Masculism

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Who here would consider themselves, to be a Masculimist? I would consider myself to be a progressive one.


Progressives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism) masculists view masculism as a complementary movement to feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism), both movements seeking to correct gender discrimination. Progressive masculists do not reject feminism as a movement nor consider feminism a hostile movement and adopt cooperative vision. [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism#cite_note-8)

[Revy]

It doesn't make much sense to me. Apparently, it originates to E. Belfort Bax, who is one of the writers whose works are in the Marxists Internet Archive. E. Belfort Bax was a notorious anti-feminist chauvinist, despite claiming to stand for socialism.

[CommieCat]

Mmm...

I dunno, from reading its wikipedia entry, it sounds more like a movement defending male privilege & raising spurious cases of 'discrimination' than something progressive: "The term masculinism was coined as the counterpart of feminism in the early 20th century...As a political movement, "Masculism" originates with E. Belfort Bax' 1913 The Fraud of Feminism."

Then it goes on to list issues of 'male discrimination', which includes, amongst other things, circumcision! D:

Don't get me wrong, I think men DO have constraints on their lives owing to gender roles, for example the suicide rate which the wiki page details is telling of this. But for the most part men DON'T face structural discrimination. Violence against men occurs, probably FAR more than violence against women, but that doesn't mean that it is an issue of discrimination versus another social issue; men aren't attacked owing to their gender, unlike women where domestic violence IS an issue of gender discrimination because it draws in other facets of a woman's role in society.

Although, I understand that the 'progressive masculism' (aren't we trying to get rid of social roles defined by masculinity anyway?) is different from the other kind, but it begs the question; what does it offer that feminism doesn't?

[thinkerOFthoughts]

I personally dont care much whom it was that started it (what ever their beliefs) but the idea of the movement is what I support. Progressive Masculism find feminism, to be a good cause, and that both should be working side by side.

Edit: I didn't see your post CommieCat.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Mmm...

I dunno, from reading its wikipedia entry, it sounds more like a movement defending male privilege & raising spurious cases of 'discrimination' than something progressive: "The term masculinism was coined as the counterpart of feminism in the early 20th century...As a political movement, "Masculism" originates with E. Belfort Bax' 1913 The Fraud of Feminism."
I think this is where "progressive" Masuclism steps in and becomes different (well from what I can tell)


Then it goes on to list issues of 'male discrimination', which includes, amongst other things, circumcision! D:
lol I cant say I have felt discriminated against for being circumcised:lol:


Don't get me wrong, I think men DO have constraints on their lives owing to gender roles, for example the suicide rate which the wiki page details is telling of this. But for the most part men DON'T face structural discrimination. Violence against men occurs, probably FAR more than violence against women, but that doesn't mean that it is an issue of discrimination versus another social issue; men aren't attacked owing to their gender, unlike women where domestic violence IS an issue of gender discrimination because it draws in other facets of a woman's role in society.
Oh believe me I 100% recognize that discrimination against women is far greater than that against males, their is no denying this, but their are still some discrimination, issues when it comes to us men.


Although, I understand that the 'progressive masculism' (aren't we trying to get rid of social roles defined by masculinity anyway?) is different from the other kind, but it begs the question; what does it offer that feminism doesn't?
I dont know too much about Feminism (albeit I'm fine with it.) Feminism is doing loads of good but this deals with female rights, and not mens rights so fixing discrimination against women wont necessarily fix (however small it is) the discrimination against males.

[StalinFanboy]

Honestly, I think all the problems that men and women face as far as gender goes has to do with gender stereotypes and boundaries. I'm not suggesting that we all become androgynous, but certainly we should be able to be free to act in a way that feels natural to us without having to face the wrath of an intolerant society.

[DaughterJones]

:confused: I dont really see a difference between this and feminism seeing as feminism seeks to abolish gender discrimination and rigid gender construction it also promotes equality.

[DaughterJones]

[quote= Feminism is doing loads of good but this deals with female rights, and not mens rights so fixing discrimination against women wont necessarily fix (however small it is) the discrimination against males.[/quote]


Feminism is not only about the rights of women it seeks to change rigid gender roles. That is beneficial to men as well What comes to mind is the gender stereotype that women are more nurturing so they are better parents. That gender stereotype is harmful to women who make the choice not to be mothers as well as men because they are often discriminated against when it comes to the custody of children.

[ScarletShadow]

Do you abstain from the term "masculist" because it sounds like masochist?
:kitten:

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Then it goes on to list issues of 'male discrimination', which includes, amongst other things, circumcision! D:

Well female genital mutilation is considered discriminatory. I don't see why cutting off a bit of my penis to make me enjoy masturbating less is not discrimination.


what does it offer that feminism doesn't?

The question is? Do i know what negative stereotypes affect women? Only intellectually, women best know what discriminates against them. In the same way men best know what discriminates against them. We remove all discrimination against women, and the stereotypes for men will remain if we didn't fight against them.

[Black Dagger]

Moved to OI.

'Masculinism' is premised on a misunderstanding/ignorance of feminism, and is in practice an anti-feminist ideology tasked with smoothing out the kinks or blowback in a patriarchal society (patriarchy fucks up men too). It it is not a liberatory ideology, nor a progressive one - so please, keep discussion of this anti-feminist tendency within the bounds of OI. To clarify, being opposed to 'feminism' in isolation is not reactionary - some communists do this from the left - 'masculinism' does not.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

but what about the Masculism "known as Progressive" that tries to work side by side with Feminism?


(Note: this is not a challenge to your authority as a board Administrator, and I fully respect your right to place this somewhere else, I am just wondering is all...... also my Naive could be showing right now:lol: lol)

[Black Dagger]

I dont really see a difference between this and feminism seeing as feminism seeks to abolish gender discrimination and rigid gender construction it also promotes equality.

That's the thing - 'masculinism' uses feminism as a front - it trys to mimic feminist analysis or borrow its terms (paricularly gendered analysis, constructions of masculinity etc.) But given the position of men in a patriarchal society this results in navel-gazing 'male self-improvement workshops' (teaching men how to cry etc.) at best and at its worst, anti-feminism (because many perceive feminists to be attacking men). The praxis of masculinist groups has nothing to do with feminism but defending the 'oppressed male' in the here and now. It's an academic wing of the 'male rights' movement and is anything but 'progressive'.

Slave owners of the world unite!

[Black Dagger]

but what about the Masculism "known as Progressive" that tries to work side by side with Feminism?

With all due respect i think you need to learn more about feminism, the two are counterposed - they can't work 'side by side' - they have completely different goals. 'Feminism is for everybody' (i.e. men too ultimately), 'masculinism' however is focused on men and aims to redress the unfortunate biproducts of male domination experienced by some men. They do a lot of consciousness-raising stuff, which i guess is cool to some point - if you're a guy and you're so crippled by masculinity that you can't cry, then by all means. But masculinity does not need to be protected or rehabilitated.

As for the location of this thread - the topic title and post refers to masculinism generally, 'Who here would consider themselves, to be a Masculimist?' Which is an OI. I think 'progressive' masculinism is a contradiction in terms.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

With all due respect i think you need to learn more about feminism, the two are counterposed - they can't work 'side by side' - they have completely different goals. 'Feminism is for everybody' (i.e. men too ultimately), 'masculinism' however is focused on men and aims to redress the unfortunate biproducts of male domination experienced by some men. They do a lot of consciousness-raising stuff, which i guess is cool to some point - if you're a guy and you're so crippled by masculinity that you can't cry, then by all means. But masculinity does not need to be protected or rehabilitated.

As for the location of this thread - the topic title and post refers to masculinism generally, 'Who here would consider themselves, to be a Masculimist?' Which is an OI. I think 'progressive' masculinism is a contradiction in terms.

Feminism is actually a very new thing to me to be honest :) I looked it up and their was a link to "Masculism" and I thought "hey cool a man version of it" of course the article that I read didn't mention anything like anti-feminist so I would suppose I was mislead. Also I did not know that Feminism was also trying to in a way help men also (as a reprocussion I suppose?) knowing now that Masculism is suppose to be anti womens rights, dominance crap I full hartedly reject it (afterall I dont want you guys to think I'm some male dominance piece of shit)

Black Dagger thanks for the rundown, and setting the record straight for me :)

[Black Dagger]

I looked it up and their was a link to "Masculism" and I thought "hey cool a man version of it"

Yes that is a perfectly reasonable assumption, and 'masculinism' certainly aims to project this - in the name itself, their appropriation of feminist language etc. But it's really no better than white nationalism or any other 'oppressor support group' ideology.



of course the article that I read didn't mention anything like anti-feminist so I would suppose I was mislead.

Later when i get home i will post some text from a lecture i gave at UNSW about 'men and feminism' which covers 'male liberation' and 'masculinism', hopefully this well clarify my objections in a little more detail.



Also I did not know that Feminism was also trying to in a way help men also (as a reprocussion I suppose?)

Yes - as you suggested in your bracket. Feminism is concerned with eliminating all oppression based on sex, not just that of women. It's just that in a patriarchal society the primary subject of this oppression is women ('masculinism' shifts the discussion of gender oppression away from women and onto men, that is away from the oppressed). Nevertheless the aim of feminism is not to subject men to female rule or domination AKA matriarchy, but rather to abolish gender oppression. Feminism also has specific utility for queer men, as homophobia frequently stems from or is coupled with sexism.



knowing now that Masculism is suppose to be anti womens rights, dominance crap I full hartedly reject it (afterall I dont want you guys to think I'm some male dominance piece of shit)

I'm glad to hear that (your rejection of male domination), though i should clarify - not all 'masculinists' reject womens rights - their problem stems more from the ideas they promote, their perspective on gendered oppression and feminism than on womens rights. Like i said, i'll articulate my objections when i get home tonight and post up those lecture notes.


Black Dagger thanks for the rundown, and setting the record straight for me

Please, there is no need to thank me, no worries. I'm sorry if it was not clear before, i was not accusing you of being a reactionary - just that this topic was IMO not appropriate for the discrimination forum.

[CommieCat]

Well female genital mutilation is considered discriminatory. I don't see why cutting off a bit of my penis to make me enjoy masturbating less is not discrimination.

Well hang on, I didn’t say anything as such, but if you want my response regarding male circumcision (and female circumcision for that matter), then here it is:

It’s a paternalistic procedure which should have no place in society, apart from those who fully consent to having it done. It IS discriminatory, but not on the basis of ‘males being discriminated against’, but on the basis of a parent treating a child’s body like a piece of property which they can mold to suit whatever purposes they choose (be it religious or secular), where that child cannot possibly have any input regarding that decision.

That said, it IS different to female circumcision, if not just owing to the extent to which it reduces sexual pleasure; the removal of a female’s clitoris & prepuce is probably more damaging to a woman’s capacity for sexual pleasure than the removal of a man’s foreskin. Further, there are a whole range of ‘circumcisions’ which a female can undergo, from removal of the clitoral hood, to procedures which remove all external tissue, the labia minora and the inside of the labia majora, and then the outer labia is sewn together to allow for a small hole to urinate (a reverse infibulation performed when her husband wishes to have sex with her, or when she is undergoing labor.)

And there IS a difference between the purposes: a man is circumcised to reduce him masturbating as much (well that was the original intention at least!); a female is circumcised to prevent her enjoying sexual pleasure altogether (even though the capacity for sexual pleasure is not altogether removed & it does depend on the circumstances), and, typically, a sign of subservience to men.

So please, they ARE different procedures & do have different purposes.

That said, I totally disagree with both practices, not on the matter of men being discriminated against, but on the matter of communists opposing the exploitation of children by their parents.

[Black Dagger]

but what about the Masculism "known as Progressive" that tries to work side by side with Feminism?


(Note: this is not a challenge to your authority as a board Administrator, and I fully respect your right to place this somewhere else, I am just wondering is all...... also my Naive could be showing right now:lol: lol)

If you're interested i've now posted that piece i mentioned on 'male liberation', here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/men-and-feminism-t102082/index.html).

[RGacky3]

I don't understand why you have to simply take the idea of gender dignity and make in into an ideology, an ism, thats rediculous. People are making too many isms nower days.

As far as I can see, (I've read about this in other places), its simply about a man being a man, and standing on his own 2 feet. You don't need an ideology for that.

Some people in this movement blame the de-masculinization of men on feminism, which is compleatly rediculous. I think it has to do with the lack of fathers being fathers, and I hate to be a typical commie (everything is Capitalisms fault), but it partly has to do with financial issues, men have to work a lot more to make ends meat, rasing a family is extreamly expensive and hard and some men just run away from it, masculinity in some places is now based on monitary success and so on and so forth, so it does tie back into Capitalism.

When a boy grows up without a father, or at least a masculine figure it can be hard for him in the future. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against gay parents, and I think 2 mothers could raise a boy very well, but hopefully they'll realize the need of a male figure in a boys life.


'Feminism is for everybody' (i.e. men too ultimately), 'masculinism' however is focused on men and aims to redress the unfortunate biproducts of male domination experienced by some men.

Feminism is'nt a single ideology, people that call themselves feminists have a wide range of thought than leftists, its all over the place. Also feminists (for the most part) arn't concerned with 'gender equality' they are more concerned with breaking down inequality against women. As Comedian Bill Burr said, "There are no feminists in a house fire."

I do agree with a lot of what Masculists say, make things equal, for example, no more child support, since a woman has the choice to abort, its not a mans responsibility, I don't believe in alimoney. I believe a woman should earn the respect from a man the same way a man should earn the respect from a man or woman and it not be given to her just because she's a woman.

Male and Female relations have changed drasticly, for better or for worse. But chivilry is dead (for better of for worse).

[Lynx]

Women do not pay alimony?

Re. child support - you may want to revisit the legal idea of "male abortion"