I think progressives never thought about this because we banked on immigration and demographic change allowing us to win culturally and electorally but the issue is immigrants tend to be overwhelmingly male, that is how Trump won actually he won over a lot of Hispanic,Black,Asian and indigenous men who feel humiliated by a new culture, economy and world.
So what can we do rhetorically and policy wise to win more young men over ?
You can’t help men and hang on to feminism. Feminism is inherently anti-male.
I don’t think that’s inherently true for all feminism, though there’s definitely been some bad actors. Actresses.
Wrong. Feminism is anti-patriarchy, for everyone. Educate yourself, read a little.
Feminism started as a way to fight for the rights of women. That’s not anti-male, but it’s also not “for everyone”.
Of course the focus is on women and generally LGBTQ+ people, as they are oppressed groups.
In its wider sense though, especially with the focus on intersectionality, it is for a fairer and juster world for everyone as the systems of oppression affect us all in various capacities.
I don’t know if I would categorize that as feminism though. Egalitarianism maybe? “Social justice” in the non-derogatory sense?
Feminism is just a collective name for various ideologies with the aim of social justice for all genders/sexes. Within you will find many different movements with various qualities. In general, it’s about creating societal/governmental systems that afford the same quality of life and opportunities for everyone, regardless of gender, race or sexuality.
You could see it as a subcategory of egalitarianism, which in general has the goal of social justice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
In the end, of course not every movement is perfect, people are fallible after all. But that doesn’t only concern feminists even if they are one of the main targets of the manufactured right-wing culture war. And furthermore, some people going too far/not being nuanced enough/not going far enough is not a reason to disregard the movement and its wider aims in a fight for a better world for all.
I’m not disregarding the movement; I’m saying the definition is trying to be too many things at once. If the narrow definition (traditional feminism for women’s rights and needs) and the wide definition (general gender issues) are too far apart, they begin to disagree. People both inside and outside of the movement are using the term in the narrower definition, and it doesn’t make sense IMO to continue to try to force the wider one when we could just pick a term that’s more accurate and go with that.
As an example of how this difference in definitions could be an issue, let’s say that I’m a man and I want to fight for some particular men’s rights issue. I would not feel comfortable taking my sign about trial verdict imbalance or male suicide rates to a feminist rally, because it only fits the broader definition. Anyone there who is fighting for feminism in the narrower definition would not appreciate me and my cause cause in what they perceive as a space to fight for women’s issues only. But in the broader definition, that sign would be fine, and others would welcome me. The people using either definition aren’t wrong, but the uncertainty created by having two valid definitions creates an atmosphere where it is more comfortable to fight for women’s rights than men’s rights.
Therefore, I think it would be smart to be able to specify, using the movement’s name, if an event is about women’s rights or gender equality in general. It can’t be both ways; to me, the inevitable result of the uncertain definition-- a gender equality movement where it is more accepted to fight for the rights of one gender-- is clearly worse than the alternative scenario where the terms are more clear.
Being anti-patriarchy is an inherently anti-male stance. A feminist walks up to a man and says “We’re trying to erode your influence on society, isn’t that great?” Yeah, and what the natives need is Christianity.
They’ll try to lie and market “The Patriarchy” as whatever they think they can get away with at the moment with the audience they’ve cornered, pretend like defeating “The Patriarchy” should be the goal of whoever they’re talking to as well. It shouldn’t.
Feminism started out as things like the suffragettes, wanting the right to vote in elections. Fair enough. “We want to be equal to men!” Uh huh…so here in 2025 what right or privilege do I enjoy under the law that a woman doesn’t?
I will also assert this: No feminist will be caught dead genuinely helping a man. A feminist is more likely to burn down a men’s shelter than build one.
Citation needed
God damn, what a load of incel bullshit you’re spewing. You’re exactly the problem and the reason why women would rather spend time with a bear than another self-absorbed manlet.
Patriarchy affects everyone badly, not just women. But I won’t be wasting time, you can learn about everything if you just put in a little effort. You seem to be choosing egoistical ignorance.
see?
Right, spewing bullshit and then framing resistance as confirmation of your ficticious points - classic playbook. Go and touch grass for once ;)