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.

If you mean people who live on the streets by 'tramp' come to London, I see far too many of them.

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

If by "tramp" you mean homeless person I can only assume you don't get out much and/or live in some rural idyll. You will certainly find them on the streets of London or Edinburgh.

Here are some statistics

www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/feb/14/homelessness-women-disadvantaged-channel-4-councils

scotland.shelter.org.uk/housing_policy/key_statistics/homelessness_facts_and_research

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Homeless%2520Link%2520-%2520analysis%2520of%2520rough%2520sleeping%2520statistics%2520for%2520England%25202017.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwijk9aDuZDfAhWvPOwKHQMBB3EQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3fgoNwP4b5RfCTatRBShNw" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Homeless%2520Link%2520-%2520analysis%2520of%2520rough%2520sleeping%2520statistics%2520for%2520England%25202017.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwijk9aDuZDfAhWvPOwKHQMBB3EQFjABegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3fgoNwP4b5RfCTatRBShNw

blog.shelter.org.uk/2018/03/on-international-womens-day-we-mustnt-ignore-homeless-women/

Roughly Shelter Scotland recorded around 46% of homeless as single males, 21% as single female.

Rough sleepers , meaning persons literally recorded sleeping on the street , are 11 to 14% female but it is recognised by the agencies concerned that that figure is skewed on the low side by rough female sleepers for safety reasons selecting out of way places to sleep and not being recorded.

The burgh of Camden has the highest number of female rough sleepers.

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

There was a young women who I assume to be homeless in my local town centre today.

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.

Got any recommendations- if you're doing something we could usefully emulate I'd be interested to hear.

Women staying with abusive men in order to prevent homelessness because they fear they'll be raped by even more men when sleeping on the streets (a quite reasonable fear) doesn't mean women are any better off than men.

Nor does women prostituting themselves to be able to afford a roof over their heads mean they are better off.

... and now I regret even going to the trouble of typing that post, as the OP clearly is a misogynist and undeserving of my time.

Ah well, perhaps lurkers profit from the information.

... and besides, you don't know from looking at a person whether they are homeless.
Women in particular do their best to wash regularly and not look like "a tramp".

"Tramp"?
Has this person escaped from the Road To Wigan Pier? The 1800s?

Does junior own a silk smoking jacket and a Tommy Cooper hat, and spend days in angst over every word before posting on here, saying "that'll show em", over and over again?

I lived rough for nearly a year aged 19, and I mean rough, not even sofa surfing.

I have a nice life these days. All my own work. No men or other animals were harmed in the making of my own way onwards and upwards.

So do jog on matey, pathetically posting on a Feminist board for days on end, moaning about how sad it all is, and how unfair.
Old stock. Yesterday's whinging poster, whose only thrill is through a keyboard.

Get a grip and a fucking life you sad git.
How's that for an intellectual analysis of your perspective of feminism?

BirdseyeFrozen if it were possible to "like" a post I would "like" yours.

Get a grip and a fucking life you sad git.
How's that for an intellectual analysis of your perspective of feminism?

Clear and concise. I like 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.......

Sorry I misunderstood, I thought you said that men collectively (in that I don't believe regarding male violence).

I can do (and do) the latter, as an individual (I just don't feel it makes a meaningful difference).

I also don't understand why people are arguing about partnering. There are clear statistics. The jest of it all atm:

In the primary dating market (university etc...); you'll mostly find couples with a similar SES (socio-economical-status; mostly because of the proximity similar people keep meeting each other). The issue atm (and I mainly use statistics from the Netherlands and Belgium since I do most of my work here; but I don't think they will be a lot different for the U.K.) is that there are more highly educated women than men being produced; and a lot of the women are reluctant to down date (date a man with a lower education level). It's a genuine problem, especially in cities like Utrecht- 135 highly educated women for 100 men (it's also a problem for single older highly educated women, since they are starting to venture in their dating pool). On the other hand; if you're a man with a high education level it's good.

It gets more interesting on the secondary partner market (after a divorce, end of a relationship etc...). Repartnering (if you want to google). Here you'll see that (highly) educated men preferably choose a woman with a lower education level/or income level; a lot of the time younger (since physical attraction is more important to men). So that group finds highly educated men, and the highly educated women find themselves on a secondary partner market that's already very scarce.

Same with children; children have a bigger influence on the (statistical) attractiveness of a woman than that of a man (the current theory is because women have to do most of the childcare, so the men are more free to do what they want so they are seen as less of a burden). For women with a higher education level and older than 35 it's relatively difficult to find a new partner. So men have to stop complaining that it's more difficult to find a partner; from a certain age it's clearly more difficult for women. Especially for the highly educated (and older) women (less for the lower variety), this is a "problem" (or not really, depending on how you look at it. They can be happy single). So now they are actively developing all sorts of new needs for this group of women; since they have a lot of money to spend. Very short and simplified summary.

[if you want you can watch a youtube video: about it from a sociology professor –it’s in Dutch though – but he explains it in quite a simple fashion and the title is also a bit provocative: “Why are smart women unable to find a new partner?”. As usual, the comments are full of men complaining that they can’t find a girlfriend, and some successful women claiming different but for some reason they refuse to grasp that they aren’t the sole measure of things.

Brel
Stop posting from Walloon to English via google translate, life's too short, and go and get a beer son.

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.

Most of the people in a position to do something about this - senior politicians, media figures, heads of charitable organisations etc - are men. Surely you should be asking what they are doing about all of the above, instead of whining because feminists, whose focus is the welfare of women (the clue's in the name) aren't paying enough attention to you?

Admit it, you don't care about homeless men or male suicide. If you did, you'd be trying to do something about it instead of demanding women do it for you. You're so transparent. Do you honestly think we don't all see right through you?

That's an unfair comment BirdseyeFrozen. The points being made by Brel in that last post are quite clear.

The clear points from the research described by Brel just confirm with facts the well familiar stereotype that men at certain age start looking for younger women who would be financially dependent on them and be of not very high educational level less intellectually challenging. Sexism in its prime.

I suppose it could be the status pursuit of toxic masculinity, the desire for a trophy partner, the need to prop their damaged self esteem. But some part of it, especially given that those men looking for secondary partner have separated from the first one, it would be interesting to research why did they really separated. Part of it could be that they are looking for a wife that would service and enable them. They don't want to 'share' sacrifices, they want to be supported.

This might be showing that the idea to reverse the patriarchal model onto men, to make men to sacrifice their careers in the same way as women do is not going to work. Many if not most would just leave and create a single mother family, simply because they can.

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).

I am sorry, but I don't think the problems that women face have anything to do with choice. Absence of choice is exactly the problem. And the fact that it is presented as choice in the public discourse, while it is a structural disadvantage due to biology, culture, and organisation of work historically designed for men.

The core, the essence of the problem, of the pay gap is that women don't have the choice, only men do. To have the choice, women should be willing to walk away from their children.

Women don't make this choice for a range of good reasons, some would argue women don't have the luxury of the choice, they have to get on with it otherwise nobody else will.

Women have to start thinking of employers with flexible hours, accessible location, 'not too stressful' and what's it. Once at home for childcare, forced into the 'slow lane' career, there is no discussion of division of labour. It becomes very clear who does what.

There is also a huge societal pressure. Just image a career woman who walked away from her children. She will be judged and penalised, including in her career by women and men, everyone who would come to know the fact.

Men who walk away from their children just 'fall out of love' or become 'incompatible'.

I think there is some danger of considering the issues of gender pay gap and generally women in employment with purely economical approach, as issue of choice and division of labour because it is not necessarily a free choice, it ignores or fails to value important hidden factors and externalities. An economic model that declares children as a frivolous lifestyle choice cannot be valid. Before you realise you can be seen arguing for a frightening dystopian society where children is a luxury accessible for the few, you actually talk yourself into Gilead.

And I don't see why anyone would want to immigrate into such a place if you consider coherently all of the likely features of such a society.

In Australia it’s women over 65 who have had the most increase in homelessness in the last census.

But you don’t actually care. as anytime someone provides you with information which doesn’t marry up to your view you bait and switch with some other bullshit argument