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.

But I don't see the evidence that women don't overwhelmingly prefer successful and wealthy men.

Are you saying that your years of trying have failed and most women don't act like feminists?

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.

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.

So most female execs would date a waiter or a binman?

I believe a lot of men would date a waitress if they got on.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.”

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

More in detail depth

www.fhu55.com/sites/default/files/hanehalki/Okumalar/Children%20as%20Public%20Goods.pdf
Increases in the private costs of raising children, however, are exerting tremendous economic pressure on parents, particularly mothers. Economists need to analyze the contributions of nonmarket labor to the development of human capital: as children become increasingly public goods, parenting becomes an increasingly public service.
Children.. have been described as consumer durables providing a flow of utility to their parents, investment goods providing income, and public goods with both positive and negative externalities. Children are also people, with certain rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
However we categorize children, we know that the consequences of raising them are changing. Economic development tends to increase their costs to parents in general, and mothers in particular. Yet the growth of transfer payments and taxation of future generations "socialize" many of the benefits of children. All citizens of the United States enjoy significant claims upon the earnings of future working-age adults through Social Security and public debt. But not all citizens contribute equally to the care of these future adults. Individuals who devote relatively little time or energy to child-rearing are free-riding on parental labor.
Increases in the cost of children have also been associated with trends that shift a greater share of the cost to mothers, such as new child-custody laws, growth in the proportion of families maintained by women alone, and poor enforcement of fathers' child-support responsibilitie..
However, public policies have provided far greater benefits to the elderly than to mothers and children on their own, particularly in the United States. Social Security expenditures dramatically reduced poverty among elderly men and married couples

Those who benefit from children's future income do so partly at the expense of present-day parents…
Moreover, there is no reason to assume that parents are equally affected: mothers often invest more time, energy, and affection in their children than do fathers..
Inputs of parental labor are crucial. Yet estimates of the value of nonmarket work lump child care in with other tasks and value it at close to minimum wage (Robert Eisner, 1989). Recent studies of the accumulation of human capital define it entirely in terms of formal schooling (Dale Jorgenson and Barbara Fraumeni, 1989). Official definitions of the poverty line ignore nonmarket labor, with perverse results such as failing to consider the cost of a paid substitute for a single mother's time when she works outside the home (Trudi Renwick and Barbara Bergmann, 1993)..
When an infant cries in the middle of the night, why does a mother drag herself out of bed to feed it? … Both moral commitments and social norms are subject to erosion as the price of satisfying them increases, and even altruistic preferences may be endogenous. In the long run, failure to remunerate commitments to parental labor may weaken the values, norms, and preferences that supply it. Most economists ridicule the utopian socialist vision of a society based entirely on altruism. Is a utopian vision of a family sustained by love alone any more realistic?
.. the incidence of desertion and divorce has increased rapidly among all families, partly because men's values and preferences seem to have shifted more rapidly than women's away from family commitments…
. In an economy increasingly based on individual careers, parenthood seems to promise moral and cultural rewards but no economic rewards…

[It goes on to discuss how to incentivise parenting, citing forcing women to stay at home via traditional conservative policies as one of options...]

.. *In fiscal terms, children represent a positive externality. There are good reasons to believe that we are currently underinvesting in human capital as well as flouting our collective moral obligation for children's welfare.
The best alternative is to promote more equal distribution of the costs of children as well as more equal opportunity for children themselves. Improved child-support enforcement would help, as would increased public subsidies for child care. But however necessary, these are not sufficient. Parents should be compensated for their efforts through a greater tax exemption or credit for raising children. And families with children should be guaranteed the means to obtain a minimum income above the poverty line. While there are good reasons to encourage all capable adults to engage in job training or paid employment, it is important to remember that nonmarket work is still work. In fact, it is probably the most important work we do.

Surely this is like asking, ‘Why shouldn’t all white people be massive joyous racists?’

What world would you like to grow old in?

Pumkinsoup some very interesting reading there

Surely this is like asking, ‘Why shouldn’t all white people be massive joyous racists?’

I'd say it's more like saying 'why should black people support the ideology of racists?.

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

Problem is, I can't think of a single mother I know who'd likely rather be in meetings than looking after her newborn child. All of my female colleagues and friends seemed to embrace motherhood and enjoy it.

I'd say it's more like saying 'why should black people support the ideology of racists?.

eh? What is?

SaraCare, yes, you addressed the point about both parent working part time being a better alternative.I was trying to say I didn't mean it as a personal criticism, sorry if it came across this way.

The only potential risk with both parents going part time is a dilution of one good well paid job into two low paid gig economy jobs, a race to the bottom in which the pay gap is levelled down and the parental labour remains unrecognised. I read on another thread a few posts from women who leave home when their partner comes in after a night shift, they hardly see each-other, and when they do, they are exhausted and on the edge, they both come home from work to care for children, they are exhausted, everyone is super stressed. And guess what, the husband is considering his position...