[corinroyal]

Yes, this was the mythopoetic men's movement.

> Men's rights have been denigrated to the point my younger male (Western) friends are Andrew Tate fans because there isn't anything else left.

OMG, yes. The MRM has successfully redefined the men's movement to be regressive not productive. Any discussion of men's issues has to refer back to this body of worthless propaganda. But you know, we don't actually have to take the bait. Just as that scientist doesn't actually have to debate vaccines with jackass Joe Rogan. If he wants to learn something he can read a book like a normal person.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but here's a few points off the top of my head.

* Intersectional feminism is a powerful frame. When we look at the places where sexism and classism intersect, for example, then we can begin to explain the fact that the vast majority of homeless people are men. We can see ways that careerist academic feminism fails those who don't have such constraints. And we can see how popular working class feminist movements can benefit from the research that more privileged feminists have had the freedom to do.

* Men who are open to feminist critiques don't often do the research. We don't read feminist authors. We don't know the history of the struggle, nor of men's role in feminism. Second-wave feminism started with consciousness raising groups. Maybe we men could do some self-educating and soul searching.

* First world feminists need to accept leadership from feminists in poorer countries. There is so much right going on with feminism in places like Mexico. These men and women are confronting millennia of machismo. How do they do it? We should know.

* Men need our own organizations. Who are the groups working on paternal rights? I don't know. Are there any? Can we start one? If the MRM is about whining about feminism. A real men's movement could be about actual organizing. We used to hand out anti-circumcision flyers at 24th and mission. We got some weird looks, but even the MRM has carried on the work we started in their ineffective pissy way.

* Feminist men need a popular social media presence. We have ceeded the space to reprobates and literal criminals. Rather than engaging in tit-for-tat with MRM people, we should address regular, reasonable men who might be open to us if we made a reasonable effort. We need to accept that we have dropped the ball and that that the growth of the MRM is significantly our fault. We were too quiet.

* That said, what I don't think we need are sites like "We Hunted the Mammoth" which are about ridiculing the MRM. This is an example of stooping to their level. When we engage with the MRM, we neglect our organizing. They know this, which is why they constantly bait us into making it all about them. Similarly democrats fail by harping on all the stupid things republicans do. We should be focused on our own failures and solutions. Let the idiots argue amongst themselves.

* Feminist men need to be able to critique other feminists. The movement gets plenty wrong. We need to feel free to call that out even when doing so invites blowback from other sectors of the movement. In the past, feminist men were too afraid to confront bullshit in the movement. We deferred too much to women. That needs to stop.

When MRM people bring up straw men like "Why are there no domestic violence shelters for men? See? Feminists hate men." Feminists often respond, "Feel free to get to work cleaning up your own mess." So let's do that. Let's get to work. We're way behind, but there's no time like the present.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Intersectional feminism is a powerful frame. When we look at the places where sexism and classism intersect, for example, then we can begin to explain the fact that the vast majority of homeless people are men.

Maybe I don't have the background needed, but I don't follow. How does intersectional feminism explain that the vast majority of homeless people are men?

[corinroyal]

Under traditional patriarchal gender roles, men are seen as self-sufficient, and women as dependent. When men fail to be self-sufficient, they do not tend given the same level of support as women who are expected to need help. Add class relationships into this mess and low-class men are left to rot on the street. Our oligarchs see all poor people as disposable tools. So it's the intersection of gender and class that results in more homeless men. This is an example of a negative result for men under patriarchy.

Keep in mind, that women at the same level of risk may not be on the street, but that doesn't mean they are safe. Women at risk are often preyed on by exploitative men and take refuge from the street in unsafe housing where survival sex and abuse is common. That may be a step up, but perhaps not by a lot.

Intersectionality is also informative when understanding the reaction many poor men have to the line that "men have privilege over women". Poor men don't feel privileged, even if they do enjoy higher privilege than women in the same economic class. But compare Joe Schmoe to Sheryl Sandburg, and it's the CEO lady who has the relative privilege, even if she's much lower status than the Zuckerbergs of the world.

Intersectionality is also the basis for critiques of "White feminism" where relatively privileged women dominate the discussion for women as a whole.

[trabant00]

I've read with an open mind through all your line of replies. In the end though it summed up to making it about women and feminism. You forgot this entire thing was supposed to be about men.

Right wing MRM a la Andrew Tate is for sure a scam and toxic extreme. But you can easily find such examples in feminist circles as well. Exaggerating in one direction does not justify exaggerating in the other.

You've derailed the conversation about boys and men needs and made it about women, feminism, intersectionality, etc. That is the reason I am down-voting all you replies.

[n4r9]

I don't understand how you can read this:

> When men fail to be self-sufficient, they do not tend given the same level of support as women who are expected to need help. Add class relationships into this mess and low-class men are left to rot on the street. Our oligarchs see all poor people as disposable tools. So it's the intersection of gender and class that results in more homeless men. This is an example of a negative result for men under patriarchy.

and interpret it to be "about women and feminism".

[trabant00]

You've cherry-picked one thing out of many replies. I do not want to see feminism, intersectionality, patriarchy, class, women, etc in a discussion about boys' emotional needs. Take your philosophy and politics in topics about these issues, there's plenty of them.

[n4r9]

Intersectionism, patriarchy and class absolutely have a part to play in boys' emotional needs. I believe trabant00 explained this pretty well. It reads a little like you've seen some words that you instinctively disapprove of and dismissed the whole argument as a result. That attitude is troubling, as it disregards various social pressures on boys.

[corinroyal]

Feminism is the movement that seeks to free both men and women from traditional gender relations. Feminism isn't the term for the women's side of a war between the sexes. It's an intellectual framework that offers tools and analysis to understand and dismantle the patriarchal system that harms us all.

If you read my post from that perspective, you'll see I'm very much talking about men. Perhaps this is easier for me as a gay man to understand since the harms of patriarchy are VERY clear to me.

[Gibbon1]

Out of my ass opinion is 'the patriarchy' views low status men as completely disposable.

Also in any unfair exploitive system you'll see victimized groups attack other victimized groups instead of going after the system and those that directly benefit from it.

[guerrilla]

That doesn't explain anything. The same should be true about women, in fact more so. What we see here though is it would seem women are privileged in that domain.