The three types of masculinism

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, so, I don't actually believe there are 3 types of masculinism. It's more like a spectrum and there are even external factors and controls that play roles in making it worse or less worse. I want to list out 3 different points on the spectrum for discussion.

So, first, I'll call inconsequential or mild masculinism. I give two completely different examples. When my wife and I married in a Catholic church part of the ceremony or scriptures said she'd be obedient. Everyone knew it was a "joke," knowing my strong-willed, independent, career-driven wife. Still within our lives we meet people who believe in such and overall this practice/belief has mild impact on us. Completely different: the masculinist who complains about discrimination against men because of Ladies Night at a bar. He's also taken as a joke. His impact is mild on society but views irrational for the most part. More than anything i will class these two things as ideological and mild. I will get back to that later.

The second point in the spectrum has more concrete legs. A high school football team i heard about putting pencils up each others' butts as a form of bullying. I am man, hear me roar? Or some orange guy grabbing women by the pussy and then bragging about it. I see this more as events with masculinist basis with some limited support, looking the other way. Boys will be boys. Locker room banter. There's also a societal pushback.

The third point on the spectrum is complete and utter patriarchy. The society mostly treats women as second class citizens with less rights. It's an institutional and overt system. Some women may be sex slaves, even in a fundamentalist environment. They could be abused with impunity. Men who may want to change the system are in danger to speak out. Women are in more danger.

So here's my question...

If we let masculinism thrive without pushing back, does it always lead to overt, institutionalized patriarchy? So do we need to do more than just ignore them or laugh at them? If so, what to do?

 

[Rhea]

I sense that the answer to your question is “yes, mild masculinism does often lead to overt and dangerous masculinism and systemic patriarchic masculinism.”

When I see this progress, it’s like seeing a predator “grooming” a victim. It starts out mild, pushing, testing, seeing how much will be tolerated without punishment by other men, and by society as a whole. If no punishment occurs, indeed if men laugh it off, they escalate as far as they are permitted to go without consequences that harm them.

We need to do more than ignore (condone with lack of punishment) and laugh (minimize the impact of their efforts). We need to make it uncomfortable to be a masculinist. We need to make them feel that choosing that has a cost and it’s one that will be as painful as necessary to deter the actions.

(Same with racism, IMHO)

 

[Derec]

(Same with racism, IMHO)

But not with feminism?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

(Same with racism, IMHO)

But not with feminism?

There's already a thread on feminism.

 

[Arctish]

(Same with racism, IMHO)

But not with feminism?

Feminism has traditionally been associated with social justice and the push for equality. Racism has traditionally been associated with inequality and blatant, sometimes obscene injustice.

Just because both terms end with -ism doesn't mean they're pretty much the same thing.

 

[Derec]

Feminism has traditionally been associated with social justice

Indeed.

and the push for equality.

Some feminists, yes, but definitely not all of them.

Racism has traditionally been associated with inequality and blatant, sometimes obscene injustice.

Radical feminism has been associated with obscene injustice too.
For example, here are some feminists in their own words.

 

[Derec]

There's already a thread on feminism.

Yes, but Rhea thinks one ought to make masulinists very uncomfortable for their views, but does not extend the same toward feminists, not even the radical kind. And they are extremely comfortable, with many of them having cushy tenured positions in academia where they are paid to spew their sexist venom.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There's already a thread on feminism.

Yes, but Rhea thinks one ought to make masulinists very uncomfortable for their views, but does not extend the same toward feminists, not even the radical kind. And they are extremely comfortable, with many of them having cushy tenured positions in academia where they are paid to spew their sexist venom.

Hobby horse

 

[Frikki]

There's already a thread on feminism.

Yes, but Rhea thinks one ought to make masulinists very uncomfortable for their views, but does not extend the same toward feminists, not even the radical kind. And they are extremely comfortable, with many of them having cushy tenured positions in academia where they are paid to spew their sexist venom.

Easy there snowflake.

Women are not coming for you, famously they will not come for you.

 

[Arctish]

Indeed.
View attachment 14473


Some feminists, yes, but definitely not all of them.

Racism has traditionally been associated with inequality and blatant, sometimes obscene injustice.

Radical feminism has been associated with obscene injustice too.
For example, here are some feminists in their own words.

I barely skimmed at that list of quotes before I found 2 pieces of bullshit.

That Dworkin "quote" is a line spoken by a character in a work of fiction, a fact you already know since I've pointed it out to you time and time again. Pretending it's something Dworkin said for really realz is like pretending JK Rowling called for the murder of caretakers and boarding school students because Voldemort does in some of her books. It's one small step removed from lying.

And that Sharon Stone quote is a simple statement of fact, not a declaration of intent to harm men.

BTW, Valerie Solanas was a paranoid schizophrenic. That's not something you and I have discussed but if you'd bothered to investigate those quotes you'd have found out in no time.

I'll look into the rest of those quotes later.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Okay, so, I don't actually believe there are 3 types of masculinism. It's more like a spectrum and there are even external factors and controls that play roles in making it worse or less worse. I want to list out 3 different points on the spectrum for discussion.

I've never heard the term "Masculinism" before. All of the examples you list are negative, misogynistic or simple bullying. Is there a positive type of "masulinism"? Is it like Feminism, but where people advocate for men's rights? Is it an MRA thing?

 

[ruby sparks]

Okay, so, I don't actually believe there are 3 types of masculinism. It's more like a spectrum and there are even external factors and controls that play roles in making it worse or less worse. I want to list out 3 different points on the spectrum for discussion.

So, first, I'll call inconsequential or mild masculinism. I give two completely different examples. When my wife and I married in a Catholic church part of the ceremony or scriptures said she'd be obedient. Everyone knew it was a "joke," knowing my strong-willed, independent, career-driven wife. Still within our lives we meet people who believe in such and overall this practice/belief has mild impact on us. Completely different: the masculinist who complains about discrimination against men because of Ladies Night at a bar. He's also taken as a joke. His impact is mild on society but views irrational for the most part. More than anything i will class these two things as ideological and mild. I will get back to that later.

The second point in the spectrum has more concrete legs. A high school football team i heard about putting pencils up each others' butts as a form of bullying. I am man, hear me roar? Or some orange guy grabbing women by the pussy and then bragging about it. I see this more as events with masculinist basis with some limited support, looking the other way. Boys will be boys. Locker room banter. There's also a societal pushback.

The third point on the spectrum is complete and utter patriarchy. The society mostly treats women as second class citizens with less rights. It's an institutional and overt system. Some women may be sex slaves, even in a fundamentalist environment. They could be abused with impunity. Men who may want to change the system are in danger to speak out. Women are in more danger.

So here's my question...

If we let masculinism thrive without pushing back, does it always lead to overt, institutionalized patriarchy? So do we need to do more than just ignore them or laugh at them? If so, what to do?

I'm not sure why you put the masculinist who complains about discrimination against men into the 'mild' category. Or rather, I think you put it there because you consider it inconsequential. So I'm not sure if your spectrum is a spectrum of degree of masculinism or a spectrum of consequentiality?

Setting that aside, no, I don't think letting masculinism thrive would always lead to increased patriarchy. That, to me, would be false. As to what to do, I reckon we should call out stuff when it's unwarranted and discriminatory, not just because it's masculinist, because there will be ways in which masculinism will be entirely valid.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a positive type of "masulinism"? Is it like Feminism, but where people advocate for men's rights? Is it an MRA thing?

Yes, of course there is a positive 'type' of masculinism.

Imo, MRA's are often 'infected' by extremists. Ditto Feminism. We could haggle over which has the more extremists. Possibly MRA's (as a percentage perhaps, which might be different from total numbers since formal MR groupings are smaller than their Feminist counterparts). I'm not sure. To me the pity is that there are extremists. Plus, they're usually the noisiest.

Imho, we would be better off all being gender egalitarians.

What would an extremist egalitarian be like?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, so, I don't actually believe there are 3 types of masculinism. It's more like a spectrum and there are even external factors and controls that play roles in making it worse or less worse. I want to list out 3 different points on the spectrum for discussion.

I've never heard the term "Masculinism" before. All of the examples you list are negative, misogynistic or simple bullying. Is there a positive type of "masulinism"? Is it like Feminism, but where people advocate for men's rights? Is it an MRA thing?

It's rather interesting isn't? I mean there's a lot of talk about a thing called feminism and tons of criticism. It even permeates this thread. Yet, when someone tries to discuss something else which is far more prevalent, people don't know how to approach it. As for a definition, I'm defining it in the op. It's a word other people use very rarely and perhaps somewhat differently, some of the time.* If you want it to be positive, you are free to talk about how you think it's positive, but do try to stick to the dangers of patriarchy. We still see masculinism all around us, mild or not, so let's deal with it and not change the subject. Okay?

*

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines masculism, or synonymously masculinism, as the "advocacy of the rights of men; adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men; (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo."[4][5]

However, philosopher Ferrell Christensen differentiates "masculism" from "masculinism", defining the latter as promoting the attributes of manliness.[2] Political scientist Georgia Duerst-Lahti also distinguishes the two terms, with masculism expressing the ethos of the early gender-egalitarian men's movement, while masculinism refers to the ideology of patriarchy.[6][7]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The wikipedia clears it up a little. So masculinism as you mean it only means patriarchy. Ok. Then why not just say patriarchy and misogyny?

That should not be tolerated regardless of how insignificant it may seem.

Not so sure about some of your examples though. A guy complaining about ladies night is just confused, as that's done for the sole purpose of bringing him more women to be around (and hit on). The pencil up butt example is just simple bullying (and assault). Neither of those are patriarchy or misogyny. The second doesn't seem to regard maleness or oppose females at all.

The honour and obey thing is simple misogyny and only gets a pass because it's religion. It shouldn't. The pussy grabbing (if he meant what he is often misquoted as meaning) is rape.

 

[Angry Floof]

Okay, so, I don't actually believe there are 3 types of masculinism. It's more like a spectrum and there are even external factors and controls that play roles in making it worse or less worse. I want to list out 3 different points on the spectrum for discussion.

So, first, I'll call inconsequential or mild masculinism. I give two completely different examples. When my wife and I married in a Catholic church part of the ceremony or scriptures said she'd be obedient. Everyone knew it was a "joke," knowing my strong-willed, independent, career-driven wife. Still within our lives we meet people who believe in such and overall this practice/belief has mild impact on us. Completely different: the masculinist who complains about discrimination against men because of Ladies Night at a bar. He's also taken as a joke. His impact is mild on society but views irrational for the most part. More than anything i will class these two things as ideological and mild. I will get back to that later.

The second point in the spectrum has more concrete legs. A high school football team i heard about putting pencils up each others' butts as a form of bullying. I am man, hear me roar? Or some orange guy grabbing women by the pussy and then bragging about it. I see this more as events with masculinist basis with some limited support, looking the other way. Boys will be boys. Locker room banter. There's also a societal pushback.

The third point on the spectrum is complete and utter patriarchy. The society mostly treats women as second class citizens with less rights. It's an institutional and overt system. Some women may be sex slaves, even in a fundamentalist environment. They could be abused with impunity. Men who may want to change the system are in danger to speak out. Women are in more danger.

So here's my question...

If we let masculinism thrive without pushing back, does it always lead to overt, institutionalized patriarchy? So do we need to do more than just ignore them or laugh at them? If so, what to do?

Yes, we do need to do more than just ignore them or laugh at them. Doing so only serves to protect the underlying male dominance aggression throughout society. Doing so makes the world a welcoming, comforting place for the behaviors that we can't ignore or laugh about.

The idea that the mild, less obvious examples - jokes, "boys will be boys," etc. - are harmless is precisely what enables the blatant and harmful behaviors and attitudes. The "good guys," the guys who are otherwise decent, intelligent humans with zero inclination for harming women, unwittingly serve as that welcoming substrate whenever they let the mild things pass. The very idea that "mild" equals "harmless" is itself the opening of the door to brutality.

We not only should push back, but we are pushing back. What women are pushing back against is largely invisible to even the best of men in our society, so we end up having to push against the good guys as well just to get them to see what is happening and stop inadvertently contributing to it out of habit and laziness.

 

[Rhea]

I'll look into the rest of those quotes later.

Don’t do it for derec, as he does not hear you; he loves his fiction and does not wish to explore its veracity.
Though there is value to the rest of the readers who don’t already know to take his words as fabrications.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's rather interesting isn't? I mean there's a lot of talk about a thing called feminism and tons of criticism. It even permeates this thread. Yet, when someone tries to discuss something else which is far more prevalent, people don't know how to approach it. As for a definition, I'm defining it in the op. It's a word other people use very rarely and perhaps somewhat differently, some of the time.* If you want it to be positive, you are free to talk about how you think it's positive, but do try to stick to the dangers of patriarchy. We still see masculinism all around us, mild or not, so let's deal with it and not change the subject. Okay?

*

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines masculism, or synonymously masculinism, as the "advocacy of the rights of men; adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men; (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo."[4][5]

However, philosopher Ferrell Christensen differentiates "masculism" from "masculinism", defining the latter as promoting the attributes of manliness.[2] Political scientist Georgia Duerst-Lahti also distinguishes the two terms, with masculism expressing the ethos of the early gender-egalitarian men's movement, while masculinism refers to the ideology of patriarchy.[6][7]

Your quoted definition doesn't say that masculinism has to do with the dangers of patriarchy? Though it does say 'more generally anti feminism'.

Though it seems Merriam-Webster says: "an advocate of male superiority or dominance".

The Oxford Living Dictionary has,

"Characterized by or denoting attitudes or values held to be typical of men.‘masculinist language’
1.1 Relating to the advocacy of the rights or needs of men."

'Your Dictionary' has, "An ideology of masculinity; especially, an ideology opposed to, or opposed by, feminism".



Interesting. I did not realise the equivalent word for the counterpart of feminism had such apparently negative connotations.

 

[Rhea]

We not only should push back, but we are pushing back. What women are pushing back against is largely invisible to even the best of men in our society, so we end up having to push against the good guys as well just to get them to see what is happening and stop inadvertently contributing to it out of habit and laziness.

Yes. This is an important thing. The “bad” men notice - oh, hell yes, they notice - that the good guys show little evidence of noticing or caring about the constant small violations. The bad actions are endorsed by lack of discomfitting reaction. This emboldens the “bad” guys. (Corrolary: if you embolden bad guys, are you still a good guy? Ask yourself...)

 

[ruby sparks]

Compare The Oxford English Dictionary definition of feminism as, "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

Could I add, 'generally anti-masculinism'? Or could I use the word ideology?

This is the way I'll be meaning it (masculinism): "Relating to the advocacy of the rights or needs of men."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Compare The Oxford English Dictionary definition of feminism as, "The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

Could I add, 'generally anti-masculinism'? Or could I use the word ideology?

This is the way I'll be meaning it (masculinism): "Relating to the advocacy of the rights or needs of men."

It doesn't sound like you want to follow the distinction between masculism and masculinism I used in context. Why do you want to deviate from the op question in context?