Why should men support feminism?

My adult daughter says that a man saying he's a feminist is a red flag

She should take a look at the concept of 'moral licensing' or 'self licensing' (I've mentioned this elsewhere a couple of times recently)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-licensing

Give me the man who challenges other men for their behaviour any time.

Exactly! I'll take the man who pisses on his buddies' misogynyst jokes/talk/actions parade over the self declared 'feminist' any time.

My adult daughter says that a man saying he's a feminist is a red flag
Definitely my experience, and I'm in my sixties and have heard enough of them declaring it. All opinionated, puffed up toads, in my experience.

Give me the man who challenges other men for their behaviour any time.

My adult daughter sAys that a man saying he's a feminist is a red flag.

I will say I have made better experiences with men who did not make these kinds of self-declarations but just happened to have compatible views - like rejecting prostitution from a male point of view, because, obviously if someone has sex with you for money, she doesn't really want it, and having sex with someone who does not want to have sex with you is a huge turn-off. As opposed to the 'woke feminist' who was convinced for women in prostitution it was all about free choice and following their calling.

She's right! I mean, I wish I didn't have to say that, but I've met enough "male feminists" to side-eye them.

My adult daughter sAys that a man saying he's a feminist is a red flag.

Micaela - I overheard a young lad on the bus saying to his friend "You have to be a feminist these days, it's the only way you can get any hole"

I know this wasn't the point of your post, but god if only that were actually true.

You know, if I was part of a class that was responsible for 98% of all violent crime, I would certainly My be thinking about whether there was anything I could do to change that. I wouldn't -I hope-be focussing on the fact that I, personally hadn't beaten anyone up recently.

I overheard a young lad on the bus saying to his friend "You have to be a feminist these days, it's the only way you can get any hole"

Do men oppress women?

Do men benefit from this?

Why would men work to end an oppression that they benefit from?

Who benefits from women’s oppression, supposing it’s not men?

Haven't read the thread, will just answer the question:

Because it's the right thing to do.

Period.

A man who needs any other (more selfish, I assume) reason is not worth talking to.

I don't walk around asking why I, as a white person, should oppose racism. I don't complain that people of colour who fight racism aren't interested in my white person problems. Because I am at least trying to be a decent person.

Do you want to be a decent person, OP? Then you'll support women's liberation. Without asking how it will benefit you.

"I predict the next quantum leap in the advancement of women in society will be the medical breakthrough allowing women to put off having children in the same way as men."

Women already can have children later in life, donor egg assisted conception and adoption.

Let's be honest though, as an older mum, having children later in life is knackering!

Instead lets not penalize women for Being the so men's who give birth. It's not a difficult concept.

Men as a class have to be constantly responsible for a few men dominating at the top end and then the many more failing at the bottom end who succumb to violence and crime, who it must be said are far far more likely to murder and assault other men than they are women.

Men are a class? Really?
Then you go on to talk about how social constructs of masculinity harm men and women. Why not talk about how men should strive to construct healthier masculinities?
( I don't mean by going to the gym, incidentally.)

Also Scott you would be much better actually devoting yourself to supporting other men than arguing with feminists. I have no need to make you an advocate for our sex. You do your thing to help the men who can't help themselves. I will continue to advocate for both men and women to have high quality part time work opportunities.

It depends on how you define support. If you mean active support that requires effort (e.g: developing a diversity policy …). I don’t. Women are more than able and activism doesn’t suit me (e.g: I’m a vegetarian, I don’t bother people with it).

I treat it like a toolbox, with some useful theories and concepts that can make someone a better person. I enjoy reading about it; it’s nice to see things from a different angle. E.g: there is a Dutch sociologist, that identifies as a radical feminist, I really appreciate. I don’t limit myself to gender appropriate activities. I behave like a decent person and treat other people accordingly (regardless of sex/whatever). Good enough for me. For sure I’ve suffered from ‘toxic masculinity’, causing a brief period of mental health issues (over now, but let’s be honest it always lingers since you always have to be vigilant). This enhanced my empathy for people who suffer, but I like to help on an individual scale (type something anonymously on a mental health part of a forum or similar; I’m relatively useless with wording my feelings so I can’t really help much- I do try though). I’ve always been surrounded by strong women, none of them need my help (bar the occasional picking up or something). Wonder how that works, when you’re in a relationship with an activist feminist (or socialist, etc…). What’s good for the both of you, isn’t always good for women in general (or society). Sounds hard work, and a difficult balance to strike.

The assumption that part time work has to mean a slower career progression is part of the problem. I am at a fortunate point in my career where I can facilitate the offer of high quality well paid part time work to others with no detriment to their careers. Male or female, parent or non parent. There are a great many careers that can be delivered just as effectively on a part time basis as on a full time basis.

@ScottCheggJnr
Because it's a man's problem.

It's a man's problem [Edited by MNHQ at OP's request] http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3442504-Its-a-mans-problem-Edited-by-MNHQ-at-OPs-request

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.

In addition how in chuffing hell can a system of enforcing part time work be achieved? Again if someone through choice or circumstances is childless, and has fewer familial commitments and thus more time to devote to a career it stands to reason they will likely rise further and faster simply by dint of greater experience. Or are we proposing removing the choice for people to work more than part time? As that sounds utterly daft!?

The more I think about it the more I think the OP is onto something here. Men as a class have to be constantly responsible for a few men dominating at the top end and then the many more failing at the bottom end who succumb to violence and crime, who it must be said are far far more likely to murder and assault other men than they are women.

A lot is made of the gender pay gap, but what of the gender tax gap? We see a wealth transfer from men to women, so yeah a deadbeat dad who bails and pays nothing to the upkeep of his own children, and that's all we hear about, but what of all the men who by quietly paying their taxes like mild little lambs are funding the welfare state?

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.

I was going to end there but one biological fact occurs to me, the one simple unavoidable fact is any man can forestall the having of children until much later in life. Can establish a career, THEN set about the process of raising a family. Unfortunately for women the prime years for childbearing coincide with with the prime years of career building. Is this the fault of the patriarchy? No. Is it going to have a colossal impact on the choices of women relative to men? Yes. Will that impact have societal implication? Yes.

I predict the next quantum leap in the advancement of women in society will be the medical breakthrough allowing women to put off having children in the same way as men.

See, Scott, I indeed enjoyed staying home with baby for the first seven months. Just like the baby‘s dad enjoyed staying home with baby the following 7 months.

It is just a matter of policies to make this more widely possible.

Pumpkin and IC
not all part time work is gig economy jobs. It is becoming more common but I think some sectors are better than others. Healthcare is quite good for it, some academia (mentioned above), software (in parts).

I think higher housing cost, raised expectations and reduced family networks are behind why we ‘need’ 2 salaries. In the past people let kids go unsupervised a lot - some kids were harmed because of this, but many were fine. We are a lot more cautious now and nurseries have to have defined ratios of staff to pupils, sometimes mixes of male/female staff for trips.

People lived close to relatives and sahm’s would care for elderly people (who often lived with them) and grandparents would help with children. Children started apprenticeships at 16 (or 14 depending on era) so decreasing public and private cost of further education. People were not entitled to as much annual leave but worked less anti social hours.

Public cost of health has ballooned because we can do more to treat more conditions that we didn’t before.

Reducing housing cost would really help and living with/close to relatives (though when they have health problems they would need to be cared for).

Pumpkinsoup The only potential risk with both parents going part time is a dilution of one good well paid job into two low paid gig economy jobs, a race to the bottom in which the pay gap is levelled down and the parental labour remains unrecognised.

Oh yes totally that is a huge issue. I donlt think swapping to both parents doing part time at an individual level is the solution. My thoughts are more how have we come to a place where we have to work so many more hours to feed and house a family? What are the alternatives? What could it look like? Thoughts really rather than a concrete suggestion.

Scott you want us to explain stuff to you but can't be bothered to explain your thoughts back? Nar fuck that for a game of soldiers

Er, did you post on the wrong thread, or wrong board, or something??!!

SleightOfMind

"Which world would you like to grow old in?"

That's a bloody good question to think about.

*SleightOfHand gave an analogy suggesting that my argument was 'why not just be an unrepentant misogynist?'

I gave an analogy proposing that it was more like saying 'why support the cause of an ideology which doesn't hold your best interests at heart?'

Both were slightly ridiculous and OTT analogies.*

You missed out the last bit of my post - the more interesting question:

Which world would you like to grow old in?