Why should men support feminism?

[ScottCheggJnr]

Although I personally support equality in the workplace etc, when I think about it objectively it's not a straightforward situation.

Although we often hear that feminism is about equality, the overwhelming consensus seems to be that it's solely about achieving equality for women and focusing on their problems (this is certainly evident in practice).

So the question is....if feminists are focusing on the issues affecting them negatively (workplace etc) but ignoring the areas where men fare worst (suicide/murder/assault/etc) then why shouldn't us men just be focusing on the areas where we fare worse and celebrating the areas where we experience benefit?

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?

This is a genuine question.

CritEqual/Brel,

You both make some very good points which I largely agree with. I'm glad that you can see where I'm coming from as I was a little worried I'd lost the baby with the bathwater by getting into a petty squabble again!

I certainly don't mean to downplay the violence that men commit, but I personally don't know many violent men and have steered clear of the few I've met in my life, as any sensible person would. I honestly don't know how I'd go about changing this type of behaviour outside of setting a good example, and in all honesty I'm just a guy trying to get by in the world like everyone else.

I don't doubt that these types of men are probably drawn to others of a similar mindset (e.g people who will laugh at their misogynistic jokes etc and tolerate violent/xenophobic behaviour) so it's likely the case that those men who are in the position to challenge this behaviour are sadly also the likely to be the ones who condone it.

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

With all due respect, if you haven't read the context of my question and are replying at face value you've almost certainly missed the point entirely.

ScottCheggJnr the thread was not the context for your question and you have ignored most of the responses yourself.

Well first of all video games do not cause violence, study after study has found that to be the case, so sallying forth with a lot of wanting to take men's toys away from them with little to no evidence to back it up achieve's what exactly??

I think it's lazy in the extreme to just take a bunch of stuff a lot of men seem to like, and shriek blue bloody murder about it makes you look unhinged and out of touch with reality.

I'd give you the porn thing (where you to have brought it up!), it's pretty solidly backed up by the data that it's unhealthy and leads to all manner of dysfunctions, poor relationships and quite frankly despicable things done to a lot of women in the name entertainment.

If you want to know the biggest predictor of where most masculine dysfunction lies it's from growing up in single parent families. Now that's not to say all men who grow up in single parent families are destined to violence but all manner of things like likliehood of ending up in prison, suicide and a tonne of other things corrolate with this. It's also not ideal for little girls either for what it's worth!

Now where I have a big problem with feminism, (and fwiw MRA's too in a mirror like fashion!) is they seem to just want to blame this all on deadbeat dads, I understand it's a sacred cow of feminism to never hold women responsible for their own actions, or at the very least interpret every female choice or action as occuring under the oppressive strictures of a dominating male patriarchy, therefore freeing any and all women of moral responsbility of everything but the very worst of the worst behaviour. MRA's too for their part want to demonize ALL single mothers and letting off any man from their responsibility.

Do you think there is any chance men and women collectively could have a bit of a sit down and do what they were always going to have to in the end and talk with one another? Without arming up the constant blamethrowers and point it at the other side? We could work out the best way of raising children ie in a strong two parent household (I literally couldn't give the figgiest of figs wether it's a man or woman that does this!!), 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?

Well, it's pretty difficult to respond when you have multiple posters trying to pull you in different directions and there's only one of you. Furthermore, it's a common tactic on here (alongside posting recipes) to derail an 'unfavourable' topic by bombarding the OP with questions and demanding responses (which then receive further questions).

If you want to know the biggest predictor of where most masculine dysfunction lies it's from growing up in single parent families.

Interestingly, we discussed this on here a few weeks back.

I wasn't attempting to condemn single mothers (who I appreciate often have a hard time) but was talking about it in connection to the assertion that women don't have much influence over male behaviour, which I disagree with when motherhood is taken into account.

So many invented "studies, such a lack of genuine sources or authorities to support them.

"I think it's lazy in the extreme to just take a bunch of stuff a lot of men seem to like, and shriek blue bloody murder about it makes you look unhinged and out of touch with reality."
You know what's lazy in the extreme? Taking something woman has said quite calmly and reasonably and characterise it as "
sheieking blue bloody murder" and "looking unhinged". Is there any emreason you think people might want to engage with you after that?

Is there any reason you think people might want to engage with you after that?

I for one am quite surprised that he thinks women want to engage with him after he quite clearly stated that he is only interested in supporting women's rights if there's something in it for him.

It is quite strange that he sticks around and expects cookies for ... I am not sure, offering to stop participating in patriarchal oppression if we volunteer to do unpaid labour for him individually, or men in general?

Like a plantation owner who goes to his neighbour's slaves and tells them he'll free them from slavery if they and all the children they ever have will then do fulltime unpaid work on his plantation in all eternity out of gratitude, and voluntarily let him whip them because he gets off on it. Which is totally different from slavery.

Any woman tell me if I misunderstood something there?

Sounds a fair summary to me Hestia

Point of order I completely missed that Betrand HAD indeed mentioned porn but for some reason my mind edited it out in my reply, apologies.

Asserting some things without evidence isn't reasonable. However if we're going to move foward as a society it's more important that we engage with those we disagree with probably more than engaging with those that we do. No need to be friends or send each other Christmas cards or anything.

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, as I said before just taking activities men do and correlating that with male violence with no attempt to connect the two is not rational, but am happy to agree on the porn thing as I've said before. There are clear links between pornography and dysfunction.

Because is not about equality, letting women be treated like men, its about liberating women from oppression by system patriarchy.

As Robert Webb said in How Not To Be a Boy.

"‘The Trick’ is the family code-word for the incoming tide of gender bullshit that Ezzie, Dory and their friends (including the boys) will spend their lives wading through. The idea that boys and girls, men and women, have different roles to play in life according to the different contributions they make to a shared reproductive system is one they are going to have to deal with whether we like it or not. So they might as well have a name for it. You may think that introducing the idea of ‘the patriarchy’ into the minds of small children is the ultimate in liberal overkill."

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.

CritEqual

"If you want to know the biggest predictor of where most masculine dysfunction lies it's from growing up in single parent families. Now that's not to say all men who grow up in single parent families are destined to violence but all manner of things like likliehood of ending up in prison, suicide and a tonne of other things corrolate with this. It's also not ideal for little girls either for what it's worth!"

Isn't there also a correlation of growing up poor? Which does potentially fit with many single parent families.

Isn't there also a correlation of growing up poor? Which doespotentiallyfit with many single parent families.

Yes, I've no doubt that male violence is influenced by socioeconomic status.

CritEqual- glad to see you’re prepared to withdraw the “shrieking” and “blue arsed fly” remarks, if not the “unhinged” one.

Could you say why anyone should be interested in discussing anything with you when they were the first words that came into your head when a woman made a perfectly reasonable, pretty low key remark?

Why are single parent families poor?

Isn't that because single mothers cannot reconcile childbirth and care with high paying careers, free childcare is unavailable and the gender pay gap exists, especially at the low sills end, because the work those women do is is valued at next to nothing? Because caring and household tasks are assumed to be available for free?

Why are single mothers single? Why did the father leave or were kicked out?

Taxation going to single mothers was mentioned, but why don't we hear anything about compelling absent fathers to pay their due?

CritEqual, why aren't you arguing for absent fathers to give half of their income to their estranged children?

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.

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.

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...

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

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?

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?

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 …

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.......