If masculinity is on the ballot I think JD Vance is probably the against option.
Men's Liberation
This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality.
Rules
Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people
Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren't talking over men expressing their own lived experiences.
Be productive
Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed.
Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting:
- Build upon the OP
- Discuss concepts rather than semantics
- No low effort comments
- No personal attacks
Assume good faith
Do not call other submitters' personal experiences into question.
No bigotry
Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated.
No brigading
Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues.
Recommended Reading
- The Will To Change: Men, Masculinity, And Love by bell hooks
- Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements by Michael Messner
Related Communities
!feminism@beehaw.org
!askmen@lemmy.world
!mensmentalhealth@lemmy.world
And one of the candidates wears makeup.
3 of them I think
I think I understand the intent behind the term, but "happily deferential" rubs me the wrong way. I can't see how to neatly encapsulate my preferred perspective, but to me the idea is to put the good of the family/team/social group as far as possible above personal ego.
Decisions need to be made and often no one person has a full understanding of the variables involved. To me "happily deferential" sounds like a thought terminating "yes dear" attitude. That is unattractive and bad for the survival of the group. I would prefer to be around someone with strong opinions, who is willing to defend them in a discussion without attaching their ego to their viewpoint.
Most importantly, when the decision is made, the group members need to be able to commit to the collective decision and not build up resentment if they disagree with it. If the parties to the decision aren't of equal status this process falls apart.
Anarchist btw
The Times occasionally publishes pure drivel. Not their fault, really, but it happens.