The optics of feminism are women-focused, it is about women first and foremost and therefore may not be applied to (or rather imposed on?) men unconditionally.
How come?
One of the outcomes of patriarchy is that men are more commonly promoted to higher positions, especially in the top levels, yes. But the other side of this is that men are expected to be providers, to carry the main financial burden, to pay for everything, leaving less to themselves. Feminism mostly covers only one side of this - income inequality - but barely tackles the societal issues that lead to the inequality in expenditures and financial expectations put on men. As such, men are squeezed between the rock and a hard place, and what most ultimately chooses in building a career, even if it doesn’t align with their best personal interest. As a result, even if we eliminate all the glass ceilings that women may face, men will still take higher positions on average because that’s what their conditions dictate. We need to address mens’ input and engage with it if we want to have all elements that would allow us to resolve it. And feminism doesn’t do that.
Men can and should absolutely support feminists while also combating their own discrimination - here we can agree. But naming a place “Men’s Liberation” comes with the expectation that it’s about the males’ issues through the males’ optics, or otherwise it is as liberating as a hostile army.
The optics of feminism are women-focused, it is about women first and foremost and therefore may not be applied to (or rather imposed on?) men unconditionally.
Optics are rather a subjective measurement.
Feminism mostly covers only one side of this - income inequality - but barely tackles the societal issues that lead to the inequality in expenditures and financial expectations put on men.
This is just simply not true. Questioning gender roles is one of core ideas in feminism and questioning male roles is one big aspects conservatives feel very uneasy with when it comes to feminism.
As such, men are squeezed between the rock and a hard place
Who is putting the expectation on men to be the provider? Feminists? Dude come on. Who made it impossible for a family to live on one salary? Feminist?
As a result, even if we eliminate all the glass ceilings that women may face, men will still take higher positions on average because that’s what their conditions dictate.
Yes and questioning traditional gender roles while providing alternatives is big part of feminism.
But naming a place “Men’s Liberation” comes with the expectation that it’s about the males’ issues through the males’ optics, or otherwise it is as liberating as a hostile army.
No it’s your expectation - not a general one. And there is a rather clear description that clarifies the purpose of this group. I can get that you might not be interested in exploring male problems through the lens of feminism - but it’s beyond me why you have a problem with other doing so.
Also from my personal perspective: I was raised rather feminist/egalitarian and I don’t feel pressure to be a provider but rather want to be a partner. Obviously anecdotal - but an example of a solution to a problem you mentioned, offered by feminism.
The optics of feminism are women-focused, it is about women first and foremost and therefore may not be applied to (or rather imposed on?) men unconditionally.
One of the outcomes of patriarchy is that men are more commonly promoted to higher positions, especially in the top levels, yes. But the other side of this is that men are expected to be providers, to carry the main financial burden, to pay for everything, leaving less to themselves. Feminism mostly covers only one side of this - income inequality - but barely tackles the societal issues that lead to the inequality in expenditures and financial expectations put on men. As such, men are squeezed between the rock and a hard place, and what most ultimately chooses in building a career, even if it doesn’t align with their best personal interest. As a result, even if we eliminate all the glass ceilings that women may face, men will still take higher positions on average because that’s what their conditions dictate. We need to address mens’ input and engage with it if we want to have all elements that would allow us to resolve it. And feminism doesn’t do that.
Men can and should absolutely support feminists while also combating their own discrimination - here we can agree. But naming a place “Men’s Liberation” comes with the expectation that it’s about the males’ issues through the males’ optics, or otherwise it is as liberating as a hostile army.
Optics are rather a subjective measurement.
This is just simply not true. Questioning gender roles is one of core ideas in feminism and questioning male roles is one big aspects conservatives feel very uneasy with when it comes to feminism.
Who is putting the expectation on men to be the provider? Feminists? Dude come on. Who made it impossible for a family to live on one salary? Feminist?
Yes and questioning traditional gender roles while providing alternatives is big part of feminism.
No it’s your expectation - not a general one. And there is a rather clear description that clarifies the purpose of this group. I can get that you might not be interested in exploring male problems through the lens of feminism - but it’s beyond me why you have a problem with other doing so.
Also from my personal perspective: I was raised rather feminist/egalitarian and I don’t feel pressure to be a provider but rather want to be a partner. Obviously anecdotal - but an example of a solution to a problem you mentioned, offered by feminism.