Men's Liberation
This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality.
Rules
Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people
Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren't talking over men expressing their own lived experiences.
Be productive
Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed.
Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting:
- Build upon the OP
- Discuss concepts rather than semantics
- No low effort comments
- No personal attacks
Assume good faith
Do not call other submitters' personal experiences into question.
No bigotry
Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated.
No brigading
Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues.
Recommended Reading
- The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity, And Love by bell hooks
- Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements by Michael Messner
Related Communities
!feminism@beehaw.org
!askmen@lemmy.world
!mensmentalhealth@lemmy.world
view the rest of the comments
If we want people to behave differently we would find more success by not starting with the premise they are brainwashed. That is my thesis.
What about "tricked"? Or calling men currently in the grifter cycle a "mark"
You have been tricked, you have been conned - Both statements put people on the back foot.
It's more persuasive to talk about what objectives and outcomes people want, and advocate for the best path to getting those outcomes. Jumping to a interpretive conclusion is the rhetorically going up hill, because you haven't communicated and persuaded the other party to arrive at the conclusion organically.
Depends on who you're talking to. For people who are egotistical and lack introspection, I agree with you. For people who are humble and critical of their own thoughts and behavior, then being blunt can be helpful because it initiatives the cognitive dissonance.
Unfortunately, the Gen Z'ers who are falling for this manosphere bullshit are likely egotistical, so may be it would be better to not be blunt. These guys obviously don't do to well with cognitive dissonance; hence why they'd rather believe that cisgendered "manly" men are the victims rather than accept a different (and more correct) model of reality.