Arguing with masculinists

Someone wrote to me;

"I'm sorry to say that I don't really agree with what you have to say about feminisme. Feminisme tends to view men as a very homogenious group of persons (and some feminist theories conveniently leave out the idea of male-born genderqueers or male-born women or even claim that this isn't possible at all. As if evil is incarnate in your genitals).
You are right, it is much easier to forget that other people do not have certain privilages if you do have those privilages. For instance, the privilage to express your feelings, the privilage to intimacy, the privilage to express yourself through other means than power and status, the privilage to not be seen as a sexminded monster, the privilage be weak, the privilage to be treated more gentle than people of the other sex, the privilage to inheiret your childeren after a divorce. I suppose that a lot of cis-men don't need these privilages, but there are many men, cis, trans, straight or queer who would give up all their manprivilages for those other privilages. I often feel this is even harder than for a woman to gain her manly privilages. Feminisme has gained a lot for women, but don't you think it's about time we get to postfeminisme and start gaining for other people too?"

And I replied;

I use the word feminism for lack of a better word and I must stress that feminism takes many different forms, just like any other ideology. My feminism doesn't exclude anyone based on their genitals OR their gender, only on their attitude towards female-identified or female-born people and I think the upcoming generation of new feminists would tend to agree, despite anything Gloria Steinem might have to say about it.

What you're talking about in the second paragraph is masculism/masculinism, another perfectly valid ideology where it is warranted in the exact same manner as feminism. I don't think feminist notions overrule the human condition and I thoroughly understand and empathise with the various ways in which men are limited by misconceptions of how they ought to behave. However, I'm not going to get caught up in any battle of the -isms, when the aim of both ideologies is generally seen to be equality. The feminism that I'm familiar with implores men to express their feelings, be intimate, do so by other means than power and status, choose not to be preoccupied by sex, be loving fathers, etc., rather than stating that they are incapable of those things based on their genitals. Butch lesbians in particular are often also pigeonholed into this category of "masculinity" whereby any expression of weakness or turmoil is seen to be reprehensible.

Historically speaking, however, the privilege of intimacy, gentleness, weakness, well, these wouldn't be seen as privileges - only in recent history has the idea that men are suffering through their inability to express themselves come into play. On the other hand, most of our classical novelists, poets, playwrights, musicians, artists, etc. were men, so even the idea that men are disallowed self-expression is in itself debatable.

The absolute root of my personal philosophy is this; don't cause avoidable suffering. Feminism is important to me, but it's a blip on my philosophical radar. As far as I'm concerned every single earthling, to the tiniest fly, has the right not to have suffering inflicted upon them. There is no sole demographic which I prioritise and we don't have to play moral ping-pong in deciding who deserves more of our attention. However, the rights that we fight for have to be contextual. I won't fight to start sending toddler bluebottles and bumblebees to primary school. If a man wants to assert his right to not be seen as a sexminded monster, then by heaven, I will support him. The problematics begin when men fight for their rights but refuse to relinquish the privileges they have which harm other people. The feminism that I condone is that which doesn't stamp all over peoples rights in order to gain privileges. In a global context, women are still oppressed to a far greater extent than men - there are any number of statistics and reports to prove this. Unfortunately, we can't sit down every misogynist and misandrist in the world and have them discuss what rights and privileges the counter side has which they want and ask them politely to stop being so defensive and irrational. It didn't work in the 1500's during the Querelle des Femmes. But we can, as individuals, look at everything in it's correct sociological context before engaging in kneejerk counteraction.