Why should men support feminism?

Pumkinsoup I addressed your point and suggested the optimal model is both parents working part time.

I posted this on another thread, but this is spot on here.

Because for most people having children is an act of philanthropy, right?
Children are “public good”, a positive externality to society. Raising children is an essential public service. Childless people are free-riding on parental labour.

Here are some elements:
crookedtimber.org/2005/03/30/are-children-public-goods/

Critics often assert that parental leave, public child care, and other family support programs force society to pay for people’s private choices. If parents do not want to bear this burden, they should not have children in the first place, rather than foisting the costs onto everyone else. Nancy Folbre, an economist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, counters these claims by arguing that children are like public goods. While parents bear most of the costs of raising children, to the extent that children grow into productive, tax-paying citizens, they create positive externalities that benefit the rest of society. People who contribute little time or money to the raising of children essentially free-ride on the parental labor of others. As she wrote in the American Prospect a few years ago:

“[Children] grow up to be taxpayers, workers, and citizens. The claims we collectively enforce on their income will help finance our national debt and fund Social Security and Medicare. Even if all the intergenerational transfers in our tax system were eliminated, leaving all us baby boomers to rely on our own bank accounts in old age, we would need to hire the younger generation to debug our computers and help us into our wheelchairs.”

To those who say having children is a private choice, much like deciding to get a pet, I’ve heard Folbre trenchantly respond, “Yes, but will your golden retriever pay for your Social Security?”

www.dissentmagazine.org/article/children-as-a-public-good
I can’t access the full article, but here is a part:

Certainly, parents have primary responsibility for meeting the needs of their children; the argument here is that meeting children’s needs should be a collective responsibility as well. Although parents reap the rewards of well-reared children (emotional rather than economic rewards in this day and age), children whose needs have been met confer benefits as well on society as a whole. We need to make a reality of the rhetoric that sees children as our most valuable asset.

As an economist, I argue that children must be considered a public good whose welfare and education need to be addressed collectively. In other words, it really does take a village to raise a child. A public good is one whose provision confers externalities-benefits beyond those accruing to the direct beneficiaries.

Who should pay for the kids?
Because the production of children's capabilities creates a public good that cannot be priced in the market, individuals can free ride on the efforts of parents in general and mothers in particular. We need to redesign the social contract in ways that encourage more sustainable forms of intergenerational altruism and reciprocity.

One thing that’s recently been ticking over for me is that 50-60 years ago most families could live on one wage. Now most families need two wages. Wouldn’t real progress be 2 part time workers per family? Although that’s not feminism per day but rather a critical look at capitalism

This thread must adress the issue of children being a 'choice', supposedly of women.

Having children is a choice, not a right. I've no desire to have children and we live in a hugely overpopulated world anyhow.

Because for most people having children is an act of philanthropy, right?

Scott, what would happen to the stock market and all the businesses if a news broke out that there will be no children anymore?

Did you ever use / benefit from a public service such as healthcare, education, policing, defence, rubbish collection? They are all financed by debt for the future generations, i.e. children.

Do you ever expect to use healthcare or pension? Those too depend on contributions of the younger generations.

Even if you are personally unaware of your use of these services, the society would break down, would be poorer, including you, if none of those facilities were available. We would be in 18 century still.

Significant part of the economy depends on children, the products and services that exist because of parenthood.

I don’t agree with purely monetary economic analysis which always tends to overlook the important externalities and intangible benefits and costs.

We benefit in older age from innovations and technologies invented by the younger generation.

Having children is being human. There are emotional and social benefits of having children in society, from the intergenerational mix. Like the ‘old people’s home for 4 years olds’. It upholds our human values and norms, enables to project to the future, having hope.

more childcare - but it might not be popular with those without kids

I think this points needs addressing on many levels. It is at the core of the disadvantage women experience.

All the consequences and costs of maternity and parenting are presumed to be private costs of families and assigned to women, that women's parental and homemaking labour is taken for granted and assumed to be free, valued at nothing, while at the same time women are expected to be economically independent and earn their living on the par with men.

There is an externality there. Huge proportion of maternal work is not recognised economically and sharing it equally with men without recognising the economic value of parenting results in spreading the unfairness and can actually lead to an even worse situation where neither the mother nor the father are able to cope, both incomes go down, they are both unable to provide and part time precarious work destroys the satisfaction and mental health of all. The race to the bottom for both sexes.

Speaking of feminism as a pursuit of fairness for all women and all the society generally, this issue of invisible costs of parenthood and childcare should be re-examined.

Each family / couple has to deal with the dilemma of childcare and a fulfilling career. Not wishing to take anything away from individual choices and experiences, on the conceptual level the problem with the example above from SarahCare is that a model that is perceived to be oppressive and restricting for women is being transposed to men.

The model where a parent has to stay at home, forgo alternative career aspirations and supply free labour while being entirely dependent on the working partner. If it is unfair for women, how is it fair for men?

how one can give full commitment to two conflicting things
Why are these things conflicting? Single mothers have to do both. What perpetuates the conflict? What does 'full commitment' means and why is it a thing? It is based on the assumption that there is a spouse at home servicing the ‘committed’ worker for free whom the ‘economy’ does not need to take into account..

Michelle Obama , Prinston graduate, lawyer in top law firm on ‘leaning in’: “That whole, ‘So you can have it all.’ Nope, not at the same time,” she said. “That’s a lie. And it’s not always enough to lean in, because that shit doesn’t work all the time.”

Let's also remember that the female exec may well consider the barman if he demonstrates maturity, stimulating conversation, an understanding of the challenges she faces in this world, shared values and interests. Arguably she is more likely to find this in someone she meets at work or at night class than in a bar. Now the male exec who chooses to date the female bar attendant. I wonder whether he has a similar set of criteria?

This considered, one could reasonably argue that women help in reinforcing the notion that men must be successful to be of worth.

You are barking up the wrong tree, mate. The women who reinforce this are the ones who expect their man to pay for the insanely expensive engagement ring, and anything else for that matter. That is not feminism.
But let's be honest here, it doesn't take women for men to compete amongst themselves for the faster car, the bigger house, the longer dick and - the 'hotter chick'.
The same guys who will rant on and on about the insane stuff those darn materialistic women demand of them wouldn't be caught dead with a feminist who dresses on her own terms and not in order to function as a status symbol for a man.

Scott shall I list the things that those years have accomplished?

The vote for women
The right to own property
The right to hold a bank account
The right to keeping working after the marriage
The right for men to take paternity leave
The right to sit on juries
The right of women to be in the military.
The ending of anti homosexuality laws
The right for same sex marriage.

Shall I go on the the stuff women have done?

I'm sure you don't think we live in a feminist paradise, Scott. Women have to make the choices available to them and make the best decisions in the current system. Not all choices women make will be ones they would like to make, or ones they consider to be their ideal feminist choice. And goodness knows many many men don't make any of their choices with the equality of women in mind.

Hi Scott. In fact, you are incorrect. Women do not actually practice "hypergamy" as envisioned by men's rights activitsts. However many people male and female surely do prefer to marry someone who is similar to them and possibly higher status in terms of wealth. Because, duh - why wouldn't you want to? I don't see how this is something that only women do, nor that women inevitably choose "higher status" men.

You really think that given an otherwise equal choice (which of course, no choice ever is) a man would not choose to marry a woman with, say, inheritance over one that has no inheritance? Of course not. And in fact "Marrying down" is frowned upon in a classist patriarchal society, whatever your sex.

However, the practical fact is that marrying up is much more common among women because of the practical fact that men hold most of the power/status/wealth in society. Thus, the MRA fantasy is realized... and lo! the wimmin are golddiggers! Because it is statistically impossible for them not to be! But let's ignore that!

There's reasonable evidence that men have been selected in the homonid lineage (most likely via sexual and social selection) to be gentler, more nurturing, and more monogamous than in the ancestral condition. Things like reduced physical sex dimorphism and more gracile characteristics, tend to evolve in such cases. This likely occurred due to a necessity to better provision young via pair-bond type relationships (e.g. mothers alone had less success than mothers and fathers working together). So perhaps you can blame females or monogamy for improving males prosocial behaviors instead of insisting we are only selecting for rich bullies.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that women prefer rich men. I knew one friend for whom earning potential was a factor in her consideration. Literally one. Most of my female friends found their husbands began out-earning them after they had kids. I would suggest to you that there is potentially a correlation between being appealing to other people and being appealing to employers/investors. I would also suggest that blaming others for your own failure is quite an unattractive feature.

surely women as a class hold at least some of the responsibility for challenging the idea that a rich, powerful man is the inherently worthier mate. been doing this for fucking years mate. Years and bloody years. If you can’t be bothered to see it that’s fine but stop blaming women for your failure to engage in the work they’ve been doing. Get your bloody house in order first. We are not here for your benefit. If you are unhappy with the world and how it treats men go and do something about it.

Women are the root of all evils, is that what you're getting at, Scott? Sounds familiar.

I have worked in many places where men have to deal with significantly higher expectations and without the same degree of support that female colleagues got. In such places men tend to be quite pro feminism, though by the nature of the circumstances the route to equality would only ever be by worsening conditions for the female members of staff...

Oh and can I suggest you have a think about capitalism and patriarchy. It’s important not to throw the two in together.

Scott the thing is you are ignoring all the work women have already done to make life better for men already.

It’s good you have realised that you haven’t really thought about it. Now why don’t you pick up a couple of books about feminism and educate yourself rather than making women do it for you.

"why should men support feminists in their struggles if feminists aren't interested in supporting men with theirs"

The same answer applies. Irrespective of whether your accusation is even true. And you really really don't comprehend the need for feminism if you genuinely think that women need to support men with their struggles.