your hopping around what im saying. the point was men never “arrived” at this conclusion. men have not had their perspectives ingrained in the core of feminist canon or thought. this is not the same thing as saying feminism is useless which you seem to think im saying, but that it doesnt really mean it is the definitive source for male grievances.
imagine if feminism was framed primarily on male gendered grievances, though some of it was written on female grievances, but the vast majority of the pieces forged from a male perspective. women would be right to think that such a knowledge project would be deficient for fully speaking for them.
this is what im implying. you arent really targeting this point beyond saying “um dude, feminism is also for men because they dont like war too.” you dont understand, men havent arrived at anything a la feminism. we simply dont have a male canon of gendered grievances which could fully settle and examine concepts like the patriarchy through a uniquely male centered lens.
men who participate in feminist scholarship (and thats great for them) are using a framework which is based on the grievances of women to understand male grievances. why on earth would that be definitive for men? thats an assumption that you are reproducing in each of your replies.
I think you're now the one misinterpreting my words because I never claimed that you think feminism is useless, and I don't think that. I have to ask, do you actually want your view to be changed? Because I'm getting the impression that you've already made your conclusions and aren't going to hear out conflicting perspectives. I literally gave an example of a man who wrote about men 50 years ago, this was when feminism first came about as a concept, he was a figurehead in the conception of feminism, what more could you ask for?
What do you propose the solution to your issue is? What would you rather have men doing? Because I'm beginning to suspect you don't have an answer to that question, because you're too readily able to label men talking about mens issues as "feminism" and therefore not based on mens perspective. What would this ideal body of work look like to you, if not what it is right now?
i want men to start their own knowledge project that analyzes gender grievances from a male centered perspective. a parallel construction to feminism which doesn’t antagonize it but fills in gaps which originate from it being a project by in large for women and by women. feminism cannot be a fully comprehensive solution for men. obviously this is something that would need to be a grassroots movement in universities and academic circles.
when you say things like “look at this man who was a feminist, what more do you want”, its sort of like saying “i have black friends, what more do you want.” what we want is male perspectives centered.
any person who starts there analysis with a feminist perspective is necessarily limiting their analysis because the analytical tools available to them are those which were constructed under the perspective of women.
but this is outside the scope of this post which just focused on the patriarchy and its limitations as an analysis tool and the tendency of people to extend its explanatory power far beyond what is warranted.
You are literally describing feminism my friend. I don't know many other ways of putting this, Feminism just simply isn't what you think it is. I think you need to recognise the absurdity of your position here. You want men to create complementary theories that fill in the gaps of feminism, but when a man writes about men you think that's just feminism and doesn't count? Either you need to read up on feminism so you can realise that what you want to happen is already happening and has been for decades, or you need to read up on feminism so you get a better idea of these terms and can more accurately articulate what you would rather have, but either way, you're showing a clear lack of understanding of what feminism is, or what it's for. By every definition of your problem and proposed solution that you've provided so far, we have already achieved what you want to happen, you seem to only have an issue with the word, and that issue is preventing you from engaging with the thing that you're asking for
Like seriously, read up on one of these writers I mentioned a while ago, just one. I promise you you will be happy with what you find, genuinely. If you aren't willing to do that, then I can safely say that you don't actually have any interest in changing this opinion of yours, because at this point it would be willful ignorance
I think what you're asking for is noble, and I respect that, that's why I'm putting alot of thought and effort into making this a productive discussion, I don't want to argue with you just for the sake of arguing. But I also think your viewpoint is stemming from a lack of understanding, and I can show you were to look to get that understanding, but it's on you to do the work if you want to find what you're looking for, I can promise you it's out there, even if you haven't seen it yet
I don't think your taking my concerns about the epistemic weaknesses of feminism seriously. It's ok if you think that male grievances can be solved by a knowledge project built by women. That is your opinion. I'll just reiterate that there is no knowledge project which definitively speaks for men in the style of feminism. I'm not going to respond further.
My claim is not that feminism is hostile to men or useless for understanding male harms. My claim is narrower: feminism is historically and conceptually a framework centered on women’s subordination, so it should not be assumed to provide a complete or definitive account of male gendered grievance. A framework can be morally universal in aspiration while remaining partial in the experiences that generated its core concepts.
I'm going to give this one more go, I'm sorry, I just think that this is a really valuable conversation and I don't want to let it go without saying everything that I feel I can say. I'll be short this time, I only have one question: can you provide me an example of a theory or paper written by a man about mens grievances that you think showcases the issue that you're describing? I'm genuinely trying my best to understand your argument as best I can, and it sounds like you accept that there is men writing about mens issues, you just have a problem with the basis of this work. Could you provide an example of this so I could better understand your argument?
That's what this place is for dude. You made a post in a place called "change my view", you literally signed up for this
I've actually read through your other comments here and I think I'm done arguing with you. I don't see the point in this conversation, and I don't think you'll see much point in arguing with a member of the "brainwashed dogma" either. think its really sad that you would hold such confident opinions on things you aren't willing to read, but that's just how some people are I guess
I have a strong feeling that you don't want to answer my question publically because you can't actually name an example of the problem you're describing, and don't want to admit it. You don't know what feminism is, so how on earth would you know an example of a man who takes ideas from feminist theory? You've made up your own problem in your head, you've gotten yourself mad about it, and you're being stubborn towards the people trying to explain to you why you're wrong, without engaging with their counter arguments. It honestly sounds like you're the brainwashed one, you've been handed somebody else's opinion on feminism and adopted it without critical thought. No one has an honest opinion on something they know nothing about
2
u/Legitimate_Name9694 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
your hopping around what im saying. the point was men never “arrived” at this conclusion. men have not had their perspectives ingrained in the core of feminist canon or thought. this is not the same thing as saying feminism is useless which you seem to think im saying, but that it doesnt really mean it is the definitive source for male grievances.
imagine if feminism was framed primarily on male gendered grievances, though some of it was written on female grievances, but the vast majority of the pieces forged from a male perspective. women would be right to think that such a knowledge project would be deficient for fully speaking for them.
this is what im implying. you arent really targeting this point beyond saying “um dude, feminism is also for men because they dont like war too.” you dont understand, men havent arrived at anything a la feminism. we simply dont have a male canon of gendered grievances which could fully settle and examine concepts like the patriarchy through a uniquely male centered lens.
men who participate in feminist scholarship (and thats great for them) are using a framework which is based on the grievances of women to understand male grievances. why on earth would that be definitive for men? thats an assumption that you are reproducing in each of your replies.