Not the right wing “men’s right” thing. Some kind of left version, that would fundamentally be a feminist movement but with different branding.
Different branding would be necessary to absorb a bunch of men into it.
Not the right wing “men’s right” thing. Some kind of left version, that would fundamentally be a feminist movement but with different branding.
Different branding would be necessary to absorb a bunch of men into it.
Completely agree, I’ve been repeating this to all the people I am able to discuss with: Marxism, being most of the factory-worker Proletariat composed by men, was fundamentally a men’s right movement.
I also find saddening that so many believe that you can’t create a movement that champions men’s wellbeing without it devolving into the terms of the “patriarchy”. How are socialist parties going te even figure in government if they abandon their main strenght, which is to be for the whole labor class?
I recommend you read some history. Many popular uprisings have been led by women at the forefront. That organized workers movements gave them little space/autonomy (much like for non-white people) is undeniable, but to say that worker struggles were a “men’s right movement” is a REALLY far stretch.
I’m not from the USA but for example there two major figures of the workers movement in late 19th century / early 20th were Emma Goldman and Lucy Parsons. That they’ve been mostly erased from history books tells more about who writes/distributes the books and their agenda than about a perceived lack of women in social struggles.
For example, when it comes to anarchism people usually recommend reading Kropotkin/Bakunin/Proudhon, slipping under the carpet the many theoretical contributions of women. If only to name one, read Emma Goldman ;)