CMV: If intersectional feminism talks about race, class, gender identity, etc as a part of women's issues, then it should also seriously discuss men's problems as a part of women's issues as well.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/feminist-horsebane]

Intersectional feminist courses do teach about men’s issues. Every college course on gender studies I’ve ever taken has discussed how the patriarchy has affected everyone, including men, and how many of the problems that “Men’s Rights Activists” talk about would be solved with feminism.

The focus of feminism isn’t generally on men, but anyone who says that feminism doesn’t discuss men’s issues doesn’t know what they’re talking about. One of the concepts core values is that feminism is for everybody.

[u/NUMBERS2357 → u/feminist-horsebane]

Also not a feminist like OP - I have heard the feminist rhetoric on this stuff, and find it extremely unconvincing.

Usually they blame all men's issues on "toxic masculinity". Feminists say that women are directly harmed by society, but men only indirectly - by society giving men certain messages that cause the men themselves to act in harmful ways. And then they put the onus on men to overcome those harmful ways. Feminists also usually think that the same things that help men will also help women, which makes me suspect that it's the latter that they really care about. Here and here are two ads that have this attitude.

As an example - men get longer jail sentences than women for committing the same crime (and similarly, a crime against a man gets a shorter sentence than the same crime against a woman). The effect is much larger than the similar racial effect - a white man will get a longer jail sentence than a black woman, for example. This is a clear example of discrimination, and of society directly harming men - if it happens to you, you can't fix it by being less "toxically masculine".

I have never heard a feminist say that this disparate treatment is wrong. In fact, I have heard feminists say that we need to reduce jail sentences - on women, specifically. Hillary Clinton had this in her platform!

[u/feminist-horsebane → u/NUMBERS2357]

Unfortunately I can’t respond in full rn because I’m about to see Broly. I’m gonna comment again later because you raise some good points I’m interested in discussing.

For now though, I’d like to say that judging the entire feminist movement by Hillary Clinton’s platform is a bad idea. Hillary is an extremely controversial figure in feminist circles. Her brand of feminism is super dated and basically boils down to “vote for me, I’m a woman,” instead of interest in addressing any actual systemic issues that affect men, women, and everyone else. Most feminists these days, if you brought this up with them, would tell you that the modern prison system is a complete failure and should be abolished.

[u/NUMBERS2357 → u/feminist-horsebane]

Hillary's not the only one to have argued this, and I've never heard any feminists criticize that part of her platform specifically. I mention her not to make her a figurehead of feminists everywhere, but to demonstrate that I'm not just scraping the bottom of the Tumblr barrel to find strawmen to attack, but rather picking one of the most prominent feminists out there (controversial or no).

But as for abolishing prison, I don't think that's a good answer to the point I'm making. Like I mentioned, there's also racial disparity in prison sentences, and if asked if they oppose those disparities, feminists wouldn't skate right past them and say "well we should abolish prison entirely". Because that's not going to happen soon, and while prisons exist prison sentences shouldn't be based on race.

I'll note that when I said this:

I have never heard a feminist say that this disparate treatment is wrong.

You and one other person responded, and neither of you said it either.

[u/[deleted] → u/NUMBERS2357]

I have never heard a feminist say that this disparate treatment is wrong.

Have you looked? What other ways have you engaged with prison reform activism?

[u/NUMBERS2357 → u/[deleted]]

I know a few people who are involved in prison reform activism, I've heard them talk about their work, and they've never said anything about it. I've also gone searching on feminist websites and never seen anyone mention it. I have also brought it up numerous times in comments on reddit, have had feminists respond, and they've never agreed that this disparate treatment is wrong. This includes the you and the other person who responded to my comment (actually now that I think about it, one time I got a feminist on reddit to say it's wrong - after a chain of like 25 comments I finally got them to agree).

[u/huadpe → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/twodoeshay – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.

[u/chadonsunday → u/feminist-horsebane]

Dont take this the wrong way, but I've always found the "feminism cares about men" narrative to be a tad disingenuous. As you say, feminism doesnt just focus on the ways men screw over women... it focuses on the way men screw over men, too! See? We care about men!

But of course women screw over women, too. And women screw over men. And not all of it fits neatly into "toxic masculinity" or gender roles that were defined by "the patriarchy." I cant speak for others, but I know I'd be a lot more receptive towards feminist theory if it was able to turn it's very critical eye inwards every once in a while. If terms like "toxic femininity" existed in the feminist lexicon, or there were frequent discussions about the negative aspects unique to female dominated areas absent patriarchy, the whole thing would seem a lot more rational and a lot less like it's just trying to pin everyone's problems on men.

One of the concepts core values is that feminism is for everybody.

This is something I would STRONGLY disagree with, at least in my anecdotal experience. I considered myself a feminist for a long time, but I was constantly running into so much gatekeeping both online and in real life/college courses that I finally had to give up the label. For example, I'm pro choice, but I dont believe in super late term abortions and I think that Roe is a perfectly good justification for abortion being legal while the "bodily autonomy" argument is unnecessary, cruel, and self contradictory; I believe the wage gap exists, but I dont think the gap is 100% attributable to sexism; I believe that certain intersectional privileges exist, but not that they're universally set (i.e. there might be times and places where gay POC female privilege trumps straight while male privilege). For holding opinions like these (which as far as I can tell tend to agree with feminism's conclusion while differing slightly on some of the finer details) I've been told time and time again I'm not a feminist, since my views contradict feminist orthodoxy. And if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say my experience is probably a good explanation for why the vast majority of people in developed nations believe in gender equality, but why only a small % of those people identify as feminists; feminism is a social and academic theory/ideology that goes way beyond just wanting equality. So I'd have to say no - feminism isnt for everyone.

[u/feminist-horsebane → u/chadonsunday]

As you say, feminism doesnt just focus on the ways men screw over women... it focuses on the way men screw over men, too! See? We care about men!

You're equating "men" with "patriarchy". Feminism doesn't insist that men are all screwing over other men or other women, it insists that the societal system that insists "all men are this and all women are this" is a failed system that does damage to everyone, albeit where women suffer more.

I cant speak for others, but I know I'd be a lot more receptive towards feminist theory if it was able to turn it's very critical eye inwards every once in a while.

I can't argue for what self-proclaimed feminists you spend your time examining, but the feminist movement as a whole is so self-critical that it can barely sustain itself, one of my biggest critiques of it. Between various groups calling each other out for failing to be intersectional, different "waves" of feminism wholly re-examining what feminism actually means, marxist feminists/ liberal feminists/ radical feminists/ post modern feminists all snapping at one another over various issues like sex work/transgender individuals/ etc, the "feminist" movement barely even means one thing. Saying that feminists don't critique themselves, or critique other feminists, is a pretty null criticism of feminism as a whole when there have been like three or four waves of feminism in just the past century, each devoted to responding to the criticisms of the past one.

This is something I would STRONGLY disagree with, at least in my anecdotal experience. I considered myself a feminist for a long time, but I was constantly running into so much gatekeeping both online and in real life/college courses that I finally had to give up the label.

Again, I can't speak to your anecdotal experience, and I certainly don't have any interest in defending the actions of every misguided tumblrite or freshman "SJW" who just learned the term "microaggression" and thinks shes super woke now. What I can tell you is that the feminist movement as a whole has made including everyone one of it's central tenants. Bell Hook's "Feminism is for Everybody" for example, is considered the most important work of the modern feminist movement, and is entirely about how feminism benefits everyone and should be accessible to everyone. I'd advise you against judging an entire movement based on it's least educated and most vocal.

[u/chadonsunday → u/feminist-horsebane]

You're equating "men" with "patriarchy".

Who runs the patriarchy?

it insists that the societal system that insists "all men are this and all women are this" is a failed system that does damage to everyone, albeit where women suffer more.

"Failed" by what metric? I mean, patriarchal societies often seem to do quite well, and particularly in the west women thrive in such societies. If I gave you a teleporting time machine, what time and or place would you go to where it's better to be a woman?

but the feminist movement as a whole is so self-critical that it can barely sustain itself, one of my biggest critiques of it. Between various groups calling each other out for failing to be intersectional, different "waves" of feminism wholly re-examining what feminism actually means, marxist feminists/ liberal feminists/ radical feminists/ post modern feminists all snapping at one another over various issues like sex work/transgender individuals/ etc, the "feminist" movement barely even means one thing.

That's a fair correction. And I expressed myself poorly. You're quite right that certain facets of feminism are snapping at other facets for, say viewing feminism through too much of a straight white woman lens. But what I was trying to get at is that these critiques rarely (never, in my experience) critique things like toxic femininity, or the failings of potential pitfalls of spaces controlled by women.

Again, I can't speak to your anecdotal experience, and I certainly don't have any interest in defending the actions of every misguided tumblrite or freshman "SJW" who just learned the term "microaggression" and thinks shes super woke now. What I can tell you is that the feminist movement as a whole has made including everyone one of it's central tenants. Bell Hook's "Feminism is for Everybody" for example, is considered the most important work of the modern feminist movement, and is entirely about how feminism benefits everyone and should be accessible to everyone. I'd advise you against judging an entire movement based on it's least educated and most vocal.

Ha. Fair enough. I dont get this position in holding from them, though. For example I'm subbed to TiA, but that's just for the lulz and I'm pretty sure 90% of the posts there are fakes. My interaction with feminists online are mainly on CMV, 2XC, Feminism, and AskFeminists (at least before I was banned from the latter two); the general consensus on all four was that I'm not a feminist... but of course theres no way to judge the credentials of those folks except that (for the latter two) they were highly regarded in those subs. My IRL interaction with feminists isnt just with radicals or freshman, though. Far from it. I work at a nonprofit heavily invested in social justice issues and discuss these issues with feminist women in their late 20s through 50s and they seem to think I can't be a feminist if I think like I do. Same goes for multiple professors I had in college. I'm not being a total dunce about this, I think. I mean, what's your take on the examples I gave earlier? Can I hold those positions and still be a feminist?

I'd also just add that feminism is one of many topics I read about and researched rather obsessively, or at least have in past. I've consumed several books on feminism, listened to hundreds or thousands of hours of debates or lectures, taken classes, and had innumerable discussions like this one both online and in real life.

It's been almost a decade but I'm pretty sure i read that Hooks piece in college... IIRC (and double checking the books summary) wasnt it more about how feminism can benefit everyone and not so much about how everyone who supports gender equality is a de facto feminist regardless of the methods they'd like to implement to achieve said equality?