The relevance is cause and effect. Conversations about men’s lib affect women, and that’s why women are relevant. Do conversations about women’s lib affect men? Sometimes, but not always. It takes more judgement in that situation.
Because we should talk about everyone who’s significantly affected by a decision or issue, not just the single group most affected. Otherwise we invite harmful externalities.
Basically, it’s a matter of lensing, of perception, of how to think to think about a problem, right?
In my opinion, viewing it through a feminist lens does nothing but detract from the problem. Everyone should be treated equally, and should strive for that. Everyone should stand up for themselves, make their problems known, fix them to the best of their ability, and try to get what help they need, in a focused manner. Feminists did this. MLK did this. Pride is doing this. Pretty much every successful civil rights movement did this.
MRAs are doing the exact same thing. It’s not a problem that they are focused on men, that’s a good thing. Feminists focused on women. MLK focused on racial minorities. Pride is focused on lgbtq+ folk.
Do you remember Occupy Wall Street, how unfocused that was? It failed horribly.
When you focus on men’s issues from a feminist point of view, you’re not focusing on the problem. You’re focusing on a feminist interpretation of a problem, and feminists don’t care. Or in this case, work to shut down the solution.
A lot of people say feminism is supposed to be for everyone. But as a nonbinary person and not a feminine person, I take issue with that framing of the conversation. So I hear your grievances. Liberation for women doesn’t necessarily mean liberation for me. I can see why you don’t want women to lead your issues.
However, there is no reason we shouldn’t listen to the science and research done by feminists. If we form a new movement without listening to the wisdom of the past, we might fall victim to obvious mistakes. I believe that’s what happened to the members of the incel movement who’ve been brainwashed by people like Tate. They refused to listen to the wisdom women had accumulated, and fell for the first bad actor who wasn’t a woman.
We should be responsible in what we can gain and what others can maintain when we keep communication lines open. Nothing has to be lost when we listen.
The relevance is cause and effect. Conversations about men’s lib affect women, and that’s why women are relevant. Do conversations about women’s lib affect men? Sometimes, but not always. It takes more judgement in that situation.
So the lack of mens domestic violence shelters affects women more than men?
This shit is why mens lib is a joke. MRAs can stay on topic. Mens lib puts women on a pedestal.
I didn’t say “more than”, you added that part. You invented something to get mad at.
Then why bring up how women are affected? Because it comes off like you care more about women then men, despite being mens lib.
Because we should talk about everyone who’s significantly affected by a decision or issue, not just the single group most affected. Otherwise we invite harmful externalities.
How is opening up a mens domestic violence shelter affecting women, aside from like an extra half of a cent on their taxes?
That’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing the meta issue of whether we should even discuss men’s issues in this particular way.
Right, sorry, got a bit off topic.
(Full disclosure, I am a cis straight white man)
Basically, it’s a matter of lensing, of perception, of how to think to think about a problem, right?
In my opinion, viewing it through a feminist lens does nothing but detract from the problem. Everyone should be treated equally, and should strive for that. Everyone should stand up for themselves, make their problems known, fix them to the best of their ability, and try to get what help they need, in a focused manner. Feminists did this. MLK did this. Pride is doing this. Pretty much every successful civil rights movement did this.
MRAs are doing the exact same thing. It’s not a problem that they are focused on men, that’s a good thing. Feminists focused on women. MLK focused on racial minorities. Pride is focused on lgbtq+ folk.
Do you remember Occupy Wall Street, how unfocused that was? It failed horribly.
When you focus on men’s issues from a feminist point of view, you’re not focusing on the problem. You’re focusing on a feminist interpretation of a problem, and feminists don’t care. Or in this case, work to shut down the solution.
A lot of people say feminism is supposed to be for everyone. But as a nonbinary person and not a feminine person, I take issue with that framing of the conversation. So I hear your grievances. Liberation for women doesn’t necessarily mean liberation for me. I can see why you don’t want women to lead your issues.
However, there is no reason we shouldn’t listen to the science and research done by feminists. If we form a new movement without listening to the wisdom of the past, we might fall victim to obvious mistakes. I believe that’s what happened to the members of the incel movement who’ve been brainwashed by people like Tate. They refused to listen to the wisdom women had accumulated, and fell for the first bad actor who wasn’t a woman.
We should be responsible in what we can gain and what others can maintain when we keep communication lines open. Nothing has to be lost when we listen.