Some male sexual assault victims feel left behind by #MeToo - Sensationalist Headlines

But they weren't "put in place by the men of yesteryear." I think one of the biggest misconceptions about patriarchy is the image of a literal cabal of men conspiring to make a society for men by men and keep women down. That's not how it actually is. It's really just a social structure that evolved from our roles back when we were hunter-gatherers. Men in power don't make decisions based off of what benefits other men, in fact, quite the opposite, what is naturally more beneficial is to get the other men to fight and work themselves to death for their benefit so they don't have to. Furthermore, it's a social structure that women participate in just as much as men do. Both women and men have negative beliefs and behaviors about their own sex as well as the opposite sex. It's something we're all responsible for and it's something we all have to be conscientious of and try to change, not just in others, but in ourselves as well.

If feminism is egalitarian, how is it not "ineffective and toothless" as you just said This idea that women have to be "raised up to men" is very damaging and probably the root of this disagreement. There is no one dimensional metric of privilege you can have or lack. The gender roles have very different expectations that screw over individuals who don't fit into them and reward those who do. Do women on average have it worse? Maybe. Even if they do, is focusing disproportionately on their issues fair or productive? I don't think so. Instead of "elevating women" whatever that means in any particular case, we could focus on any injustices individuals face because of their gender. If women have more of such issues, they get more of such attention. By also taking men's issues seriously, you reduce issues for everyone since treating people with sexism tends to make them sexist themselves. That's what egalitarism is about, protecting every oppressed individual. It's a philosophy and a movement just like feminism is, but with the advantage of not having inherent bias.

how would egalitarianism tackle homophobia? we better either get rid of groups for LGBT people or give support groups to straight people otherwise we'll have ~bias~ like Do women on average have it worse? Maybe. Even if they do, is focusing disproportionately on their issues fair or productive? I don't think so. if they have it worse then shouldn't dedicating more to helping them be the most obvious course of action? you even admit that. feminists are egalitarian by every definition if their goal is to make men and women equal. But egalitarianism as a movement where you shrug and go "well, everyone has problems" is as ineffective as saying "All Lives Matter". All you're really doing is trying to discredit the other movements. Egalitarianism (in the strictest sense of 'everyone has problems so we should focus on everyone) is like seeing people rush to throw buckets of water at a house on fire and then going "wait, but that house across the street has a fireplace that could catch on fire soon! why aren't we throwing water at that house?".

I don't see how that is related but here's how: nobody should be discriminated because of their sexuality, not even straights. Despite the fact that straights face virtually no discrimination compared to queers (which makes this comparison meaningless) every LGBT group I've had experiences with are egalitarian enough that I don't have a problem with them. (However from what I hear they are not without flaws either. Asexuals often complain that they're not taken seriously or represented by LGBT groups, something that wouldn't be a problem if they were truly egalitarian) Did you even read the part you quoted? The point is it's not fair to ignore the lighter part of the seesaw. Where are you getting this? None of that's true.

Fucking hell man, is the fact that inequalities aren't one-dimensional too hard a concept to grasp? What's with your cartoonishly ridiculous comprehension of egalitarianism? You can't objectively say that X group has it worse than Y group in general, because that depends on the context in which the discrimination is taking place. People will most often have an easier time conforming to the gender norms ascribed to their group. This means that depending on an individual's aspirations, a man or woman may be disadvantaged compared to the opposite gender. Egalitarianism isn't about seeing this diversity of issues and just going "Everybody has issues so I guess we're even", it's about tackling all of these problems head on, rather than your approach of exclusively addressing one side of the issue while hoping that it will just trickle down and alleviate the other side's problems eventually. If we want to keep your shitty analogy, your philosophy is akin to saying "Why do we need firefighters? We already have police who are working hard and making progress on deterring arson along with other crimes."

Its incredibly simple to try and equate things but what is the value lost of being paid generally 25% less than your male coworkers to losing 5 years of life compared to women in general? You cannot equate them because these are diametrically opposed things.

except women aren't paid 25% less, they earn 25% less and they also get rescued first in any dangerous situation along with the children and they easily get custody over the children and more easily get alimony, lighter sentences and a bunch more things they also get all their issues acknowledged and fought, while men's are usually dismissed I'd argue that "elevating women to men's level" is the wrong approach as men's world is (imo) socially harder. How about getting men to turn their heads towards femininity in general? sometimes it also feels like in order to "elevate women" you must steal from others. this robin hood approach I despise. How about trying to find solutions that don't cause uproar and distrust?

Can you please enlighten me, on how I'm strawmanning anyone? I apoglizes if I have done anything wrong