Men's Liberation

To share some of my own experiences:

I'm a cis, heterosexual, white male. I also pretty heavily defend human rights, try not to be a skeeze ball, and like to think of myself as generally a pretty decent dude. During the height of the MeToo movement and the #NotAllMen thing, though, it really felt like society as a large, or at least the parts of it I want to occupy, viewed many aspects of my simple existence as villainous.

Believe me, I KNOW that no one reasonable has ever thought it was all men, or all white people, or all straight people, or all cis gendered people. That doesn't stop it from hurting anymore when you're walking around the city with a woman you consider a really good friend, and she's posting pictures of stickers that actually DO say "all men suck" she finds to social media.

I'm also not blind. I know this is the same treatment that marginalized groups have faced since the dawn of time. Maybe it's finally time for men to get theirs. Or, we can all acknowledge that any condemnation over an immutable human feature just plain sucks. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

Some black people commit crimes. Some asian people are bad drivers. Some hispanics are illegal immigrants coming to steal your jobs.

If you judge everything based on a minority example, everyone around you is gonna have a bad time.

They used to just be on the Internet, but that brainrot is reaching gen z. Half of my younger female coworkers openly talk shit about men.(then pull the "oh I don't mean you" card when I give them the side eye. Like that's less offensive)

Interestingly, across six experiments conducted in nine nations and almost 10,000 participants, the results revealed that feminist women show no more hostility toward men than both non-feminists and other men. It turns out that just about everyone, including men, has a fair amount of hostility toward men.

You are technically correct. Its just not a fact that matters when engaging with feminism in a way that is based on good faith.

I'm sure some do, but I've seen more examples of feminists who hate certain subsets of women then I have ones who hate men.

It's easy to fall into motte-and-bailey reasoning though. The motte is an easily defended simple thing most people agree with. The bailey is a controversial thing you want to advance. If the bailey is debated, you can retreat into the motte and make claims that it's simple and uncontroversial. Most ideologies or systems of thought have a core that many people agree with, and then that's taken as approval of all its extrapolations. For example, do you believe that people should be able to decide what they use their money for? Well, then you must agree with laissez-faire neo-liberalism. Do you want children to be safe online? Then you agree that the government should inspect all your communication. Do you want everyone to be equal? Then you must agree with everything the soviet union did.

With feminism, it's easy to defend the core ideas, but it also encompasses implementations like affirmative action which not everyone agrees with, and practices that are not about dismantling hierarchies but rather just "wanting a better seat at the table of tyranny", to quote White Lotus.

On a personal level, I work in a female dominated workplace, where women hold all the positions of power. There's a lot of remarks and actions that would absolutely not be ok if the genders were reversed. A constant flow of explanations why men are stupid, sexualizing male workers, "playful" sexual harassment, ridiculing men etc. Many of them are self-proclaimed feminists. And it's cheered on and praised as a form of "girl power". If you ask me to identify as a feminist, these are the people I think of.

I have struggled a lot with setting boundaries and not letting myself be taken advantage of, so I'm very reluctant to be a part of something that requires self-flagellation over which group of people I belong to. I agree with the core of feminism, but to call myself a feminist I'd like my voice to be as welcome as a womans voice, which is rarely the case in my experience.

"Feminism" is just a sloppy term. It's "egalitarianism": people deserve rights, your demographic shouldn't decrease your rights. Those who you're referring to when you use the term "feminists" will insist upon this interpretation, for good reason.

"Feminism", as a term, conjures images of the uplifting of women, which was a potent image when women weren't allowed to vote or work most jobs. Now, with many of those low-hanging battles won, equality is largely the case, and the image of uplifting women feels a lot more like favoritism and bias than leveling the field.

Yes there are gender specific issues, but those exist in both directions much more equally than when the "feminism" label was solidified. The goal should not be to uplift women, the goal should be to trivialize the influence of gender and sex on the involuntary conditions of life. When that results in the uplifting of women, great. But men face struggles intrinsic to being men too, and naming your egalitarian movement after femininity only deepens the divide with marginalized men.

Yeah but not enough of the "real feminists" call them out.

It's like that saying, if there's one bad cop sitting at a table with 3 other cops, then there's 4 bad cops sitting at the table.

I think it's worth differentiating between men's rights and men's liberation.

Men's rights organizations are often interested in advocating against legitimate issue in the courts system, lack of assistance for male victims of abuse and more. However, some bad actors have used it as a smokescreen to roll back the gains feminism has made for women. Some going so far as to demand violence.

Men's liberation on the other hand is more about becoming healthier people with good relationships. It's about divorcing our expectations for ourselves from societies expectations for men and by extension changing what it means to be a man in society.

Both movements I think have value but I don't think it's surprising that many feminists side eye men's rights orgs.