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.

How silly we are to try to ensure the human race continues.

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

You do know women couldn't always vote?? Think about that for a second. We were not allowed vote.

Whilst I agree that everybody should have their say in the running of the country, most people forget to acknowledge (or don't know) that the average man didn't get the vote until around the time women did. Previously, it was earned through military service, like the many men who lost their lives/limbs in WW1. Maybe think about them for a second. In fact, I believe that in the US boys still have to sign up for the draft to get state college funding.

And many of the women initially pushing for the vote were rich and privileged and were likely not doing it for the benefit of their working class sisters, even if it did ultimately have a favourable outcome.

Ok, so you don't really know why there's a pay gap, and it seems like you believe it's essentially because women choose it due to not wanting to prioritise their careers.

I don't think you've really tried to think about what people here are saying about that "choice" and the fact that men can also choose to have a family, whilst having someone at home who prioritises that family, whilst continuing their career.

Oh goodness. The longer you "debate" the more your contempt for women shows. You really don't like women much, do you, and you seem to really resent our existence.

I don't think you've really tried to think about what people here are saying about that "choice" and the fact that men can also choose to have a family, whilst having someone at home who prioritises that family, whilst continuing their career.

I don't think you've taken my points on board either.

I'm saying that for many women the current situation is seemingly not a problem. Of course, most women will profess to want equality when asked, but conversely many seem happy once married to leave the corporate slog to their partner whilst they embrace motherhood (which many seem to enjoy rather than seeing as some huge burden or sacrifice like you make it sound).

As I said, I believe most people see a job as a means to an ends, and most are not dreaming of becoming a CEO and 'smashing the patriarchy'.

Interestingly, one of the common MRA gripes you hear is that men don't have a choice, in that once a condom breaks and their girlfriend becomes pregnant they have no control over whether they are to be a father and be involuntarily committed to significant financial responsibilities which they may not have wanted.

It's interesting too that SAHDs have a much higher statistical chance of their partner filing for divorce. 🤔

Odfod.

No, I'd rather stay here and counter your insults with facts and intelligent debate. 👍

The stastistics seem to suggest that when the roles are reversed the wife is less likely to be happy in the relationship (dare I say because the man becomes 'redundant').

And think about the women who were killed in the First World War? Also think of the women who took up work that typically men did and did them very well.

You do understand that people are all different and change with different situations such as having children. Absolutely some women want to stay at home and some don't. Some want to work part time. Companies typically don't offer men flexibility when it comes to childcare. It often falls to women to take up the slack.

And you know what people can change their mind in relation to any of the scenarios mentioned above - it's called being human

Good stuff. When are you going to start?

Scott one issue that effects girls is period poverty. That is girls not attending school because they can’t afford sanity protection. This means they miss out on education. This happens in both developed and developing countries. What do you think men should do about it?

Well, I'm making an effort, Trucking, which is more than can be said for your lazy insults.

I've actually got no issues with the majority of women who I know and I've many female friends in fact. What I do have an issue with is the minority who try and set a benchmark for all other women. It'll no doubt be denied but many women on here have pointed out that some feminists are not very kind to SAHM, carers, and women who don't want to prioritise a corporate leadership role.

Scott one issue that effects girls is period poverty. That is girls not attending school because they can’t afford sanity protection. This means they miss out on education. This happens in both developed and developing countries. What do you think men should do about it?

A slightly different discussion, but I'd have no issue with supporting a move to address this whether by increasing funding or relevant petitioning etc.

But on the whole girls are still doing better in education and the gap seems to be widening.

Hmm, you've posted all these points before Scott.

But on the whole girls are still doing better in education and the gap seems to be widening.

Why do you think that is?

Assassinated - can’t women also choose to have a family with the man staying at home and prioritising child care? I understand that the gender pay gap works against this. But on the other hand the tax system incentivises both people part time working and men sometimes have a harder time getting flexible working.

Scott - Men who feel oppressed by society’s expectations should perhaps support feminism as feminists are theoretically less likely to think that the male should provide? Maybe some have the opinion that career should be placed ahead of stay at home parenting/hobbies/exercise for both sexes. It’s about finding someone who matches your priorities. Some women do want to know a guy’s salary, car and house before dating - i’m not sure they would make good partners though.

Interestingly, one of the common MRA gripes you hear is that men don't have a choice, in that once a condom breaks and their girlfriend becomes pregnant they have no control over whether they are to be a father and be involuntarily committed to significant financial responsibilities which they may not have wanted.

Men do have a choice, they don't have to have PIV sex. They do have control over where their ejaculate ends up. It takes sperm to get a woman pregnant, or does every MRA think that 'every sperm is sacred'?

Or, and here's a novel idea, they can have a vasectomy if they really really don't want to father a child. Why should it always be the woman's responsibility and/or fault? It does take two to tango....

Nobody said it's the woman's 'fault', it's just another biological fact like the fact that women are necessarily the ones to go through childbirth. However, I'm not sure a vasectomy is the ideal option for the 21yo male who wants to have kids in 10 years.

Given educations contributions to job prospects I’d think girls not going to school would be part of the structural reasons for pay gaps world wide. The world bank esitimates that girls are missing up to 20% of a school year. Given girls start thier period at around 11 that’s a huge chunk of time.

So if the survival of humans depends on mother giving birth and caring for them why isn’t this work valued?

Why isn’t this work included in GDP. Did you know for example that australian women’s breast milk each year is worth $2 billion. But men have developed and run the GDP figures so breastmilk production isn’t counted while raising home chickens is.

Why wouldn’t men put it in the GDP figures? Really have a think about what the reasoning would be given backyard chickens are counted.

In terms of a short attempt at a very practical response to the OP that doesn't rely on people not being arseholes and capable of caring about the well-being of others:

Men should care because women are, literally, half the population. Any system in which women are kept down and oppressed has authoritarian characteristics - and while women's disenfranchisement affects primarily women it also serves as a powerful reminder to men that society and/or the state gets to decide which characteristics are worthy of respect and which ones aren't and reserves the right to subjugate and oppress people who are not like 'us'. So, if you put a foot wrong, men, you may be next.

There's also the fact that most ultra-patriarchal systems ultimately fail at putting forward well-reasoned arguments for why men are inherently superior/deserve better treatment. It all tends to boil down to a hierarchy of "us" vs. "them". And at this point, we're basically laying the ideological basis for fascism, with all that entails. Because, no, fascism doesn't necessarily need state/societal violence initially - it tends to breed it, though. So, again, men who are not quite the right type of man could be next.

TL;DR, men who just don't care enough about others should still support women because refusing to accept the subjugation of half the population is their best insurance policy against falling victim to the same brutal social structures in which misogyny thrives.

Most men, of course, simply aren't arse holes.

"It'll no doubt be denied but many women on here have pointed out that some feminists are not very kind to SAHM, carers, and women who don't want to prioritise a corporate leadership role."

Yes, some feminists are arseholes-hold the front page!

Some feminists, however, think there is a debate to be had about the impact that women's choices can have on other women- and the impact that the assumptions made about women's roles has on the perception of women in society. And this is often dismissed as "not being kind".

Some feminists, however, think there is a debate to be had about the impact that women's choices can have on other women- and the impact that the assumptions made about women's roles has on the perception of women in society. And this is often dismissed as "not being kind".

Yes, this! Along with the fact that few choices if any (and I would include men's choices in this) are truly made freely. So there's also a debate to be had about why people make their particular choices.

On a side note: the SAHM vs. CEO cliché annoys me endlessly. The truth is that corporate leadership roles are unattainable to most people. And that stay-at-home parenting is financially not an option for many either.

It takes volumes of raw talent, years of incredibly hard work and relentless networking to claw your way up the corporate ladder - even more so if you happen to get into the race without a double-barrelled name and a friend of your parents' on the board. Equally, simply being a SAHM beyond when kids go to school is not attainable to the overwhelming majority of women. Most families simply can't afford it.

I happen to be a corporate executive, so it goes with the territory that I know quite a few people who've either made it in the shark tank of a major corporation or have spouses whose income allows for the SAHM dream-life. But it is because of my own position that I recognise how exceedingly rare this is. Most of the people working for me will never ascend to my rank. I myself will most probably never be CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Most of my employees get paid very decently - it not enough to afford an upper-middle-class lifestyle on a single salary.

So I really don't get the SAHM vs. CEO thing, reality is a lot more along the lines of part-time at a shop during school hours vs. never making it past middle management if that for the overwhelming majority of people.

I’d think girls not going to school would be part of the structural reasons for pay gaps world wide.

Surprisingly, the ILO report concludes that education is a minor factor in the structural gap. Even in developing countries. It shows that when women are educated, they enjoy pay advantage over low skilled women, so indeed education is key avenue to prosperity for women. But, low skilled men earn much more than low skilled women, almost as much as 'educated women'. This probably demonstrates that the work that low skilled women do, what is perceived as 'women's' work' is undervalued, paid bare minimum, taken for granted, perhaps reflecting the patriarchal set up that women work is available for free.

The report also demonstrates that in advanced economies women are on average better educated than men, but they derive little pay advantage from this like for like vs men, i.e. women are underpaid for their qualifications.

The report also shows that educated men's pay advantage takes off at about 30, after the age when women start having children.