Why should men support feminism?

A wonderful article

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/04/domestic-violence-abuse-patrick-stewart-david-challen-hart-brothers

Namenic
I might have made a lot of different choices had shared leave been available (even better if they made it actually equal). I ended up not liking my job much after being there a while and in the end was happy to get away from it when mat leave did finally come along but because I was already on the TTC train when I started to feel less enamoured with it, I sucked it up and stuck it out. I remember at one point looking around for alternatives but because the list of requirements you have for a job has changed, it’s harder to find something else - and even if you do, there’s part of you that just thinks, “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”. After having children it becomes a different pressure as you have to build in things like ease of dropping off at childcare provider, flexibility, etc. DH had taken a job over 30 miles away while I was on mat leave so was absolutely not in a position to help much in that regard apart from when he was able to wfh. It definitely influenced my choices massively.

"Here's a challenge for you: pick an online forum you use a lot, search for the word "shriek" in your past comments, and count how often you used it to refer to men and how often to women."

It might be salutary to do the same with "unhinged".........

And also to go back to my post and consider why you though that "shriek" or "unhinged" were even remotely appropriate responses!!

ut men don't control women's criteria for selecting a mate, which seems to elevate well paid/successful men to a more eligible status.

Great - that most banal of stereotypes.

In fact, women look for men who are kind, not sexist and with whom they have something in common. And as I keep reminding you, most men and women marry within their own socio-economic bracket. Last time I checked, builders and bus drivers manage to find wives, but mostly those wives will be of similar income and status to them. By definition, highly eligible men and women are going to be a small minority, and they will marry other highly eligible men and women. That's just how it is.

Besides, if men really really wanted to get rid of the 'provider' stereotype, they would be prepared to risk sacrifices to challenge it. After all, women were prepared to risk their marriages when fighting sexist norms - let's not forget that feminism has been opposed by men every step of the way. So turning around and blaming it all on women is just a predictable copout. If men really wanted to be kept men and drive a Range Rover on the school run while wifey worked away in the office, they'd find a way.

But you know and I know that the vast majority of men do not want that. As I've said, it's just another way to have a go at women.

CritEqual - sexist attitudes often are unconscious. People can genuinely believe they are being fair and rational while actually acting in a discriminatory way. Here's a challenge for you: pick an online forum you use a lot, search for the word "shriek" in your past comments, and count how often you used it to refer to men and how often to women. And then maybe reflect on whether your use of it here was as rational, considered, and unbiased as you claim.

Separately, whether or not violent video games cause violent behaviour is still a contested issue, but the weight of evidence is on the side that they do. Here's a summary of a very recent meta-analysis covering 17,000 adolescents which shows a clear link between use of violent video games and real-life violent and anti-social behaviour.

Noteven
Do you think you would make the same decisions now with joint parental leave? Did you wish you had defied society’s expectations? (My husband was keen to take joint parental leave but kindly let me take a whole year as my job was a lot more stressful). I don’t necessarily see the part of the gender pay gap which is down to choice as a problem (it’s a division of labour thing like who does the cooking/washing up).

Just looking at your examples and they seem to illustrate the pay gap really well. What are the reasons behind the four examples you gave? Do they have children or are planning to? Have wives/partners made career choices that take into consideration the expectation that they’re likely to be responsible for most of the childcare? When my partner and I started talking about the possibility of having children, our individual focus on what we were looking for in a job changed. I looked for jobs at companies with good maternity leave benefits whereas his main focus was increasing his income to plug the gap of a loss of my salary for up to a year. When we first got together, we were at a similar level of career and I was earning slightly more than him. After two children a couple of years apart, his salary was nearly double mine (this was just before the option to share parental leave was introduced). For many women, this is a factor in choosing a “provider”. It’s a choice but one made within the boundaries of expectations of male and female roles in our society.

Bertrand nobody has to engage with me at all. If I say something that is enough of a black mark to further discussion for any individual it's their right or not to engage any further.

And yes I would use the term shriek blue bloody murder in respect to men. I think a lot of supposed gender based statements work equally well for men, who are just as likely to exhibit said behaviour.

Scott I'd be cautious in defining anyone as exceptional or not based solely on the health of their bank accounts, or what car they drive. I've known some some pretty exceptional people working pretty low paid jobs.

Your anger (justified) seems to be about how the capitalist system has screwed you over.

Your blame (unjustified) seems to be women in general and feminists in particular.

Exactly KeepOn , Scott it took you 15 years to realise you were unhappy in your last job. It doesn't sound like this one is much better. Remember, past a certain level, money doesn't add to your happiness. Please don't conflate your career choice and dissatisfaction with your "the grass is greener for women" views.

Pumpkin - children benefit their parents in general more than other old people. So for it to be fair for to childless people, maybe they should get a bonus in old age?

For society/economy, lack of future workers can be made up for by immigration. I suppose high taxes or universal income would help costs of childcare and might make some savings in mental health. It won’t come cheap though - especially if you want to avoid paying care workers (usually women) a very low wage (as often happens now).

Scott - men tend to have more specific aesthetic standards than women do. Maybe they should lower their standards...

I just don't get the feminist obsession with CEOs.

Oh, do give over. You know what I mean. "CEO" was just code for 'highly paid' just as I assume 'waitress' was just a stand-in for 'low-paid' for you.

It's entirely possible for a woman with an unexceptional career to end up living a life of privilege, residing in an enviable house and driving a luxury car -
visit any half decent private school at home time and you'll see plenty of mums in Range Rovers etc.

Yeah it's possible, but as I've said above, it's actually quite rare. Look up the stats. The majority of people marry within their own socio-economic bracket.

So it's kind of proving my theory, not that I imagine anyone will believe the above examples.

4 hand pick examples really don't 'prove' anything at all. I'm still willing to bet that if you look a bit wider then you'll find that most couples you know are within a similar socio-economic and educational bracket. Ir they aren't well then clearly you mix in a statistically unusual mileau, because it is a fact that most men marry women who are similar to them in professional and educational status. As I said above, look up the stats.

Not to mention that if men are bothered about supposedly being seen only as providers, it's up to them to change it and not rely on women to do the running on their behalf. I suspect, however, that most men are not in fact bothered. It's just another excuse - like they need one - to have a go at women.

Scott - women (even feminists) will willingly debate with you. But you have to debate rather than try and pull male privilege to rant.

Your anger (justified) seems to be about how the capitalist system has screwed you over.

Your blame (unjustified) seems to be women in general and feminists in particular.

Likewise your unjustified blame could be 'foreigners' and immigrants in particular.

Can you see the problem?

I believe a lot of men would date a waitress if they got on.

Ah yes, the old myth that women are snobby and 'picky' but men will date anyone provided they 'get on'. Ain't that cute?

Aside from the fact that, as others have pointed out, some (not all) men are intimidated by women who are their equals, most men actually date, and certainly marry, women who are from a similar socio-economic status to them. The idea of the CeO marrying a waitress may be cute in films, but is pretty rare in real life. I'm willing to bet that if you do a mental survey of the couples you know, the majority will be quite similar in terms of age, income, education etc. Very few CEOs are marrying waitresses.

Perhaps OP wants to explain to us, instead, why we should do anything for men.

Why should we birth babies for them, clean up after them, work for them, employ them, buy things they produce, even talk to them?

The way men treat us, they really should have to explain why WE should do anything for THEM.

Instead of asking why they should stop oppressing us.

Fascinating how much effort men put into explaining why they can’t do anything about it. I’m not asking you to change the world. I’m asking you, as an individual, to opt out of the crap side of “masculinity”, and call out other men.......

The thing is that there is a lot within "male culture" that tacitly reinforces violence-from porn to films to video games to shouting "Get stuck in!" at junior football. If men collectively rejected that stuff, then its influence would start to wane.

I agree, but I think it’s impossible to collectively reject/condemn something, as a result of my individual action(s) – I can’t influence much. There are too many differences within the class. The same goes for women, a (very) considerable part of other biological women would view many women on this sub-forum as bigots (also feminists); not my opinion btw, most of you are friendly. I think your individual influence on them would be very limited since they reject you prima facie. Especially currently when many people are “sick of experts”.

I once applied for a holiday job that involved directing (in the most efficient way) dockworkers. The person who did the interview told me plainly that I was welcome to try, but that it would probably be a very unpleasant experience since I probably wouldn’t have enough ‘street credibility’. So I didn’t. You always need a sort of shared of experience, to somewhat have a significant influence on other people. Unless you’re going to blame other people (like women), or are preying on negative feelings and offer a simple solution, that doesn’t necessarily work.

Junior football; initially my father always accompanied me but he was a bit too pushy, always shouting were I was supposed to run etc… (not pleasant). Luckily, my mother noticed and she started accompanying me, much better, everything I do is good (as it should be really: it’s for fun). This has improved though, many football clubs don’t allow parents any more, or they have to stay completely silent. Improvement.

The problem with football is that it’s essentially been made into a quasi-tribal activity. Men (and some women) aren’t content with their own life, so they start self-identifying with a football club. You should have a look on football forums, quite a few have a mental health thread, if the club does well there are less issues and the general atmosphere on the forum is better. I also think it serves a cathartic function; you’re stuck in an unhappy relationship, your dog is sick, whatever; let’s forget that by shouting abuse, and boo players and referees. It’s war. You have coaches saying, he’s faster than you, I don’t want this to be the case by the end of the game (essentially they are indirectly asking you to injure someone). What always helped for me, was briefly talking to my direct opponent during the game; might be stupid but that way it remains civil (something like it’s cold today and such).

The what about the men argument is irrelevant for me. I don’t particularly care. Loads of feminists do stellar work for men though, so the question is somewhat inappropriate. An example out of the top of my head: a couple of years ago they performed a reliable sociological study about family interdependencies parenthood and well-being in context in the Netherlands (because of the perennial problem of PT-working women in the Netherlands; even before they are married and have children. It’s cultural). The results were that men that work PT are unhappier than their FT counterparts, even taking care of their children for one or two days made them statistical significant unhappier. For women, every day they had to work more had a negative influence on their well-being (even before children). As a result, you have a group of feminists helping men to work more part-time (and pushing for legislative measures to make this possible) and spend more time with their children; they even have a number that you can call whenever etc…

I’m not being ‘feeble’, I’m just realistic. I don’t follow orders. I can be a decent person, give a good example. I can occasionally call someone out that crosses the line, but all that has a limited influence. Mainly because a) there aren’t a lot of problematic cases in my direct environment b) If there are (statistically there should be at least one or two), you have plenty of people who act different in front of people and abuse people behind closed doors, I don’t recognize them.

Things like this work well: ; because they can lead to legislative changes that result in fines (I think the current tariff is 250 €). It also helps to increase the understanding for other people. I used to go there quite a bit, nothing like that ever happens to me, I’m 6ft4 so my experience is entirely different to hers but seeing this made it more tangible. Also the evidence is quite evident so you don’t need to convince people, and let’s face it, it would probably also help you avoid the local idiots (although again I don’t think he would watch something like that) from responding but if it’s a beautiful man doing that, it isn’t sexual harassment …

Am I the only person here who gets the distinct impression that "Scott" has never actually had a conversation with a member of that exotic species known as women?

Many elements of the patriarchy arguably exist because of the past rather than contemporary issues/men, so as long as I'm not actively fighting equality, why should I support a cause which doesn't support the issues faced by my own gender?

Many elements of racism arguably exist because of the past rather than contemporary issues/white people, so as long as I'm not actively fighting equality, why should I support a cause which doesn't support the issues faced by my own race?

CritEqual

I'm happy to sincerely apologise for the shrieking blue bloody murder comment if it helps move the conversation foward, as upon reflection it was unfair and inflamatory and a very poor choice of words on my part. I'm not so convinced unhinged is innaccurate,

Which reads as : sorry but not really sorry because I still think you are unhinged for daring to raise the issue.

Perhaps you could reflect on why you immediately used the language you did when responding to a perfectly reasonable difference of opinion to yours when it was voiced by woman? Would you tell a man he was shrieking blue bloody murder when his opinion differs from yours?

Your misogyny is showing CritEqual

So yes we (men) are on top in patriarchy, but we are still trapped in those roles. Its our job as men to enumerate and name those traps, its not women's job to do as part of feminism. We can learn from feminism, but we can not tell it it has to look after us.
This

We could work out the best way of raising children ie in a strong two parent household..., and try to create structural incentives and education for boys and girls to reinforce what makes a good parent, and look at what is best for children?
And this

And what another poster said about the father having higher income at times and the mother having higher income at times, [and reversing it as necessary] because it goes in the 'the same pot'.

Cooperation, mutual respect, recognition of interdependence and solidarity.

Not me, me, me...

I think the fact as far as parenting vs career goes I don't think it's possible to do both well except in very privileged outlier cases. It's certainly not going to be achievable by the vast majority, and it's also good for the children themselves to have a sahp. Does that have to be a woman? No of course it doesn't, but I think it's past time we had a cultural conversation about people having it all.

Abandoning professional aspirations, personal growth, recognition, financial independence and 'embracing' household chores is not going to be popular with men, unless somehow secretly it is assumed that the conclusion from the "conversation" will be that women should be the stay at home parent... or the single parent.

Reversing the roles and spreading the unfairness of patriarchy to men is not going to remove the problem, although supposedly it could change the opinions and discourse of many men...

Surely the only sustainable solution is moving forward to a new sustainable balance, not trying to reverse into pre-industrial patriarchy or Gilead.

It's a specious argument to say childless people are freeloading off of parents labour in raising children. One can achieve the same by promoting, encouraging and voting for pro immigration policies. In fact it is by far and away the more ethical position to attempt to improve the lot of those human beings already on the planet than add to them. In fact society has no vested interest in having children that are biologically yours, the same economic and social benefits can be achieved by adopting orphans from third world countries or warzones.

This is so confused.

Whether children were raised in this or another country there is still an externality of free riding on parental labour with an additional immigration and global poverty dimension. Are you in favour of offering free charter flights into rich countries to those migrants that are drowning in the Mediterranean and camping on the streets of Tijuana?

more ethical position to attempt to improve the lot of those human beings already on the planet than add to them
That contradicts the first argument that you want to ignore supporting financially poor mothers (and children) that are already here and import children from abroad. You still assume new children will be born to service your pension, healthcare and provide labour for care services in your old age.

the same economic and social benefits benefits can be achieved by adopting orphans from third world countries
Yes, but adopted parents would have to contend with all the same problems of childcare, career and pay gap as natural parents do.