• Maw
    2.7k
    She may know that men are the majority of suicides, the majority of work related deaths, the majority of combat deaths, the majority of alcoholics, et cetera et ceteraNot Steve

    None of these are outside of the realm of Feminist issues. Feminists are typically anti-gun in part because guns are commonly used for suicide, as well as domestic violence and homicide. Feminists are also pro-access to healthcare and therapeutic care, and other avenues that can greatly curb suicide. Women are also pro-workplace regulation, which would curb work related deaths, and anti-war which would obviously limit combat deaths. Issues that feminists fight for would benefit men, unless you think that men should have some sort of social-political superiority over women, which of course is nonsense.
  • frank
    16k
    so when I say "I and a person of color," I'm demonstrating that my opinion comes from the minority perspective as I do see a dichotomy of my civil rights as a person of color, and rights as a man.Anaxagoras

    Sure. But your message was that white people have nothing to whine about because they're white. That's ridiculous. Everybody has a struggle of some kind. If you want people to shut up and try to understand you, shut up and try to understand them. Right?
  • Anaxagoras
    433
    The vast majority of feminists are humanists.NKBJ

    That remains to be seen. Considering that there were many women of color who have faced sexism and sexual assault and there haven't been any outspoken feminists on their case. I do recall the famous and late Sandra Bland case to mind on this issue.

    And most of them, including me, are frankly tired of people trying to strawperson the movement by saying it's about hating men.NKBJ

    I never said it was about hating men. I specifically said that the original intent of feminism was not to speak for "all women, rather to speak for a category of women." This is why discussing the intersectionality of feminism as well as so-called men's rights is important because of the inequality experienced by people of color we see that women of color historically has been the most outspoken among the female gender:

    “The problem, and what [many feminists today] are not saying,” Steinem told the crowd, “is that women of color in general—and especially black women—have always been more likely to be feminist than white women.”

    Source:https://www.theroot.com/these-are-the-women-of-color-who-fought-both-sexism-and-1823720002

    I find it ironic that most of the outspoken women who've I've discussed regarding #MeToo were more knowledgeable of Alyssa Milano than Tawana Burke the founder of the movement.

    The article says further:

    "Black women and women of color have actively fought for the rights and livelihoods of women for more than two centuries, yet their stories and contributions are often sidelined in the mainstream narrative of the feminist movement."

    This was my position earlier regarding feminism. In total, feminism as it is expressed today as it was expressed in the past did not speak for all women.

    I do think that the knee-jerk impulse to vilify feminists comes from a fear of men's privilege being uprooted.NKBJ

    I agree with this.

    It's very much like people trying to demonize any black rights movement by pointing to the outlier black racists who talk about killing copsNKBJ

    I do not see the correlation of racism and killing cops but okay unless you pressupose that the underlying factor of cop murder is racial hatred and even that is hard to play considering the police force is diverse.

    One sexist feminist/racist black does not discredit the entire movement.NKBJ

    Who says it does?
  • Anaxagoras
    433
    But your message was that white people have nothing to whine about because they're white.frank

    Can you put up the direct quote where I said that?

    Everybody has a struggle of some kind.frank

    I agree.

    If you want people to shut up and try to understand you, shut up and try to understand them. Right?frank

    I agree, but the question raised by the original post was "should a men's rights movement exist?"

    My thing is why should it exist? If it does exist, like feminism will it speak to a certain group of men or all men? Considering that the male perspective has been at the forefront of society since the beginning of civilization I question at what point am I as a man in need of male rights when in fact historically my country of is just beginning to treat me as a human being, a civilian?

    In other words how can I get behind a movement about my gender when I'm still facing a battlefront of what I look like?
  • frank
    16k
    In other words how can I get behind a movement about my gender when I'm still facing a battlefront of what I look like?Anaxagoras

    The guy said he wanted support groups where men come together. That probably would break down pretty quickly because of the differences in experiences between races. That's kind of a shame, though.

    They say the Korean War laid a foundation for the advancement of black rights because for many white men who fought in that war, it was their first experience fighting side by side with blacks. There was a documentary about it where white men who lived through that explained what it was like to discover that things you'd been told were untrue. It was pretty poignant. Is it necessary that we have a war in order to talk to each other?
  • DingoJones
    2.8k
    Issues should be prioritized based on individual necessity not by virtue of group identity. Identity politics have failed for thousands of years, and now that we have a far better system in place that promotes equal opportunity and individual freedom and liberty, a variety of fringe influences, some of them making ground, are pushing for regression into the dark ages. We're again bound to face an evil our ancestors fought to overcome.whollyrolling

    Very well said sir.
    I believe I agree 100%.
  • Not Steve
    18
    I already explained why delegating men's issues to feminism is impractical. It's insignificant whether feminists try to address men's issues or not; the fact remains that the feminist movement is female-dominated, and unless you would be comfortable trusting women's issues to a group that's male-dominated, I'm sure you can understand the need for seperate movements.

    It seems that whenever social activism for men is mentioned, people invariably try to make it a universal cause. "That's not a men's issue, that's just a human issue," etc. This is problematic in several ways: firstly, it implies either that there are no challenges unique to men, or that men don't have unique authority to speak out about such challenges. Secondly, it implies that there is something threatening and/or undesirable about a movement for men's issues, presumably that it's "divisve" or an instance of "identity politics."

    The double standard here is that none of these arguments are made for feminism. Everyone recognizes the existence of women's issues, which uniquely or disproportionately affect women. Everybody recognizes that, as the ones experiencing these challenges firsthand, women have a unique authority to speak about them. Almost nobody dismisses feminism as identity politics; intellectual circles recognize feminism as a valid movement, not compensation for a lack if individual identity. I'd just like to know what's different between advocacy for men and advocacy for women which makes the former unnecessary and the latter commendable.
  • Maw
    2.7k
    Except none of those examples listed are unique issues for men, as I explained, in the same way as, for example, reproductive rights are a unique issue for women.
  • Not Steve
    18
    Thanks for your response, I totally agree with you. A few others have brought this up, and I didn't mean to imply that people are incapable of understanding the opposite sex. I meant to say that understanding begins when a group (in this case, men) makes their struggles known, and others listen; we can't just expect everyone to intuitively know what others face without first being told.

    No, men aren't a homogeneous group with a uniform set of experiences. Like you pointed out, no demographic is. But there are enough issues which uniquely or disproportionately affect men that I think a dinstinct movement to address them may have merit.

    One more thing, I actually really like your last paragraph. I feel that people have a tendency to think only in absolutes; "essentialism has caused issues for people, so essentialism is bad and constructionism is good." The truth is much more nuanced than that. There ARE essential differences between men and women which make it sensible for them to fill different roles, the danger is in letting those roles become rigid expectations. Something that works for most individuals and society as a whole may not work for certain individuals: some men aren't suited to combat, some women aren't suited to family life, etc. I think it would be so much easier to discuss these sorts of topics if people took outliers as a given.
  • Not Steve
    18
    And who's to say that reproductive rights is a uniquely female issue? What about men forced to pay child support for children conceived without their knowledge, because a woman lied about being on birth control?

    Several of the issues I listed are exclusive to men, and all affect men disproportionately. Being coerced into military service only happens to men; women may join, but there has never been pressure for them to do so. Women are never discouraged from seeking emotional support; they're expected to seek it, and that support is almost always available to them. This should not be a competition for which sex has it worse.
  • Not Steve
    18
    In other words how can I get behind a movement about my gender when I'm still facing a battlefront of what I look like?Anaxagoras

    These things aren't mutually exclusive. The point of social advocacy for a certain group is shifting perception of that group is a less restrictive direction. You can simultaneously challenge expectations based on your race and your sex, because the goal of both is the same: making it easier to live as the person you are, and not the person some may see you as.
  • ZhouBoTong
    837
    A man's rights movement sounds awfully feminineMerkwurdichliebe

    hahaha. Nicely done. I think that single statement finds a way to offend everyone involved.

    And to the OP:

    I would suggest that MOVEMENTS are needed when government is NOT representative of the population it governs.

    U.S. News and World Report gave the following statistics (related to elected officials in the US):

    Despite white men comprising only 31 percent of the population, 97 percent of all Republican elected officials are white and 76 percent are male. Of all Democratic elected officials, 79 percent are white and 65 percent are male, according to the study.

    That suggests to me that women and non-whites may be in need of a "movement" (and 97% white is freaking amazing - in a terrible way).

    However, if +/- 70% of elected officials in the US are male, won't they ensure that laws are not dramatically unfair to men?

    Also, movements are so much effort. Can't all these sensitive men just organize local meet-up groups where they can share their feelings? We are already training teachers to be more sensitive to the needs of little boys (they are not "bad" because they cannot sit still). What else is needed?
  • Merkwurdichliebe
    2.6k
    hahaha. Nicely done. I think that single statement finds a way to offend everyone involved.ZhouBoTong

    Thanks!
  • Not Steve
    18
    I don't think we have quite the same understanding of a movement, maybe because I used the term "rights" in my original post. Men don't face institutional discrimination; honestly, I'm hard pressed to find a single example of institutional discrimination towards ANY group in the West.

    The only oppressive force at play here - whether it be for men, women, racial minorities, etc - is social expectations. How are people in this demographic perceived, how are they expected to act, and how do those preconceptions affect them directly? A social movement is concerned with educating the public, bringing problems that may have gone overlooked to light, not exclusively those problems which stem from legal policy.

    Social expectations are a twofold threat. Firstly, they impact how a group is treated in day to day life, which is significant enough on its own. Secondly, social expectations can influence those in power when they create policy. A male politician probably won't introduce a law to deny men voting rights, but he may dismiss laws aimed at addressing female-on-male rape.
  • BC
    13.6k
    As I said, men and women have issues that are particular to each sex, and developing a clear understanding of those issues is worthwhile. So a 'men's movement to understand men's issues' seems reasonable to me. But for most men and women, neither a feminist nor a masculinist movement is what is needed. What men and women need much more than several more identity-oriented rights movements is more clarity of what they need as working people.

    Jobs, wages, working conditions, and job security are critical issues common to all working people. So is affordable and readily available medical care for both physical and psychological (including chemical dependency) illnesses. Adequate affordable housing, and quality education are basic needs. Permanent, stable, and healthy families are of equal importance to men and women. A healthy environment in which to work, live, and play is equally important to men and women.

    These may seem like stale, old, irrelevant problems, but they are at the heart of life for both men and women. There aren't significantly different feminist or masculinist interests here: Both sexes have the same interests.
  • Artemis
    1.9k
    That remains to be seen.Anaxagoras

    :roll: By whom? You? I'll alert all feminists to report to you for ideological inspection promptly. s/

    The problem, and what [many feminists today] are not saying,” Steinem told the crowd, “is that women of color in general—and especially black women—have always been more likely to be feminist than white women.”Anaxagoras

    I interpret this differently than you. This, to me, means that SOME feminists have not been speaking for or about all women. But women of all colors and backgrounds are (to varying degrees perhaps) drawn to feminism because its core values are humanist no matter how some misguided people have enacted it.

    Furthermore, the movement is clearly actively working against that very issue. So you're a bit late to the party to be calling feminists out for this.

    I shouldn't have to point this out, but most issues that feminists stand for are human issues that affect women of all colors: abortion rights, equal pay, being able to speak out in cases of assault, protection from domestic violence, and so on. Or do you contend that women of color aren't interested in those things?
  • Anaxagoras
    433
    The guy said he wanted support groups where men come together. That probably would break down pretty quickly because of the differences in experiences between races.frank

    Again history has shown otherwise, and I'm 37 I have not seen that in my life time.

    They say the Korean War laid a foundation for the advancement of black rights because for many white men who fought in that war, it was their first experience fighting side by side with blacks. There was a documentary about it where white men who lived through that explained what it was like to discover that things you'd been told were untrue. It was pretty poignant. Is it necessary that we have a war in order to talk to each other?frank

    I would have to see that if you can give me the link to that fact....

    You want to know real facts, the civil rights movement was the prime catalysts for the rights of all minority people including women and men. It was just that people of a different skin pigmentation had to prompt the people of Congress to observe the U.S. law.

    This is fact.
  • Anaxagoras
    433


    I can be an advocate of something but if I consider the support I'm not going to be a part of the movement closely. If people want a men's rights movement I'm with it, hell, I'm a man. But I choose to not be engaged in discussion considering there are people a part of that movement that don't like me as I've seen it.
  • Anaxagoras
    433
    By whom? You? I'll alert all feminists to report to you for ideological inspection promptly. s/NKBJ

    Ok...

    I interpret this differently than you.NKBJ

    Of course, as is everything in history that folks do when black folks have a different perspective...

    But women of all colors and backgrounds are (to varying degrees perhaps) drawn to feminism because its core values are humanistNKBJ

    That is not what history has shown....

    Feminist Rage: 4 Ways White Feminists Continue to Silence Women of Color’s Anger at Racism

    "In the words of Pat Parker, in his 1978 poem “For the White Person Who Wants to Know How to Be My Friend”:

    “The first thing you do is to forget that I’m black. Second, you must never forget that I’m black.”

    Source:https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/feminist-rage-4-ways-white-feminists-continue-to-silence-women-of-colors-anger-at-racism/

    Furthermore, the movement is clearly actively working against that very issue. So you're a bit late to the party to be calling feminists out for this.NKBJ

    The article I listed above if you check it, is 2018, so I think the problem is perpetual within feminism. I understand you want to argue this point, but there is too much evidence against what you're saying.

    I shouldn't have to point this out, but most issues that feminists stand for are human issues that affect women of all colors: abortion rights, equal pay, being able to speak out in cases of assault, protection from domestic violence, and so on. Or do you contend that women of color aren't interested in those things?NKBJ

    "Because white people aren’t under attack by the structural racism created by a white power structure, they’re able to deny its realities. Casting themselves as the victims in discussions about racism, many white people defensively deflect from the issue, complaining that it’s actually people of color causing racial division (“race-baiting”) by pointing out its existence in the first place....

    Making it about us actually upholds racism, because we’re allowing our own emotions to take center stage over the truths of those we’ve negatively impacted."
  • Artemis
    1.9k
    I interpret this differently than you.
    — NKBJ

    Of course, as is everything in history that folks do when black folks have a different perspective...
    Anaxagoras

    If that's going to be your attitude, then there's no reason to continue this discussion.
  • ssu
    8.7k
    Not discounting Senator Ducksworth's sacrifice, but she chose to serve of her own volition and without a social obligation to do so, while the same can't be said of many young men in service.Not Steve
    No, incorrect.

    Citizens of the US don't have a social obligation to serve in the military. In my country we do, there's obligatory conscription. You can choose unarmed Service of civil duty, but opting to do neither basically you would go to jail. Our constitution says: "Every Finnish citizen is obligated to participate or assist in national defence"

    In my view women in the military are evidence that war and military aren't a phenomenon because of the tyrannical patriarchy, but something that relates to human kind.

    I think there are enough common interests for men to warrant some kind of political attention, or at the least, a social movement that recognizes their struggles and offers support. Community support is something troubled men aren't taught to seek or expect.Not Steve
    Yet to mimic the women's movement or any human rights movement would be whimsical. Playing the victimhood and greivance politcs would be simply awful and laughable. Because with arguing that men are victims you obviously have to have the oppressor. Well, who would that be? Women? [i[Really?[/i]

    The simple fact is that you should be far more exact on just what is the problem and what you want to be done. Let's say that too many men are taking their lives or using alcohol and drugs or ending up on their couch watching TV and playing video games. Well, fight then that by perhaps embracing manhood (or something). Start to change those views that make men difficult to seek help with programs and methods that don't carry a stigma, but would be contrary to that. How can you avoid burn out, PTSD or other mental problems before you have them in a high stress environment. How to help your friend. That would sound totally different. But don't assert that it's some human rights issue and men are the victims.
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    Because with arguing that men are victims you obviously have to have the oppressor.ssu

    This perfectly characterizes "grievance politics". That singular assumption (that there must be an agent oppressor) is basically the fundamental source of everything that's wrong with contemporary 4th wave "intersectional" (radical) feminism.

    The simple fact is that you should be far more exact on just what is the problem and what you want to be done. Let's say that too many men are taking their lives or using alcohol and drugs or ending up on their couch watching TV and playing video games. Well, fight then that by perhaps embracing manhood (or something). Start to change those views that make men difficult to seek help with programs and methods that don't carry a stigma, but would be contrary to that. How can you avoid burn out, PTSD or other mental problems before you have them in a high stress environment. How to help your friend. That would sound totally different. But don't assert that it's some human rights issue and men are the victims.ssu

    "Men's rights groups", or at least the ones I'm familiar with, are indeed seeking to address the problems you have mentioned (and like their counter parts, have become obsessed with the virtue of victim-hood). It's almost impossible for them to not frame men as a victim because that's the format that sells (because it induces rage).

    Sex sells, but rage sells in the new new world like sex never could. From an evolutionary perspective, it's inevitable that all of these movements will become dominated by the most outrageous denominators. Calm and collected perspectives get crowded out of the online marketplace by the more loud and the rationally obnoxious; and on top of that we're all being fed from (in)conveniently segregated digital troughs which are meant to reinforce our disparate biases (and all the while intentionally pissing us off as a means of attention-getting).

    In the era of identity politics, I don't blame the "men's rights activists" for making the same mistakes, but I do resent those mistakes. It's just that I don't see any group as currently capable of doing any better (not until we learn to digest new media more responsibly, (or maybe start holding new media corps accountable for their detrimental bull-shit, but it's not entirely their fault either)).

    Ultimately I think a sufficient grasp of the complex dynamics that lead to social disparities is currently above the level that our collective consciousness is capable of comprehending. More than half of us still seem to be stuck in and with old world norms and superstition. We can scarcely agree (as a group) about gender and sexuality (facts and norms alike), and the economics of it all is beyond our best economists. All this identify politics coming out the other end is a direct byproduct of bad science.
  • _db
    3.6k
    But does she know what it's like to be unable to express emotions, things as simple as fear and pain, without the possibility of being outcast and labeled weak? Does she know what it's like to have pent up aggression with no way of relieving it, and to be ostracized as dangerous and problematic when that aggression shows? To fear being accused of rape, and labeled a monster even when found innocent?

    Does she know what it's like to be expected to face the horrors of war, to die a violent death, or to return, broken, to a home where one no longer belongs? No. She can never know, because either through biology or millennia of social conditioning, those are not her burdens to bear. She does not envy them, just as men do not envy physical vulnerability or the pain of childbirth. Therein lies my key point: the sexes are not the same, the challenges they face are not the same, and treating them the same can only bring about hardship for one, the other, or both.
    Not Steve

    The thing is, a lot of these problems may very well be eliminated if we were to transition away from patriarchy, which is exactly what feminism strives for (especially the second-wavers).

    Feminist analysis has provided us with a convincing picture that the repression of emotions in males, the obsession with power and domination, warfare, etc are things found in patriarchies. Consider how basically all of the major conflicts of the world have been waged by men. Consider how the repression of emotions in men is generally an expectation put on men by other men.

    Being falsely accused of rape (and being labeled a monster) is a byproduct of rape culture. If rape were not so prevalent, and if men were more respectful of women, then the reputation of the defendant might not be so easily tarnished. Ironically, the fact that a man's reputation is immediately tarnished for being accused of rape implicitly means that everyone believes that men are untrustworthy in sexual matters. It is no surprise when a man is accused of rape, because everyone already knows that men are basically the only ones who rape.
  • ZhouBoTong
    837
    A male politician probably won't introduce a law to deny men voting rights, but he may dismiss laws aimed at addressing female-on-male rape.Not Steve

    This is an example of a BIG problem for a men's movement (my opinion). I think everyone (maybe almost everyone?) would agree that males raping females is still a MUCH bigger problem than vice versa. So if we are discussing where limited resources should go, it seems obvious.

    Are there any men's problems, that are ONLY men's problems, that men suffer from far more than ANYONE else? Oh, and we can't celebrate male traits that are NOT good traits anymore. Just because being big and violent was good for caveman, does NOT mean we should be celebrating {or even excusing if the male is over 20} that behavior - humans have all sort of natural negative traits that we go through efforts to reduce.

    If it does not check all of these boxes, there will be pushback (and I mean justified rational pushback, not just "all men are bad" nonsense).
  • Maw
    2.7k
    And who's to say that reproductive rights is a uniquely female issue? What about men forced to pay child support for children conceived without their knowledge, because a woman lied about being on birth control?Not Steve

    lol this is extremely rare, might as well make lightening strikes an "issue". That you manage to attempt to twist reproductive rights into a men's issue too demonstrates a profound thoughtlessness.

    Several of the issues I listed are exclusive to men, and all affect men disproportionately. Being coerced into military service only happens to men; women may join, but there has never been pressure for them to do so. Women are never discouraged from seeking emotional support; they're expected to seek it, and that support is almost always available to them. This should not be a competition for which sex has it worse.Not Steve

    Literally none of those issues listed are exclusive to men. Conscription ended in the US in 1973 and I can't think of a single developed country that requires compulsory conscription outside of Israel, which requires both men and women to serve anyway.
  • ssu
    8.7k
    "Men's rights groups", or at least the ones I'm familiar with, are indeed seeking to address the problems you have mentioned (and like their counter parts, have become obsessed with the virtue of victim-hood). It's almost impossible for them to not frame men as a victim because that's the format that sells (because it induces rage)VagabondSpectre
    This is the reason why it won't work. For victimhood to be successfull there has to be a common feeling of guilt and wrongdoing, the need for others to prove that they are supportive of the victim. Then the 'victim' is listened to and his/her/they(?) demands can be taken seriously.

    Civil Rights movement and the Suffragists/Suffragettes had an obvious objective. We are now universally against segregation by race and for women to have the ability to vote. Anybody arguing for open segregation by race and that women shouldn't have the right to vote would not be taken seriously. Hence actually in both cases the "White guilt" and perhaps "Male guilt" in the case of universal suffrage was a way to achieve those goals by using the victimhood card. Yet to argue that males are victims is hilarious. Just who will feel guilty about men?

    Simply put it, identity politics is a dead end in this issue. But as I said, these problems that modern males have can be dealt in totally different ways.
  • S
    11.7k
    Yes, definitely. And it effectively already does exist on more specific issues, like Fathers For Justice. And there are some male focused issues which really need more attention, like the issues surrounding male victims of rape. It's actually pretty damn harmful and offensive when people unthinkingly talk about rape as a problem where the victim is female and the perpetrator is male. It's not much different in structure than, say, witnessing bad driving and then complaining about women drivers.

    Oh, and also, Frank has demonstrated highly questionable judgement on this subject, so I wouldn't give too much credence to whatever he has said here. He is of the sort that thinks that if a woman is being emotional, then you can't say that she's being emotional, because she's a woman, and women need to be treated patronisingly as an exception which we must be super sensitive around. Apparently, even if a woman is literally and furiously screaming in your face, for example, you can't say that she's being emotional (even though that would obviously be true in this example) because she's a she and not a he, and because some idiot might jump to a conclusion about a stereotype. He automatically assumes that, in this situation, the man is sexist and the woman needs defending, which is itself horribly sexist.
  • ritikew
    12
    Interesting discussion. I think both sides have brought up interesting points. However, both men's right movement en feminism make the same mistake, namely the moral arrogance to decide what's in the other's interest, a paternalistic authoritarian moral-strawman so-to-say, a trap intellectuals often fall for.

    Fortunately enough, most people (both men and women) reject feminism and have never heard of 'men's right movement'. It is a niche debate, only held by a group with little to no power.
  • ritikew
    12
    Upon deeper reflection regarding the discussion I have been following, another thing I noticed is the zero-sum fallacy regarding concern of the problems men and women face nowadays. Being concerned with women's issues does not go at the cost of being concerned with the problems men face.

    It is obvious that, looking at it globally, women face greater problems than men, so it is reasonable that women's issues require greater attention and resources. For example, the Muslim-world doesn't really treat women that well and could call our attention, more than it does now.
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    For victimhood to be successfull there has to be a common feeling of guilt and wrongdoing, the need for others to prove that they are supportive of the victim. Then the 'victim' is listened to and his/her/they(?) demands can be taken seriously....

    ....Yet to argue that males are victims is hilarious. Just who will feel guilty about men?
    ssu

    Plenty of folks feel sympathy for men's issues (grass-roots grievance politics is already a multi-million dollar industry). There may be no coherent agent-oppressor to throw blame at, but men can still be victims of circumstance, and this is why plenty of men's rights movements are already off to the races.

    The men's right's groups which focus on blaming people, rather than addressing or solving issues directly, are not surprisingly part of the alt-right movement (they blame women, minorities, progressive values, and pine for a return to traditionalism).

    There's only subtle difference in their ideological starting points, but there's an ocean of difference between their political conclusions objectives. When we tell young men that the problems they face are laughable and that they should stop being whiny problems, we're setting them up to feel ostracized, insignificant, and unintentionally pushing them toward identitarian movements that happen to favor and emotionally console them.

    This Frankenstein-esque obsession with race, gender, orientation, or identity, regardless of the cause in question, has created a monster. People rightly reject identity politics once it turns on them, but in the ensuing confusion they become the useful idiots of the diametrically opposed.

    in both cases the "White guilt" and perhaps "Male guilt" in the case of universal suffrage was a way to achieve those goals by using the victimhood card.ssu

    I think history begs to differ. "White guilt" or "male guilt" was never a cogent concept in the days of the suffragettes. The earliest leaders of pre-feminist movements didn't actually try to guilt men into granting them social equality, they argued and petitioned for equality on the basis of female merit. Men tended to believe women weren't capable of complex rational thought, that they were governed by their hystera (uterus), should be seen and not heard, were forbade from speaking openly in public, and should be gently-brutalized if they stray from virtue. They needed to be more than victims if they wanted to see progress.

    Rather than trying to establish male guilt (as a means of motivating men into fixing the problems), they actually did focus more on the problems themselves, and motivating everyone on the basis of what is right rather than on the basis of "who is guilty and wrong". Rather than blaming men as evil, they blamed, but more importantly, challenged, our cultural understandings and institutions themselves.

    Here's a kind of long but wonderfully representative speech delivered by Angelina Grimké (one of the earliest American feminist reformers) in 1838 on the subject of slavery and the power of men. It was delivered to a racially mixed crowd of abolitionists at Pennsylvania Hall, while just outside a mob of violent protestors did everything they could to shut it down (by the next day, the whole building had been burnt to the ground). She incorporates "outrage" into her rhetoric, but she does not use it to instigate hatred or resentment or inherent blame, she uses it as an appeal to action in the pursuit of justice. The precision and eloquence of her words, and the relevance and persuasive power of her arguments were her main tools. She helped to found a movement that sought to empower the dis-empowered, not a movement seeking to guilt the powerful into giving up (because obviously that never works).


    Reveal
    "Men, brethren and fathers -- mothers, daughters and sisters, what came ye out for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? Is it curiosity merely, or a deep sympathy with the perishing slave, that has brought this large audience together? [A yell from the mob without the building.] Those voices without ought to awaken and call out our warmest sympathies. Deluded beings! "they know not what they do." They know not that they are undermining their own rights and their own happiness, temporal and eternal. Do you ask, "what has the North to do with slavery?" Hear it -- hear it. Those voices without tell us that the spirit of slavery is here, and has been roused to wrath by our abolition speeches and conventions: for surely liberty would not foam and tear herself with rage, because her friends are multiplied daily, and meetings are held in quick succession to set forth her virtues and extend her peaceful kingdom. This opposition shows that slavery has done its deadliest work in the hearts of our citizens. Do you ask, then, "what has the North to do?" I answer, cast out first the spirit of slavery from your own hearts, and then lend your aid to convert the South. Each one present has a work to do, be his or her situation what it may, however limited their means, or insignificant their supposed influence. The great men of this country will not do this work; the church will never do it. A desire to please the world, to keep the favor of all parties and of all conditions, makes them dumb on this and every other unpopular subject. They have become worldly-wise, and therefore God, in his wisdom, employs them not to carry on his plans of reformation and salvation. He hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and the weak to overcome the mighty.

    As a Southerner I feel tbrt it is my duty to stand up here to-night and bear testimony against slavery. I have seen it -- I have seen it. I know it has horrors that can never be described. I was brought up under its wing: I witnessed for many years its demoralizing influences, and its destructiveness to human happiness. It is admitted by some that the slave is not happy under the worst forms of slavery. But I have never seen a happy slave. I have seen him dance in his chains, it is true; but he was not happy. There is a wide difference between happiness and mirth. Man cannot enjoy the former while his manhood is destroyed, and that part of the being which is necessary to the making, and to the enjoyment of happiness, is completely blotted out. The slaves, however, may be, and sometimes are, mirthful. When hope is extinguished, they say, "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." [Just then stones were thrown at the windows, -- a great noise without, and commotion within.] What is a mob? What would the breaking of every window be? What would the levelling of this Hall be? Any evidence that we are wrong, or that slavery is a good and wholesome institution ? What if the mob should now burst in upon us, break up our meeting and commit violence upon our persons -- would this be any thing compared with what the slaves endure? No, no: and we do not remember them "as bound with them," if we shrink in the time of peril, or feel unwilling to sacrifice ourselves, if need be, for their sake. [Great noise.] I thank the Lord that there is yet life left enough to feel the truth, even though it rages at it -- that conscience is not so completely seared as to be unmoved by the truth of the living God.

    Many persons go to the South for a season, and are hospitably entertained in the parlor and at the table of the slave-holder. They never enter the huts of the slaves; they know nothing of the dark side of the picture, and they return home with praises on their lips of the generous character of those with whom they had tarried. Or if they have witnessed the cruelties of slavery, by remaining silent spectators they have naturally become callous -- an insensibility has ensued which prepares them to apologize even for barbarity. Nothing but the corrupting influence of slavery on the hearts of the Northern people can induce them to apologize for it; and much will have been done for the destruction of Southern slavery when we have so reformed the North that no one here will be willing to risk his reputation by advocating or even excusing the holding of men as property. The South know it, and acknowledge that as fast as our principles prevail, the hold of the master must be relaxed. [Another outbreak of mobocratic spirit, and some confusion in the house.]

    How wonderfully constituted is the human mind! How it resists, as long as it can, all efforts made to reclaim from error! I feel that all this disturbance is but an evidence that our efforts are the best that could have been adopted, or else the friends of slavery would not care for what we say and do. The South know what we do. I am thankful that they are reached by our efforts. Many times have I wept in the land of my birth, over the system of slavery. I knew of none who sympathized in my feelings -- I was unaware that any efforts were made to deliver the oppressed -- no voice in the wilderness was heard calling on the people to repent and do works meet for repentance -- and my heart sickened within me. Oh, how should I have rejoiced to know that such efforts as these were being made. I only wonder that I had such feelings. I wonder when I reflect under what influence I was brought up that my heart is not harder than the nether millstone. But in the midst of temptation I was preserved, and my sympathy grew warmer, and my hatred of slavery more inveterate, until at last I have exiled myself from my native land because I could no longer endure to hear the wailing of the slave. I fled to the land of Penn; for here, thought I, sympathy for the slave will surely be found. But I found it not. The people were kind and hospitable, but the slave had no place in their thoughts. Whenever questions were put to me as to his condition, I felt that they were dictated by an idle curiosity, rather than by that deep feeling which would lead to effort for his rescue. I therefore shut up my grief in my own heart. I remembered that I was a Carolinian, from a state which framed this iniquity by law. I knew that throughout her territory was continual suffering, on the one part, and continual brutality and sin on the other. Every Southern breeze wafted to me the discordant tones of weeping and wailing, shrieks and groans, mingled with prayers and blasphemous curses. I thought there was no hope; that the wicked would go on in his wickedness, until he had destroyed both himself and his country. My heart sunk within me at the abominations in the midst of which I had been born and educated. What will it avail, cried I in bitterness of spirit, to expose to the gaze of strangers the horrors and pollutions of slavery, when there is no ear to hear nor heart to feel and pray for the slave. The language of my soul was, "Oh tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon." But how different do I feel now! Animated with hope, nay, with an assurance of the triumph of liberty and good will to man, I will lift up my voice like a trumpet, and show this people their transgression, their sins of omission towards the slave, and what they can do towards affecting Southern mind, and overthrowing Southern oppression.

    We may talk of occupying neutral ground, but on this subject, in its present attitude, there is no such thing as neutral ground. He that is not for us is against us, and he that gathereth not with us, scattereth abroad. If you are on what you suppose to be neutral ground, the South look upon you as on the side of the oppressor. And is there one who loves his country willing to give his influence, even indirectly, in favor of slavery -- that curse of nations ? God swept Egypt with the besom of destruction, and punished Judea also with a sore punishment, because of slavery. And have we any reason to believe that he is less just now? -- or that he will be more favorable to us than to his own "peculiar people?" [Shoutings, stones thrown against the windows, &c.]

    There is nothing to be feared from those who would stop our mouths, but they themselves should fear and tremble. The current is even now setting fast against them. If the arm of the North had not caused the Bastile of slavery to totter to its foundation, you would not hear those cries. A few years ago, and the South felt secure, and with a contemptuous sneer asked, "Who are the abolitionists? The abolitionists are nothing?" -- Ay, in one sense they were nothing, and they are nothing still. But in this we rejoice, that "God has chosen things that are not to bring to nought things that are." [Mob again disturbed the meeting.]

    We often hear the question asked , What shall we do?" Here is an opportunity for doing something now. Every man and every woman present may do soinething by showing that we fear not a mob, and, in the midst of threatenings and revilings, by opening our mouths for the dumb and pleading the cause of those who are ready to perish.

    To work as we should in this cause, we must know what Slavery is. Let me urge you then to buy the books which have been written on this subject and read them, and then lend them to your neighbors. Give your money no longer for things which pander to pride and lust, but aid in scattering "the living coals of truth" upon the naked heart of this nation, -- in circulating appeals to the sympathies of Christians in behalf of the outraged and suffering slave. But, it is said by some, our "books and papers do not speak the truth." Why, then, do they not contradict what we say? They cannot. Moreover the South has entreated, nay commanded us to be silent; and what greater evidence of the truth of our publications could be desired?

    Women of Philadelphia! allow me as a Southern woman, with much attachment to the land of my birth, to entreat you to come up to this work. Especially let me urge you to petition. Men may settle this and other questions at the ballot-box, but you have no such right; it is only through petitions that you can reach the Legislature. It is therefore peculiarly your duty to petition. Do you say, "It does no good?" The South already turns pale at the number sent. They have read the reports of the proceedings of Congress, and there have seen that among other petitions were very many from the women of the North on the subject of slavery. This fact has called the attention of the South to the subject. How could we expect to have done more as yet? Men who hold the rod over slaves, rule in the councils of the nation: and they deny our right to petition and to remonstrate against abuses of our sex and of our kind. We have these rights, however, from our God. Only let us exercise them: and though often turned away unanswered, let us remember the influence of importunity upon the unjust judge, and act accordingly. The fact that the South look with jealousy upon our measures shows that they are effectual. There is, therefore, no cause for doubting or despair, but rather for rejoicing.

    It was remarked in England that women did much to abolish Slavery in her colonies. Nor are they now idle. Numerous petitions from them have recently been presented to the Queen, to abolish the apprenticeship with its cruelties nearly equal to those of the system whose place it supplies. One petition two miles and a quarter long has been presented. And do you think these labors will be in vain ? Let the history of the past answer. When the women of these States send up to Congress such a petition, our legislators will arise as did those of England, and say, "When all the maids and matrons of the land are knocking at our doors we must legislate." Let the zeal and love, the faith and works of our English sisters quicken ours -- that while the slaves continue to suffer, and when they shout deliverance, we may feel the satisfaction of having done what we could."

    -Angelina Grimké



    Simply put it, identity politics is a dead end in this issue. But as I said, these problems that modern males have can be dealt in totally different ways.ssu

    In any democracy, identity politics always was and always will be a dead end. We can't find equitable middle grounds if we self-segregate into fundamentally competing identity groups whose main tool is guilt and hate (nor might individuals have much democratic freedom under such a paradigm). While the civil rights movements of old did champion causes affecting particular identity groups, they didn't centralize around blame, guilt, and resentment of entire other groups as a cause or a solution, they focused on equality, unity, and an end to injustice. When and where the issue of "guilt" has surfaced as a central issue, it caused schisms and divisions in civil rights movements.

    You can't remedy physical segregation with ideological segregation.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.