this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
186 points (92.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

41661 readers
950 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Feminism started as a way to fight for the rights of women. That's not anti-male, but it's also not "for everyone".

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't know if I would categorize that as feminism though. Egalitarianism maybe? "Social justice" in the non-derogatory sense?

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

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.