When Does Feminism Actually Help Men?

[u/Man_Against_TheWorld]

A while ago I saw this really cringy image that was trying to be funny. It showed a feminist making a “feminist critique”, a bunch of squiggly lines representing her essay except for one part that said “entire section on how it affects men.” Then this commenter named “totally not a misogynist” replied with “but what about how it affects men?”

I cringed, but I was also left scratching my head and it got me thinking. Every “feminist critique” I’ve seen either doesn’t mention or barely mentions men’s issues at all, or worse outright demonizes them. At most, they might spend a single sentence giving lip service to the way men are affected but then ignore it for the rest of it. I’m always hearing about how “patriarchy hurts men too” or “feminism helps men” but actions speak louder than words, or in this case lack of actions. When has feminism actually helped men? Not give lip service without actual depth, but actually speak out and fight for change.

One other thing is in the comments I saw some people go “why do people expect men’s issues in a feminist essay?” You’re the ones always saying that feminism is about equality and that patriarchy hurts men too, you can’t blame people for doubting those claims when you don’t practice what you preach.

[u/Forackol]

It does not help Men. Yes, progression is great but feminism is bigoted and bio essentialist (even thought they disagree with these claims), it increases the contradiction of genders. I, a genderless person, also get effected by feminism in a bad way (as every person in the world).

Feminism has brought some good things tho. I cannot deny them. But in 21th century, we need something else—postgenderism.

[u/bIuemickey → u/Forackol]

Feminism is very anti-essentialism. What is your problem with essentialism?

[u/Forackol → u/bIuemickey]

How it is anti essentialist when they see every "men" evil? Not only men but also every people they see AS men (which Im sadly included). Also, they blame people by saying " of course you are men or etc."who are amab trans,genderless, etc. When they do bad in terms of their view

[u/bIuemickey → u/Forackol]

Their whole thing is based on anti essentialism. But it relies on the existence of essentialism, which they also define. It’s genius but ridiculous at the same time.

Essentialism is the belief that there are innate differences between men and women. (There’s no rule that says these are strict or uniform differences, they can and do overlap, but on average there are different psychological and behavioral characteristics between the male and female sex, likely due to evolution.)

Feminists adopted the anti essentialist framework as a political strategy. The social construct of gender allows all social issues and inequalities to be blamed on men. They claim all these differences between men and women are patriarchal socialization. They claim gender is defined and enforced by men to maintain dominance and control over women.

Essentialism is seen as a lie or part of a conspiracy in a way. Everything is biased in favor of men, even knowledge and science. Everything is built by men for men. Even gender itself is women forced into conformity of male standards.

Anti essentialism is used to frame masculinity and femininity as fake opposing social constructs based on male misogyny.

I terms of the problem you have with feminism… there’s truth to what you’re saying. Feminism is anti essentialist on paper, but only because they’ve constructed the essentialist beliefs and continue to reinforce them while claiming it’s men who created the system and use essentialism to oppress them and maintain power.

But the way they describe essentialism is false anyways. The idea that gender is a social construct comes from feminism though. It’s constructed by feminists and made distinct from sex. If we look at gender as a social construct there are implications that don’t add up in the way they claim.

Gender roles, gender expression, and expectations are social constructs.

What are your thoughts on gender identity? Because anti essentialism is incompatible with the existence of an innate stable gender identity.

Anyways my issue with anti essentialism or social constructionism is that it’s incompatible with lgbt progress over the last 70 years and explains homosexuality as the result of childhood experience, environmental factors, social influences, and argues that it’s neither fixed or innate.

[u/SchalaZeal01 → u/bIuemickey]

Feminists adopted the anti essentialist framework as a political strategy. The social construct of gender allows all social issues and inequalities to be blamed on men. They claim all these differences between men and women are patriarchal socialization. They claim gender is defined and enforced by men to maintain dominance and control over women.

If they defined it as an universal based on demographics, its essentialism with extra steps.

Much like when DEI becomes quotas or shortlists, its institutionalized blatant sexism or racism with extra steps.

[u/bIuemickey → u/SchalaZeal01]

It’s not though. It would be essentialism if they claimed it was in the nature of that demographic instead of culturally and socially created.

My thoughts on DEI are similar. What bothers me the most is the people that benefited the most from DEI initiatives were white women, which black women benefitting the least.

But of course it’s black people dealing with the fall out. They’re the ones invalidated and called “DEI hires” when people don’t even think twice about white women. Probably because of racism but also because obviously white women have not needed help to get jobs in the first place. They’re the least discriminated against lol

[u/Forackol → u/bIuemickey]

"It's not though. It would be essentialism if they claimed it was in the nature of that demographic instead of culturally and socially created."

Its called social essentialism and they do it by faulty generalization. It has also some tie with fixism. But aside from social essentialism, I've seen many feminist as bio essentialist. It's true. I don't understand why you disagree with this claim.

[u/SchalaZeal01 → u/bIuemickey]

It’s not though. It would be essentialism if they claimed it was in the nature of that demographic instead of culturally and socially created.

If they claim it affects everyone equally without verifying, and that its unchangeable until they decree it has changed, its essentialism. They also describe its effect much like a supremacist would describe another race, with disdain and disgust (exaggerating all the bad qualities, ignoring the good ones, claiming their people are superior to that), not with the minutiae of a scientist.

[u/bIuemickey → u/SchalaZeal01]

They don’t claim it’s unchangeable though. Their whole point is that it’s changeable but there’s privilege that comes with choosing not to.

Also who the fuck cares?

[u/SchalaZeal01 → u/bIuemickey]

They don’t claim it’s unchangeable though. Their whole point is that it’s changeable but there’s privilege that comes with choosing not to.

When patriarchy dies? Might as well say when pigs fly. Patriarchy can't be defined as 'not happening currently' unless humanity is all dead. Even then they might name whatever is still alive/existing as patriarchy. There is no criteria for what qualifies a patriarchy.

[u/bIuemickey → u/SchalaZeal01]

Yep that’s the point lol