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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

I'd agree that men may prefer somebody from a similar background - i.e. middle class guys unlikely to marry a 'chav'. I'd also imagine that the tiny percentage of very exceptional men who are CEOs may prefer dating women who understand the huge commitment they must invest in their job.

However, actual salary is less of a constraint for women than it is men. A woman on a decidedly average/lowish salary isn't judged in the same way as a man and is unlikely to have it impact her dating possibilities.

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.

The same is not true for unexceptional men and you don't see many being bankrolled by a rich wife. I know feminists are the ones challenging this dynamic but it doesn't make it any less of a reality.

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.

Ok...

Best mate no.1 = successful family business, wife is a Marketing Asst.

Best mate no.2 = MD of small but successful SME consultancy business, partner is a Sales Team Leader.

Best mate 3 - Head of Sourcing EMEA, wife earns £30k as a copy writer.

Sister - decent £35k job but now part time with husband earning circa £100k as a director in distribution co.

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

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

"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!!

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.

A wonderful article

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

I accidentally caught part of an interview with the Hart brothers on the radio recently - I'm guessing it was during World at One but not sure and no idea which day - well worth a listen if you can find it.

1. "if feminists are focusing on the issues affecting them negatively (workplace etc) but ignoring the areas where men fare worst - .."

Perhaps when women get a level playing field, they can turn their attention back to fighting for whatever men say they need. Men don't really need to fight for areas that benefit them most - they're already there. What you need to fight for is equality, and that means not just that women get a level playing field, but that men are able to (for example) take time off to attend to family needs. Allowing women access to jobs that have traditionally been set aside for men means that the loads will be shared. There is a benefit to men here.

"Many elements of the patriarchy arguably exist because of the past rather than contemporary issues/men......" that may be so, (and I disagree) but just as with any other forms of historical privilege, men continue to benefit from the patriarchy and usually take measures (in the form of discriminatory work practices) to underpin and maintain it.

men are able to (for example) take time off to attend to family needs

Men already have this right though. They always have.

You should focus on that. Male violence has a lot to answer for and you sorting that out would immediately erase many issues that women have to focus on. Cheers!

Noteven - thanks for sharing. I’ve thought of whether to jump career and it’s hard to go into the unknown, especially with kids and mortgage. Taking a few tentative steps with job application... fortunately hubby is supportive. I’m not too bothered about an interesting career anymore - just a less stressful, manageable one!

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.

I totally agree with that statement, CritEqual.

I was more commenting on the fact that one needs a very specific set of skills and qualities to be a successful CEO.

1. "if feminists are focusing on the issues affecting them negatively (workplace etc) but ignoring the areas where men fare worst - .."
Perhaps when women get a level playing field, they can turn their attention back to fighting for whatever men say they need. Men don't really need to fight for areas that benefit them most - they're already there. What you need to fight for is equality, and that means not just that women get a level playing field, but that men are able to (for example) take time off to attend to family needs. Allowing women access to jobs that have traditionally been set aside for men means that the loads will be shared. There is a benefit to men here.

"Many elements of the patriarchy arguably exist because of the past rather than contemporary issues/men......" that may be so, (and I disagree) but just as with any other forms of historical privilege, men continue to benefit from the patriarchy and usually take measures (in the form of discriminatory work practices) to underpin and maintain it.

I'm not denying that women face many unique disadvantages which are possibly more universal than those which men face.

However, I rarely see mention outside of MRA gotcha lists of the many areas which men are disadvantaged in - homelessness, suicide, etc. And not many people batted an eyelid about us working for more years whilst generally experiencing a shorter lifespan before it was changed, for example.

I think many feminists seem to follow society in focusing on the top few and ignoring the voiceless, powerless guys at the bottom - the ones who shake a cup of change at you as you walk past on the way to your office job.

Which makes me reflect that I can't actually remember the last time I saw a female tramp...