#masculiste

[beyond-mogai-pride-flags]

Feminist Masculist Flag

[ID: 5 horizontal stripes colored with double blue, white, and double purple. End ID.]

Feminism: the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

Masculism: the advocacy of men’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

Can be used as an antisexism flag. Similar to the other.

[haggishlyhagging]

Australia, Venezuela, the ancient Middle East . . . the distribution of the Goddess and her Serpent is global; on South Pacific islands with no snakes, the eel is mythologized. Ancient Celtic and Teutonic goddesses were wrapped with snakes. The Chinese celebrated the dragon power, and the Aztecs and Mayas of Mexico and Central America imaged the feathered serpent, or flying snake, a form of dragon. Both the monumental Karnak of Egypt and the mysterious standing-stone alignment called Carnac in Brittany are magic snake alignments; both names mean "serpent's mount."

When we see this worldwide occurrence of the Goddess and her Serpent, and then recall the ancient African Black Goddess, the Black Witch, imaged with the snake in her belly—we can see the profound power as well as universality of this cosmological symbol, its range of endurance in the human mind. And we begin to see why the upstart patriarchal religions based themselves on the utter destruction of the goddess/serpent, pictured by the Babylonians as "primeval chaos"—an image picked up later by the Hebrews and used in the biblical Genesis, where Eve linked with her serpent become the symbols of ontological evil. Among patriarchal Hebrews, the serpent was portrayed as Samael, the brother of the "evil" first woman, Lilith. When Old Testament reformers like Hezekiah went around destroying "brazen serpents"—cult images made of brass—as "pagan abominations," what they were really doing was attacking the primordial Goddess religion followed by all their neighbors. The Hebrew patriarchs tried to destroy the world's original, most widespread, and enduring religion by branding it as "evil," and by portraying the Mother Goddess and her magic snake-lover as the source, not of all life, but of "all wickedness"—hated and condemned by their new tribal god Yahweh. To the degree that they were historically successful in this attempt, Western biblicized peoples have lost their original concept, and memory, of what the Goddess and her Serpent really meant—to all people, and all time.

-Monica Sjöö and Barbara Mor. The Great Cosmic Mother: Rediscovering The Religion of the Earth.

[monstrousgourmandizingcats]

Men ain't the problem grow up 🤣🤣 white women voted trump

Well, yes and no.

Yes, white women are an example of a demographic the majority of which voted for Trump. They've done so three times in a row now and we've been hearing for eight years that there's a problem here. Everyone knows it and it isn't really new or productive information, especially since they did not move towards Trump in this election, which most other demographics did. It was something like 55% for Trump in 2020 and 52% this time,* and yet in the nationwide popular vote he gained four points. That's a pretty significant leftward shift in an increasingly right-wing electorate. Those 52% of white women still need to take a hard look at themselves, though, as does everyone who voted for Trump, because fascism offers nothing of value to anyone. (Even the so-called captains of industry like Musk and Bezos have to live in fear of getting on the ruling clique's bad side, and the ruling clique in turn have to live in fear of one another.)

The reason a lot of people are focusing on men and gender with this election, even though the overall gender gap didn't really grow that much, is that the groups that moved the most towards Trump are types of men with a preexisting reputation for being fixated on masculinity and perceived threats to it--Latinos, Gen Z men, men in some other ethnic and age groups as well but those are the two big ones. Whether or not this is a fair reputation is another question, but both campaigns acted as if it was while the election was ongoing. The Trump-Vance campaign was explicitly misogynistic and masculist.† Even the Harris-Walz campaign often seemed to be thinking as if the median voter was some kind of softcore MRA and Walz had to act as macho as possible to win them over, rather than touting his progressive accomplishments in Minnesota, which are considerable. This seems to have been true, because these are, again, the groups that shifted towards Trump by enough to yield a different election result nationally. If Candidate A gets 47% of the vote one year and then 51% or so four years later, the group that went from 55% to 52% is, mathematically, less at fault for that than are groups that went from 36% to 55% (Latinos) or 45% to 60% (Gen Z men). Those are massive, massive lurches towards Trump, and there's compelling evidence that, among some of the smaller subgroups of men that I alluded to above, it was even worse.

This isn't to say that that 52% of white women is off the hook; again, fascism ultimately offers nothing good to anyone, and therefore anybody who votes for it is a world-historically malicious and/or gullible motherfucker, regardless of who they are and why they did it. But it is to say that we've been discussing the political woes of the dang dirty white women for eight fucking years now, and now we have plenty of other groups full of bad faith and false consciousness to worry about too.

*Everything I'm saying about how different demographics shifted is an estimate, because this isn't an exact science. You can't scrutinize people's ballots based on their race or gender or religion. You have to make educated guesses based on how different geographic areas voted and how people claim to have voted in exit polls. For once, the US makes this easier than some other countries, because we report vote totals with more geographic specificity; we can see how neighborhoods voted, not just cities or counties or Congressional districts.

†In addition to manipulating resentments between different minority groups, something Trump had never successfully done before; he improved with Hindus by bashing Muslims, improved with Muslims by bashing Jews, improved with Orthodox Jews (but not non-Orthodox Jews, who held the line for the center-left despite the serious tensions of the past year) by bashing Muslims...Vance even tried to improve with gay men by bashing other types of LGBT people, although it's not clear if this one worked or not.

[xeanathan]

I am a masculist, the opposite of a feminist. I believe everyone should have the rights that women used to have.

No one should vote.

No one should open a bank account.

No one should go to secondary school.

[herrling]

do you also have these funny moments when you see a very edgy person in the comments under the comments of a touching video

and then you notice their username is something like Masculist

and then scroll through their profile and it's full of edgy queerphobia and antifeminism

...

it's always baffling to me how these dudebros act like they're so sigma and based-

[girl4music]

Can I just say that I can watch, like and even ship straight relationships if they’re queer-coded.

Besides Spuffy.

Think Abby and Eric from ‘Santa Clarita Diet’. They throw the gender stereotypes so far out the fucking window with that ship that you can’t even see them from space. They’re extremely accessible in that way.

The reason why I prefer queer, gay or WLW relationships in TV art/entertainment is not just because I’m a bisexual woman myself. It’s mainly because I HATE GENDER STEREOTYPES! I hate how the natural energies of the masculine/feminine that are inherent in everything that lives and breathes are only depicted in a certain way for one specific gender and not another gender. And it’s very prominent in straight relationships to the point where I tend to just turn off because I’m sick of seeing the same shit.

Spuffy are queer-coded.

Abby and Eric are queer-coded.

It’s not necessarily intentional. They just are because gender stereotypes don’t really exist with either of them. Actual queer, gay or WLW relationships don’t really ever have that problem because it would be absurd to throw straight specific gender stereotypes on to characters in a relationship of the same sex.

Think ‘BOUND’. Corky and Violet. There literally could not be a more gay butch/femme dynamic than them. And it doesn’t even matter because the stereotypes can’t be specific gender stereotypes because they’re BOTH of the same gender! They’re both women!

But this is almost always the case when it’s MLW. It’s very rare that I come across a TV relationship that isn’t gender stereotyped in that the “man” has to be the most masculist male and the “woman” has to be the most feminiest female. Especially nowadays.

This is my main problem with straight relationships in all areas of art/entertainment actually. Not just TV.

Spuffy has got to be the queerest non-queer relationship that I’ve ever seen in TV media.

Of course I’m going to die on a hill for it. I hope this made sense. I don’t know how else to express it.

[straberryshortcake520]

There’s this a small question that I don’t really know what side I should be on. So at the middle of the year, there was two people who came in and look pretty liberal. They talk about racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobic and more. Which I truly appreciate that there’s people that go in school and teach respect and acceptance of themselves and others. But when they talk about sexism and girls getting hated on simply being girls, I ask if guys get hated on for being guys does that make it also sexism. They say no, but only if it’s sexism when it comes out as being shamed because of a feminine traits. I was kinda confused so now couple months later, I’m going to write a debate about that.

Q: Is being mean to a guy just because they are a guy sexiest?

( Here’s my view on the both sides)

Yes it is sexism: we want to be equal so it’s only normal that we have equal ending. If being hate on a girl because of her sex, it’s only far the other way around. ( this respond is already a really solid and good one)

No it isn’t sexism: woman and man aren’t the same, example if a woman is walking on the streets and gets catcalled by the opposite gender, she will probably be uncomfortable, but if it’s a man he will probably take it as a compliment. Woman had suffered because of sexism and man had gain more. So when being feminine is shamed it isn’t right, but when being masculist is shame it is “right”, because it is very harmful for both sex. ( multiple responses and most make sense)

I’m way to tired to keep writing so maybe tomorrow.

[nerianasims]

I have lately seen way too many people (though not on Tumblr) talk about how incredibly ~original~ Tolkien was in thinking of all this stuff out of his own brain.

He was not and he did not. Well-nigh everything in his books is a direct rip from myths (with his own extreme tradCath/ masculist etc. spin) The hobbits might be original -- that, I am not sure about. That's probably why they're so thoroughly Home Counties/Oxbridge English.

It's fine that he used these myths for his own stuff, though I wish this was more widely known. It makes the fact that his estate is now rampaging about trying to enforce his "copyright" on things in an extreme fashion all the more egregious. I want to see them try to enforce their "rights" on the name and character of Gandalf.

[church-of-tyler]

Mascultism

an umbrella term for neo-religions/fults based on (conventional) ideas of masculinity, worshipping masculinity and/or masculinizing its followers

Mascults/Masculistic religions are not exclusive to beings identifying themselves as masculine

[demimaverique]

I think a lot more people could benefit from learning the words nonbinarist and masculist

[haggishlyhagging]

Modern man's womb envy is most forcefully expressed in his resentment of woman's pleasure in sex. The famous argument between Zeus and Hera as to which of them received the greatest pleasure from sexual intercourse was settled by old Tiresias, who, having been both man and woman in his time, was deemed best qualified to judge. He promptly agreed with Zeus that woman's pleasure was ten times that of man.

Men dislike the idea of women's enjoying sex because it suggests to them the treasonous thought that perhaps man was made for woman's pleasure and not woman for man's convenience, as his ego has made it necessary for him to believe. It is this gnawing doubt that has motivated man "in a kind of revenge, for so many centuries to make woman his slave."

The simple fact was, and is, that the masculist man resents the necessity for sharing even sex with a woman. Thus we have the paradox of patriarchal man regarding woman as merely a sex object and yet wishing to deny her any pleasure in sex. It is significant that matriarchal peoples "pleasure" the woman, while patriarchal peoples "ride" her!

-Elizabeth Gould Davis, The First Sex

[creativefeminist]

Some Reflections on Separatism and Power, Marilyn Frye

"The parasitism of males on females is, as I see it, demonstrated by the panic, rage and hysteria generated in so many of them by the thought of being abandoned by women. But it is demonstrated in a way that is perhaps more generally persuasive by both literary and sociological evidence. Males tend in shockingly significant numbers and in alarming degree to fall into mental illness, petty crime, alcoholism, physical infirmity, chronic unemployment, drug addiction and neurosis when deprived of the care and companionship of a female mate, or keeper. (While on the other hand, women without male mates are significantly healthier and happier than women with male mates.)

Men are drained and depleted by their living by themselves and with and among other men, and are revived and refreshed, re-created, by going home and being served dinner, changing to clean clothes, having sex with the wife; or by dropping by the apartment of a woman friend to be served coffee or a drink and stroked in one way or another; or by picking up a prostitute for a quicky or for a dip in favorite sexual escape fantasies; or by raping refugees from their wars (foreign and domestic).

The ministrations of women, be they willing or unwilling, free or paid for, are what restore in men the strength, will and confidence to go on with what they call living. And as documented in Millett’s Sexual Politics and many other feminist analyses of masculist literature, the theme of men getting high off beating, raping or killing women (or merely bullying them) is common. These interactions with women, or rather, these actions upon women, make men feel good, walk tall, feel refreshed, invigorated."

- Some Reflections on Separatism and Power, Marilyn Frye

[zwischenstadt]

Recalling left-lib reactions to Evangelical Christianity in the 200s, I remember there being so much fixation on the joyless "puritanical" aspects of the culture- I think partly driven by the peaking of Creationism/Intelligent Design and the Jesus Camp documentary. Also maybe exacerbated by GW Bush's "oh I'm just a humble guy who wants to do the right thing" rhetorical attitude. I suspect that the masculist hedonism of American Christianity - which had always thrived within Evangelical culture - got papered over during this era. Maybe that's why the libidinally vicious side of the culture, which publicly surfaced with Trumpism, surprised so many people.

this is long but i think it's a good read about the kind of weird shit even "normal" christianity does to women lol

my own addition is one time during our youth drama practice a boy could see a girl's lower back peeking out during a movement so he told the pastor about it, who then made an example of both of them by bringing them to the front of the group to discuss it at the next rehearsal. we applauded the guy for being Very Strong And Brave! while the girl in question stood there on display and didn't say anything while a middle aged man and a teenage boy discussed her body with the youth group for ten minutes.

also because this is a thread about women and people are ghouls: i'm trans, exclusionists go make your own repost. everyone else feel free to add your own weird christian purity stories lmao

[taylor14firefly]

Some Reflections on Separatism and Power

by Marilyn Frye

In The Politics of Reality: essays in feminist theory (1983, Crossing Press) (originally written and published 1977/1978)

"In my life, and within feminism as I understand it, separatism is not a theory or a doctrine, nor a demand for certain specific behaviors on the part of feminists, though it is undeniably connected with lesbianism. Feminism seems to me to be kaleidoscopic–something whose shapes, structures and patterns alter with every turn of feminist creativity; and one element which is present through all the changes is an element of separation. This element has different roles and relations in different turns of the glass–it assumes different meanings, is variously conspicuous, variously determined or determining, depending on how the pieces fall and who is the beholder. The theme of separation, in its multitude variations, is there in everything from divorce to exclusive lesbian separatist communities, from shelters for battered women to witch covens, from women’s studies programs to women’s bars, from expansion of daycare to abortion on demand. The presence of this theme is vigorously obscured, trivialized, mystified and outright denied by many feminist apologists, who seem to find it embarrassing, while it is embraced, explored, expanded and ramified by most of the more inspiring theorists and activists. The theme of separation is noticeably absent or heavily qualified in most of the things I take to be personal solutions and band-aid projects, like legalization of prostitution, liberal marriage contracts, improvement of the treatment of rape victims and affirmative action. It is clear to me, in my own case at least, that the contrariety of assimilation and separation is one of the main things that guides or determines assessments of various theories, actions and practices as reformist or radical, as going to the root of the thing or being relatively superficial. So my topical question comes to this: What is it about separation, in any or all of its many forms and degrees, that makes it so basic and so sinister, so exciting and so repellent? Feminist separation is, of course, separation of various sorts or modes from men and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities which are male-defined, male-dominated and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege–this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women. (Masculist separatism is the partial segregation of women from men and male domains at the will of men. This difference is crucial.)"

[beyond-mogai-pride-flags]

Transmasculist Pride Flag

Transmasculism or transmasculinism: a branch of masculism concerned with transgender issues; a movement by and for trans men who view their liberation to be intrinsically linked to the liberation of all men and beyond.

Based on this general transmasc flag and this transfeminist flag.

[alarajrogers]

"Misogyny" didn't start out as a word meaning the systemic oppression of women. It was a cognate to "misanthropy", the hatred of people.

As it happens, women are systemically oppressed, which led people to redefine "misogyny" as meaning systemic oppression of women. This was honestly a terrible idea. We have plenty of words describing the systemic oppression of women, such as patriarchy. And many patriarchal sexists don't hate women; they're just incredibly wrong about what is good for women. There's also bad stuff that's done to women by people who don't hate them and think they are being egalitarian, except that women and men aren't starting from the same baseline in our society, so treating them exactly the same where "exactly the same" means treat them all like men runs into serious problems.

I have been fighting for the word "misandry" and pushing back against this nonsensical "misogyny means the systematic hatred of women" nonsense for 15 years, now, and I never saw the "misogyny must be systemic to be misogyny" concept until people started trying to declare misandry a non-word. I feel that in fact misogyny got redefined precisely so that radfems could delegitimize misandry.

Imagine a boy is raised on a feminist commune with way too much radfem input, and they tell him that women should be in charge of everything because men are naturally violent, and women are better at social interaction, that's just a fact, and he should just accept that he will never be allowed to be in charge of anything. If he begins to hate and resent the women who are given more privilege than him in the local society that he doesn't know how to leave, how would we describe that except misogyny? This hypothetical boy doesn't know that, outside the commune, men run the world, because the information he's allowed to have is heavily censored. He's not hating women because he has a sense of entitlement and wants to dominate; he's hating women because they're oppressing him. Cool motive, still misogyny. It doesn't actually mean systemic oppression of women, it means hating women, full stop. There is so much hatred of women in the systemic oppression of women, it's easy to confuse the two, but they don't mean the same thing.

No one is systemically oppressing humanity, yet the word "misanthropy" for hatred of humans exists. Misanthropes are equally likely to particularly hate the powerful as they are to particularly hate the oppressed. In fact, a lot of misanthropy imputes the behavior of the powerful to "all humans" as a justification for hating us all. Since misanthropy comes from other humans, and not from, say, sentient walruses who hate us for causing global warming, it cannot be re-imagined to mean "systemic oppression"... and it is where the word misogyny comes from. Someone went back to the Greek roots that make "misanthropy" and reconstructed them to make "hatred of women" instead of "hatred of people".

I feel that misandry is an important word and we shouldn't let it go. Anti-masculism sounds like hatred of masculinity, which is probably a very valuable word in its own right, and not exactly the same thing as hatred of men. (Among other things, the anti-masculist would dislike butch women and would have no problems with femme men, if it meant hatred of masculinity rather than hatred of men.) I'm convinced that the campaign against misandry originates from the radfems, and that's why feminists now believe "misogyny" has to mean a systemic oppression. But there's nothing in the roots of the word to imply such a thing, and it's not very useful to take a word with a specific meaning and then make it mean something else we already had a word for.

i'm probably gonna add this in the revamped pin post im planning but i think an issue we have when discussing "misandry" is that people tend to interpret it as "the man version of misogyny." because we are under the false belief that if x is true for one gender, the inverse must be true for its "opposite"

i think its use comes from having a word to put to Genderism Based On Male Gender Roles. gender is a thing that impacts everyone and changes everyone's experiences. i want to be able to say "this person is using stereotypes about how men and people associated with manliness should or do think/behave to be hurtful" in a single word/phrase. ^ that does not require there to be an overarching system, controlled by another group, that oppresses all men. i came up with the term "antimasculism" to have a word that accomplishes this but doesn't have the baggage of "misandry" (maybe "anti-" isnt the best prefix, maybe "mal-masculism" wouldve been more accurate)

& its especially important because there is a pattern of behavior centering masculinity that is used constantly to hurt marginalized people. "men are aggressive and strong" becomes either a way to demonize men, people seen as men, or people seen as masculine, or a way to mock any of the above groups for failing that requirement. this hurts cis men, trans men, queer men of all kinds, masculine-presenting people, butches, trans women- not because they have some innate masculine quality but because people see them as masculine in some way, shape, or form, and attach certain expectations to them and read into their choices in certain ways. masculinity or association with manliness being punished in some people/situations does not mean that all manliness is punished. why would it? misogyny is about controlling women & others grouped in as resources to be controlled. men's gender roles are about constant competition with each other. under the patriarchy women are always objects while men are sometimes allies and sometimes enemies that need to be crushed or failures that need to be held up as an example of what will happen if you aren't good enough at the competition.

& even more: you can have antimasculist misogyny! you can have misogynistic antimasculism! if a woman (cis or trans) is alienated from her womanhood and treated like a threat for being seen as too masculine, is she being mistreated for being masc or being a woman? the answer is both. her failure to be appropriately feminine means her masculinity is a crime she needs to be punished for. same with a man & being seen as too masculine: he fails to be a man in the right way and his femininity needs to be punished. especially when it comes to queer people & anyone whose gender performance is seen as queer, there is very rarely only 1 form of genderism going on because queerness is fundamentally about blurring the lines of which genders can do what.

tl;dr there doesn't have to be an overarching systemic hatred for all masculinity/manhood for it to be useful to have a word to describe the way that genderism around male gender roles is used to hurt people, marginalized people most of all.