.

.

.

.

Utena made me... not question my gender identity, but question my gender. Like, ontologically. What is a guy? Stripped of patriarchy, what does that look like?

Because the series is honest enough to depict that patriarchy both benefits and hurts boys. Touga is a prime demonstration.

On the one hand, the men in his life - his stepfather and Akio - both sexually abuse him. Unable to internalize this properly, he turns into the worst kind of guy imaginable, and in turn uses his charisma to spread this pain and hate onto younger boys. And so the horrid cycle continues. But then towards the end of the series (not counting the movie in this context), he becomes aware that he's part of the problem, and tries to save Utena from being groomed. But of course, she doesn't listen, Touga's an asshole.

It's likely that had he ever been able to find a way to process and recover from his trauma, he'd have been an entirely different guy. He presents himself as a noble prince-like character because that's what he really wants to be, even if he knows it's a facade. He wants to be some mythic hero like a prince because, deep down, he wishes someone came and saved him.

things I learnt today abt wtf ppl mean when they say "performative male":

cis (assumed het) men with poor performance skills posting cringe content = literally the opposite of performers, matriarchal psy-op to misrepresent what level the average man's performative skill is at in order to reassert female performative superiority over men, deeply unfair bullying

cis (assumed het) men talking about but not demonstrating behaviours/interests = engage with the hobby, don't just say you do the hobby, results or didn't happen mf

personal two cents in addition to kurtis' very good points

I think it's a misnomer to label the archetype being criticised, of men pretending to be feminists to impress women without actually doing the feminism properly, as "performative males", I call that shit "spineless feminist bootlickers" bc that is what ppl like that are, and I'd like those ppl to grow a spine and liberate themselves from their need for female approval in general and when engaging with women's work, engage w women's work and traditionally female-dominated subjects cause you're genuinely interested in them/want to learn about them/get better at them, because you've been told you're not allowed to and you rebel against that, not because you're trying to impress anyone, learn the core matriarchal lesson that this is about you and not anyone else

Very interesting to connect the soft boy and hipster aesthetics to it, bc soft boy was largely coined and popularised by tumblr transmascs, transmascs being the one group of men passionately talking abt feminism cis women don't dare talk back to (source: me talking to cis women about feminism) bc we got the shared afab street cred they can't argue against 👀 it seems they're using cis men of these aesthetics to do to what they can't to us bc cis men lack that street cred and won't be given it freely no matter what they do

This flag is a celebration of Men's Liberation and its core values of intersectionality, the subversion of norms, and a dismantling of the patriarchy.

The dark-colored Mars symbol represents intersectional masculinity. The oppression faced by members of marginalized communities, such as men of color and mentally ill men, is often compounded and exacerbated by their gender in unique ways, and this symbol represents the inclusion of these men and our community's goal of examining men's issues through an intersectional lens.

The pink Mars symbol represents gender non-conformity and the redefining of what it means to be male in contrast with the restrictive traditional masculinity of the past, representing LGBTQ+ and gender-nonconforming men and masculine people. This symbol faces "backwards" because there is no wrong way to be a man.

The white Mars symbol represents privilege and the active dismantlement of the patriarchy. Men, especially straight white men, are socialized into a position of power within an oppressive hegemony. This symbol faces downwards to represent how the power that comes with privilege must be consciously relinquished in order for prejudice to be unlearned and equality to be created.

The arrows from the three symbols all converge at one point to represent true strength coming from diversity, inclusion, and unity.

The periwinkle background represents hope for future generations. Blue is traditionally the color used in Western countries to denote that a new baby is male. It is our hope that we can ensure the baby boys and young men of the future are brought into a world that teaches them compassion and positive masculinity.

**********

Created by /u/sudo999 and refined by /u/erdijentila, this work is licensed under CC0 1.0 "No rights reserved" and you may use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution.

You hear manosphere types talk about how the value of women is inherent and the value of men is something that has to be earned, and...in a weird way, it breaks my heart. Because I know that somewhere in the world there is some lonely desperate man who really just needs someone to give a shit about him, and he's finding shit like Jordan Peterson clips and Andrew Tate misogynist 101 advice. And, like...they're desperate. So they believe them. And they're just going to make them more bitter and lonely and sad and it's not going to end in some "billionaire sigma male grindset" it's going to end in a false resolve to achieve it, and then an overwhelming rush of despair and depression that, in all likelihood, they'll drown out by playing some video games, masturbating, and going to bed.

They're not going to feel a sense of purpose, they're just going to feel justified about how isolated and depressed they feel, and that's simply because listening to some old man who doesn't like women that much tell you that women have it all and you have nothing and that you have to work for the right to be considered "valuable" is just not the solution to their problems. The solution is social integration, and that is hard to achieve in this shitty capitalist society where everyone is at each others' throats.

But that message doesn't get through to men. They never see it. They only see Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate, telling them that they need to muster up some inherent urge to work and become valuable that these boys don't really feel so much as hope that they'll start feeling.

Feminism/feminist means multiple things. one is a synonym for WRA, a descriptor. (like MRA, is just an advocate for men's rights, its a descriptor). another is a body of academic work (and the people in it), and a 3rd is an ideological identity (more along the lines of radfem and 4b and the others i don't know or understand).

There is nothing wrong with a discussion on how the carelessness of the 2nd is stoking the fires of the 3rd and in some cases inadvertently introducing misandry into the 1st.

When we assign words with negative connotations to the male gender, specifically words that by their construction direct the negative connotation at the man/male gender: (mansplain, manchild, manspread, toxic masculinity(when directed at behavior instead of expectation), patriarchy(to a much lesser degree)) could we maybe be creating or reinforcing any negative gender stereotypes that might play a part in turning turn group 1 into the group 3?

When we push the concept of male privilege, are we not giving people the tools to excuse their bad behavior towards men to other people, who may be in the first camp (as most people who believe in gender equality are) and not as knowledgeable to see past it?

When we blame men's issues on the patriarchy are we subconsciously implying feminism, the force against the patriarchy, can not perpetrate men's issues? Could this not be creating a barrier in self reflection?

When we use a word tied to a lack of sexual conquests to attack men, are we not reinforcing the idea that one's value as a man is tied to their sexual conquests? (aka: patriarchal notions of toxic masculinity)

When we talk about strong role models for girls under the framework of improving girls sense of worth (viewing them as human beings), but strong role models for boys under the framework of improving how boys behave to make them more useful/respectful towards women and girls (viewing them as human doings)…. Are we not reinforcing the notion of viewing one with empathy more over the other? or viewing the other with a highen sense of suspicion (Secondary to that, thought experiment: how much traction do you think a role model for girls would get among young girls if they were consistently praised by the adults for how respectful they are towards men?)

And this still doesn't even touch what i think is the biggest issue. Criticizing feminism is seen as misogynistic, even when its not, so it not only becomes a useful shield, keeping the misandry from being addressed, the victim of the misandry gets re-victimized when they get accused of being what they were hurt by.

Somebody who has started to notice the sometimes subtle and easy to miss misandry in how a lot of feminist arguments end up being exercised in practice will only start to see more and more.

Its a eye opening experience that gets frustrating because then nobody believes you. its either a standalone antidote, which invalidates the person's experiences being subjected to it or seeing it as an attitude or if you try to point out the trends its a bad faith mra narrative.

As for radfems, I don't care about them, i see them on tumblr, they don't rep feminism to me. r/twoxc does on the other hand and the misandry in there is palatable and feminist arguments around privilege and oppression are used to excuse it, including by reddit admins when its reported.

I'm not even talking about the women drinking from a coffee mug of white male tears, i'm talking about the countless women and men and publications that were excusing it and poking fun at the men who expressed their emotional discomfort with it.

How would you prefer somebody talk about this? It has to be talked about. This is a mens issue that needs addressing.

When men's DV shelters open up, who is protesting them? Suing them for being gender exclusionary? bankrupting the org, driving the founder to suicide, then opening up a women's only DV shelter after buying it for cheap on auction?

When the feminist ex-director of NoW holds a talk on male suicide, who are the people protesting it and yelling misandry slurs into the face of the men who had multiple friends commit suicide and were hoping to find some answers?

Let me guess? "Not all men feminists?"

The US hasn't signed it yet, but if they had the stunts the alt-right are trying to pull would definitely go against it.

We have to be on the forefront of the children's rights movement and protect it intersectionality along with other civil rights movements like trans rights, gay rights, women's rights, poc rights, indigenous rights, Jewish rights, disabled rights and all basic human rights.

If they go after one of us, they go after us all. Right now children aren't protect so they're being targeted first.

We can't let them use "what about the children" as an excuse to create laws that harm children and adults. But as far as I can see, we are not making as much noise about children's rights. People who care about children might be drawn to the alt-right if they falsely believe that this is the only children's rights movement, we can't allow that to happen.

So spread the word.

Children's rights are human rights.

Hey, I know you're trying to be inflammatory here - making people disgusted makes you feel more vindicated in your belief that you are being wronged by everyone. I do want to try and take this with some good faith and extend some compassion. And I'm Aroace and all so this belief that sex is the be-all-end-all is absolutely alien to me. But I do think you are being wronged, but not in the way you think.

Is sex really this key issue, or is it that men are socialized such that the only form of intimacy you are really allowed to have after boyhood is with sexual partners? Do you need the physical sensation of sex, or do you need the emotional release? Do you want a Domme to make it okay to suffer and cry, or feel okay to let go of societal obligations and just rely on someone else? If you just wanted the physical pleasure, there's certainly other ways to get it.

Emotionally healthy people don't think access to sex is more important than children suffering. This is indicative of things like Normative Male Alexithymia. It's like an emotional constipation. And I think you recognize that you need someone to help release it, but think of it as a sexual frustration & anger rather than you need to talk to someone about what you feel and someone to share in your life, and society has taught you that the way to release this constipated feeling is with a sex partner. Everyone does need supportive people in their life, but that support can come from all kinds of people you don't have sex with.

And if sex is the core root of it, wouldn't it be important that your pleasure is not greatly reduced by a cosmetic procedure we inflict on infants? One that literally kills?

I won't pretend to be traumatized from being circumcised as an infant, but I know there are people who say they are, and I have no reason not to believe them. After all, we do it on infants so they won't remember the trauma, and I've heard some pretty awful stories from the parent's perspective. It isn't right to make what is ultimately a bodily and spiritual decision on an infant. Even more fucked up that it's seen as normal among the developed world only in the "most advanced country in the world" (what a laugh) and we teach kids in schools that it's a preferable procedure.