I wasn't really content with a lot of replies in this thread and thought that some of them were reactionary and uninformed (in a sense that they didn't watch the majority of the video), so I...
Exemplary
I wasn't really content with a lot of replies in this thread and thought that some of them were reactionary and uninformed (in a sense that they didn't watch the majority of the video), so I decided to suck it up and watch the entirety of the video and write my criticisms and/or thoughts on it. (Btw my Youtube suggestions will be fucked for the next year, should've watched in incognito mode..)
So in general, the video focuses on the problems that (cis) males face in today's society and how these problems are not taken seriously by the far left, and to a certain extent the general public. Examples of these problems in the video are: High male suicide rates, underachievement in education, the stigma of masculinity, under-reporting of health or domestic issues, unfairness towards fathers in child custody cases etc. These are all legitimate problems, and I agree that they should be addressed more by society.
The problem with the video rises in the presentation and what methods are used to validate the claims that are made.
So I opened up a notepad and wrote down my criticisms while watching the video, here they are:
Main problem with this video is that she (alfsvoid) uses Youtube videos to validate her claims, and pretty much all videos used are of dumbass people saying/doing dumbass things. These people's actions don't really say anything about the movements that they belong to.
Many times in the video feminism and extremist feminists (I guess this is what she means by far-left) get confused as one body, as @determinism explained here
She claims: 43% of domestic abuse cases are initiated by women - I didn't find any study that agrees with this. The consensus is that men initiate violence more than women, and that domestic violence carried out by men is much more severe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men
She claims that attempting to talk about male issues is often met by hostile reaction. Provides anecdotal evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL-uQqQxlJ8 . In this video the response of Jess Philips is definitely disgusting, but you can't really take this single incident and make a generalization out of it.
She claims that a special room designated for Muslims to pray in is a "safe space". Which is an ignorant if not bigoted statement.
Says "feminists say [to men] 'shut up, what are you crying about'" - again, she's painting with a broad brush.
My takeaway from the video is that it has some good points, but some awful points as well.
I'm about midway into it. I'm only informed enough to suspect that the speaker is not equipped to discuss these topics. So far she has conflated feminism and the far left, accused both of...
Exemplary
I'm about midway into it. I'm only informed enough to suspect that the speaker is not equipped to discuss these topics. So far she has conflated feminism and the far left, accused both of hypocrisy, then proceeded to give examples of hardships that men have faced historically: being compelled to fight wars, being obligated to support their families by doing physically difficult and dangerous work, being perceived as "disposable" by society.
The thing is, all of these problems are addressed by "the far left" (Marxists?) and by feminism. The entire video is a person taking issue with a body of social criticism by selecting aspects of society that it reveals and accusing it of promoting or ignoring them.
From the first paragraph of the wikipedia entry on feminist theory:
Feminist theory focuses on analyzing gender inequality. Themes explored in feminism include discrimination, objectification (especially sexual objectification), oppression, patriarchy, stereotyping, art history and contemporary art, and aesthetics.
We need a new word that describes hypocrisy committed in the course of accusing others of hypocrisy.
Thanks! It's indeed very easy to point at groups like feminists, socialists, gays, Buddhists, etc., and put words in their mouths because there'll always be those who don't know much about the...
Thanks! It's indeed very easy to point at groups like feminists, socialists, gays, Buddhists, etc., and put words in their mouths because there'll always be those who don't know much about the targeted groups, and some rotten apples in the targeted groups themselves (that's part why I do not identify w/ any such groups).
BTW you have your parens backwards in the link, the link text gets the square brackets.
I was only able to skim it right now but it's an overview of issues pertaining to the mens rights movement that uses the movie "The Red Pill" as a reference. I think it's interesting this was...
I was only able to skim it right now but it's an overview of issues pertaining to the mens rights movement that uses the movie "The Red Pill" as a reference.
I think it's interesting this was posted, you don't usually see view points like this here. I consider myself a feminist but I would HIGHLY encourage everyone to watch the movie. It was created by a woman whose original goal was to make a documentary on rape culture. It does a really good job of showing the issues facing mens rights movements and indirectly sheds light on how the "red pill" thing got taken over by misogynist / racist groups like the Proud Boys. Don't let the name throw you off watching it, it's a super interesting movie that makes you think twice about mens role in modern society.
Which one is the "interesting" one, the OP's, or the doc? (I think it's the doc, no? But your reference is a bit ambiguous, or maybe I'm parsing bad.) I keep encountering this men's rights thing,...
Exemplary
Which one is the "interesting" one, the OP's, or the doc? (I think it's the doc, no? But your reference is a bit ambiguous, or maybe I'm parsing bad.)
I keep encountering this men's rights thing, but IDK much about it, and IDK much about feminist philosophy either. I was going to get into it reading de Beauvoir and Judith Butler (her stuff seems very interesting, I love the performativity theory), but I have a few important readings/study to be completed and had to postpone them.
Would you say how men interact with patriarchy and masculinity is explored enough, or at all? How does feminist theories handle it? I feel like the general sentiment is that a patriarchal society is created, wanted, and perpetrated by male individuals. But I think (in a rather unstructured manner in this stage, though) that men are victims of it too. Patriarchy and (toxic) masculinity confine men to a certain stereotype, i.e. heterosexual, strong, hard-working, sexually agressive, economically independent, etc. Maybe what pushes these men to these extremes is their failure in fitting into that stereotype and instead of making peace with themselves and leaving it behind, they go into these subcultures and express themselves with hate and violence.
There's lots of abuse and bullying in men's world. I lived through it because I failed being predatory and agressive and strong. In the working class conservative neighbourhood I grew up in Istanbul, I was always the "other", because I was not one of those "rough" types. Lots of bad months and years. Luckily, I was psychologically resilient, all I had to endure ended up being years long depression and self-esteem problems (but busted them!) But I can easily see how that sort of abuse, or the fear thereof, can make exploring oneself impossible for the individual, and mess up their mental balance. I turned 25 yesterday, and most of my 20s has passed recovering myself from the hell that was my teens, because of a toxic, violent, bullyish culture.
Personally, I don't prefer associating patriarchy with men; patriarchy produces men, not otherwise. What people like to call toxic masculinity is an age old spiral of violence perpetuated by the very victims of it (1). Some sort of a Stockholm syndrome it appears to be to me. I think theorising about this and extending feminism to men is what can help save us from that. But, understandably, stuff like this /r/redpill and men's rights etc., and the female tendency in feminism bring about a stigma about really thinking about and exploring these topics. And in the lack of that, these absurdities prevail among the most vulnerable (that's my opinion, and admittedly I don't know much about these subcultures; I've only been exposed to them through Tildes, and heard of the incel road rage killing attack).
(1) Of course women are the major victims here, and also males that are excluded by the patriarchal male stereotype. I'm confining it to the intra-men problems there.
No problem! Tho we're an inclusive community here, nobody would mind if your English is bad. Also, the more practice you get the better (I'm both a long time language geek and a certified teacher...
No problem!
Tho we're an inclusive community here, nobody would mind if your English is bad. Also, the more practice you get the better (I'm both a long time language geek and a certified teacher of my native tongue, which is not English).
Thanks! And ewww. So is that subreddit basically full of this shit (I really don't want to click through to it, sorry, I have a very low "cringe threshold" and don't like seeing this sort of stuff)?
Thanks! And ewww. So is that subreddit basically full of this shit (I really don't want to click through to it, sorry, I have a very low "cringe threshold" and don't like seeing this sort of stuff)?
This is not the video is about. The video is about how ignorant 'SJWs' are when it comes to talking about problems faced by men. If you want to get an Idea watch last 10 minutes of the video.
This is not the video is about. The video is about how ignorant 'SJWs' are when it comes to talking about problems faced by men. If you want to get an Idea watch last 10 minutes of the video.
How is it news that MRA groups supported a documentary about MRA's? How does the fact that Breitbart liked the movie, make points in the movie any less valid? Did you watch the movie? I think...
How is it news that MRA groups supported a documentary about MRA's? How does the fact that Breitbart liked the movie, make points in the movie any less valid? Did you watch the movie? I think Breitbart is conspiracy nonsense but they are a heavily right-leaning media company who is trying to appeal to their fan base, so obviously they are going to support something like this.
Nothing your posting is a valid argument against the credibility of the movie other than, "a bunch of right wingers support it so it must be bad."
So, if MRAs are funding a documentary that's propaganda? I said to watch last 10 minutes because I thought it would give you an Idea of what the whole video is about I was not using it as a click...
So, if MRAs are funding a documentary that's propaganda? I said to watch last 10 minutes because I thought it would give you an Idea of what the whole video is about I was not using it as a click bait. About the video(not documentary), her opinions are slightly biased in an anti feminist way but I think she have some reasonable arguments as well.
If the NRA funds a documentary about gun violence, USSR funds a documentary about the problems with Marxism, or the US government funds a documentary about American war crimes, you should at least...
If the NRA funds a documentary about gun violence, USSR funds a documentary about the problems with Marxism, or the US government funds a documentary about American war crimes, you should at least be skeptical that it's propaganda.
It is funny to me that the video author mentions the left discreting the mens rights movement and here you are with a well formatted wall of text highlighting the polarizing details.
It is funny to me that the video author mentions the left discreting the mens rights movement and here you are with a well formatted wall of text highlighting the polarizing details.
I commented below as well but just want to point out the Red Pill movement != the Red pill movie. I was really surprised how grounded in reality the documentary was. A lot of the points made in...
I commented below as well but just want to point out the Red Pill movement != the Red pill movie. I was really surprised how grounded in reality the documentary was. A lot of the points made in the movie were more on a defensive side rather than what it seems like this woman is doing and making it an attack on feminism.
So, I watched the first 15 minutes of this, and the following are what I think about it. Bear in mind that I'm (almost) totally stranger to things like MRA, the Red Pill, incels, etc. I'd like to...
So, I watched the first 15 minutes of this, and the following are what I think about it. Bear in mind that I'm (almost) totally stranger to things like MRA, the Red Pill, incels, etc. I'd like to ping you @dubteedub too, because I think either your impression is a bit mistaken or mine is based on a too shallow reading of this. Nevertheless...
As I wrote in this comment, I do hold the view that patriarchy makes men, not the other way around; and men are victims of the patriarchal society too. I do not agree personifying patriarchy and toxic masculinity in individual males. But the response to this must be inspection, theorisation, and elimination of toxic traditions and behaviour, not violence, hate, and misognystic circlejerk.
In the part I watched of the video, the issues that are brought up, they are real issues. I really like the term "success object" used in reference to men. IDK much about the accusations of hypocrisy though, because it's expected that a movement to liberate women focus on women, and it's a fact that women were, and still are, the ones that had more of their liberties and rights and powers taken away. But, into the powers women are deprived of, men are trapped. I won't go into detail about that (I think my comment that I linked provides some), but I think it's an important thing that needs be discussed. There's a social stigma about that, and these misogynistic or sociopathic organisations don't help with that.
So it's nice that the video touches these issues. I can't comment if it's good at that because I did not and will not watch the rest, and I lack the knowledge of the social context it refers to. But we should take up the men's side of patriarchy and destroy it too, liberating them from the patriarchal stereotypes and toxic masculinity. So the video is definitely thought-provoking, but I cannot comment about its inherent value or quality.
I used to be a regular in r/MensRights a few years ago. I eventually unsubscribed when it became too toxic. At least at the time it was widely acknowledged that it was only the assholes among...
I used to be a regular in r/MensRights a few years ago. I eventually unsubscribed when it became too toxic. At least at the time it was widely acknowledged that it was only the assholes among women that were victimizing men, just like there are assholes among men that victimize women. Even then there were "barbarians at the gates" trying to push the narrative that all women were to blame. I think it's worth noting that MRAs and RedPillers hated each other, with MRAs referring to RedPillers as the "real sexists", while RedPillers held the belief that the MRA movement was actually controlled by feminists because they were actually willing to try to have a dialog with women (even though if you even attempted to bring up men's issues in a feminist subreddit, you would get automatically banned).
Keep in mind I have no idea what it's like there now. It's been like three years since I've been there.
Your position about the video seems strong. I'll kind of take that, it's all about an online culture that's very alien to me anyways (and I think I'll be happier if it remained so). But I do think...
Exemplary
Your position about the video seems strong. I'll kind of take that, it's all about an online culture that's very alien to me anyways (and I think I'll be happier if it remained so). But I do think sometimes that feminism needs fresh "branding", because the term is slowly becoming meaningless. Just merely changing it helps sometimes. But I should be informing myself more about it before making this sort of comments, I guess. It's a shame that I know so little about the history and philosophy of this.
I like /r/menslib, added that to a multi that severs as a bookmarks chest. I especially loved that video from the last post on that sub you linked. I am from Turkey, where there's a very possesive culture and a very toxic dating scene, infested with exploitation and hideousness and omnipresent feeling of guilt and omnipresent stimulus, all because dads and brothers and the greater family claiming ownership to their daughters/sisters/whatnot, and many women succumbing into this notion of being an "asset". All a vicious cycle that makes everybody's lives worse, not only the dating aspect of it, but psychological situations, families' wellness, friendships, and so on. So it really clicks with me. Maybe we can boil the problem with (toxic?) masculinity today down to its forcing men to (a) having to not be gay and (b) having to possess females? (a) includes not only homosexuality but also all the emotional problems like not being able to cry etc. (b) encompasses all the problems around heterosexual relations, both sexual, romantic, familiar, and friendly.
WRT the crying part, I was as cold as a glacier, but then two things happened: I started to explore the whole topic of the Armenian genocide and the suffering of other religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire and in Turkey, and that sort of cracked the ice and installed some empathy.exe in me. Then a few years later my dad paseed away, and now all that ice is gone. Even when watching stupid soap operas on TV, someone starts chopping up onions for some reason... :)
This is nothing special but it's reasonably presented and thought out. (Only watched a couple minutes) The woman makes some observations on the blind spot of modern left values for mens rights.
This is nothing special but it's reasonably presented and thought out. (Only watched a couple minutes)
The woman makes some observations on the blind spot of modern left values for mens rights.
It's almost as if, when you generalize a group wide enough, while also cherry-picking individuals to represent that entire group, you're always able to pick out things they're wrong about and/or...
It's almost as if, when you generalize a group wide enough, while also cherry-picking individuals to represent that entire group, you're always able to pick out things they're wrong about and/or contradict other people within that group!! Who knew?!
This kind of antagonistic dismissal doesn't help anything, and often just starts even more conflict. If the post doesn't belong here, please explain why so that others can understand (including...
This kind of antagonistic dismissal doesn't help anything, and often just starts even more conflict. If the post doesn't belong here, please explain why so that others can understand (including me, as part of making a decision about whether to remove something or not).
I'd like to know what is to be gained by leaving a video of reactionary talking points up on this site with no context (other than the top-voted comments which OP didn't write). Honest question.
I'd like to know what is to be gained by leaving a video of reactionary talking points up on this site with no context (other than the top-voted comments which OP didn't write). Honest question.
I think, like almost all community-management decisions, there's a balance involved and the decisions aren't simple black-and-white ones. It's certainly not something that I'd want to start being...
I think, like almost all community-management decisions, there's a balance involved and the decisions aren't simple black-and-white ones. It's certainly not something that I'd want to start being a major portion of the site, but occasionally it's valuable to have discussions like this, that involve engaging with disagreeable content and explaining why it's objectionable.
This post makes a good example—look at the comments and discussions that are here, do you think that this post had no value at all? I think there are quite a few good comments, and people have used a number of Exemplary labels in here, so I'm obviously not alone in that opinion.
Like I said, it's not something I'd like to see happen often (and this is probably the only post like this in months), but I also don't think it's the sort of thing that always needs to be reflexively shut down.
Thanks for your thoughts on it. I know that you're definitely one of the people that will almost always jump into those types of posts, and the "exhausting" aspect is definitely the tough part...
Thanks for your thoughts on it. I know that you're definitely one of the people that will almost always jump into those types of posts, and the "exhausting" aspect is definitely the tough part that needs to be balanced. I've talked about it before, but even though most people try to use "echo chamber" as a way to describe a bad community, the opposite isn't good either, since it means people are constantly having to debate everything. That's not enjoyable, and eventually they'll just leave and go find a different community where participating isn't work.
I wasn't really content with a lot of replies in this thread and thought that some of them were reactionary and uninformed (in a sense that they didn't watch the majority of the video), so I decided to suck it up and watch the entirety of the video and write my criticisms and/or thoughts on it. (Btw my Youtube suggestions will be fucked for the next year, should've watched in incognito mode..)
So in general, the video focuses on the problems that (cis) males face in today's society and how these problems are not taken seriously by the far left, and to a certain extent the general public. Examples of these problems in the video are: High male suicide rates, underachievement in education, the stigma of masculinity, under-reporting of health or domestic issues, unfairness towards fathers in child custody cases etc. These are all legitimate problems, and I agree that they should be addressed more by society.
The problem with the video rises in the presentation and what methods are used to validate the claims that are made.
So I opened up a notepad and wrote down my criticisms while watching the video, here they are:
Main problem with this video is that she (alfsvoid) uses Youtube videos to validate her claims, and pretty much all videos used are of dumbass people saying/doing dumbass things. These people's actions don't really say anything about the movements that they belong to.
Many times in the video feminism and extremist feminists (I guess this is what she means by far-left) get confused as one body, as @determinism explained here
She claims: 43% of domestic abuse cases are initiated by women - I didn't find any study that agrees with this. The consensus is that men initiate violence more than women, and that domestic violence carried out by men is much more severe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_against_men
She claims that attempting to talk about male issues is often met by hostile reaction. Provides anecdotal evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL-uQqQxlJ8 . In this video the response of Jess Philips is definitely disgusting, but you can't really take this single incident and make a generalization out of it.
She claims that a special room designated for Muslims to pray in is a "safe space". Which is an ignorant if not bigoted statement.
Says "feminists say [to men] 'shut up, what are you crying about'" - again, she's painting with a broad brush.
My takeaway from the video is that it has some good points, but some awful points as well.
What is this about? The description merely repeats the title.
I'm about midway into it. I'm only informed enough to suspect that the speaker is not equipped to discuss these topics. So far she has conflated feminism and the far left, accused both of hypocrisy, then proceeded to give examples of hardships that men have faced historically: being compelled to fight wars, being obligated to support their families by doing physically difficult and dangerous work, being perceived as "disposable" by society.
The thing is, all of these problems are addressed by "the far left" (Marxists?) and by feminism. The entire video is a person taking issue with a body of social criticism by selecting aspects of society that it reveals and accusing it of promoting or ignoring them.
From the first paragraph of the wikipedia entry on feminist theory:
We need a new word that describes hypocrisy committed in the course of accusing others of hypocrisy.
Thanks! It's indeed very easy to point at groups like feminists, socialists, gays, Buddhists, etc., and put words in their mouths because there'll always be those who don't know much about the targeted groups, and some rotten apples in the targeted groups themselves (that's part why I do not identify w/ any such groups).
BTW you have your parens backwards in the link, the link text gets the square brackets.
I was only able to skim it right now but it's an overview of issues pertaining to the mens rights movement that uses the movie "The Red Pill" as a reference.
I think it's interesting this was posted, you don't usually see view points like this here. I consider myself a feminist but I would HIGHLY encourage everyone to watch the movie. It was created by a woman whose original goal was to make a documentary on rape culture. It does a really good job of showing the issues facing mens rights movements and indirectly sheds light on how the "red pill" thing got taken over by misogynist / racist groups like the Proud Boys. Don't let the name throw you off watching it, it's a super interesting movie that makes you think twice about mens role in modern society.
Which one is the "interesting" one, the OP's, or the doc? (I think it's the doc, no? But your reference is a bit ambiguous, or maybe I'm parsing bad.)
I keep encountering this men's rights thing, but IDK much about it, and IDK much about feminist philosophy either. I was going to get into it reading de Beauvoir and Judith Butler (her stuff seems very interesting, I love the performativity theory), but I have a few important readings/study to be completed and had to postpone them.
Would you say how men interact with patriarchy and masculinity is explored enough, or at all? How does feminist theories handle it? I feel like the general sentiment is that a patriarchal society is created, wanted, and perpetrated by male individuals. But I think (in a rather unstructured manner in this stage, though) that men are victims of it too. Patriarchy and (toxic) masculinity confine men to a certain stereotype, i.e. heterosexual, strong, hard-working, sexually agressive, economically independent, etc. Maybe what pushes these men to these extremes is their failure in fitting into that stereotype and instead of making peace with themselves and leaving it behind, they go into these subcultures and express themselves with hate and violence.
There's lots of abuse and bullying in men's world. I lived through it because I failed being predatory and agressive and strong. In the working class conservative neighbourhood I grew up in Istanbul, I was always the "other", because I was not one of those "rough" types. Lots of bad months and years. Luckily, I was psychologically resilient, all I had to endure ended up being years long depression and self-esteem problems (but busted them!) But I can easily see how that sort of abuse, or the fear thereof, can make exploring oneself impossible for the individual, and mess up their mental balance. I turned 25 yesterday, and most of my 20s has passed recovering myself from the hell that was my teens, because of a toxic, violent, bullyish culture.
Personally, I don't prefer associating patriarchy with men; patriarchy produces men, not otherwise. What people like to call toxic masculinity is an age old spiral of violence perpetuated by the very victims of it (1). Some sort of a Stockholm syndrome it appears to be to me. I think theorising about this and extending feminism to men is what can help save us from that. But, understandably, stuff like this /r/redpill and men's rights etc., and the female tendency in feminism bring about a stigma about really thinking about and exploring these topics. And in the lack of that, these absurdities prevail among the most vulnerable (that's my opinion, and admittedly I don't know much about these subcultures; I've only been exposed to them through Tildes, and heard of the incel road rage killing attack).
(1) Of course women are the major victims here, and also males that are excluded by the patriarchal male stereotype. I'm confining it to the intra-men problems there.
I wish I could explain it to you. My English writing skills are pretty bad since Im not a native. May be someone else will.. Sorry
No problem!
Tho we're an inclusive community here, nobody would mind if your English is bad. Also, the more practice you get the better (I'm both a long time language geek and a certified teacher of my native tongue, which is not English).
Thanks! And ewww. So is that subreddit basically full of this shit (I really don't want to click through to it, sorry, I have a very low "cringe threshold" and don't like seeing this sort of stuff)?
This is not the video is about. The video is about how ignorant 'SJWs' are when it comes to talking about problems faced by men. If you want to get an Idea watch last 10 minutes of the video.
How is it news that MRA groups supported a documentary about MRA's? How does the fact that Breitbart liked the movie, make points in the movie any less valid? Did you watch the movie? I think Breitbart is conspiracy nonsense but they are a heavily right-leaning media company who is trying to appeal to their fan base, so obviously they are going to support something like this.
Nothing your posting is a valid argument against the credibility of the movie other than, "a bunch of right wingers support it so it must be bad."
So, if MRAs are funding a documentary that's propaganda? I said to watch last 10 minutes because I thought it would give you an Idea of what the whole video is about I was not using it as a click bait. About the video(not documentary), her opinions are slightly biased in an anti feminist way but I think she have some reasonable arguments as well.
If the NRA funds a documentary about gun violence, USSR funds a documentary about the problems with Marxism, or the US government funds a documentary about American war crimes, you should at least be skeptical that it's propaganda.
It is funny to me that the video author mentions the left discreting the mens rights movement and here you are with a well formatted wall of text highlighting the polarizing details.
I commented below as well but just want to point out the Red Pill movement != the Red pill movie. I was really surprised how grounded in reality the documentary was. A lot of the points made in the movie were more on a defensive side rather than what it seems like this woman is doing and making it an attack on feminism.
So, I watched the first 15 minutes of this, and the following are what I think about it. Bear in mind that I'm (almost) totally stranger to things like MRA, the Red Pill, incels, etc. I'd like to ping you @dubteedub too, because I think either your impression is a bit mistaken or mine is based on a too shallow reading of this. Nevertheless...
As I wrote in this comment, I do hold the view that patriarchy makes men, not the other way around; and men are victims of the patriarchal society too. I do not agree personifying patriarchy and toxic masculinity in individual males. But the response to this must be inspection, theorisation, and elimination of toxic traditions and behaviour, not violence, hate, and misognystic circlejerk.
In the part I watched of the video, the issues that are brought up, they are real issues. I really like the term "success object" used in reference to men. IDK much about the accusations of hypocrisy though, because it's expected that a movement to liberate women focus on women, and it's a fact that women were, and still are, the ones that had more of their liberties and rights and powers taken away. But, into the powers women are deprived of, men are trapped. I won't go into detail about that (I think my comment that I linked provides some), but I think it's an important thing that needs be discussed. There's a social stigma about that, and these misogynistic or sociopathic organisations don't help with that.
So it's nice that the video touches these issues. I can't comment if it's good at that because I did not and will not watch the rest, and I lack the knowledge of the social context it refers to. But we should take up the men's side of patriarchy and destroy it too, liberating them from the patriarchal stereotypes and toxic masculinity. So the video is definitely thought-provoking, but I cannot comment about its inherent value or quality.
I used to be a regular in r/MensRights a few years ago. I eventually unsubscribed when it became too toxic. At least at the time it was widely acknowledged that it was only the assholes among women that were victimizing men, just like there are assholes among men that victimize women. Even then there were "barbarians at the gates" trying to push the narrative that all women were to blame. I think it's worth noting that MRAs and RedPillers hated each other, with MRAs referring to RedPillers as the "real sexists", while RedPillers held the belief that the MRA movement was actually controlled by feminists because they were actually willing to try to have a dialog with women (even though if you even attempted to bring up men's issues in a feminist subreddit, you would get automatically banned).
Keep in mind I have no idea what it's like there now. It's been like three years since I've been there.
Your position about the video seems strong. I'll kind of take that, it's all about an online culture that's very alien to me anyways (and I think I'll be happier if it remained so). But I do think sometimes that feminism needs fresh "branding", because the term is slowly becoming meaningless. Just merely changing it helps sometimes. But I should be informing myself more about it before making this sort of comments, I guess. It's a shame that I know so little about the history and philosophy of this.
I like /r/menslib, added that to a multi that severs as a bookmarks chest. I especially loved that video from the last post on that sub you linked. I am from Turkey, where there's a very possesive culture and a very toxic dating scene, infested with exploitation and hideousness and omnipresent feeling of guilt and omnipresent stimulus, all because dads and brothers and the greater family claiming ownership to their daughters/sisters/whatnot, and many women succumbing into this notion of being an "asset". All a vicious cycle that makes everybody's lives worse, not only the dating aspect of it, but psychological situations, families' wellness, friendships, and so on. So it really clicks with me. Maybe we can boil the problem with (toxic?) masculinity today down to its forcing men to (a) having to not be gay and (b) having to possess females? (a) includes not only homosexuality but also all the emotional problems like not being able to cry etc. (b) encompasses all the problems around heterosexual relations, both sexual, romantic, familiar, and friendly.
WRT the crying part, I was as cold as a glacier, but then two things happened: I started to explore the whole topic of the Armenian genocide and the suffering of other religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire and in Turkey, and that sort of cracked the ice and installed some empathy.exe in me. Then a few years later my dad paseed away, and now all that ice is gone. Even when watching stupid soap operas on TV, someone starts chopping up onions for some reason... :)
This is nothing special but it's reasonably presented and thought out. (Only watched a couple minutes)
The woman makes some observations on the blind spot of modern left values for mens rights.
I agree. She generally communicated her points thoughtfully.
It's almost as if, when you generalize a group wide enough, while also cherry-picking individuals to represent that entire group, you're always able to pick out things they're wrong about and/or contradict other people within that group!! Who knew?!
This kind of antagonistic dismissal doesn't help anything, and often just starts even more conflict. If the post doesn't belong here, please explain why so that others can understand (including me, as part of making a decision about whether to remove something or not).
Feel free to send me a message about it instead of commenting, too.
I'd like to know what is to be gained by leaving a video of reactionary talking points up on this site with no context (other than the top-voted comments which OP didn't write). Honest question.
I think, like almost all community-management decisions, there's a balance involved and the decisions aren't simple black-and-white ones. It's certainly not something that I'd want to start being a major portion of the site, but occasionally it's valuable to have discussions like this, that involve engaging with disagreeable content and explaining why it's objectionable.
This post makes a good example—look at the comments and discussions that are here, do you think that this post had no value at all? I think there are quite a few good comments, and people have used a number of Exemplary labels in here, so I'm obviously not alone in that opinion.
Like I said, it's not something I'd like to see happen often (and this is probably the only post like this in months), but I also don't think it's the sort of thing that always needs to be reflexively shut down.
Thanks for your thoughts on it. I know that you're definitely one of the people that will almost always jump into those types of posts, and the "exhausting" aspect is definitely the tough part that needs to be balanced. I've talked about it before, but even though most people try to use "echo chamber" as a way to describe a bad community, the opposite isn't good either, since it means people are constantly having to debate everything. That's not enjoyable, and eventually they'll just leave and go find a different community where participating isn't work.
Is every idiotic right wing propaganda post required to be "debunked" in comments?