantaged groups due to their race, sexuality, economic status etc.

Speaking purely in terms of the axis of gender, I believe that men are systematically advantaged in a number of key ways over women, yes. I don't believe that women hold systematic advantages in the same way. And I believe that men face issues resulting from how society is structured, but which are not generally due to being systematically disadvantaged in the manner in which women are.

[–]Dewey_Darl 5ポイント6ポイント  (5子コメント)

I guess I disagree with you in that I don't feel that systematic advantage is a 1 dimensional axis. I think there are many axes and examples of systematic opression, and I think men and women both experience it to some extent.

That men get longer sentences for the same crimes seems to me a good example of systematic disadvantage. Even if that disadvantage comes from gender stereotypes that hurt women too, and even if women also have systematic disadvantages, doesn't that one example mean that men are technically systematically "oppressed" to a certain extent?

[–]dermanus 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

I guess I disagree with you in that I don't feel that systematic advantage is a 1 dimensional axis. I think there are many axes and examples of systematic opression, and I think men and women both experience it to some extent.

Excepting the bit specifically about men and women, isn't that a textbook definition of intersectionality?

Some interpretations seem to work as a checklist of one dimensional axes (black vs. white, male vs female, trans vs cis, etc...) but the way I understand it is that every person faces challenges unique to their given situation so you should never assume that a person has it better or worse than you based on superficial characteristics.

[–]Dewey_Darl 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

I definitely see how it would be interpreted that way, but I was actually sort of intended it in a different way there. I think axes of intersectionality refer to different elements of identity, while axis in my use referrs to different areas of opressions, such as opression in the justice system, economic disenfranchisement, physical abuse, or social stigma. I guess my point is that you can't really say that one gender is disadvantaged and therefore another gender is advantaged, because men and women are advantaged and disadvanteged in different ways (or on different axes).

However, I think this concept is deeply related to intersectionality. People who fall on different places on the axes of identity will also fall on different places in the axes of disadvantage as a result of that identity. So I guess in a way you're correct, I am actually talking about intersectionality.

[–]AnarchCassius 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hence I don't think your analysis is quite within the bounds of the current intersectional model but I see that more as a limit of the approach then a problem with your view.

I think with kyriarchy we are finally seeing a shift away from reductionist back towards complex analysis that is more compatible with that of anarchists and socialists. The next step is in recognizing that even the most over privileged group can be oppressed in some contexts.

This is important because "can" doesn't mean "is", the current "oppressor/oppressed" model lacks the nuance to distinguish the magnitude of difference, or if that difference is complicated by differing contexts.

Taking the prevailing model to it's logical conclusion you could assign a value to the privilege of a given group, but you would be ble to have identical values for a group slightly privileged in one context and one majorly privilege in one area but underprivileged in others. It can tell you who is on top, on average, but that is not really the most important piece of information.

Economic class privilege and gender privileged don't work in the same way because of this sort of difference. Where you have mixed privileges related to context it becomes easy for those in power to pit such groups against each other.

It is also important to see the "oppressor" group not as simply those demographics with the most privilege, but those individuals who wield considerable individual power over society. These people overwhelmingly belong to several over privileged groups but it is them specifically, and not those groups as a whole that society tends to be engineered to help. Which isn't to say society is terribly engineered as these people tend to feud with themselves and have differing preferences. The average man is no more an oppressor than the average woman and only somewhat less oppressed. Society was not designed to benefit men at the expense of women, it has been subverted by generations of greedy con artists seeking to keep themselves on top of the pile by any means necessary and those means have changed with the eras.

[–]nubyrd -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I guess I disagree with you in that I don't feel that systematic advantage is a 1 dimensional axis.

Of course it's not. I was just specifically talking about the gender axis, because poor men, gay men, trans men, men of colour etc. are all obviously disadvantaged, and therefore all men are not advantaged over all women.

That men get longer sentences for the same crimes seems to me a good example of systematic disadvantage. Even if that disadvantage comes from gender stereotypes that hurt women too, and even if women also have systematic disadvantages, doesn't that one example mean that men are technically systematically "oppressed" to a certain extent?

But it comes from a stereotype regarding the incapability of women of knowingly/intentionally committing heinous crimes, and lacking the agency to be as responsible for their actions as a man. Like, the affordance of more agency, and thus more responsibility for their actions to men ultimately, in this case, results in harsher sentences. Thus, it can't really be described as systematically oppressive, but rather that the side effect of being afforded the systematic advantage of being viewed as having more agency over their actions.

[–]AnarchCassius 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

But it comes from a stereotype regarding the incapability of women of knowingly/intentionally committing heinous crimes, and lacking the agency to be as responsible for their actions as a man.

That's one proposed explanation. Another would be that a large population of disposable males for labor and war are of use to the ruling elite and therefore they do what they can to promote such ideas.

Thus, it can't really be described as systematically oppressive, but rather that the side effect of being afforded the systematic advantage of being viewed as having more agency over their actions.

One could also describe women's restrictions on their actions as a side effect of the high value society places on them, much like Popes and Presidents hedged in by security. There's some truth to both sides but if you are going to put forth one hypothetical model as truth while denying the possibility of another it'd be nice to see some empirical evidence to back your claims.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Speaking purely in terms of the axis of gender, I believe that men are systematically advantaged in a number of key ways over women, yes. I don't believe that women hold systematic advantages in the same way. And I believe that men face issues resulting from how society is structured, but which are not generally due to being systematically disadvantaged in the manner in which women are

Then I can't possibly see how you think men need to be liberated. I feel like some other term would be more appropriate.

And I also think you are incorrect on pretty much every point.

[–]nubyrd 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

  1. Arguing over the semantics of the world "liberation" would be pointless. I'm happy enough to accept that we may have differing interpretations of the word.

  2. I'm not sure where you got the words "tamed", "awakened", or "corrected" from anything I wrote. Could you expand?

  3. That is rather damning. Hopefully someone else will have gained something from my posts here.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

1&2: I didn't say you said those things directly, but they would better fit the idea that men just need to stop being so oppressive and the negative issues of the male gender role will just disappear. That doesn't make any sense as something you need to be 'liberated' from. Did the British Empire need to be liberated from their colonization of India?

3: I guess I'm damned for not falling into lockstep with your particular orthodoxy of gender issues. I'm used to being a heretic.

[–]nubyrd -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, actually I believe that absence of oppression doesn't minimize any issues any group faces. I am also strongly opposed to the idea that men's issues will resolve themselves as women's issues are resolved, which is a PoV I've heard a number of times before.

For example, I don't view toxic masculinity as something borne of oppression. I do view toxic masculinity as an extremely serious issue (well, an umbrella of issues, really) affecting men adversely. I strongly feel that it is something that needs to be addressed in a male focused manner, and which men do need to be "liberated" from.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

for example, I don't view toxic masculinity as something borne of oppression.

I don't either. I see it as a tool for oppression, a method by which men are convinced to oppress other men and women.

[–]Galle_ 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Right, see, this is exactly the issue. It's not a "side effect". It's a lesser effect, yes, but calling it a side effect is anthropomorphizing an abstract concept.

Sexism doesn't have intentions or goals, it's just a thing that happened. This wasn't intentionally set up by anyone, or for anyone, it's the result of social policies that made some logical sense in some prehistoric age becoming monstrously exaggerated until they scarcely bore any resemblance to a sane or functional society.

Both men and women are victims of it. Both men and women are complicit in it. Women are hurt more than men, but hurting women is just as much a "side effect" as hurting men is.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Experiencing negative side effects resulting from the oppression of other groups isn't really the same as oppression itself.

If that's all you think that men face, then I don't think you believe in Men's Lib at all. I also think you are wrong.

And "liberation" is a rather broad term. I don't think it implies anything about oppression being a prerequisite.

Then what, exactly, do we need to be liberated from?

[–]nubyrd 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

If that's all you think that men face, then I don't think you believe in Men's Lib at all. I also think you are wrong.

No doubt there are a few nonconforming examples, but I find that generally the types of issues which men face for being men distill down to blowback from societal misogyny or homophobia. What sorts of things do you have in mind?

Also, I am somewhat miffed at your characterization of me as not believing in Men's Lib after reading a single one of my posts.

Then what, exactly, do we need to be liberated from?

The sidebar sums it up nicely:

the variety of ways in which patriarchal tradition has been damaging to men

The side effects of demonizing "femininity" (i.e. behaviours traditionally associated with women), resulting in men displaying such behaviours being frowned upon, the trappings of toxic masculinity, the difficulty with reconciling the traditional messages we've been taught about how to be men with the reality of gender roles in the 21st century.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

No doubt there are a few nonconforming examples, but I find that generally the types of issues which men face for being men distill down to blowback from societal misogyny or homophobia. What sorts of things do you have in mind?

Homelessness, the empathy gap, the expectation of being used to commit violence against the enemies of society, the assumption that we are all sexual predators, and the list goes on. I don't think they all boil down to misogyny and homophobia.

Also, I am somewhat miffed at your characterization of me as not believing in Men's Lib after reading a single one of my posts.

Sorry, but to my mind you may as well be claiming to be a Christian while denying the existence of any Christ.

The side effects of demonizing "femininity" (i.e. behaviours traditionally associated with women), resulting in men displaying such behaviours being frowned upon, the trappings of toxic masculinity, the difficulty with reconciling the traditional messages we've been taught about how to be men with the reality of gender roles in the 21st century.

And who is to blame for this state of affairs, exactly? All men, all the time? Only some men?

[–]Starwhisperer -5ポイント-4ポイント  (15子コメント)

TIL that men are oppressed.

Really? How are men oppressed? I think we need to stop confounding specific terms that mean different things in colloquial settings and in academic settings.

[–]AnarchCassius 5ポイント6ポイント  (11子コメント)

I think we need to stop confounding specific terms that mean different things in colloquial settings and in academic settings.

People also need to stop acting as if academics generally supports only definition. In fact terms can vary so widely that defining them in the context is often a key part of papers. Academia itself seems to be far more varied in its use of terms, and tolerant of such, then many of its enthusiasts.

As Dewey_Darl said systematic advantage isn't a 1 dimensional axis and men and women both experience gender based oppression it to some degree. Men are disposable, seen as incapable of being victims and deserving of whatever fate come their way. This is often claimed to be some indirect effect of misogyny, but just as plausible and far simple is the explanation that they are most useful to the true oppressors, the ruling elite, when these things are expected.

Saying that only women can be "oppressed" because they face more disadvantage is simply trying to make a qualitative difference out of a quantitative one. Men face issues for being men and they are not merely a side effect of misogyny or some other simplistic explanation. There are two sets of confining gender roles and the male role, while generally being more privileged, is hardly not oppressed by this restriction. If is perfectly possible for a system of authority to oppress both categories and inequal distribution of oppression does not make one category suddenly not oppression.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

they are most useful to the true oppressors, the ruling elite, when these things are expected.

This is very much my opinion on the subject as well. The elite always know they can get out of the most onerous expectations on their gender, meanwhile using gender expectations as a lever to move people when they want to.

[–]Starwhisperer 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

I'm quite aware about the nuances of oppression. And by that, I'm aware of what it is meant by the term "oppression" within the gender domain and the cases one would need to make if they for some reason are adamant to include men into this definition of oppression. But those are very specific and it leads to additional analysis, not just some idea to claim being among "the oppressed" and be done with it.

I'm just less willing to continue giving a pass to viewpoints from those that claim that men are oppressed and then point to homelessness. Or say men are oppressed then point to divorce. Or that men are oppressed and point to false rapes. I'm not equating any of those two issues to what the OP said. But I think we should be more cognizant of the harmful effects of the "true victimhood" angle and the misleading rhetoric of those who want to go to the moon and back defending, proving, or asserting a position within an imaginary battle field, a nonexistent history, and a distorted reality. That's all.

There's a way to discuss specific gender-based issues and problems without going out of your way to imply that the system has been rewritten to somehow place the fact that you are man as a disadvantage in and of itself. You don't know what I'm saying as indicated by this "saying that only women can be "oppressed" because they face more disadvantage is simply trying to make a qualitative difference out of a quantitative one."

And lastly...

men face issues for being men and they are not merely a side effect of misogyny or some other simplistic explanation.

It's quite hard to claim this when both issues that men and women face are mostly as a result of the flawed ideals of our past.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

imply that the system has been rewritten to somehow place the fact that you are man as a disadvantage in and of itself.

That's not what I'm implying at all. You are mistaking what I'm saying for something like 'feminism has ruined everything' when I don't believe that at all.

both issues that men and women face are mostly as a result of the flawed ideals of our past.

I wouldn't disagree. Most of the problems faced by men are the result of those same ideals. Society's oppression of its men is as old as its oppression of women.

[–]Starwhisperer -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

Yeah, I wasn't meaning to put words in your mouth. I made sure to clarify that I wasn't speaking about you and your position per se. I just think the conversation that men are affected negatively by gender roles is a statement that everyone is fully supportive of.

Society's oppression of its men is as old as its oppression of women.

We're talking about different kinds of oppression, here.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

We're talking about different kinds of oppression, here

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that one of them isn't as real or worth solving as the other.

[–]Starwhisperer -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

I just think the conversation that men are affected negatively by gender roles is a statement that everyone is fully supportive of.

harmful effects of the "true victimhood"...within an imaginary battle field

No, I'm not going to entertain the idea that your meaning of what is meant by oppression should be equated to what is meant by "oppression" in gender based contexts.

So to this,

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that one of them isn't as real or worth solving as the other.

I say this. I don't understand that even on a sub that is literally called /MensLib with this as a sidebar /r/MensLib is a space for constructive discussion of men's issues how this imaginary war is still being fought. What more do you want? Do you want to rewrite history so that women were not forced to the bottom and so that your debasement becomes historically backed. Thus making the idea of your systemic oppression have an inkling of merit. Please do. For women's sake. Until then, this space is for men, and we should operate under reality.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Oh, you were just being condescending. My mistake.

Do you want to rewrite history to eliminate all of the men conscripted into wars, to be maimed or killed for imperialism? Every man beaten or killed for not meeting the masculine ideal, every man shamed for failing to marry?

For someone who doesn't want to put words in my mouth, you're very good at doing it.

[–]Starwhisperer -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Ah yah, I've been getting I'm condescending alot on Reddit from people like you for some reason. I don't see it though. I think I've just lost patience on some viewpoints that consistently miss the point.

Do you want to rewrite history to eliminate all of the men conscripted into wars, to be maimed or killed for imperialism? Every man beaten or killed for not meeting the masculine ideal, every man shamed for failing to marry?

But, I seem to have read your pov correctly though in this case. So, all my previous points stand. I'm so sorry that society shames you for not being able to marry and all the other things you've said. And yeah, to a user like you, I'd say men aren't oppressed. Sorry >.>

And also, I think your claims are actually very devaluing of men who have experienced terrible things because of how men and women are viewed in a society like ours, and are not just mentioning them for the sake of an ill-advised point. And what you're doing is actually belittling those experiences and that's not right. But anyway, nice chat, I've learned all that I needed to know. My hunches are usually correct.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've been getting I'm condescending alot on Reddit from people

I don't wonder why.

And what you're doing is actually belittling those experiences and that's not right.

You're right. They would be much better served if no one ever talked about their suffering.

Sorry, but your silencing tactics won't work on me.

[–]Galle_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, I'm not going to entertain the idea that your meaning of what is meant by oppression should be equated to what is meant by "oppression" in gender based contexts.

Any definition of "oppression" that requires a clear and unambiguous oppressor and oppressed is never going to be accurately suited for describing gender issues. Sexism isn't like racism or homophobia, it's a loss for both men and women. There are no winners here, men just happen to be losing less.

If we're going to have a constructive discussion of men's issues, it has to start by acknowledging that they're real issues, not the whining of spoiled brats.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Again, because sometimes repetition is necessary for learning:

Homelessness, the empathy gap, the expectation of being used to commit violence against the enemies of society, the assumption that we are all sexual predators, and the list goes on.

How, exactly, is this not oppression? If we are not oppressed by these social expectations, what exactly do we need to be liberated from?

[–]Starwhisperer 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Homelessness, the empathy gap, the expectation of being used to commit violence against the enemies of society, the assumption that we are all sexual predators, and the list goes on.

Is this what you mean when you say the word oppression? Again, oppression mean different things in different settings. So, yes, if you want to claim that men make up the majority of being homeless because society somehow "discriminates" against men for this to happen then, I don't know. I think you and I have different viewpoints on what these terms mean. And that's okay. You can call that oppression if you like, but when I say "oppression" I'm not talking about any negative thing that may happen to humans.

[–]Russelsteapot42[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

if you want to claim that men make up the majority of being homeless because society somehow "discriminates" against men for this to happen then, I don't know.

I do want to claim that. Assistance in avoiding or escaping homelessness is much more easily available to women than it is to men. My female partner was briefly homeless, and she is convinced that her experience was much briefer and less unpleasant than it would have been if she were male. Women's only homeless shelters are more common and better funded, and women are much more likely to find temporary residence in the guest room or on the couch of a friend or relative until they get back on their feet.

What, exactly, do you mean when you say 'oppression'?

[–]VinterMute -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

Does everything really have to be applied through a foucauldian lens with critical theory? The whole concept of an 'oppressed' and 'oppressor' relationship is great for strengthening divides so as to incite class warfare or race-bait, but it really does not do much here.

What is wrong with simply stating that by and large, most men have a pretty raw deal with society on many facets? That there are a lot of severe problems we face for being men which is either ignored or socially derisible? The problem is not some shadowy "oppressor" group causing harm, it is the amount of apathy and hostility integrated into our culture.

Also, does "liberation" really need to be a precondition based on the name of the sub? I believe that the sub is named for the predecessor of the current MRM back when separatism was vogue, and shouldn't need to be prescriptive to the movement. Mgtow are the ones bucking social expectations and achieving "liberation", clearly the purpose of this sub is quite different.

[–][削除されました]  (6子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]VinterMute 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    edited

    [–]Starwhisperer 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    You never removed it did you?

    [–]Dewey_Darl 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    God damnit. Killin it over here. Thanks starwhisp.