I literally have no idea what you mean here. What are you defining as “mainstream society”? Because mainstream society in the west is extremely hostile to Communism, not due to its lack of rhetoric about masculinity, but because of a long standing propoganda war that’s been ongoing for over 80 years.
I mean the mainstream view of "leftist politics" that gets the most air time is usually liberal (i.e. capitalist) feminism where you constantly see tweets (or even mainstream TV segments) saying things like "all cis-white dudes need to CHECK THEIR PRIVILEGE" or "I DON'T HAVE TO EDUCATE YOU" kind of rhetoric.
And tbh somebody who has no idea what the actual left is will be extremely alienated with this. I know I was on my journey from normie liberal. Even simply mentioning words like patriarchy or privilege triggered me. Like it or not there are certain buzzwords that carry certain connotations for those not already embedded in that particular communities. Like saying words like "colonialism," "patriarchy," "privilege," "white supremacy," etc. to normies will quickly turn them off. When I try to broach these topics in normal conversation, I'll look for other ways to say the same thing (e.g. I might say "guy dominated" when talking about things like the video game industry instead of saying that the owners of these companies are "cis-het white males with privilege"). If we are to be scientific socialists about this, we must always adapt our strategy to fit the particular material conditions we find ourselves in and not get stuck into idealist, dogmatic thinking.
So you want the left to frame its messaging based on right wing anti-feminist propoganda that gets blasted 24/7 by capitalist owned media sites and tv channels?
Not frame entirely but certainly adapt because no matter what term we come up with the right will try to demonize it. This means we must always be on our feet so to speak and be ready to adapt. It's not our fault but it's where we find ourselves, so it's either adapt or die.
Im sorry but you aren't going to argue communism into existence. it doesnt matter if you find the exact phrasing that makes the average person understand what you mean or not, rhetoric and messaging are not enough. You need to gain material benefits for the proletariat and that means uplifting women from the oppression they face within the patriarchy before it means catering to men's feelings. That means misogyny must be stamped out, no matter where or why it starts. If women aren't safe within the movement then its certainly not going to do anything for the entire proletariat.
I mean you can do both. It's not one or the other. In order for women to be safe within the movement you're going to need to address any reactionary views from existing members and potential members. And some of those people will need to be handled different with different approaches. It's just like union organizing. You can't just barge in and say "labor oppression must be stamped out!" You gotta talk to people, feel them out first, and talk to them where they are (without sacrificing your own values of course).
I mean the mainstream view of "leftist politics" that gets the most air time is usually liberal (i.e. capitalist) feminism where you constantly see tweets (or even mainstream TV segments) saying things like "all cis-white dudes need to CHECK THEIR PRIVILEGE" or "I DON'T HAVE TO EDUCATE YOU" kind of rhetoric.
And tbh somebody who has no idea what the actual left is will be extremely alienated with this. I know I was on my journey from normie liberal. Even simply mentioning words like patriarchy or privilege triggered me. Like it or not there are certain buzzwords that carry certain connotations for those not already embedded in that particular communities. Like saying words like "colonialism," "patriarchy," "privilege," "white supremacy," etc. to normies will quickly turn them off. When I try to broach these topics in normal conversation, I'll look for other ways to say the same thing (e.g. I might say "guy dominated" when talking about things like the video game industry instead of saying that the owners of these companies are "cis-het white males with privilege"). If we are to be scientific socialists about this, we must always adapt our strategy to fit the particular material conditions we find ourselves in and not get stuck into idealist, dogmatic thinking.
So you want the left to frame its messaging based on right wing anti-feminist propoganda that gets blasted 24/7 by capitalist owned media sites and tv channels?
Not frame entirely but certainly adapt because no matter what term we come up with the right will try to demonize it. This means we must always be on our feet so to speak and be ready to adapt. It's not our fault but it's where we find ourselves, so it's either adapt or die.
Im sorry but you aren't going to argue communism into existence. it doesnt matter if you find the exact phrasing that makes the average person understand what you mean or not, rhetoric and messaging are not enough. You need to gain material benefits for the proletariat and that means uplifting women from the oppression they face within the patriarchy before it means catering to men's feelings. That means misogyny must be stamped out, no matter where or why it starts. If women aren't safe within the movement then its certainly not going to do anything for the entire proletariat.
I mean you can do both. It's not one or the other. In order for women to be safe within the movement you're going to need to address any reactionary views from existing members and potential members. And some of those people will need to be handled different with different approaches. It's just like union organizing. You can't just barge in and say "labor oppression must be stamped out!" You gotta talk to people, feel them out first, and talk to them where they are (without sacrificing your own values of course).