The cure for male loneliness is feminism. Seriously.

[u/futuredebris]

https://makemenemotionalagain.substack.com/p/the-cure-for-male-loneliness-is-feminism

Curious your thoughts! I wrote about how the answer to male loneliness is caring, and how caring is really, really hard. Especially for those of us who’ve been socialized as men. We’ve been told that anything outside of going to work or optimizing ourselves by lifting weights, sitting in ice baths, and pounding creatine isn’t worth much. That caring for others isn’t a “productive” or “efficient” use of our time. That someone else will always end up doing it. That we’re not supposed to do it because women are naturally, biologically designed for it and we’re not (which is untrue). That if we do it, we’re less valuable, like a woman, less of a man. But showing up and caring is both good for other people and us. We have to do more of it.

[u/greyfox92404]

If you support some other cause, you are labeled as whatever-that-cause-is-ist. It never implies you care about that and that only.

That's not how labels work. Satanists don't worship satan. Stalinist don't support stalin. I don't only support women's issues because I'm a feminist man.

You're just using this to justify this idea that to have that anything with "fem" in the name has to mean feminine or for women. This is an aversion to feminine that so many men struggle with the toxic masculinity.

Feminism has done more for freeing men from traditional gender roles restrictions than any other group. No other group has done more for men. But you think they don't have men in mind? Name another group that has fought harder for men's gender roles.

If you can't see my point, then just ask yourself, why does this sub exist, when ARfeminism exists already?

That's a silly question. Read the sidebar. Not all feminist aligned spaces want to do the same thing in their community as the ARfeminism sub. This isn't a strictly feminist space either. This isn't a sub centered around political praxis, like feminism is.

[u/greyfox92404 → u/[deleted]]

Why do you think I need to do this?

Because you cannot. Because you know that you cannot name a group that has done more for men's gender role inclusion. Which group is more dedicated to men's gender role issues? We both know that you cannot answer this question.

Calling it a "feminist" ideal still sends this message that only a movement catering to women's problems

And even knowing there doesn't exist any better groups and that feminism is gender-neutral, I think you still cannot recognize the benefit feminism does for men because of your aversion to femininity.

[u/Nillavuh → u/[deleted]]

FYI I have been reporting you for bad faith every time you accuse me of this. It is both bad faith AND incorrect.

FWIW you are 100% correct here.

[u/greyfox92404 → u/[deleted]]

You're right, I can't. So therefore what?

The most successful group for the furtherment of men's gender role is feminism. That no group has been a bigger advocate for men's gender-role. And there is a reason that you still associate feminism as "not-for-men". Pull on that thread.

[u/greyfox92404 → u/[deleted]]

But... why?

OK, let me take a step back.

If the goals are aligned and our ideology is aligned, why set up a distinctly separate group? Just to say, we aren't women?

We don't have to be feminist but you started with the idea that feminism is feminine and that's why it's not for men. Right? That's that's the starting point for this conversation. I think I showed that feminism isn't feminine.

Then you said [term]-ist means you support that term as a way to say feminist only (or majorly) supports women, and that's why it's not for men. I think I showed that terms for groups don't follow that naming convention (satanists don't worship satan)

We can even point to the success of this group and it's accomplishments for men, more than any other group. But you still say it's not for men.

Time and time again, you are stuck on this idea that feminism is incompatible with men. For no reason that I can discern other than. There is a reason you have this notion of feminism being incompatible with men and you seemingly can't explain why you feel that way.

I think that you see a movement of women and you'd rather form a separate group to accomplish less because we do not want to identify with those women. what else are you protesting other than there identity as women?

[u/greyfox92404 → u/[deleted]]

what do you see as the main purpose of the Men's Liberation Movement?

Speaking as a user, to tackle men's gender role issues through the lens of feminism and intersectionality.

Do any of these purposes arise from men needing, or maybe just desiring, a conversation centered specifically on men's issues?

I do think there's value in having these conversations centered on men and in men's spaces. One of my first posts here was exactly that.

Can this group exist in parallel with feminism and share most of its overarching goals with it?

It can exist in parallel but doesn't in any real world sense. Egalitarians don't exist in any real world sense and the extremely online groups of them center on left wing misogyny.

Like, I think democratic women in congress have a distinct view from democratic men. There is value in those unique views. I don't think it helps women for democratic women to split from the democratic party because they don't have the same gender identity.

In the same way, I don't think there's any value in forming a smaller splinter group that doesn't have the same access to media, resources or numbers as the larger group. That's why egalitarians don't have any real presence in advocacy (well, that and most of them formed in opposition to feminism but don't fit in with far right mens rights groups)

At the very bottom, if the only reason some men don't want to be feminists is because most feminists are women, that's just negative reaction to the association to femininity. That just feels like, "I'm not a feminist, that's for girls". You know?

[u/Nillavuh → u/greyfox92404]

And even knowing there doesn't exist any better groups and that feminism is gender-neutral, I think you still cannot recognize the benefit feminism does for men because of your aversion to femininity.

He said as clearly as he possibly could have that he "has no aversion to feminism", but you still accused him of having one. This was a tough thread to read because it's clear that the guy you're talking to is in a pretty bad headspace and you're barreling ahead without sympathy, but you're really the one handling this conversation poorly, from what I can tell. Rule 2 clearly states

Disagreements should be handled with respect, cordiality, and a default presumption of good faith.

so if he tells you he has no aversion to feminism, follow the rules and take him on his word that he indeed has no aversion to feminism.

[u/greyfox92404 → u/Nillavuh]

He said as clearly as he possibly could have that he "has no aversion to feminism",

I'm not suggesting an aversion to feminism, the ideology. But to femininity, or the association to women. In his replies, he's refutes an aversion to feminism. Which is the crux of our original disagreement. Seeing feminism as femininity, and then making the switch to femininity as not for men.

Even your reply uses "feminism" and not femininity, like I've been using.

I reply the second time to reiterate that it's an aversion to femininity. That's different and that's the point. The second time he refutes an aversion to femininity and I drop it thereafter. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm trying to reiterate that feminism isn't femininity when those terms are being used interchangeably. We spoke briefly in direct chats but I defaulted to stop engaging because I don't think my input is going to be fruitful or helpful.

[u/Nillavuh → u/greyfox92404]

Indeed it isn't, because you sent him down a dark path and I'm having to do a lot of damage control for you. I'm talking to him now. Please avoid talking to him again, but in the future, I genuinely hope you at least TRY to self-reflect on your conversation here. It seemed very clear to me that your primary interest was in being the aggressive, dominating redditor who crushes his opponents in debate, which is a very patriarchal way of behaving, IE the antithesis of who men should be in this world. I think the whole way you carried about yourself here is deeply troubling, deeply rooted in the egoism of patriarchy, and I think you've got a LOT of work you need to do on yourself if you really think there's an excuse for what you did here.

[u/greyfox92404 → u/Nillavuh]

Well, I'll consider your words thoughtfully and earnestly. Do you think it's more helpful to delete my own comments?

[u/Spleeetz → u/greyfox92404]

U/nillavuh is being ridiculous, you have done nothing but politely debate this person. If their mental state is deteriorating this badly just from someone politely correcting them, they need professional help and should probably avoid online forums in general. No one on this thread could reasonably be expected to know that a polite conversation would send them off the deep end.

[u/Nillavuh → u/greyfox92404]

Does it matter? The damage is already done.

[u/Spleeetz → u/Nillavuh]

You’re trying to making this person feel like a villain for no reason. I highly doubt you are engaging in good faith - I think you are trying to manipulate the situation to make u/greyfox92404 look like a bully. They are being perfectly reasonable and polite.

[u/greyfox92404 → u/Nillavuh]

Maybe, maybe not. But it would be more thoughtful to extend that option to you since you're more involved in the secondary convo.

[u/Nillavuh → u/greyfox92404]

Why, exactly, do you think this would help?

[u/Nillavuh → u/greyfox92404]

Well you're not responding to my question so I'll just tell you it seems like a very disconnected and clueless suggestion, like you seem completely at a loss on how to fix anything you did here, which is deeply concerning. Because it's actually really simple - you apologize. You acknowledge the mistakes you made to prove that your apology is indeed sincere, and you say, my bad.

Men have a lot of resistance to doing this sort of thing because of patriarchal thinking. It shows incredible weakness to admit fault, and we men are not WEAKLINGS, we are STRONG and MIGHTY and probably also perfect and flawless and all that. This patriarchal line of thinking is probably what led you astray here, asking, what can I possibly do to avoid having to admit fault or say sorry or do anything to help out my fellow man who is clearly hurting and so you came up with this bizarre conclusion instead, as a result of your patriarchal thinking.

Let me explain some of what was going on with him that made your actions so upsetting for him: his problems are rooted in relationship troubles and he has struggled in dating for a long time, which is, of course, a pervasive problem in society, particularly amongst men. But as he pointed out, a lot of women are able to join communities and support each other with relationship issues, even to the point of supporting each other's choice NOT to get into a relationship and embrace the single life, not out of a sense of "giving up" but as a valid life choice. The guy was seeking similar support from men and seems to lack good male support in his life and thought it would help him out considerably to have it (it would) and so he sought it out for himself. That's why he came here.

And what happened next? He engaged with who I now understand is the LEADER of this space, and that leader was incredibly rude and hostile to him, coming at him with bad faith accusations and leveling all sorts of negative shit at him and ignoring what he was saying, treating him largely like the dirt beneath your heels. It's hard to really drive home how awful it is when the person in charge of a space like this is doing this, because what can he expect from the rest of the community if even the guy who supposedly CREATED the rules on respect and positivity is doing anything BUT follow them? Take that thought a bit further, and you'll see how damaging this is to men's causes in general - whoever is seeking the support of men in spaces where men congregate, know that these spaces are run by men falling right into patriarchal, domineering thinking who will assault you over seemingly minor things and won't even bother following their own rules of respect. Think about what that says about the possibility of EVER seeking any help from men, anywhere, and then maybe you'll begin to understand why this guy spiraled like he did last night. You helped bring this about with your own actions.

I would seriously consider just what the hell you think you are doing RUNNING a space like this if you can't even follow the basic rules of decency and offer respect to your fellow man. I mean I saw how you treated him and saw the aftermath of your conversation and it was like you've never had a difficult interaction with anyone in your life and have possibly learned to only ever play offense and shove people away when times are tough, which is the patriarchal way of handling conflict and is also incredibly toxic and should be dismissed entirely. You might think that you are fighting for the cause of feminism or whatever more grandiose cause you support, but what ACTUALLY matters is these individual conversations you have with real men, in real time, and in this case you really fucked a guy up badly with the way you conversed with him, and so if you ask me, you're doing more harm than good from your position.

If you're going to choose to continue retaining your position as a leader in this community, I hope you deeply consider the patriarchal elements of your behavior and how damaging they can be, and have been, towards the cause of supporting men, a cause that is critically important in the modern world.