Understand, since you used third person plural "men", my you was also universal you, second person plural. "You men" or they pronoun.
Pronoun agreement.
Glad to hear and see you putting your thoughts on feminism so succinctly. That's well spoken and well thought out. Shouldn't be advanced knowledge, but sadly it seems to be.
One of my criticisms of feminism that I talk over with Urchling a lot about is that feminism has one of the same problems as Christiantiy. People perceive it and use it as a label or an identity rather than the way of life it's meant to be. They want the accolades and the benefits without having to carry the burden of it or so the work.
But, in truth, that's more a problem with people than a problem or error with the ideology. The real criticism is feminism's continuing failure to account for this aspect of human nature, especially given such a long standing example of similar failure so uniquitous to western culture and right under our noses.
Right? It really does sort of boggle the mind when you think about it.
That leads us back to your question. Keep in mind, were using 3rd person plural as a reference point. Not all men, not you as an individual, not men as a group or a gender. Just they. Those man/male persons who might be asking that question.
Probabaly, they should still go have themselves their beer. And again, provided they are leaving everyone else alone, they're not out to harm or destroy, they're not taking from anyone else, and not demanding free labor, etc, and just generally keeping to themselves that's fine.
Men are not pets to be clicker trained into performing humanity or manhood. They don't need convincing to change.
People change when they're unhappy with their life, they see others who are happy/peaceful/content/thriving and then find themselves motivates by that sense of independence, sense of competence, and sense of connection to others.
Men aren't any different that anyone else. Women cannot convince men to change, nor should they waste their time trying. Men will change when they choose to change, the environment changes causing a need to adapt, they experience an epiphany or a life changing event that causes them to view gender relations differently or out of frustration from trying the same old tired thing and getting the same unhappy result a.k.a. frustration.
Feminists would do better to waste less time on men overall, and focus on changing the environment in a manner that will inspire men to change toward feminist principles.
Right now, there seems to be a fair amount of effort in mirroring and matching energy. A lot of men are super pressed about it and losing their shit all over social media. There's a whole lot of "I'm going to take my ball and bat and go home" type drama clappes back with "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out then".
Too soon to see where it's also going to land, broad strokes. Of interesting note, one of my favorite man feminists came to feminist ideology through this method. He wasn't investing in his partnership and nearly lost his wife because of it. She checked out and was making clear plans to leave the marriage. He was on his last chance. After that last ultimatum/warning, she started matching his energy in the relationship and when he got a dose of the shitful neglect he was putting her and their home through, he had that moment of clarity and then he got busy. He's doing a lot of good for men now, and subsequently for women and families.
A lot of what "men" are seeing as feminist anger in social media is that same mirroring. You're getting reflected back the shit we have to deal with online. You're getting the same space men make for us. If that's the environment men want to create and hold for women, then they can share in it too.
If they don't want to change or have need to though, they should just go have their beer while having the sense and grace to not get in the way of those who do, man or woman.
