Comment by pcthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pcthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I hear this argument all the time from anti-feminists. MRM propagandists often make an argument like, "Almost all the domestic violence shelters are for women. You feminists only care about women." The response from feminists is generally, "Feel free to get to work." But of course, MRM people don't care about men's suffering under sexism, they care about bashing feminists, so they don't do any organizing. This dynamic would be funnier if it weren't so sad.

Painting the above poster with an anti-feminist brush is uncharitable.

Disposable male theory isn't incompatible with a feminist perspective. I realize it's a mens rights talking point, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

My take: Patriarchy reinforces male supremacy which puts men in positions of power, and prioritizes the needs of men at a societal level; but men without power (as well as non-white, non-straight, non-"traditionally masculine" men) are also victims of patriarchy, and face challenges specific to men.

I'd point you to the /r/menslib subreddit which was a great, anti-men's rights, intersectional, and feminist-allied discussion forum for men's issues, but they've unfortunately gone dark. For a brief introduction, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_liberation_movement at least

edit: Here's a fascinating video essay deconstructing the toxic masculinity of Andrew Tate, and how patriarchy affects men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6_TOFy3k6k I found it on /r/breadtube, but it's definitely the type of fare common on /r/menslib

Right so your comment is full of the sorts contextualization it would certainly occur to you to make if you were looking at homelessness through a gender, but not anti-feminist, lens.

The other comment is using undiluted MRA & anti-feminist talking points without compromise or condition. The only way to read it charitably is to insert statements they didn't make, but easily could have and chose not to.

The other comment was pointing out that society is stacked against marginalized men. The support systems aren't there, people are less likely to extend empathy, and society isn't ready to treat mental health issues faced by men, since they're told from a young age that their emotions are invalid and unimportant (ok, this last bit admittedly is my own editorialization).

The person seemed to be commenting from a place of anger at how their brother was treated adversarially in his time of greatest need.

I volunteered with homeless people for years, and 80% or more were men. This issue is close to my heart as well and I absolutely think the commenter was pointing out relevant systemic issues, including touching on toxic masculinity and its attitude of treating other men adverserially

> The only way to read it charitably is to insert statements they didn't make, but easily could have and chose not to.

By the same token, can you explain how it can be read uncharitably without inserting statements they didn't make? Because as you said, they "easily could have" included misogynistic commentary "and chose not to"

Because this topic doesn't exist in a contextless vacuum. It's certainly possible that an internet commenter happened upon the same arguments, using the same language, as popular online anti-feminist movements use. But believing that unlikely coincidence is far beyond benefit of the doubt and we have no obligation to extend that far.

You yourself were enough aware of this context and dynamic that you carefully phrased your comment to avoid it. It's dog whistle shit, intentionally plausibly deniable neutral-seeming language. Corin called it out and you're saying "but plausibly, couldn't they deny this?" Yes! That's the point of it.

The original post said nothing about being anti-feminist.

I do not have any anger inside me -- just looking forward to helping more people. I support the health of women and men. The thread above is a perfect example of my point. It is literally impossible to talk about caring for men. If you talk about trying to save homeless men, people will get upset at you.

I talked about caring for men. It makes them so angry to care about men. When we talk about men freezing to death on the streets, the topic extends to "toxic patriarchy". I not participate in these abstract conceptual fictitious wars of mainstream though on any side. I care about helping life. Men are your brothers and need to be saved.

One day the world will wake up from their trance. I am optimistic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com