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.

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

Interesting. So:

Men = disadvantaged group (compared to women)

Feminists = Man-haters

Am I misinterpreting that?

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

Personally I found it a considerable relief to get back to writing software during the day rather than looking after my beloved small child all the time ... but I don't think I'd have admitted the sheer bloody boredom of much of babycare to a colleague so the OP probably has no real idea what his female coworkers truly prefer ... conversely, I rather think DH would have happily traded a lot of meetings and business trips for pram pushing. But 20 years ago in his industry that wouldn't have been remotely possible. Part time working for both of us would have been ideal when she was tiny... we did get to this a few years later when he downshifted and I negotiated PT hours. Very good... the catch is, we're both PhD scientists so half of each of our salaries is still decent money. I'm fully aware it's a privileged position.

Interesting. So:

Men = disadvantaged group (compared to women)

Feminists = Man-haters

Am I misinterpreting that?

Yes, you are.

So what did you mean by it?

Okay, enlighten me.

conversely, I rather think DH would have happily traded a lot of meetings and business trips for pram pushing.

I can well believe it, although obviously different strokes for different folks.

I guess I just don't understand the sentiment of 'sharing the terrible burden of parenthood to ensure neither partner misses out on their slice of office drudgery'.

I resent wasting significant chunks of my life in corporate environments and I feel most of my male peers, like myself, do it primarily for the monetary benefits (notwithstanding entrepreneur types for whom business is a hobby).

I just don't understand the idolisation of the corporate life and wonder whether the increased likelihood of SAHDs being divorced and the increasing unhappiness of women over the last few decades when surveyed is a symptom of the grass not actually being greener.

But I do understand the desire to confound expectations, much like how I spent nearly 15 years trying to prove that I could succeed in a cut throat sales environment before realising that I actually hated it.

Okay, enlighten me

I can't really be arsed. Sorry.

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.

Scott, you make statements in almost every of your posts that are... you know,.. maybe you should try to remember how you received these ideas, because they reassert the myths of the patriarchy and do not match the reality as it is lived by many women.

I can remember vividly a few women, actually, who had their newborn babies in the office.. But more to the point the words "enjoy" does not come to my mind when I think of sleepless nights, the pain of breastfeeding, wiping poopoo bottoms, cleaning the loo, scrubbing the cooker. I don't exactly 'embrace' any of these things, but rather they somehow embrace me like at Ted Baker. I just bite the bullet and do what I have to do. The smile of my children is my heart delight, as it is for their father. I rejoice at the meaningful interactions with them, but apart from that , I would really rather be in the meeting then tidy their bedroom. As I watch them brushing their teeth, my mind rehearses slides for that presentation I need to prepare tonight, sas to bring to fruition that project I also care about.

You "can't be arsed"? Alrighty, then. Anyone else have an alternate interpretation of Scott's statement, since apparently he can't be bothered to explain?

Pumkinsoup,

I'm certainly not going to presume to tell you how you should live your life as we're all different. I've got five nieces/nephews, a godson, and am currently watching one of my best mates acclimatising to the whirlwind that is the arrival of his second child alongside his 3yo. I'm under no illusion that it's all fun and games.

It just sometimes seems that certain types of feminism seem overly focused on 'proving a point' rather than trying to facilitate those that genuinely want to follow that path whilst accepting without contempt those that don't.

Ha ha ha!!!

You "can't be arsed"? Alrighty, then. Anyone else have an alternate interpretation of Scott's statement, since apparently he can't be bothered to explain?

Since it sounded to me like what you said, my guess would be that is what he meant but when it was spelled out he realised it was indefensible? I'd really like to be wrong about that.

Scott I really would appreciate you engaging with any part of my post k thx.

You "can't be arsed"? Alrighty, then. Anyone else have an alternate interpretation of Scott's statement, since apparently he can't be bothered to explain?

Well forgive me for doubting your good intentions but I'll try then.

SleightOfHand gave an analogy suggesting that my argument was 'why not just be an unrepentant misogynist?'

I gave an analogy proposing that it was more like saying 'why support the cause of an ideology which doesn't hold your best interests at heart?'

Both were slightly ridiculous and OTT analogies.

If you read my initial post, you hopefully noted the bit where I asked: '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?'

Comparing the above question to racism is somewhat bizarre as racism generally does actively fight against equality, which is definitely not the same as prioritising the issues faced by your own race/sex/demographic as feminists do.

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

raises hand I did (though in my case the place would be “in lab doig science”.

And even if I’m a freak we would expect given the current situation that more women would either genuinely or at least appear to “prefer” to stay home (since they’ve been told their whole life that’s what they ought to want).

Hey it’s similar to the point in my other point about how more women are likely to marry up because statistics. Which you conveniently ignored to point out a “gotcha” case. Speaking of your garbage man-CEO example, I don’t know many male CEOs who married their cleaning lady (they usually just sexually harass them - best of both worlds!)

Scott - not everyone benefits from a degree (particularly men doing arts courses at certain unis).
www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/education-46345527
I’ve heard of women very discriminated against in the construction/engineering industry. I don’t know about hgv/logistics. Maybe we (and industry) should encourage non-grad women into these roles as they earn a shed load more than caring/early years?
While I support knocking down the wealth/status male stereotype - maybe men shouldn’t take looks and age so much into account when dating (they might be missing out on women who would otherwise be kind and non-materialistic). I don’t think i’d Get many swipes on tinder.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-46221187
40% of women who had taken mat leave in past 10 years missed being at work and 20% wishes they’d returned sooner.

Pumpkin - there is probably an optimal birth rate for developed societies to smooth out the demographic transition. Deficits can be made up by immigration as the world birth rate is probably still higher than the planet can sustain (i’m Guessing here though). UK birth rate is reasonably high, so the difficulties of parenthood are not putting off a huge number of people. However you make a good point that there may be cost saving in mental health. As a mum of 2 under 5s my preference is for childcare support to be flexible (ie money) rather than state childcare place as it would fit my shift pattern and values better.

I phrased my response the way I did precisely because I assumed my own interpretation was not the one you intended. Otherwise, I might have just leapt straight to "How dare you say feminists are like racists?!".

That being said, black civil rights organizations do not hold the best interests of white people at heart. Regardless, I support them, because I recognize that white people as a whole do not have the best interests of black people at heart and that black people deserve to have their perspectives heard and their rights respected. They deserve to speak up for themselves without being denounced as racists.

It is the same as my support of feminism - women deserve to have their own perspectives considered and represented in society, alongside those of men. Even if you (general you) believe that a woman's sole or primary contribution to society is in childbearing and childrearing, well, isn't that enough?

The "traditional" roles of men and women are not inherently bad. This complementarian ideal of the mother raising the children and keeping the household while the father acts as a middleman who brings resources from the outside world to the family unit to be utilized by the mother (buying clothing and groceries, preparing meals, taking children to the doctor etc) is not a bad setup.

The problem lies with the fact that if a middleman decides he wants to screw you over, then he is in a great position to do so - he's got all the earning power. And if you are a mother with children relying on you, and if you have sacrificed your financial independence in order to better care for them, then there is very little you can do about it.

I think that is wrong. Money is power, and if men are the ones making the money then men are ultimately the ones with the power.

Women do the dangerous and demanding work of bringing the next generation of our species into the world. That, if for no other reason, should entitle women to have a say in society, to have representation and independence.

A bit rambly, but seriously, women who fight to have their voices heard should not be dismissed as man-haters. Standing up for yourself is not hatred.

*SleightOfHand gave an analogy suggesting that my argument was 'why not just be an unrepentant misogynist?'

I gave an analogy proposing that it was more like saying 'why support the cause of an ideology which doesn't hold your best interests at heart?'

Both were slightly ridiculous and OTT analogies.*

You missed out the last bit of my post - the more interesting question:

Which world would you like to grow old in?

SleightOfMind

"Which world would you like to grow old in?"

That's a bloody good question to think about.

Er, did you post on the wrong thread, or wrong board, or something??!!

Pumpkinsoup 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.

Oh yes totally that is a huge issue. I donlt think swapping to both parents doing part time at an individual level is the solution. My thoughts are more how have we come to a place where we have to work so many more hours to feed and house a family? What are the alternatives? What could it look like? Thoughts really rather than a concrete suggestion.

Scott you want us to explain stuff to you but can't be bothered to explain your thoughts back? Nar fuck that for a game of soldiers

Pumpkin and IC
not all part time work is gig economy jobs. It is becoming more common but I think some sectors are better than others. Healthcare is quite good for it, some academia (mentioned above), software (in parts).

I think higher housing cost, raised expectations and reduced family networks are behind why we ‘need’ 2 salaries. In the past people let kids go unsupervised a lot - some kids were harmed because of this, but many were fine. We are a lot more cautious now and nurseries have to have defined ratios of staff to pupils, sometimes mixes of male/female staff for trips.

People lived close to relatives and sahm’s would care for elderly people (who often lived with them) and grandparents would help with children. Children started apprenticeships at 16 (or 14 depending on era) so decreasing public and private cost of further education. People were not entitled to as much annual leave but worked less anti social hours.

Public cost of health has ballooned because we can do more to treat more conditions that we didn’t before.

Reducing housing cost would really help and living with/close to relatives (though when they have health problems they would need to be cared for).

See, Scott, I indeed enjoyed staying home with baby for the first seven months. Just like the baby‘s dad enjoyed staying home with baby the following 7 months.

It is just a matter of policies to make this more widely possible.

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.

In addition how in chuffing hell can a system of enforcing part time work be achieved? Again if someone through choice or circumstances is childless, and has fewer familial commitments and thus more time to devote to a career it stands to reason they will likely rise further and faster simply by dint of greater experience. Or are we proposing removing the choice for people to work more than part time? As that sounds utterly daft!?

The more I think about it the more I think the OP is onto something here. Men as a class have to be constantly responsible for a few men dominating at the top end and then the many more failing at the bottom end who succumb to violence and crime, who it must be said are far far more likely to murder and assault other men than they are women.

A lot is made of the gender pay gap, but what of the gender tax gap? We see a wealth transfer from men to women, so yeah a deadbeat dad who bails and pays nothing to the upkeep of his own children, and that's all we hear about, but what of all the men who by quietly paying their taxes like mild little lambs are funding the welfare state?

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.

I was going to end there but one biological fact occurs to me, the one simple unavoidable fact is any man can forestall the having of children until much later in life. Can establish a career, THEN set about the process of raising a family. Unfortunately for women the prime years for childbearing coincide with with the prime years of career building. Is this the fault of the patriarchy? No. Is it going to have a colossal impact on the choices of women relative to men? Yes. Will that impact have societal implication? Yes.

I predict the next quantum leap in the advancement of women in society will be the medical breakthrough allowing women to put off having children in the same way as men.