LWMXC Exh
Left Wing Male Advocacy
Left wing male advocacy that is almost like r/MensLib 2.0 except with some critiques of feminism thrown in. So anything I write below add more leftism to it to show where I am on it
Left wing male advocacy is good because it fills a void in the political landscape: talking about male issues, from a left wing (i.e egalitarian) perspective that is left-wing but with some light critiques of feminism.thrown into the mix
People who agree with all three of these core values are pretty hard to find, whether that’s due to the fact that there are few of us or or because we’re politically homeless and scared to speak. So if we’re going to have any luck of exerting political influence, we’re gotta to have to have this type of ideology, tolerating and discussing our differences within Left wing male advocacy. Consequently within Left wing male advocacy we take something of a “big tent” approach to each of the three defining values, trying to accommodate views ranging from: Moderate male advocates to radical male advocates, Moderate left-wingers to radical left-wingers, Moderate critics of feminism to radical critics of feminism
What do we mean by male issues?
Here are some examples of issues that disproportionately affect males and therefore are likely to be discussed on the Left wing male advocates subreddit (this list is not necessarily exhaustive and there may be disagreement on some items):
Demonization
Empathy gap
Beliefs that men are more powerful, malicious, and/or invulnerable than women
Female in-group bias
Stereotyping as sexual predators
Breadwinner role
Expectation to take charge (not necessarily the same as having real power)
Protective and risk-taking roles
Lives considered more disposable
Life expectancy gap
Gendercide
Wars and military conscription
Violent crime
Female-on-male intimate partner abuse
Lack of dedicated services for male victims
Dismissive social attitudes toward male victims
Gender-biased perceptions of sexual consent
Gender-biased perceptions of intimate relationship disputes generally
False accusations, abuse of process, and erosion of due process
Feminist abuse of state power
Bias in family courts
Parental alienation
Paternity fraud
Reproductive coercion and lack of male reproductive rights
Bias and open discrimination in the criminal justice system
Police violence
Violence and persecution targeting minority men
Homophobia
Bias in welfare systems, pension ages, charities, and aid to poor countries
Stagnating wages and technological unemployment
Homelessness
Workplace injury and death
Circumcision
Estrogen-mimicking pollutants
Initiator role in dating/sex
Involuntary celibacy and sexual attention gap
Creep-shaming, virgin-shaming, and cad-shaming
Negative reactions to men showing vulnerability
Feminist hostility to acknowledging and addressing men’s issues
Feminist bias in social sciences
Feminist curricula and other educational issues
Censorship and cancel/callout culture
Suicide
For a relatively non-ideological primer on male issues, see the Reference Book of Men's Issues.
A male advocate is someone who cares about some or all of the above issues, particularly if you question the feminist assumption that men are fundamentally a privileged/oppressor class with male disadvantages being a mere side-effect. We welcome a "big tent" range of positions, from moderates who believe male and female disadvantages roughly
What do we mean by me being a left-wing male advocate?
There is no agreed-upon consensus on the meaning of political labels, as people tend to label ideas differently depending on their own views. The terms “left” and “right” originate from French political history, though the meaning has since evolved as the then-left (liberalism) became the status quo and was challenged by further-left ideologies.
In very broad terms, left-wingers like me tend to advocate reducing inequality through social change, whereas right-wingers tend to defend the traditional social order and inequality. The left is supposed to represent the interests of disadvantaged classes while the right is supposed to represent the interests of privileged classes.
That debate over egalitarianism has gone on throughout political history, but this subreddit is not the place for it. This subreddit is for people who already believe in at least some degree of egalitarianism and want to incorporate men’s issues into egalitarian thought.
Here are some common themes in left-wing thought that I support though the degree to which each left-winger like me endorses these themes may vary
Supports free speech (yes, this is a historically left-wing value that we’d like to bring back into vogue!)
Defends civil liberties
Seeks religious freedom
Critical of harsh criminal punishment
Critical of capitalism, corporate power, and deregulation thereof
Prefers public (state or community) ownership and/or regulation of economic resources
Opposes imperialist wars
Opposes racial discrimination
Skeptical of traditional values
Resists restrictive sexual norms
Resists restrictive gender roles
Supports birth control
Alarmed by environmental destruction
When critical of globalization, focuses on the power of multinational corporations and trade agreements
Fears the surveillance state and surveillance capitalism
Supports cognitive liberty
Sees future technologies as being potentially liberatory or repressive depending on society
Generally skeptical of institutions, authorities, and social structures
Generally seeks to reduce or eliminate social disadvantages
I don’t necessarily have to agree with all the above to participate for me to be considered a left wing male advocate. Even if I just agreed with most of the points on this list, I would reasonably be considered left-wing. Left wing male advocacy seeks to include a “big tent” covering anyone in the left-wing half of the political spectrum, ranging from centrist to center-left to far-left.
Why is a specifically left-wing male issues subreddit needed?
Left wing male advocacy exists to fill a void in the political landscape. Male issues are becoming increasingly mainstream on the political right, and we aim to mainstream this perspective on the left as well.
Arguably a major factor in the recent growth of the more out there right wing is their use of men’s issues as a wedge to recruit men to less egalitarian values. Many right-wingers are adopting men’s issues talking points as ammunition against the left, without much thought about the deeper implications. But we don’t support right-wing or out there right wing groups because of their stances on other issues, and because we believe their anti-egalitarian ideology offers few real solutions for male disadvantages. (If you doubt that the hard right and fringe right has bad intentions, listen to some of what Richard Spencer says when he's caught on tape or he thinks you're not listening.)
Men’s issues deserve more than lip service.
We are encouraged that men’s issues are getting traction somewhere, so we are not opposed to right-wingers talking about men’s issues, but we do not want the right-wing to be the only game in town on men’s issues. When men’s rights advocacy is tied to right-wing or far-right politics, it alienates mainstream left-wingers, attracts disruptive protests from antifascists, and is easy for the media to demonize.
Currently, left-wing male advocates feel politically homeless. In existing men's rights spaces, left-wing voices tend to be drowned out by centrist, right-wing, and far-right voices. Existing left-wing spaces are highly censorious against male advocates and routinely demonize us as far-rightists. And it can be difficult to raise this conversation offline because it may mean risking one’s job, sexual/dating prospects, and/or associations with activist groups.
Therefore, as left-wing male advocates need an online space to discuss and develop our own ideas on how men’s issues relate to egalitarian causes, and a language through which we can talk to the left about it.
Also, the very existence of this subreddit will provide visible evidence that left-wing male advocates do exist, which will help counter propaganda that only right-wingers think about men’s issues in a feminist-critical way. We will show it is possible to criticize feminism from the left rather than from the right.
Where might I have common ground with feminists?
Whether some radfems (i.e TERFS) would me and left wing male advocates to be 'anti-feminists' may depend on your definition of “feminism”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines feminism as making both descriptive and normative claims: “Feminism is grounded on the belief that women are oppressed or disadvantaged by comparison with men, and that their oppression is in some way illegitimate or unjustified.”
I agree with the normative claim to the extent that the descriptive claim is true, but I dispute the degree to which the descriptive claim is true. When we left wing male advocates account for both male disadvantages and female disadvantages, particularly today, it is not necessarily clear that women are overall more oppressed or more in need of liberation.
However since I and other left wing male advocates support egalitarianism, me and other left wing male advocates do agree with those aspects of feminism which we judge to be genuinely egalitarian and based in truth. Here are some points where we tend to have common ground with many feminists:
Treatment based on the immutable characteristic of gender should be questioned
There is an oppressive gender system which is at least partly imposed by culture
Women face some gender disadvantages
Women have faced gendered injustices historically
Intimate partner abuse is something society should attempt to reduce
Reproductive rights should be maximized
Slut-shaming is harmful and ill-defined
Same-sex relationships should be allowed
Trans individuals should be free to live as the gender they identify with
Multiple axes of disadvantage can intersect to form oppression that is more than the sum of its parts
We should strive to make the genders as equal as possible
Again, this is just a general guideline and there is room for debate about all claims made by feminist ideology, particularly about the degree, nature, and causes of female disadvantage past and present.
Where do we reject the mainstream political spectrum?
Though we are broadly left-wing, on gender issues we reject the mainstream political spectrum.
Conventional gender politics is organized into two major tribes, the traditionalist right and the feminist left. Both camps perceive men as the traditionally powerful gender and perceive the traditional "patriarchal" system as benefiting men.
Consequently, both camps tend to assume advocacy for women is inherently left-wing and advocacy for men is inherently right-wing.
Because the left opposes advocacy for traditionally privileged classes, and views men as a traditionally privileged class, left-wingers are biased against men's issues advocates before we even open our mouths. These associations, arguably an accident of history, place male advocates in the difficult position of being lumped in with the traditionalists.
But we left wing male advocates believe neither the traditionalists nor the feminists are truly interested in what is best for men. Each often seems more interested in socializing men to be maximally exploitable by that political tribe, or at least its female members. For traditionalists that means socializing men to be strong protectors, for feminists it means socializing men to be weak enablers, but neither cares much about addressing men’s problems. Men deserve a movement for male interests.
Left wing male advocates like me shouldn’t (and don't) reject the left’s sociological imagination just because we disagree with their current conclusions in one area.
Arguably, evidence of male disadvantages can be found stretching back through the entirety of human history, back into prehistory and even the evolutionary past that shaped our biology. So any effective movement to address men’s issues needs to be willing to potentially question the very roots of human society. There’s a word for the kind of politics that attacks the roots of society: radical. That suggests male advocates may need to think radical, rather than reformist or reactionary.
Evolution is another issue that is difficult to discuss within the left. Many feminists take the extreme stance that there is no significant natural contribution to sex differences in human behaviour or even sexual preferences.
This seems unlikely, since all credible scientists agree the human brain evolved by natural selection, and bodies with wombs presumably faced different selective pressures than bodies without wombs. By ignoring the reality of where human beings have come from, feminists ignore possible explanations for gender issues. Explaining how something may have come about is not the same as endorsing it. It may make a difference as to whether gender can be totally “abolished” (like with Transhumanism) or if society can only minimize its harms, but it is not a fundamental difference of values.
Feminists present their ideology as an egalitarian project for gender equality and a radical break with traditional gender ideology, and consequently many critics of feminism are anti-egalitarian and pro-tradition. We reject both sides of that debate by questioning the assumptions that feminism is egalitarian and a total break with tradition.
Why is not bad to criticize feminism?
When I criticize feminism, I refer not necessarily to all feminists, but to influential tendencies within feminism. Feminism is now an established institution within governments, media, universities and schools, and so on (as admitted by a recent feminist book), and deserves to be critiqued as such. Feminist ideology, policies, and activism profoundly impacts the lives of men and boys, so feminists must be held to account for their actions. It could take a while to list all the reasons (here's a longer list), but here are a few.
No ideology should be considered above criticism, whatever liberating aspects it might contain. We should never assume we already have a perfect roadmap for future progress and our only unfinished business is further purification in line with current doctrines.
Leftists already recognize this principle with regard to liberalism’s claim to be the rightful “end of history” regarding economic relations, so why should we view feminism as the rightful end of history regarding gender relations? If it is possible to criticize liberalism while acknowledging its liberating aspects, to criticize misapplication of egalitarian values without rejecting the values themselves, why can’t we apply the same critical thinking to feminism without being constantly accused of fascism? We cannot know which ideas will bring future progress, so all ideas must remain up for debate.
Feminism is an ideology that exaggerates female disadvantages and downplays male disadvantages, exaggerates male aggression and downplays female aggression, exaggerates male power and downplays female power. Feminism is said to be “the belief that women are people”, but in practice it is often the belief that women are innocent victims. This tendency to blame everything on men is sometimes called "male hyperagency" or "female hypoagency". Any honest advocacy for men needs to challenge these assumptions. To debunk the stereotypes of female vulnerability, male power, male malice, and male hyperagency generally, it follows that we must point out evidence of male vulnerability, female power, female malice, and female agency. And that necessitates criticizing feminism.
At present feminism is in power and does not allow any other movement to speak. Whenever anyone brings up the aforementioned evidence, the typical feminist reaction is to demonize and censor the critic, because they have to silence any contrary evidence in order to maintain their hegemonic male-demonizing narrative. Because feminism has the most power to set the terms of the debate, and because feminists are so aggressive toward men’s issues advocates, we have no choice but to shut up or fight back against feminism.
Feminism has two faces. It claims to be THE movement for gender equality. Yet in name and usually in practice, feminism is a movement to increase the power of women in every circumstance, regardless of whether it is fair in any particular circumstance. This makes feminism an extremely hypocritical movement which is making very lopsided changes to society. Too often feminism has promoted a one-sided “equality”, dismantling male advantages while exploiting, reinforcing, preserving, and downplaying female advantages.
Feminism’s dual reputation puts male advocates in a no-win position. Some feminists say men’s issues advocates should work within feminism because the movement is about gender equality for all. Some feminists say raising men’s issues in feminist spaces is “derailing” a women’s movement that has no responsibility to help men, so male advocates should do separate activism without expecting any help from feminists. The combined effect of these two talking points is to dismiss any discussion and prevent any progress on men’s issues. Maybe some of the feminists saying these things mean well, but their passivity is giving free reign to their less egalitarian sisters to censor, no-platform, ostracize, demonize, and otherwise silence anyone who dares try any non-feminist gender activism.
Feminist groups have often lobbied for the law and society to take the woman's side in heterosexual relationship disputes, particularly in cases involving alleged abuse. This feminist lobbying has for decades shaped laws, legal precedents, and policies. In recent years, feminists have also increasingly brainwashed the general public into going along with "believe the woman". Out of all the conflicts between feminism and male advocacy, this is perhaps the most fundamental, because to some degree it is inevitably a zero-sum game - the more the woman is believed, the less the man is believed and vice versa.
Even men who get on board with feminism are viewed as second-class “allies”. A more accurate word would be “vassals”. Men are instructed to “shut up and listen”, as feminist standpoint theory claims women’s supposed oppressed position gives women privileged insight into the gender system. We do not accept that men should shut off all critical thinking whenever women speak about their experiences. Male feminists are often told to follow a long list of insulting instructions (here’s an example). Worse, different strands of feminist thought place men in double binds.
A male feminist is cast as a reformed sinner unlearning his alleged male oppressiveness, which is a lifelong guilt trip: he must constantly prove his ideological purity and apologize whenever he has said or done something “wrong”. Even when he follows all the instructions, he may be told he has merely met the basic requirements for a “decent human being” and does not deserve “gold stars”. Feminism also divides and conquers males, assigning top male feminists the restrictive gender role of white knight spreading the feminist gospel to other men on women’s behalf. The way men are told to submit to feminist women’s opinions is arguably systemic psychological abuse of males, and an ideological blank cheque which could be used to justify any exploitation of men.
It might be possible for women’s and men’s movements to work together sometime in the future, but only if and when we reach a point at which society generally accepts non-feminist movements as legitimate. Then the two movements could work together on issues where we can agree, and hold each other accountable on the inevitable areas of disagreement.
How do I as a Left wing male advocate differ from right-wingers who are anti-feminists (I am not an anti feminist, I am a left wing male advocate)
Here are examples of ideas held by some right-wing anti-feminists which I critique and debate in the same ways left wing male advocates do on their subreddit:
Opposition to egalitarianism, which undermines any ideological basis to criticize feminism's fake egalitarianism and demand equality for men too
The assumption that men truly dominated in the traditional “patriarchy”
The assumption that today’s social problems are caused by too much equality
The assumption that it is possible to return to past social structures, even if it was desirable
The assumption that feminism is too intersectional
Blaming the problems with feminism on left-wing ideologies like Marxism
The assumption that postmodernism is inherently feminist, when postmodernism’s nuanced understanding of power could instead be used to criticize feminism
The belief that we live in a meritocracy
Placing the burden entirely on individual self-improvement to solve any societal inequality, which exacerbates male hyperagency
Complaints that men aren't chivalrous anymore
Pushing traditional male protector/provider roles and shaming men who don’t measure up
A tendency to insult men as "cucks", "sissies", "mama's boys"
Apologism for male-on-male bullying
Support for infant male circumcision, which is an unnecessary mutilation of defenceless babies
Opposition to pornography, which is a source of pleasure for mainly men
Rhetoric about sexual “degeneracy”, when demonization of sexuality is a big part of how men are demonized
Slut-shaming of women, which makes sex riskier and more difficult for men too
Opposition to abortion, birth control, and/or state funding thereof, which help reduce the accidental pregnancy risk for men too
Opposition to welfare systems, which could instead be improved through greater awareness of male vulnerabilities
Opposition to welfare for single mothers, which leads to harsher enforcement of child support obligations on non-custodial fathers
Opposition to basic income proposals, which might lessen the male provider role
Tendency to support investor rights over workers’ rights, worsening working conditions in the most dangerous jobs which are done by primarily men
Support for tougher policing, border security, and counterterrorism which results in the imprisonment of mainly men
Demonization of third-world men, particularly Muslim men, as oppressors of women
Support for wars which kill primarily men
Associations with "white pride" and "straight pride"
Possible neo-fascist “clubs” recruiting young men as street-fighters, which is dangerous to those men as well as to their political opponents
The opinion that suffrage should again be restricted to only property-owning men
Needless alienation of trans people, who could have been natural allies of men’s advocates due to having experienced both sides of the gender coin as well as the bigotry of Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists
How do I as a Left wing male advocate differ from feminist Men’s Lib? (I privately am a left wing male advocate but not a feminist Men's lib supporter. Non privately I am a feminist Men's Lib supporter but not a Left wing male advocate):
The last few years have seen an increase in feminists and pro-feminists advocating for some male issues. This includes the reemergence of a movement called Men's Lib, who believe they can help men without blaming feminism. There are positives and negatives to this trend. On one hand, pro-feminist voices have helped raise awareness among a wider audience, particularly women, who would be less likely to listen to feminist-critical voices.
On the other hand, feminist interpretations of male issues tend to be skewed in subtle (or not-so-subtle) ways that benefit women. For example, feminists sometimes say they want fathers to be more involved as parents, which would also help enable women's careers.
But if a father wants to continue to be involved after divorce, or if a man wants to avoid being coerced into parenthood in the first place, suddenly many feminists' support for male liberation evaporates. Feminists also tend to assume everything is rooted in male power and insist that everyone use male-blaming jargon like "patriarchy" or "toxic masculinity".
The moderators of r/MensLib have been widely criticized for controlling the discussion, imposing limits on how men’s issues can be discussed, and censoring anyone who they consider too critical.
They've often lied to downplay male issues, particularly false rape accusations which they claim are less prevalent than being struck by lightning. They also censored anyone who debunked those lies.
Though there are many things you're not allowed to debate on MensLib, one thing they do consider up for debate is whether "ironic" "cathartic" misandrist memes are okay. The answer should be obvious, particularly when MensLib constantly tells men to call out misogynist jokes.
They censored an article calling out a double-bind that feminism places on men.
They even tried to censor the news about Amber Heard being caught on tape confessing to violence against Johnny Depp (though they eventually allowed some limited discussion of it).
See here for some examples of very reasonable comments deleted by the MensLib mods.
They tend to make demonizing generalizations about other male advocates who they disagree with.
Apparently they once banned a male rape victim because he was angry at a feminist organization for not helping him. (I don't have an original source for this one, but here a moderator defended it as an isolated incident.)
Here's a link to the creator denying misandry exists.
And their thoughts on how men are trash.
They have some pretty racist and misandrist views on Indian men
Unlike previous feminist spaces, they at least allow men to talk about male issues to a point - but they keep that discussion politically neutralized.
They frame male issues as merely personal, and delete comments the moment anyone starts drawing political conclusions. This prevents the learning curve that should naturally arise from hearing about the issues.
And they insist men's issues should only be discussed in that one secluded censored space, and kept separate from all the feminist activism going on out in the real world, where bringing up male issues is derided as "derailing" and "hijacking". They often talk about "deradicalizing" men - but by silencing emotionally vulnerable men when they try to talk about their very real lived experiences. and instead treating them to a barrage of internalized shame and guilt. They're unwittingly pushing more men into radicalization.
A cynic might suspect that many feminists are co-opting male issues talking points only due to external pressure.
We left wing male advocates believe that any honest approach to men’s issues must criticize feminism, for all the reasons outlined above. It must speak from an unfiltered male perspective, rather than being distorted and sanitized to align with women’s interests and shoehorn into the flawed feminist framework. It certainly must not give feminists a privileged position in the discussion. And though admittedly moderating discussions about gender issues is an unenviable task, our Moderation Policy will aim to err on the side of free speech.
What are some good sources of information?
Here's a list of resources that are broadly compatible with the goals of this subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/cluqkw/lets_make_a_list_of_resources
Comments
Post a Comment