comment: >
  
  
  First I want to get one thing out the way: men are privileged relative to women, and women are generally speaking subject to more discrimination, and experience more negatives as a result of their gender, than men.
  
  It sounds like you are writing this as if it is an objective truth, but what you wrote is open for debate.
  I.E. How do you quantify this generalized statement that men are more privileged than women?  Are we talking socially?  Economically?  Access to opportunities?
  
  I am a white man, and I acknowledge my privilege.
  
  If you are a wealthy white man, whose parents were educated and wealthy, you probably have some "privilege."  But a white woman, who was raised by similar parents has a similiar level of privilege.
  This might be crazy for you to think about, white man, but a black man, who was raised by elites (i.e. wealthy and educated parents as mentioned above), will have a considerable amount of privilege as well.
  ___
  
  Modern feminism (as I have gathered from speaking to friends more familiar with the literature and theory than me) acknowledges that, and not only fights for womens rights but also mens rights by addressing issues such as the ones i raised above.
  
  Firstly, this statement feels absurd. There are no groups advocating for mens rights by addressing the issues you raised above.  Name me the feminist group advocating for women to take on more dangerous jobs?  (seriously, if I am mistaken I would like to know)
  Also, in a twist of irony, your whole post completely disregards the idea of intersectionality, which is a core concept of modern day feminism.
context: men are disadvantaged due to their gender: generally doing more dangerous jobs, risk for conscription, lack of acknowledgement of their emotions from an early age.
  
  All of these things are consequences or byproducts of perpetuating male supremacy.
  The slave owner has to deal with the stress of maintaining a plantation. That doesn't mean it's appropriate to say "they have it bad, too."
  The reasons women aren't conscripted into the military or aren't encouraged to go into jobs like construction is because the men in charge of those things don't want them there. Sexual harassment in male-dominated spaces is normal and goes unpunished. Men in congress have actively fought to keep women out of the military, saying it ruins brotherhood, women are weak/emotional. 
  They hold these positions because they don't want women to be equal. They want women to fulfill a role of doting subordinate who is humble and grateful for men protecting them. Those men do not like and do not believe a woman can hold her own.
  Shaming of men's emotions similarly has everything to do with protecting masculinity as something superior to femininity. >
  
  
  men are privileged relative to women, and women are generally speaking subject to more discrimination
  
  I disagree. Almost if not literally every metric pertaining to living standard paints a clear picture favoring women.
  
  I am a white man, and I acknowledge my privilege.
  
  What is that to a 5yo boy? 
  
  Modern feminism (as I have gathered from speaking to friends more familiar with the literature and theory than me) acknowledges that, and not only fights for womens rights but also mens rights by addressing issues such as the ones i raised above.
  
  This is just not true. Your own post proves the bias. You started with the obligatory claim that women have it worse. Why did you feel the need to do that at all? The true answer to that is likely female privilege. And the extent to which feminists even acknowledge men's issues at all, it's at best a token appreciation to deny accusations of bias but most often just to blame it on men in the end anyway. 
  
  In that case, feminism is a poorly chosen name
  
  Well it accurately represents what the movement is about. Though it might be even more accurate to call it "misandrism". 
  
  I believe that a movement like "equalitarinism" would allow for more people to associate with the movement than now. Ideally, it would have another name.
  
  That will never happen and any attempt you make to persuade feminists will result in a reaction that proves it was never about equality. In fact feminism is the single most sexist ideology conceivable. It talks about men the same way ethnic cleansers talk about their chosen scapegoats. Not that's not an exaggeration. >
  
  Why would the name put them off? It was a movement created by women. What’s the problem with men supporting a movement created by women? In my opinion that just supports the separation of men and women holding the same values under the same movement. “Oh well feminism just sounds too womanly. I’m an equalitarian!” You’re just supporting the very system feminism aims to dismantle. You’re wanting to change the name of a movement to better cater men because they might not be comfortable with a name because it does not fit into societal standard or expectation?
  Now, on another note. Women’s movement of liberation does not need to cater men. The only reason it does is because it aims to dismantle a system that men have put in place over generations, that just by cause and effect, also impacts men. But that doesn’t mean women should be forced or dedicate to resolve mens issues as well. MEN need to be the ones to do that because at the end of the day, it is an issue caused by them that impacts them. But, at the end of the day, this would be a feminist action. 
  Call it whatever you want. But simply not wanting to identify with a movement, even one you agree with, simply because you feel the name of it doesn’t represent men by default, just reinforces the system in place that women and men should be separate, and women and femininity should not be highlighted in any form. >
  
  
  But that doesn’t mean women should be forced or dedicate to resolve mens issues as well. MEN need to be the ones to do that because at the end of the day, it is an issue caused by them that impacts them.
  
  What are your thoughts about the men's rights movement? I suspect that you, like most feminists, are antipathic toward them. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
  I know of no significant men's rights organizations which aren't derided by organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups.
  It is of limited utility to advise men to form their own groups to ameliorate their problems, then in the next breath to deride them as comparable to the KKK. >
  
  Most feminists like menslib. Most feminist don’t like mra because they just  complain about feminism. >
  
  
  First I want to get one thing out the way: men are privileged relative to women, and women are generally speaking subject to more discrimination, and experience more negatives as a result of their gender, than men. I consider myself a feminist. I am a white man, and I acknowledge my privilege.
  
  No, gender privilege is highly contextual. You being white is not even relevant.
  
  Modern feminism (as I have gathered from speaking to friends more familiar with the literature and theory than me) acknowledges that, and not only fights for womens rights but also mens rights by addressing issues such as the ones i raised above.
  
  They don't. That's the problem. Feminism still is an interest group for women. For example, women outnumber men in higher education for more than 50 years. While men outnumbered women, they decried that as a great injustice that clearly showed how privileged men were, and supported scholarships, quota etc. to "restore the balance". But once women were in a majority, they stopped caring.
  They still have the outdate frame of mind that "men are privileged", and therefore, getting benefits for women, preferably at the expense of men, is a good thing. Conversely, men getting benefits, especially at the expense of women, is a bad thing. For example, feminists have opposed funding for shelters for male victims of domestic violence.
  Another aspect that shows the outdated assumptions on which they operate is the prevalence of TERFs: feminists have decided that gender roles are something men imposed on women, and that must be abolished. The existence of transgenders, who want to exhibit gender roles, contradicts that idea. That's why so many feminists are so hostile to transgenders.
  So the very fact that they still use the word feminism, even when they have demonstrated they can be very attentive to word choice, clearly illustrates what they are striving for: they are an interest group for women. If you want equality, you have to strive for it outside feminism. >
  
  
  The existence of transgenders, who want to exhibit gender roles, contradicts that idea. That's why so many feminists are so hostile to transgenders.
  
  Trans people don't have to exhibit gender roles.  While many do, to make it easier for them, it is not a requirement. >
  
  
  Trans people don't have to exhibit gender roles. While many do, to make it easier for them, it is not a requirement.
  
  The whole cause of gender dysphoria is the the mismatch between their gender role and their gender identity. >
  
  A) Trans people don't have to have gender dysphoria to be trans. Source
  B) Gender and sex mismatch can also cause gender dysphoria.
  C) A tom-boy is a gender role that defies the typical gender roles.  I don't know of anyone complaining about tom-boys upholding the patriarchy by enacting their gender role.
  D) Being identified as "Man" or "Woman" or being referred to as "he/she" aren't gender roles, but can also cause gender dysphoria.  If you disagree and say they are gender roles, I would argue against them being the type of "gender roles" that TERFS complain about. >
  
  
  A) Trans people don't have to have gender dysphoria to be trans.
  
  Didn't say that.
  
  B) Gender and sex mismatch can also cause gender dysphoria.
  
  Didn't deny that.
  
  C) A tom-boy is a gender role that defies the typical gender roles. I don't know of anyone complaining about tom-boys upholding the patriarchy by enacting their gender role.
  
  That's just tolerance for children not yet walking the lines they are expected to walk in adult life.
  
  D) Being identified as "Man" or "Woman" or being referred to as "he/she" aren't gender roles, but can also cause gender dysphoria. If you disagree and say they are gender roles, I would argue against them being the type of "gender roles" that TERFS complain about.
  
  Those are gender roles, and TERFs definitely do complain about them. Either way, I don't really see how this affects the idea about TERFS being motivated by the core assumption in feminism, that gender roles are a straitjacket imposed by men on women and would not exist without patriarchy. >
  
  Wait...you claim TERFs complain about the label "woman"?  really? >
  
  I would genuinely like to know in what way Feminism fights for men’s rights. >
  
  Here's one: The fight for paternity leave is a feminist one
  Here is Feminists against the draft
  Fighting against toxic masculinity is another one. >
  
  I’ll concede the point on paternity leave. 
  Let’s be clear, feminists didn’t start fighting against the draft until it became apparent that women might be included in selective service registrations. There was not a peep from feminists on the issue until it impacted women. The mission statement of the Feminists Against the Draft even states that they advocate for the rights of women and children abroad. Men are excluded from their advocacy apparently.   
  The fight against “toxic masculinity” is completely nonsensical as there is no agreed upon definition on what constitutes toxic masculinity. Very often, masculinity in general is viewed as inherently toxic by feminists. I would hardly call this fighting for the rights of men. >
  
  Can you give an example of "masculinity in general being viewed as inherently toxic by feminists?"  Ideally with a source, but I'll likely take your word for it.  Because, I have always seen "toxic behaviors being called toxic" and some people think those toxic behaviors are so inherantly masculine, they can't see the toxicity that is there.
  Quick edit: can you provide men issues that feminists aren't actively trying to help with? >
  
  Well there's been multiple instances of self-proclaimed feminists shutting down seminars for mens mental health and suicide prevention. 
  So they're infact actively hurting mens issues in those cases >
  
  Cool, can you link me that, because I have no idea what you are referencing, and want to actually find out what's going on there. >
  
  Thanks.
  Following a few of the links for that second one, this seems to be part of the issue:
  
  We also believe that there is a significant reputational risk to the university in aligning itself with International Men's Day an event which has not been without significant controversy. The homepage of the global website for International Men's Day states: 'The ability to sacrifice your needs on behalf of others is fundamental to manhood, as is honour. Manhood rites of passage the world over recognise the importance of sacrifice in the development of Manhood.' Retrograde statements like this show a profound lack of understanding on issues surrounding masculinity. A day that celebrates men's issues especially those outlined in the University's statement does not combat inequality, but merely amplifies existing, structurally imposed, inequalities.
  
  It sounds like, to me, that at least in this case what happened is people looked at what the organization represented and went "wait...that's actively bad" and the school went "huh, I suppose you are right."
  Should they have replaced it with a specific "focus on mental health"?  Absolutely, but it appears that the push back was on some of the stated goals of International Men's Day being about sacrificing your needs on the behalf of others, and listing it as a good thing to link with masculininty. >
  
  While I definitely don't agree that sacrificing your needs/wants is "fundamental to manhood", it also isn't the worst message. There are absolutely times in life where what might be best for you may not be the best thing for someone else or others in general. 
  If like you said they simply dissociated the event with the day that would be understandable and I'd see no issue.
  But to fully cancel an event like that which could do some genuine good, and then to state that as the reason? Seems more so like they gave into the pressure applied to them and were searching for any reason to justify their choice. >
  
  
  modern feminism … not only fights for women’s rights but also men’s rights
  
  No, it doesn’t. 
  Modern feminism does believe all gender disparities - inclusive of those that adversely impact men - are a function of ‘the patriarchy’. 
  But the patriarchy is by definitionally a ‘system’ of women having less aggregate power than men, and thus all emphasis is on resolving that power imbalance - so feminism is uninterested in spending energy on male problems, especially those that give men more power (example: parental rights / financial abortion).
  Feminism is a women’s empowerment movement first, and equity movement only when it doesn’t conflict with the first order goal, and it acknowledges male issues as an intellectual problem that conveniently goes away only when all of their primary objectives are achieved first.
  That’s not to say their goals are ‘wrong’ or anything. But it’s very clearly as advertised & the correct name. >
  
  Someone doesn't know about feminism and it shows. >
  
  Are you just going to copy/paste this pretentious comment over and over with zero elaboration or desire to engage in discussion? >
  
  Well feminism is about equality between the different genders, saying that feminism isn't concerned with a gender based inequality is incorrect on its face, and as such, they're not discussing feminism >
  
  Feminism does exactly what the name implies: advocacy for women. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, and it is not surprising that part of its marketing explains men's problems as essential parts of "the patriarchy" against which they contrast feminism.
  That said, I don't see feminist organizations highlighting the fact that women graduate college by a ratio of 3:2 relative to men (except to complain about the shortage of marriageable men), to push for safer workplaces in a way that might usefully reduce workplace fatalities (of whom 92% are men  - fighting micro aggressions isn't going to help) or extending the accurate observation that the justice system discriminates against POC as evidenced by the fact that they are 6x more likely to be imprisoned. Point out that men are 10x more likely to be jailed than women, and it's about grrr men, patriarchy and the violence against women act.
  Speaking of the VAWA, do any mainstream feminist organizations really offer full throated support for the Equal Rights Amendment? As a law which unambiguously treats the sexes unequally, VAWA would become immediately unconstitutional.
  Feminism is indifferent to the interests of men. This is not to say that each feminist is indifferent to the well-being of the man or men in her life. This is the primary reason for often explaining the mission in the context of "what's best for you is good for them too" >
  
  Sounds you want women to handle all of society's problems before they're allowed to advocate for themselves