577
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Teachers describe a deterioration in behaviour and attitudes that has proved to be fertile terrain for misogynistic influencers

“As soon as I mention feminism, you can feel the shift in the room; they’re shuffling in their seats.” Mike Nicholson holds workshops with teenage boys about the challenges of impending manhood. Standing up for the sisterhood, it seems, is the last thing on their minds.

When Nicholson says he is a feminist himself, “I can see them look at me, like, ‘I used to like you.’”

Once Nicholson, whose programme is called Progressive Masculinity, unpacks the fact that feminism means equal rights and opportunities for women, many of the boys with whom he works are won over.

“A lot of it is bred from misunderstanding and how the word is smeared,” he says.

But he is battling against what he calls a “dominance-based model” of masculinity. “These old-fashioned, regressive ideas are having a renaissance, through your masculinity influencers – your grifters, like Andrew Tate.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Okay, results of an ecosia search for "feminists family court":

Quick note about the "it's a myth" thing: a lot of feminists are saying "the majority of custody cases are decided out of court" and using that as evidence that a) the courts aren't biased, and b) if women mostly have custody it must be because that's what men want, since it was decided out of court. They miss the glaring obviousness of a man facing massive legal expenses just to have a family court tell him he can't get full custody, or even worse, risking having no custody. Most lawyers will advise men to settle out of court. In other words, this is a convenient statistic to dodge the inherent bias in the courts, which is the cause of the statistic.

Anyway, to sum up: two articles deflecting into talking about abusers, one article that completely ignores men except as abusers, one article supporting equality, and one forum full of responses dismissing or belittling the issue. And one article that argues against feminism and in favor of some kind of right wing tradwife insanity.

Sure doesn't look like any real reform efforts? Ya got 1 out of 6 there.

[-] constnt@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'm sorry one Google search didn't bring up populist topics you where looking for. Just because family law isn't on the forefront of the general feminist agenda doesn't mean there isn't attempts at reform or, has been in the past. It's very obvious your entire concept of feminism is rooted in ignorance at best, a misinformation at worse.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3194962

Here's a paper explaining how feminism has changed family. Giving many modern (1960 onward)examples.

  1. Removed the ban on contraceptives.Allowing the individual to determine their reproductive rights. Both man and women.
  2. Made it so alimony wasn't just from husband paying wife but could be from wife to pay husband.
  3. Made it unconstitutional to to discriminate against children born outside of marriage. Affects men and women.
  4. No-fault divorce. Allowing people to actually get divorced. Both men and women.
  5. Created laws for restraining orders, and classified marital rape.
  6. Increases recognition of informal relationships (not legally married).
  7. Created a legal separation between sex and procreation which laid the ground work for same sex relationships. Helps men and women.
  8. Helped remove gender based roles described in family law which redefined legal marriage. Helps men and women.
[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

The paper you linked seems to imply otherwise

Although the feminist interventions that helped pave the way to marriage equality rid family law of gender stereotypes, these developments have not always improved women’s situation. For example, these developments created a hospitable environment for an incipient fathers’ rights movement with an agenda that diverged from the feminist vision in important respects,120 and they might explain recent aversion to alimony awards.121 They also left open the possibility that the remedy for discrimination could be a ‘leveling down’ or a loss of benefits that women had enjoyed, as illustrated by a recent case about citizenship derived from mothers and fathers.122

and

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act provides a case in point: It assimilates pregnancy and childbirth to other medical problems, recognizes the disproportionate burdens that fall on women for family caretaking (affecting their ‘working lives’ more than those of men) and yet explicitly adopts gender-neutral criteria for protected leaves.140

I suppose it's fair to say that my issue is overwhelmingly with 3rd or 4th wave feminism, rather than the older generations. And to get even more specific, "popular" feminism, aside from the theorists that no one listens to anymore. 3rd wave feminism marked a massive decentralization of the feminist movement, and now what ordinary women think matters a lot more than it used to. Yes, second-wave feminism made great strides towards equality and egalitarianism, but that just doesn't seem to be anywhere on the radar for modern feminists. At least not when it comes to areas that men are disadvantaged.

I'll concede that yes, in the past feminists have done great things for men and women alike.

[-] constnt@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

Yes the paper is examples of both, I specifically choose it so you couldn't claim it was biased.

You think the people second-wave feminists had to fight against for equality sat around arguing, "Well, the first wave feminist made great strides but these new ones just want to ruin men"?

You can keep pushing the goal posts. First it's all feminism and now it's "oh okay just the new ones". All feminists want equality. 2nd wave, 3rd wave, and the current 4th wave.

Being a man who has had to do the inner work to break through my own toxicity I understand that feeling that comes with being surrounded by feminist anger. It seems isolating because men have issues too. Men hurt. We suffer the most homelessness. We suffer from the most suicide rates. Male disposability is a huge problem that often gets overlooked. But shitting on feminism isn't the answer. A marginalized group struggling for equality isn't your enemy. The patriarchy is the reason for all those problems. Infact, after digging through my own shit and starting to understand other people's plights has just made me feel closer to everyone and made me realize the isolating feeling wasn't coming from feminism but from my own views. If you want to discuss feminism further I'll gladly in private, but I think I'm done with the back and forth on here. Take care, friend.

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

But shitting on feminism isn’t the answer.

No, it's not. It won't help men. We need a strong, positive, male movement. But we do need feminism to get out of the way and stop pretending to care. Either that or start actually being egalitarian.

this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
577 points (94.0% liked)

News

23310 readers
3674 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS