Hacker News Reader

Comment by akdas | Hacker News Reader

There are a lot of strawman arguments here. I've never heard feminists say any of these things because they are antithetical to the concept of equality for all. I'm a feminist, and asking for men's spaces is something I do. Feminists want spaces for men. Feminists want people to bring up male issues. Feminists don't want men to be stoic.

> If they really wanted men to cry more then they should encourage women to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry.

There's some truth to this, but it's also omitting something that's extremely important (and therefore changes the entire tone of this argument): we should also encourage men to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry. It's not men vs. women. It's men and women together. That's what feminism is.

View on HN

> I've never heard feminists say any of these things because they are antithetical to the concept of equality for all.

No true Scotsman there. It is true that people who say that aren't for equality, but they still call themselves feminists and feminists still welcome them as their own. That is the point, feminism as a movement isn't really for equality, they say they are but they aren't really or else those wouldn't get accepted in the movement. Your movement gets colored by the rotten apples in it, just like mens right has a lot of bad apples so do feminism, and what those bad apples do will also get attributed to feminism even if you think it shouldn't.

> There's some truth to this, but it's also omitting something that's extremely important (and therefore changes the entire tone of this argument): we should also encourage men to handle that burden rather than totally drop the ball and shame men who dare to cry. It's not men vs. women. It's men and women together. That's what feminism is.

You say it is men and women together here, but why do they just blame men for this? Most men live with a woman just as most women live with a man. The woman is his closest link, she is what affects him the most, if she practices toxic masculinity then there isn't much he can do. And as most men have experienced women like that they will teach their kids and each other that they have to be stoic and not cry, since otherwise women will not see them as a man. Sure, there are women out there who can accept a man who cries and do it well. But, as long as there are lots of toxic women out there who refuses to let a man cry there isn't much men can do, the "men don't cry" will live on as long as such women exists. And feminism doesn't try to do anything at all about those women.

I'm defining feminism, as defined in literature such as _Feminism is for Everybody_. It's a pretty objective definition, as these are the grounding principles of the movement.

> feminism as a movement isn't really for equality, they say they are but they aren't really or else those wouldn't get accepted in the movement

You keep bringing this up, but you haven't provided proof. Whereas people blaming women (instead of cultural sexism as a whole that's practiced by both men and women, and therefore the target of feminism) for their problems has plenty of proof in the comments here.

To be fair, there are people who call themselves feminists while being toxic, such as Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Mainstream feminism decries these groups, as evidenced by the backlash against J.K. Rowling. This kind of exclusionary behavior is _not_ acceptable.

And finally, if you believe in equality, then let's champion it. Even if you believe that women are making it hard for you, positively commend those who are behaving in an equitable way, and the same for men who are behavior in an equitable way. _We_ get to decide how the world should be. Let's make it happen!

> To be fair, there are people who call themselves feminists while being toxic, such as Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. Mainstream feminism decries these groups, as evidenced by the backlash against J.K. Rowling. This kind of exclusionary behavior is _not_ acceptable.

But they don't reject the "kill all men" people. That is just a harmless joke apparently. And I bet you will defend that statement right now, since way too many feminists have defended it and if you accept that the phrase is bad then you admit that you are wrong. Maybe we need a "MERF" terminology, Male Exclusionary Radical Feminists to denote the bad apples you say aren't really feminists? But until that term appears and the movement actually takes a stance the movement wont be for everyone.

> I'm defining feminism, as defined in literature such as _Feminism is for Everybody_

Right, just take their marketing material. Also, you know, Trump really just wanted to make America great again, that is what he said, why should we look at what he actually do instead of just listening to a slogan?

>No true Scotsman there.

No, it isn't. You are just imagining that woman and feminist are synonyms. They are not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com