Justin Cascio names five ways feminism helps men.
Can’t think of a single reason why men should support feminism? Here are five.
- Gives us equal partners. For men who have women in their lives as co-parents, lovers, wives, partners, clients, and associates, it means that our partners in these relationships have equal power.
- Provides a model for consciously changing gender roles. Women have changed what it means to be a woman. Even women who don’t call themselves feminists have had their ideas of themselves shaped by feminism. Women who imagine themselves pursuing a career, or even imagine themselves having choices of whether and when to become a wife or a mother, owe their freedom to choose to feminist thought. As men, we have had our lives changed just as helplessly as the women have. We have the same power, as men, to consciously shape what we think a man should be, and how to live up to the standards we create. Feminism taught us it can happen.
- Provokes us to consider the many identities that yoke us, sometimes in competing directions. Through feminist dialogue and consciousness raising, women began to realize that their identities as wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters were colored by their other identities: as human beings, citizens, workers, artisans, people of color, people with disabilities, queer people… the list of identities goes on, and the ways they overlap filter our experiences and to some degree determine who we are. Men are as subject to these double and triple yokes that tell us what we should be doing or caring about.
- Encourages us to speak in our own voices.Betty Friedan identified a problem without a name, and began a conversation that hasn’t stopped. There are problems that men have that don’t have names, because we are not encouraged to talk with one another about our lives in the same ways, and because we want our stories to fit into the patterns that already exist: to make sense of them. By having the courage to talk about our experience, even when it doesn’t match our ideas of what a man does or feels, we can begin to learn what our common experiences are, and to name them.
- Makes us all more free. Unless all of us are free, none of us are free. As long as women still feel the pulls of gender roles, men are forced by the laws of physics into an equal and opposing position. And as long as anyone in our world is subject to limitations because of an identity like those we construct around sex and gender, race and ethnicity, and our deeply held beliefs and loyalties, then any of us is subject to being limited for who and what we are, or for what we believe in.
—Photo credit: cliff1066™/Flickr
About Justin Cascio
‘encourages us to speak our own voices’?
I am a woman and feminism has stifled my voice to the point that I gave up feminism. I am pretty sure that situation is even more pronounced with regards to men.
How has feminism stifled your voice?
Well, there is a serious problem with feminism and it does seek to silence a rather large portion of women. This is evidenced by the unwillingness of old-school feminists to admit conservative women to the movement and their constant criticism of them. Furthermore, its myopic view of contraception/abortion being the centerpiece of the movement is troublesome and alienating to a lot of women and the men who otherwise support them.
I think what you really mean is that empowered women, women who embrace their inalienable equality with men as human beings are good for men. You don’t have to be a feminist to be that kind of woman.
well feminists online block and delete my comments, and ban me from their blogs, spaces.
A feminist ‘outed’ me on facebook two months, revealing my full name and naming and shaming me as an ‘anti feminist’ ‘troll’, hoping I expect that I would stop crticising feminism in public!
I have been called a man, an uncle Tom, a bitch, a whore, ‘sick’, mentally ill, by feminists.
two months ago, I mean.
[hey i didnt see this article in the 'recently posted section']
not to mention the disturbing and sadistic purges and take-downs. The movement is strange and operates on fear-society rules. everyone wondering if they are the next to be excoriated for not being a truuue enough adherent
Speaking as a man who is not entirely against feminists but openly wary of the movement today, I can tell you from experience they are all for men speaking their minds– as long as those men agree with them almost completely. Otherwise they will try to shut you down, using shaming tactics, especially my favorite one of accusing you of “male privilege.”* So I couldn’t believe it when I read that one either. But oddly enough, I’ve talked to a couple of women who say the same things you say here Quiet Riot Girl. So they might be more attacking of other women but simply try to silence men.
Of course, not all feminists are like that, but while it is a myth all feminists are anti-male, enough of them come across that way it’s not hard to see where the stereotype comes from (not that I agree with using stereotypes to judge people). I don’t think feminism is inherently bad, or feminists for that matter, but there doesn’t often seem to be much good coming from it either.
The others on the list I don’t have as much problem with, although I don’t really see much changing about men’s gender roles and (this going back to #3 again) trying to discuss it with feminists in any way that they don’t agree with is generally met with getting shot down and treated in the ways I mentioned above. So I don’t see much equality being gained on that front.
*I must say here, I do believe there is such a thing as male privilege, in that I do think men do get certain advantages at times, but the way the phrase is usually used is such a load of BS I often simply tune out anyone who uses it.
Speaking as a man who is not entirely against feminists but openly wary of the movement today, I can tell you from experience they are all for men speaking their minds– as long as those men agree with them almost completely. Otherwise they will try to shut you down, using shaming tactics, especially my favorite one of accusing you of “male privilege.” So I couldn’t believe it when I read that one either. But oddly enough, I’ve talked to a couple of women who say the same things you say here Quiet Riot Girl. So they might be more attacking of other women but simply try to silence men.
Of course, not all feminists are like that, but while it is a myth all feminists are anti-male, enough of them come across that way it’s not hard to see where the stereotype comes from (not that I agree with using stereotypes to judge people). I don’t think feminism is inherently bad, or feminists for that matter, but there doesn’t often seem to be much good coming from it either.
The others on the list I don’t have as much problem with, although I don’t really see much changing about men’s gender roles and (this going back to #3 again) trying to discuss it with feminists in any way that they don’t agree with is generally met with getting shot down and treated in the ways I mentioned above. So I don’t see much equality being gained on that front.
Yep, I’ve been told pretty much to shutup by feminists and thrown the male privilege line to automatically treat my opinion as useless because I have a penis. This article generalizes heavily about feminism and treats it as a monolith, “feminism allowed x” doesn’t actually work because it’s only some feminists that allow it. Some feminists actually stifle speech heavily and flat out harass men into shutting up. So how do we talk about feminism as a monolith in a positive way when it’s so often hated to talk about it as a monolith in a negative way?
BTW, good list. I agree with you with the above caveat.
I get tired of going through the same arguments of why feminism (particularly when we move away from university feminist theory and into feminist political org’s anti-male actions/stance) holds absolutely nothing of value to men.
I don’t see why this same concept needs to be re-cycled every 3 months on tgmp just to be proven demonstrably false every time.
Those of us who moderate comments on the GMP notice that there is still a significant readership who comment and believe that feminism is profoundly anti-male. There are also women like Quiet Riot Girl who believe feminism isn’t even good for women.
The problem is the inconsistency of how the negative and positive are talked about. Even right here in this post and thread you go from “Feminism helps men in these ways….” to “Quiet Riot Girl believes feminism isn’t even good for women”.
How is it that your experiences are fact and truth but QRG’s experiences are only belief?
I’ll agree that they both happened at the same time. But time and again depending whether someone is trying to promote or criticize feminism suddenly one side declares their views on it as fact and truth and the other side is reduced to belief.
Interesting point Danny.
I actually find that is a problem within feminism itself – it is confused/confusing about what constitutes knowledge and ‘fact’. For example the slogan ‘the personal is political’ is used by feminists a lot. So they say personal experience is a valid basis for asserting a view. But if your personal experience and how you talk about it goes against the ‘right’ feminist dogma it often gets dismissed. And, similarly, whilst feminism does use research and ‘evidence’, if your research (e.g. my research in gender studies to post-doc level) comes to the ‘wrong’ conclusions it is also dismissed.
They also cook the books. I’ve gotten in many discussions with feminists who’ll say the vast majority of DV is perpetrated by men against women. I’ll assert that instances of DV perpetrated by one gender against the other is relatively equal. Some studies indicate that women commit more domestic violence against men depending on the criterion used. I’ll provide the research links then I’ll get the, but men commit the majority of serious DV. Serious DV is determined by the effect of the violence against the victim removing any agency from the female perpetrator. Feminists aren’t even for women’s agency. They only believe in women’s agency if it benefits women or subjugates men.
Even instances of serious DV can be skewed. Serious DV usually results in needed medical care. Mandatory reporting will inflate the number of female victims, but do you honestly think an overworked ER will take the time to determine if a man was abused by his female partner. Feminists have argued that the disparity would be greater if sexual violence was included in serious DV, but the CDC found almost equal incidents of sexual violence meaning the disparity would be less. They also don’t include attacks by third parties because women utilize third parties significantly more than men.
I’ll point to the feminist hypocrisy of insisting on abortion rights for women even if it interferes with the religious beliefs of a minor’s parent based on bodily autonomy, but fail to support a ban on infant MGC. One male already has no choice. It’s not about protecting a choice for men, which is an absurd argument I’ve heard feminists make. It’s about protecting choice for women, even when it comes to men’s bodies.
MOD EDIT: Please avoid generalising all feminists in this manner.
I assume that you refer to categorizing feminists as opposing a ban on MGC, but theoretically, assuming all feminists support abortion rights could also be construed as generalizing feminists. I think I’ve gotten better at recognizing the diversity within feminism, but as the article seemed to generalize feminism, I guess I felt more license to examine feminism as an aggregate or look at the mode position. I’ve only see two feminists express support for a ban on infant MGC and one only in the United Sates. I’ve been told about a third, who refused to perform them. Based on the number of feminists I’ve encountered, I’d say this was an extreme position within the movement based on my experience.
Not an excuse just an explanation.
Funny you should mention genital cutting.
Isn’t it nice how some feminists will condemn FGC for the horrible act that it is but when it comes to MGC some of them will either support it or support a limitation of it as long as there are exceptions to it?
Culture, tradition, and history don’t mean anything when it comes to FGC but suddenly they mean something when it comes to MGC?
Just another hypocrisy. In general, feminists don’t get why this should be an issue with men when western female privilege means they don’t have to lose body parts at birth …
Yea I always feel flabbergasted when women talk about genital mutilation because it’s something that never actually happened to them.
It happened to me.
An excellent point! It is rather mystifying that women with intact genitals can look at men without and have the gall to tell them to, essentially, STFU.
I, for one, wish that it wasn’t anti-male, but it continues to create and support anti-male policies and philosophies.
Exactly! Yes, the idea of feminism is great, but in practice it is heavily prejudiced against men!
Look at the laws they’ve made!
Look at the funding they refuse to share!
Look at how they react to men failing!
@jimmy
Let’s examine your complaints one by one:
1) Look at the laws they’ve made. Which laws? Men dominate ALL state legislatures and Congress.
2) Look at the funding they refuse to share! Like the funding for breast cancer? Like the funding that led to Viagra? Like collegiate athletic sports funding?
3) Look at how they react to men failing! OK, if you are dropping out of school or not going to grad school, just whose fault is that? Life IS what YOU make it.
Next please!
Moderator’s Note: This comment has been slightly modified from it’s original version in the omission of two lines that violate commenting policy. The message and intent of this post have not been change, nor have the author’s words been altered.
Thanks Bob. I’m surprised his comment was allowed by the mods.
The Mods here are very lenient when it comes to the topic of feminism, probably because there is no other place where this discussion can take place.
I think most feminists are good people, egalitarian people, and compassionate people. One of the dark truths that I have learned with maturity is that every social movement has a built in “radicalization mechanism”. People confuse extremist opinions with strong commitment. Consequently, the influence of extreme and unreasonable voices grows relentlessly, while the influence of moderate voices fades. This is how an organization that once stood for egalitarian ideas of equality, now promotes discrimination.
I honestly hope that I do not live to see the (innevitable) day that the same thing happens to the MRM.
Good point about the radicalization part of most movements. I think it’s very common for even moderate reform organizations to have some radical members. Most civil rights movements (race, gender, orientation, etc.) have had both moderate and radical elements, often in the same organization. In a way, the radicals can help define what the organization is all about and they tend to be highly motivated people. In negotiations they can be very influential players. I don’t like the strident, radical leaders in my union, but I’m glad they’re on my side, and I don’t mind if they’re the ones negotiating with management.
(This is from my biased perspective as someone who tends to be a centrist. The radicals probably think of people like me as sellouts or fence-sitters but that we can be useful sometimes. Moderates tend to bring the best food to the pot lucks, at least.)
1. Feminist supported legislature such as VAWA and more recently ACA. Just because men are in power doesn’t mean they act in the best interests of men. Most voters are women. Patriarchy debunked 101
2. Funding for women’s health dwarfs funding for men’s health. The same would be true of education but there is no funding for men’s education to compare it to.
3. I’m doing fine buddy, I got a degree. But I sincerely worry about other men who have not received the same opportunities that I did. In the early nineties there was an alarm rang for girls who were failing in school and experiencing low self-esteem. “the disappearing girl” feminism took up this cry and helped those girl out. Today we are witnessing a crisis of young boys in education and there is no call to help, there is no cavalry coming, feminism (for the most part) has done as you have done and has placed the blame solely on them. That’s not equality.
And Terrence? Brass.
…and Terrence goes down in flames.
indeed luckey, that was too easy lololol
@ Terrence Manuel
“1) Look at the laws they’ve made. Which laws? Men dominate ALL state legislatures and Congress.”
Only women can be feminists. An interesting concept and quite contrary to what feminists themselves have been saying.
Indeed. It’s interesting when male feminists assume that men automatically will favor men, when they are their own counter example.
3) Look at how they react to men failing! OK, if you are dropping out of school or not going to grad school, just whose fault is that? Life IS what YOU make it.
If that’s the case then why all the efforts to help girls and women education?
Also I notice that when people like to say its all men’s fault for lagging behind in education they magically try to keep the scope limited to guys in their 20s and 30s who should be doing something instead of looking at the young boys that will grow into those men. On the other hand when talking about women and education every effort is made to talk about girls as well.
Why is it okay to look at girls in their developmental years and compare that to only men who are well passed their developmental years and try to act like they are the same thing?
Awesome observation, Danny.
“Yes, the idea of feminism is great”
No, Jimmy. The idea of feminism is completely wrong, exactly as the idea of masculinism is wrong. It is BS to focus on one gender’s problems and ignoring everything else.
The idea of equality, what is good.
I’d love to see a day when this is a reality.
Damn straight. It goes like this:
Feminists that embrace equality are good.
Feminists in general are good and bad.
Parts of feminism that embrace equality are good.
Feminism in general is good and bad.
No matter how badly members of that movement would like to, they do not have some exclusive monopoly on a desire for equality, and they damn sure don’t have enough of a monopoly to try to make all things good synonymous with feminism. (I wonder if the only reason they even attempt that illusion is so that they can use it as a scarlet letter to declare all that disagree with them as “against equality”.)
I’d like to clarify my position. The *notion* of feminism is fine. I have no problem with it.
Similarly, I have no problem with the *notion* of spreading democracy.
However, the way feminist theory is applied in a “boots on the ground sense” by political self-identifying feminist orgs is as different from feminist theory as the Iraqi invasion is from the notion of “spreading democracy”.
Both ascribe to themselves noble intentions, but have done immeasurable harm.
I have detailed this in other articles, but the hitlist is:
* Systemic (and seeming willful rather than confused) denial of the problem and denial of help to male DV victims.
* The insertion of mandatory arrest, primary aggressor laws and no-drop prosecutions through the $550 million OVW under VAWA that gives grants to PD’s nationwide to implement policies that directs cops/prosecutors to harshly punish no-harm incidents of slapping or shoving (done by men) but simultaneously ignore female violence up to assault w/a deadly weapon (look up David Woods).
*The banning of male DV victims from VAWA reauthorization hearings, or researchers who have results that show DV is a gender-neutral problem.
*NOW and 80 other feminist orgs creating WEAVE to (successfully) re-direct the Obama $800 billion stimulus (for “shovel ready” projects) to female dominated fields. This at a time when male unemployment was twice that of female unemployment and 80% of the jobs lost were to men (coining the term he-cession).
*NOW and other feminists willful opposition to share parenting time and time again.
*Feminists need to reaffirm the less faithful with alarmist false positions and lies like the wage gap lie, and the #1 injury to pregnant women being DV.
The list of lies, censorship and acts/laws of hatred just goes on and on and on. If feminism is so good as a movement, then why does it seem the haters have seized the reigns of power at these orgs?
“Those of us who moderate comments on the GMP notice that there is still a significant readership who comment and believe that feminism is profoundly anti-male.”
Could that be because there is significant evidence that it IS?
Your article sums up the pluses of equality, but feminism and equality are emphatically not the same thing.
“‘Those of us who moderate comments on the GMP notice that there is still a significant readership who comment and believe that feminism is profoundly anti-male.’
Could that be because there is significant evidence that it IS?”
Yes, exactly. That’s such a shocking statement I had to read it twice. Again, look at their actions from the past 40-50 years and not their idealistic talk about equality.
Justin: “Those of us who moderate comments on the GMP notice that there is still a significant readership who comment and believe that feminism is profoundly anti-male. There are also women like Quiet Riot Girl who believe feminism isn’t even good for women.”
Well since my bit by bit rebuff of your list went into moderation and is now gone, I’ll just state its hard to believe at times that feminism cares about men when someone like me, who was harmed by girls and women in addition to boys and men, encountered prejeduice and judgement from certain gynocentric feminists who believed that I was a priveledge white male who benefited from oppression of women, an anomaly, not important, etc when speaking to them about the former harms.
Under moderation yet again.
Just don’t delete the above comment, please.
“Those of us who moderate comments on the GMP notice that there is still a significant readership who comment and believe that feminism is profoundly anti-male.”
Valerie Solonas, Andrea Dworkin, the SCUM Manifesto, Nice Guys (TM), Whatabouttehmenz, Mansplainin’, prominent male feminists bragging about how they cockolded another man and banged students on their desk-then call MRA’s a bunch of misogynistic creeps for wanting to know the paternity of their children, Selective Service-feminists saying that it is a form of benevolent sexism but not recognizing the grave human rights violation in sending men to their death in a war they don’t support….
oh, and I do infact believe abortion is a form of murder, I’m not trying to roll back Roe vs. Wade but the arguments haven’t convinced me and here are also women who don’t think abortion is moral….
I could go on….
“Those of us who moderate comments on the GMP notice that there is still a significant readership who comment and believe that feminism is profoundly anti-male. There are also women like Quiet Riot Girl who believe feminism isn’t even good for women.”
And some of us who moderate comments on the GMP notice that feminism, in many ways, *is* profoundly anti-male and in other ways isn’t even good for women.
There’s some feminists like Julie, Lisa and Heather who I have alot of time for, mostly because they keep an open mind and are willing to criticise their movement. The ones who don’t, and insist that feminism is uniformly good, I don’t have much time for.
Anti-male policies? NOW opposes male only conscription and male only combat duty. Their six priorities are reproductive rights, ending domestic abuse, winning the ERA, fighting racism and homophobia, and working against poverty. I don’t think that my interests as a male are supported by racism, homophobia, or poverty. I don’t see how allowing women to control their own bodies is anti-male; more access to and choice over contraception and abortion seems to be a good thing, to me! How is the ERA anti-male? It bans discrimination based on sex- including discrimination against men! Is fighting domestic abuse anti-male? It’s not going to ‘oppress’ me- I have no interest in committing domestic abuse! How the heck is that agenda anti-male? I don’t feel threatened by it in the least.
“NOW opposes male only conscription and male only combat duty. ”
Perhaps. Although from what I’ve seen, it looks more like the mouth platitudes on those topics. Regardless, those two examples pale in comparison to the number of times NOW and organizations like it has stood firmly in the way of such things like Shared Custody bills, male rape/domestic violence victim advocacy funding, and the fact that they demanded a good chunk of the 800 billion dollar fund created to prop up industries hardest hit by the recession be redirected to women-dominated industries that were barely affected, solely because the former was dominated by (and I quote) “burly men.”
“NOW opposes male only conscristion and male only combat duty” Strange how NOW released that statement YEARS after the Selective Service Act (the draft) was in fact suspended. All through the late 60′s and early 70′s when we were sending young men by the shipload to Vietnam, they were strangely silent. Even though they were quite vocal about many other issues. Sort of like speaking out against slavery in 1869!
Actually, the first NOW statement opposing the draft was in 1971, before the draft ended. Considering they were only founded in 1966, that’s not so bad.
Emmett, NOW oppposes equal custody laws in family court. Men must be able to PROVE that they are adequate parents just to get bi-monthly visitation in many states. For the mother it is assumed. Thats how NOW wants to keep it.
Stay childless Emmett!
From what I gather, NOW opposes *forced* equal custody. They oppose laws that would *mandate* that courts grant equal custody. That makes sense. When my parents divorced, the four of us kids insisted on custody with my father, because my mother was abusive. Mandating equal custody would have forced the four of us to spend time in the custody of an abusive woman. So, I guess I oppose equal custody laws, too.
Funny thing is many of the fathers and mens activists that were bringing up equal custody were specifically saying that it be done under the condition that there be room to check the fitness of the parents in question in case one was abusive or otherwise unfit. But a lot of the opposition starts off claiming that FRAs and MRAs support equal custody for the purpose of using custody of children to hurt moms.
So based on what you’re saying it would seem that they would all be on the same page but they are not.
Emmett,
That statement would have meant that this would have been the creation of Karen Decrow.
She was a maverick feminist who actually believed in equality of the sexes. Ms Decrow only served as the president of NOW three short years (maybe that was as much true equality they could stomach).
Some forty years later some of her quotes are incredibly shocking for their truth and sentiment for real equality. She believed that paternity suits should be a thing of the past. (Her quote: ht tp://www.people.ubr.com/historical-figures/by-first-name/k/karen-decrow/karen-decrow-quotes/if-women-have-the.aspx)
Since then, I have noticed much less egalitarianism from NOW.
NOW also paid the legal bills of Loretta Bobbit. That anti-draft letter may have little to do with the NOW we see today, and more to do with Karen Decrow, or other truly egalitarian executives in NOW at that time.
Karen Decrow served as Pres of Now from 1970 to 1972.
Other quotes:
ht tp://www.people.ubr.com/historical-figures/by-first-name/k/karen-decrow/karen-decrow-quotes/justice-therefore.aspx
http://www.people.ubr.com/historical-figures/by-first-name/k/karen-decrow/karen-decrow-quotes/how-unfair-it-is.aspx
Her views are as profound today as they were 40 years ago. That shows you how little things have changed for men.
@ Emmett
“NOW opposes male only conscription”
Question is do they oppose female only contraception like the kind we have in the ACA. I don’t think so. How does not having any contraception choices benefit you as a man?
“Their six priorities are reproductive rights”
What initiatives did NOW take to protect or expand reproductive rights for men?
“abortion seems to be a good thing,”
How does supporting abortion rights for women increase reproductive rights for men? It seems that supporting abortion rights for women actually reduces reproductive rights for men.
How does expanding women’s reproductive rights reduce mine? What, because now the decision on whether or not to have the baby is in the hands of the woman I had sex with? I’d rather it be in her hands than in the hands of the government- in her hands, there’s more than one option, and she’ll probably consult me. Illegalize abortion and give decision over her body to the government, and there’s only one option, made by an institution who consults with you only briefly, via a multiple choice ballot, once every four years. I know which of these two options I’d prefer.
As for the ACA- what kinds of male contraception do you expect them to cover? There is no male ‘pill’. There are condoms- and if you can get your doctor to give you a ‘prescription’ for condoms, those have to be covered under the ACA, because they’re an FDA-approved contraceptive method.
@ Emmett
“and she’ll probably consult me. Illegalize abortion and give decision over her body to the government, and there’s only one option,”
I was wondering when I’d hear the women are so much more ethical than men argument. It didn’t take long. At this point in time, you have no options. She has many options. True, you’d have one option, but you would know what it is. Your choices and options occur prior to having intercourse assuming that she hasn’t raped you then you have no options. The best you can hope for is informed consent, knowing what you’re getting into. Banning abortion provides you with informed consent. You don’t need to rely on a woman saying that she doesn’t want a child and then changing her mind after pregnancy. I know you’ll say contraception, but that sometimes fails and it only helps if she takes it.
“As for the ACA- what kinds of male contraception do you expect them to cover?”
First, the ACA should pay for vasectomies like it does tubal ligation. Second, they should cover whatever is available. Why shouldn’t it require insurance to cover condoms? What health problem do normal women face if they don’t have birth control, unless you want to categories every pregnant woman as medically ill and even then why shouldn’t the doctor treat it as they would a diabetes patient, try controlling the problem by modifying behavior? What is the problem with saying that the ACA is required to cover male contraception, which is does not currently say? Unless a male pill can’t ever be developed, I don’t see why the ACA shouldn’t cover future contraception methods. I don’t see why a separate health care bill should be drafted to address it.
“I was wondering when I’d hear the women are so much more ethical than men argument.”
I’m also wondering when you will, because I didn’t use it. Reread what I wrote. I made the case that the person who’s carrying the baby inside of them, and who is in a relationship of some sort with me, and who I can probably talk to face to face, is both going to have a more legitimate claim to make a decision about the pregnancy than the government would (because the government isn’t pregnant), and is probably going to be more accessible and responsive to my wishes than the government is (because the government is a monolithic, uncaring, set of bureaucracies to whom I am an insignificant person). Banning abortion doesn’t provide me with any more choices than I’d have under the current rules- it just takes away her choices. Astoundingly, choice in a couple isn’t a zero-sum game. Her loss of choice does not give me choice. The government just takes away both our choices. No thanks. If you want male choice, go crusading after financial abortion. I haven’t found the official NOW position on that, but one of their former presidents is a supporter, as are a number of other feminists, including academics.
Again, on the ACA- it says that it has to cover all FDA-approved methods of birth control, which would probably mean male birth control, as well. If it doesn’t, then someone should sue for equal protection. At any rate, if it didn’t cover male birth control, how is that evidence of some vast feminist anti-male conspiracy? NOW wasn’t out there going ‘make sure it doesn’t cover male contraception!’. Of course, that’s irrelevant, because the ACA explicitly states that it covers all FDA-approved methods.
Emmett Doyle writes:
“How does expanding women’s reproductive rights reduce mine? What, because now the decision on whether or not to have the baby is in the hands of the woman I had sex with?”
Karen Decrow (Pres of NOW from 70 to 72) linked abortion rights of women with *voluntary* paternity of men (rather than automatic paternity suits and child support) for men stating both men and women should have the right to determine whether or not to become parents.
Obviously, nobody should have the right to tell a woman to abort or carry to term a child, but in a just society men should have the right to determine if they want to be parents and surrender their parental rights (and obligations).
As Karen Decrow said so many years ago:
“If women have the right to choose if they become
parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a
connection between legalizing abortion for women
and ending of paternity suits for men. Giving men their
own choices would not deny choices to women.
It would only eliminate their expectation
of having those choices financed by men.”
Strange how profound her statement is 40 years later. That shows you how little things have changed for men.
I get the feeling from the tone of the article, the author had in mind the university-type feminism – feminism as an ideology, not necessarily the specific stances/actions that have come out of the movement, and the results of those stances/actions.
In a way, the point you make about “feminist political org’s anti-male actions/stance” is directly relevant to point #2 in the listr. The specific results of the actions of feminist orgs may have hurt men in some ways, but the notion of bringing gender into the political sphere is still useful to men, especially those men who actively want to undo some of the damage done by feminist policies that go too far.
In other words, the feminist movement brought sexism into the public and political discourse and policy-making, but skewed for women’s interests. The movement has set some examples for men to reroute the discussion of sexism to include the male perspective and the reality of discrimination against men. Mind you I wouldn’t personally recommend mirroring *everything* feminism has done, but the groundwork is there.
Hear, hear.
We do well to remember that gender roles and those things challenged by feminism are also confining and harmful to people of all genders, men included. We do well to learn the privilege (dare I use that word) that comes with all of our narratives and social constructs, to tear it down and find equality. We do well to challenge these things that hold us, confine us, define us, and pit us against one another.
We do well to learn from one another, and from the mistakes, challenges, and steps forward we all make.
How about the privilege that comes with being a woman? vawa, aca, women’s education funding etc. etc.
Can we tear that down and find equality?
Someone please help me out here. I’m feeling conflicted.
I went to public schools in a primarily conservative, upper-middle-class district, and at the high school level was in a few advanced-placement courses. I went on to college, where I was rewarded for my excellent grades and advanced coursework with direct admittance to the college of liberal arts, acceptance into the university Honors program, and two scholarships (one was a generic freshman scholarship for high grades, the other tied to my Honors program eligibility, neither of them geared at gender). Thanks to my AP credits and those scholarships, I graduated in three years, not four, with almost 0 student debt.
But now this discussion is forcing me to wonder…
*Did I do so well in school because I’m bright, or because I’m a girl and the system was skewed to give me more attention?
*Were there more girls than boys in my AP courses because they were all worthy of the AP program, or because they were fed into it by a system biased towards girls? Or was it even just, gasp, sheer probability based on the proportion of boys to girls in my grade and the way our class schedules had to be arranged?
*Was my high academic achievement influenced by the fact that I had more female teachers than male, or was that a coincidence? (Incidentally, some of the best high school teachers and college professors I ever had were men.)
*Did I get into college and get all those awards because of my accomplishments, or did the school give me special consideration because of my gender?
*Was I pushed towards the college/career path because my parents and teachers thought it was the best thing for me AND my brother, or so I wouldn’t have to marry for financial stability?
You see, when I as a woman am told I’ve been benefitting from systems that favor me thanks to the actions of feminists who came before me and influenced these systems, but which I did not design and was honestly *barely* aware of until I was an adult, it forces me to question the validity of all I have accomplished. It certainly didn’t *feel* like female privilege, but I guess I have to concede it might have played a part. I just don’t know how to feel about it. Is it okay for women like me to be proud of what we’ve done even though we might have gotten a boost or two, visible or invisible, along the way?
Can it be a bit of both? We all benefit from invisible boosts (that’s what that kind of socio-economic privilege is supposed to mean). You were born in a certain place, had parents who had enough money to provide you with good nutrition and schooling, good teachers (paid well and more motivated) and so forth and so on. You didn’t earn those pieces of it. THat’s a type of privilege you were born with more say then someone born in a lower class situation, parents who had to work three jobs maybe, had a poorer school district etc. Some of the boosts you got may have been related to your gender too. Or race. Or monetary status. That’s intersectional.
What you did with your benefits, invisible or not, was up to you though. You could have lounged and failed. You worked damn hard.
It’s not a sin or crime to have that boost. It’s good, I think, to be aware of it as possible and do the best with what you have and look for ways to spread the boosts around.
Women have some boosts, men have some boosts (context can vary), some rich women have more privilege (or boosts) than poor men etc etc. Young women more than aged women, races over orientations, or vice versa. Context matters, intersection matters.
It’s not a blanket one size fits all.
I guess what I’m saying is, it might be hard for women like me to recognize that female privilege exists, even when we have benefited from it, because it didn’t really feel like female privilege.
But I guess that’s the difference between being aware of your privilege and taking advantage of it (like women who play the courts to come out better off after a divorce), and having privilege you’re not aware of. Of course it’s always easier to find privilege in others than admit to having it yourself. (There’s a saying about it but I forget it.)
I agree that men and women both have privileges in certain arenas. What rubs me the wrong way is this idea that somehow female privilege has superceded male privilege or that it’s more harmful than male privilege. The idea of “The Patriarchy” seems silly and antiquated now, but by all the cries of institutionalized female privilege, you’d think we were in a Matriarchy now. I just don’t see it.
Rereading, that could have come out wrong. In my last paragraph I don’t mean to imply that male privilege is more harmful than female privilege. That’s certainly not what I believe. I just phrased it clumsily.
Hey, Of course you should be proud of all that you’ve accomplished. It sounds like you’ve worked very hard. As you say you don’t see female privilege I similarly do not see male privilege, anywhere. I’ve tried to find it. So because we are blind to our own maybe we can enlighten one another. I’m borrowing this from Archy because he brought up exactly the two areas of funding that I’m concerned with and the reasons why they should be equal but instead favor women like you.
“If you have 60% of the universities full of women, and still have scholarships for women while men get nothing then yes females are privileged, it allows a benefit that men do not get and the affirmative action part should really be for the men now to balance it back out. As for other privileges, I hear the budget for female health is far higher than males, more is spend on female health while males pay a larger share of it and receive less. If true I’d call that a privilege.”
Thanks Jimmy. I agree that education and health care are two areas we can really focus on making a difference. We are trying to connect with all kinds of groups hear at GMP to move things forward for men in those areas.
Thank you for your hard work, Lisa. For the record I benefitted in a lot of ways from privilege, being an American citizen for one, having a loving family for another. I just never saw any privilege stemming specifically from me being a man, except for being able to take off my shirt in public
I don’t know how you’d decide which priv was in place at what time…If you were in specific programs that kept men out, in an attempt to balancing an imbalance is it zero sum? Do men have to lose out if women start winning? Is that more of an individual feeling or is it systemic?
Are women playing the courts part of an older narrative about women that feminism AND men’s rights should be getting rid of (women as the helpless victim in need of protection vs a person who can support herself and share custody)? Is that then privilege or a remnant from when women WEREN”T as equal?
Wellokaythen just put up this list of issues in 1912 that were radical-
“Women being able to vote.
Women serving on juries.
Women getting elected to office.
Women being allowed to buy materials with accurate information about where babies come from.
Women being guaranteed the same property rights as men.
In order to be good mothers, women needed to have some minimum standards of literacy.
In order to be good mothers to the children they have, women need to have good access to birth control and other forms of family planning.”
Those aren’t radical now. Those are established rights and should stay established rights and we should continue the work, men and women alike, to secure support for
Men having access to domestic violence support
Men having access to their children and beginning to rewrite the narrative that father’s don’t care/aren’t necessary
Men having reproductive access and control over their bodies
Men being allowed to choose life roles that work for them (not being stuck in a gender paradigm)
Men having access to jobs and work and meaningful employment
Men having access to equal opportunities in education.
Those last two? To men have everything to do with the fucked up socio economic mess we are in as well as any policy making that is founded in a zero sum (due to funding) approach to gender. I don’t know how the hell to fix that.
Among other things. I’m short on time.
That last paragraph summed it up. I guess my only question is:
I know Feminism promised us gender equality, so now that it is in the position of power (in terms of funding) will it share equally?
“I guess what I’m saying is, it might be hard for women like me to recognize that female privilege exists, even when we have benefited from it, because it didn’t really feel like female privilege.”
They say those who have privilege are blind to it. If we take the common thought men get in regards to privilege then yes you’d be blind to your own privilege.
“I agree that men and women both have privileges in certain arenas. What rubs me the wrong way is this idea that somehow female privilege has superceded male privilege or that it’s more harmful than male privilege. The idea of “The Patriarchy” seems silly and antiquated now, but by all the cries of institutionalized female privilege, you’d think we were in a Matriarchy now. I just don’t see it.”
One doesn’t negate the other, it’s not a race between 2 runners, it’s 2 separate races. The bad that exists towards men doesn’t negate the bad that exists towards women. According to the theory male privilege exists in SOME areas of society but I also think female privilege exists in OTHER areas of society, as to which one is higher….no idea, as to how much privilege each gets in each individual circumstance? no idea.
If you have 60% of the uni’s full of women, and still have scholarships for women whilst men get nothing then yes females are privileged, it’s allows a benefit that men do not get and the affirmative action part should really be for the men now to balance it back out. As for other privileges, I hear the budget for female health is far higher than males, more is spend on female health whilst males pay a larger share of it and receive less. If true I’d call that a privilege.
Potentially another privilege is the ability to have support for domestic abuse, sexual abuse at a much greater level than men seem to get it, I don’t see much support ESPECIALLY government support for male victims of abuse here in Australia so female victims gain a benefit that isn’t afforded to men. Hate me all you like for saying that but prove me wrong, I’ve seen sweet fuck all information on male victims of rape, abuse, I’d easily say 95% of the information is made for the female victim, male perp setup and that is absolutely despicable.
I don’t think we’re in a patriarchy, I think it’s probably an oligarchy if anything. The majority of Australians did NOT support a carbon tax yet it was brought in by our government. I feel there isn’t much representation of the people, just take a look at the anti-piracy legislation that tries to go through in the U.S with the majority of people not supporting it. I certain don’t feel like I have much say in what our governments do, I can vote for the opposition but that still relies on their actions to be good. Unless we have some individual vote on major policies, goto the polls each time they want to pass major legislation I don’t feel we’re adequately represented. Seeing as power rests on both male and female shoulders at the top I don’t feel it’s a patriarchy or a matriarchy.
What would you have done differently and how would it have helped? Women got the right to vote because men, who could vote, gave it to them. White men fought and died to end slavery. It is how you use your privilege that matters.
When I was younger, I weight lifted, kick boxed and took dietary supplements. There were only 2 women in my kick boxing class and since I was only about 145 lbs and 5′ 7″, when one of the women didn’t show up, I would be selected to spar the other one. I knew that I was faster and stronger than she. I went at her half speed. Later she realized that I wouldn’t come at her like I’d do to the guys. One match I guess she decided to teach me a lesson on women’s equality and her first three kicks were to my groin. I wasn’t injured, but got seriously ticked off. I intended to break whatever body part my foot encountered. The instructor saw my demeanor change and stopped the match before I could light her up. I’ve always been glad of it.
The next time her designated partner was absent, the instructor picked someone else to spar her. He either wasn’t aware of the physical disparity or didn’t care (his privilege). His first kick broke her forearm. She actually blocked the kick, but it broke her arm. We felt bad for her especially the guy who broke her arm. The other woman didn’t stay long. To this day, I’m met women with more advanced belts than I talk about how they would best me in a fight. One I outweighed by about 50 lbs, I would just smile. They didn’t understand that the disparity in strength meant that I didn’t need to be as skilled as they, my male privilege.
Before being enrolled, we made a promise to respect each other, respect women, and defend women and the weak. I knew that going half speed disrespected both a classmate and a woman and violated the oath, but to go full speed would utilize my male privilege. Neither option was good and I made the best decision I could. I hurt someone so I wouldn’t hurt them worse. Funny thing is that I’ve heard that women make better coaches/instructors because they have to have better technique to compensate for their lack of physical strength.
I don’t think that you have anything to feel guilty about. Not going to school would have just made it harder and less likely for you to make a positive difference.
And yet, many feminists came onto this sight to decry the article “I have female privilege by Rachel Goodchild”
ht tp://goodmenproject.com/men-and-feminism/i-have-female-privilege/
The comments reached 458. A good deal of women came on to post about how preposterous the idea of female privilege is.
No, I’m sorry. Feminism is a good idea that has gone horribly wrong. It is an organization that has cloaked within it a good deal of haters.
ht tp://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have
The attempt to portray some of the positives with Feminism notwithstanding, I’m face-palming right now because there’s so much more wrong with Feminism than right with it. Historical success just doesn’t cover current oppression, prejudice, discrimination or bigotry.
Certainly I expect people of color, trans communities, the poor, and many men would disagree with this list right here.
1. Feminism did not give us equal partners, because due to the cultural norms instigated by mainstream Feminism fathers are incredibly oppressed in their familial relationships — they are never seen as equally committed to their children, never given equal custody, or even equal opportunities at custody. They are always assumed to be incompetent, abusive, or violent.
2. It provided only a model for changing gender roles for WOMEN, and then only upper-class White women. The successes of Betty Friedan will not work for Audre Lorde because Feminism can’t recognize its own privilege.
3. Many prominent Feminists associated directly with the core movement actually discourage developing consciousness over one’s identity, especially when the individual is transgendered, or of a different race.
4. See Quiet Riot Girl’s post.
5. I’m pretty sure the men locked behind bars on false allegations of rape, or domestic violence, or who aren’t able to see their kids anymore, or who are creep-shamed don’t feel more free. I’m pretty sure Black women don’t feel more free when White Feminists hold up signs with the n-word at slutwalks. I’m pretty transgendered people don’t feel free when prominent Feminists attack their identity and existence. I’m pretty sure Muslim women don’t feel free when Feminists attempt to destroy their religion out of some ignorant and naive need to “save them”.
Great intentions in this article, but I just can’t get behind it.
Your article outlines a number of excellent reasons to support equality, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.
What that has to do with feminism is anybody’s guess. I suppose there are some feminists who are interested in equality too; but then, there are probably some feminists who are Orthodox Jews or professional dentists. What of it?
As I predicted, the list is comprised of things feminism decided it wanted for men, not what men want, or even care about.
“Gives us equal partners. For men who have women in their lives as co-parents, lovers, wives, partners, clients, and associates, it means that our partners in these relationships have equal power.”
How does this benefit men?
Further, feminism did nothing of the sort in business. When did the law assign less or greater “power” based on sex (gender)?
No benefit for men or women (for that matter).
“Provides a model for consciously changing gender roles.”
My grandmother had a career, and she died of old age. She obviously didn’t need feminism for that.
Secondly, when did men ask for a change in their gender role? How many boys or young men aspire to be home-makers? Closer to zero than 1 percent. Most men are perfectly comfortable being fathers, supporting their families and still being dads. No idea why feminism has such a problem with that.
Feminism acts in opposition to heterosexual fathers unless they want to quit work and stay at home.
“Provokes us to consider the many identities that yoke us, sometimes in competing directions.”
Psychobabble – no offense. The average man has no idea what any of that means, doesn’t care. It therefore it has no benefit/value/interest to men, unless they chose to major in Women’s Studies.
“Encourages us to speak in our own voices.”
So, feminism should take credit for me being able to talk now? More bunk. My grandfathers spoke about whatever they wanted to just fine.
No benefit for the average man.
“Makes us all more free.”
“As long as women still feel the pulls of gender roles, men are forced by the laws of physics into an equal and opposing position.”
You mean like pull resulting from the hormones that control hip widening, breast growth, ovulation, impregnation, gestation, giving birth, and breastfeeding? Feminism magically expects all of that to have no impact. Sorry feminism. Doesn’t work that way anywhere in the world, including where they try to force it by legislation.
Sorry, try as it might, feminism hasn’t found a way to stop all of that, and how it affects women and their choices. Nor has it found a way to give men the same amount of estrogen women have. They will have to keep working on this one.
What has feminism done that we (the average man) wanted done?
Answer: nothing.
There are a few parts of your reply I agree with, and parts
“Gives us equal partners. For men who have women in their lives as co-parents, lovers, wives, partners, clients, and associates, it means that our partners in these relationships have equal power.
How does this benefit men?”
Easily. I am not an alpha male, dominant type personality. My girlfriend is. It’s now perfectly fine to have her call the shots without people thinking less of me.
“Secondly, when did men ask for a change in their gender role? How many boys or young men aspire to be home-makers? Closer to zero than 1 percent. Most men are perfectly comfortable being fathers, supporting their families and still being dads. No idea why feminism has such a problem with that.”
I can’t speak to the “father” aspect (my girlfriend and I will never have children,) but I think you’re missing the point. women rarely aspire to be home-makers. It’s part of why there are more women going to post-secondary (well, that and the bursaries available based on gender. Which I oppose).
“Psychobabble – no offense. The average man has no idea what any of that means, doesn’t care. It therefore it has no benefit/value/interest to men, unless they chose to major in Women’s Studies.”
I disagree, I know and care about those issues. Of course, the practical applications of feminism has resulted in that, and not in a positive way, since post secondary educators decided that abusive women are mimicking past abusers, and abusive men are just sadists.
“Gives us equal partners. For men who have women in their lives as co-parents, lovers, wives, partners, clients, and associates, it means that our partners in these relationships have equal power.
How does this benefit men?”
“Easily. I am not an alpha male, dominant type personality. My girlfriend is. It’s now perfectly fine to have her call the shots without people thinking less of me.”
Why should you care what others think? That’s much more important than trying to change what they think. The beta-male with a woman telling what to do, where to go, how and and when is still not admired widely. But, the opinion of others should be irrelevant.
“Women rarely aspire to be home-makers. It’s part of why there are more women going to post-secondary (well, that and the bursaries available based on gender. Which I oppose).”
I have never personally heard a man who plans in advance to be the one to stay home with the children but have heard plenty of women say that they plan to.
“I disagree, I know and care about those issues.”
No problem. That’s your right. But, as I said, the “average man” does not.
For a lot of us the issue isn’t so much about wondering what good feminism does for men but rather why are we expected to pretend that the bad feminism does for men simply ceases to exist.
For the parts and people of feminism that coincide these five things I can dig it. I just wish feminists would quite insulting us by acting good stuff like this is all there is to their movement. Let us not act like feminism is only a monolith when making positive generalizations like this.
Let’s not forget that none of these five things was an INTENDED consequence for men. If men happened to benefit in some ways from feminism, whatever. That makes no difference to feminists or women in the long run. I’d argue men ended up with the short end a lot more often, though, thanks to feminism.
Men need to stand up for men. There is absolutely no reason to accept what feminism is offering us, all of which is tangential to and inconsequential regarding what feminism offers to women.
Honesty I do think that there are some feminists out there that actually do intend to do good for men. But frankly I see where you’re coming from. You can see the way many of them seem to think that the harms that befall men are treated like a side effect of the “real” objective of oppressing women rather than a built in feature of a system that is meant to mow down any and all who are not in power. Ever hear the phrase “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too.”
Shit sounds like they only came up with it because they got tired of getting called on ignoring men. More of a “there i said it now will you shut up?” than at “we’re in this together”.
Men need to stand up for men. There is absolutely no reason to accept what feminism is offering us, all of which is tangential to and inconsequential regarding what feminism offers to women.
That being said I don’t think there is no reason to accept what feminism is offering. But I do think its worth bearing in mind that among some feminists, men are only as valuable as our worth to women.
I’d like to point out the thing that strikes me as the most true of all. Humans are only valuable as our worth to our overlords (money, capital, corporate structures, wealth). Has been throughout history.
Men get sent off to mines and wars with rewards of sex and profit (same with the corporate drones, hoping to become a king). Women get to bear young with the promise of domestic fulfillment AND now get to slave away full time. Both are enticed to fight against each other and treat each other like crap for the few dollars of funding that the government might eke out.
Same with race. Same with orientation. Same with religion.
I see the Big Bad as socio economic status, and class issue with the gender, race, and orientation issues as the little monsters, keeping us fighting. Sorry, had to keep some Whedon in my mind in order to stay sane.
All those little monsters are real. Real as pain and terror and frustration and anger. And they keep coming, one after another while the Big Bad moves us all about like so many chess pieces.
That’s what I see. And I often even feel like working here doesn’t do any good because there are so many little monsters, we all get so tired and paranoid and fear each other so much we can’t see friends right in front of us. It feels good to lash out. It feels great to cast an “other” as the enemy.
We are in the midst of a huge sociological and cultural identity crisis here in the US. And we are being played like fiddles, in my opinion, while the corporations fill their pockets and enjoy more power than we could ever dream of.
Right now? Tonight? I could care less about my “title.” Feminist? Woman? White? Straight? I’m a humanist and I’m trying to stay focused on humans and systems that support humans, not industrialization or cogs in a greater machine.
I’d like to point out the thing that strikes me as the most true of all. Humans are only valuable as our worth to our overlords (money, capital, corporate structures, wealth). Has been throughout history.
Agreed. Which is why it is so bothersome to have people who on one hand tell us as men we need to break away from the system that strictly limits us to ways we are valuable to that system AND THEN turn around and strictly limit us in different ways that are valuable to them. Same shit, different toilet.
That’s what I see. And I often even feel like working here doesn’t do any good because there are so many little monsters, we all get so tired and paranoid and fear each other so much we can’t see friends right in front of us. It feels good to lash out. It feels great to cast an “other” as the enemy.
Agreed. Again I think what’s killing us is that people are quick to try to define other people little mosters in order to make their own monsters look like the Big Bad
“Honestly,I do think there are some Feminist out there that do intend todo good for men.” Yeah, but all you’ll get from them is kind compassionate words. The ones ‘Driving the Bus’ are the ones who want you down on the ground , with their foot on your throat
@ Bob-O
“Men need to stand up for men.”
Men need to stand up for what is right. When women face injustice, we should stand up for them as well.
I agree with Justin…Feminism has helped both men and women….My husband and I both spoke at our child’s middle school for Career Day and had a blast! Some of the professions among the women represented were: newscaster, child abuse lawyer, nurse, yoga instructor, physician, etc. One of the fathers is a writer for a popular cartoon show, who said he was fortunate to have been supported in his creative endeavors by his working wife…Isn’t this about teamwork? If each member of the team is strong, then doesn’t it benefit the whole family as a whole? Doesn’t that benefit society if feminism paves the way for women to excel in their careers, like winning an Emmy for newscasting?
“If each member of the team is strong, then doesn’t it benefit the whole family as a whole? Doesn’t that benefit society if feminism paves the way for women to excel in their careers”
I think most people on this thread would agree that feminism has been good for women. I think most people would agree that society benefits when women benefit. The question posed was did feminism benefit men. Do men only benefit from feminism when they are attached (married, etc) to women or has feminism benefitted men? Some men won’t leave abusive relationships because they fear the loss of their children. Unless I misread, your example didn’t include a single father, who works because child custody laws recognize his value as a parent and child support laws insist on the mother financially supporting her child allowing him to afford day care.
The argument many people on this forum are making is that when you factor in the indirect benefits that men gain from feminism and the indirect and at times very direct harms that men receive from feminism, it may very well have resulted in a net harm to men.
I guess I don’t have a problem with feminism as a theory, which I suppose simply states that females are equal to males.
I have a problem with feminists. And not all feminists; “egalitarian feminists,” for example, in general seem to usually, mostly, actually care about equality.
But, oh my goodness, the other feminists – the majority of feminists (or, if you like, the loud minority, as it amounts to the same thing). The ones that deny the value of men. The ones that call us rapists and abusers. The ones who canonize motherhood and denigrate fatherhood. The ones who are angry at the “Patriarchy.” The ones who endlessly cite “Rape Culture.”
So, no, “Feminism” does NOT “help men.” There are WOMEN who help men. Feminism hinders maleness and manhood, and no amount of fluffy opinion pieces are going to change my mind. I don’t even know whose minds they’re supposed to change.
Yeah yeah, everything is a social construct, white males are guilty of everything, you are just afraid of losing your privilege, but your ancestors had slaves 800 years ago, people of color have it much worse (actually it’s kinda funny- the only thing uniting People of Color is not being white- suddenly, a Japanese is in the same category as refugee from Somalia).
Oh, I forgot whataboutthemenz meme, but I guess using it here is would be an overkill (you can encounter it on Jezebel and Feministe (it’s really funny when you get it when discussing things concerning men)).
So, feminism has helped men by doing things men neither wanted, asked for, care about, or find beneficial.
Thanks?
One of my points was that none of us born after the Second Wave “chose” feminism in any way: it came before us. None of us asked for it, but these are, in my opinion, absolutely benefits, and I, for one, care about them. You might not care about equality or freedom, but you’d be in an unpopular minority.
I think that’s an unfair characterization Justin.
One can care about freedom and equality without being a Feminist. More importantly those values exists independently of ANY social movement — Feminism doesn’t have a monoply on them. And as many commenters here have pointed out — Feminism hasn’t always meant freedom or equality, and many would argue that today mainstream Feminism very rarely means freedom or equality.
You were the one who said you didn’t care about any of these benefits of feminism. Do you not value any of the freedoms that women enjoy, that we can attribute to the actions of those who called themselves feminists?
“You were the one who said you didn’t care about any of these benefits of feminism.”
Correction. They aren’t benefits. They don’t benefit to the average man.
“Do you not value any of the freedoms that women enjoy”
Sure, but that’s not the subject here. If you had titled the piece, “Five Ways that Feminism Benefits WOMEN” (not men), there would be more relevance, but you didn’t.”
Certainly, everyone wants freedom and equality in a general sense. And, I respect your opinion that the above benefit you; however, this list is the feminist version of the freedom and equality and has nothing to do with and offers no benefit to the average man who has no interest in feminism or its theories/philosophies.
I’d like to ask why yet another of my post responding to Eric M.’s at 2:32pm has been stricken out. (which is what I’m assuming since it doesn’t show in moderation any more, but doesn’t appear in the comments either).
I have no idea why this post would have been stricken as it was just a laundry list of some anti-male things feminist orgs have done and I took the time to put the disclaimer that it is political feminist orgs, not denouncing all feminists.
This is becoming quite burdensome.
Yes, indeed. They should just shut down the comments section. It would be less trouble for them with all the censorship that has been going on lately.
Oi, there’s a commenting policy. When you make a comment, you agree to it…and you agree that if it violates the policy than it can be taken down. If you can even define it as censorship, then you agreed to it by writing a comment. So there’s that.
Secondly, all the moderators are volunteers and do their best to foster discussion while at the same time keeping offensive and generalized statements out of the comments. This article has got 141 comments in the last 24 hours (or so). That is a lot of comments for a small group of volunteers to moderate on top of regular traffic.
I’ve read the policy and follow it.
Ultimately this is a debate about KINDS of feminism, not really about all or nothing.
As a history geek, I would add that the overwhelming majority of Americans already ARE feminist in some way, if we take “feminism” back to earlier women’s movements that didn’t use the word feminism. In 1912, ideas that were pretty radically feminist back then are in 2012 so mainstream that you would look like an extremist nutcase to argue against them.
Feminism in its 1912 incarnations included such incredibly crazy ideas as:
Women being able to vote.
Women serving on juries.
Women getting elected to office.
Women being allowed to buy materials with accurate information about where babies come from.
Women being guaranteed the same property rights as men.
In order to be good mothers, women needed to have some minimum standards of literacy.
In order to be good mothers to the children they have, women need to have good access to birth control and other forms of family planning.
I know, whacky, wild, radical un-American stuff, right?
If your mother has ever voted, then guess what, she’s at the very least an old school feminist. If you see nothing wrong with your mother voting, then you are also a feminist. If you have ever run for office and received any votes from women, then guess what, feminism has put you into power. If you want your daughter to get accurate information about human reproduction, then sorry to say you are an obscene radical feminist.
What’s radical in one generation often becomes ho-hum in a later generation. Radical feminism today may very well look quaint and self-evident 50 years from now.
“What’s radical in one generation often becomes ho-hum in a later generation. Radical feminism today may very well look quaint and self-evident 50 years from now.”
I really hope not, since I (and many other people I know of) tend to define “radical” feminism as the group that wants to institute things like “National Castration Day.”
HOrrifying. Could I get the link or name of that group? It’s so offensive I need to see it for myself. Given how many feminist I personally know who are against mgm I want to know I’m fighting against.
This is all I know about Feminists involved in castration:
http://thefemitheist.blogspot.it/2012/04/allow-me-to-introduce-myself.html
http://www.dangerouscreation.com/2011/04/world-peace-is-achievable-castrate-all-males/
http://www.likelike.com/pollcommentary/2212
I’m not sure how prevalent “National Castration Day” is among feminist groups, but the idea of killing all men is quite common among radfem forums:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt103233.html
http://www.menrpigs.com/main.php
http://just-smith.tumblr.com/post/14531298436/scum-society-for-cutting-up-men-manifesto-full-text
Just a few examples that I personally know of.
That said, I refuse to believe that intentional killing or castrating men is part of the mainstream Feminist agenda. The people in the links above are definitely beyond radical.
It was just an example Julie. There is one woman on YouTube (Called, I think Femtheist) who has posts up about her belief in a National Castration Day for men, but I’m pretty sure she’s a bad troll, rather than a serious feminist. Her blog is here http://thefemitheist.blogspot.co.uk/ But like I said, I’m not falling for it.
However, there’s always been women who advocated some form of male gendercide who I’d have a hard time arguing werent serious about it. Mary Daly for example, the S.C.U.M manifesto… those sorts of things. When I hear “radical” feminism that’s what I think about.
Oh and I know some people think Solanas wrote her Manifesto as some form of satire… considering she tried to kill Andy Warhol, and gave no indications she was satirizing (that I’m aware of) I’m disinclined to believe that.
Wasn’t she mentally ill? Lots of radical radicals in the 60s, of all kinds, race too.
She might have been but I don’t see that courtesy being extended to men that attack women though. Nope its just good old fashion “I hate women” sentiment.
And that’s the problem. When someone does mention negativity among feminists the official response is to write it off, minimize it, or mitigate it away somehow.
Sigh. Well you sure aren’t hearing from me on those matters, cause clearly people who go off killing people are mentally disturbed on some level. Did she hate men? Yep. Was she a rad fem? Apparently. Do I deny her work? I find it hard to read disturbed and I decry it as anything I stand for. And I also think girl was jacked up. I’m not a feminist leader so I know my opinion wont hold water with you, bu I don’t support her work. Look it’s here in writing.
I mean, George Sodini? Mentally. Ill. There are lots of people out there who are unstable. And they may read a variety of websites that are focused on “battle cries” of some kind. Rad fems, MRA, KKK, or even less provocative stuff. And then they take it to heart because they are mentally unstable. Sometimes they do very bad things because their minds are ill.
As for past radicals, do we say that all Black Panthers, a part of history, accurately reflect modern civil rights? I don’t claim Solanas as representative of anything I believe in. I’m sure there are MRAs that deny George Sodini. His actions don’t reflect what all MRA want.
And as for the Castration Day, if you thought that lady was actually a troll, why bring it up? Bring up real people with real horrible ideas and then the rest of us can decry them too.
Ok. Women can be sociopathic, mentally unstable, evil and inhuman monsters. That’s no surprise to me. Evil doesn’t pick a gender.
Julie
There isnt any connection between George Sodini and the mens movement.
That’s just some nonsense that has been circulated.
My point, poorly made was that even if he was, he was mentally ill. Extremely so. His actions, perhaps inspired by something he read or saw (anywhere) were influenced by a completely unstable personality and perhaps chemical disorder to the point of no rationality. Or he was a sociopath and could have decided to do what he did regardless of influence.
The anywhere meaning being that if he was reading comic books and decided Marvel’s Avengers told him to shoot people, we wouldn’t blame the comic books.
I wouldn’t anyway.
Actually your opinion does hold water with me. The problem is that in the eyes of some of those leaders they will in one hand find the tiniest bit of evidence to try to discredit the likes of Glenn Sacks but then ignore mountains of evidence that count against people like Solanas.
I mean, George Sodini? Mentally. Ill. There are lots of people out there who are unstable. And they may read a variety of websites that are focused on “battle cries” of some kind. Rad fems, MRA, KKK, or even less provocative stuff. And then they take it to heart because they are mentally unstable. Sometimes they do very bad things because their minds are ill.
I can dig that. But again my problem is that when it comes to MRAs and feminists it seems that the same feminists will hold up Sodini as representation of all MRAs will then scream then turn around and scream the bloodiest of murder when an MRA holds up Daly as representation of all feminists.
Not sure who mentioned the Castration Day thing.
@ Danny
I kind of remember a while back one feminist or a small group of feminists advocating sex selective abortion of male babies. The thought was to reduce the number of males to marginalize them. U remember there was a discussion on women using stored sperm in sperm banks to repopulate after men were re-educated.
I find parts of the discussion on various message boards, but the links to the original article are dead. I wasn’t into gender politics when I read this so didn’t follow the story. Not sure if it was swept under the feminist rug or was an Onion story. Does someone remember this?
Danny,
Sodini wasn’t an mra though.
You’re right Eoghan. The “connection” that Sodini had to MRAs and PUAs seems to be no more than some individuals among those groups that identified with him and his actions. Even if he didn’t ID as such it still goes to show that when it comes to damning MRAs as a groups the tiniest crumb of evidence will do while entire mountains of evidence are happily ignored when it comes to feminists.
Can’t co-sign that point enough Danny,
Feminism is only a monolith when it suits the movement. And it certainly is problematic to see prominent Feminists distance themselves from those who spout hateful rhetoric — only to see those same people back at “the dinner table” once the public outcry has blown over.
You know what would help me? Who are these prominent feminists? How do I become one that actually is a humanist? Cause I don’t think I am one, but I don’t agree with some of the things they say, and I keep hearing you all wanting people to speak up against it and when many of us do good work, it’s not “big” enough for it to count, I don’t think.
So what is to be done?
I think the failure of the slutwalks organization to call out the useage of the n-word during their marches, as well as the lack of dialogue with women of color in general on the purpose of “slutwalks” is something I think needs to be addressed.
I’d also like to see Amanda Marcotte apologize for bashing non-gender conforming men for not being “manly enough”. She picks on nerds A LOT, but doesn’t really care about them. She just uses it as a political platform.
That said, I think you do good work Julie. I see you as distinctly apart from mainstream Feminism. You work to advocate for women, but you’re not partisan about it. More importantly, I see your Feminism as the true Feminism our society is lacking, unfortunately.
That’s great that you think that. I work to advocate for men too. So how do we find more of me, and get us in positions of leadership? That’s the action question. I hear that you want allies, what do we do when we find them, how do we find more, and how do we build a movement that makes actual positive change for all?
I can’t believe you’re asking who these prominent feminists are. Have you have ever read any Dworkin, McKinnon, or Daly? These folks are smack-dab in the mainstream of feminist thought. It’s easy to draw a straight line from those three directly to the crazies at Radfem Hub and sickos like Biting Beaver.
I can’t understand how any movement that supposedly claims to disavow Solanis wouldn’t also disavow Dworkin and Daly.
Current leaders in the field. I don’t consider them leaders, I consider them history. Dworkin is dead. Daly is dead. I don’t think McKinnon is considered current. I don’t find anything to relate to them, personally.
And of course I know who Twisty Faster etc are. I don’t read them. I don’t agree with them.
You know what would help me? Who are these prominent feminists? How do I become one that actually is a humanist? Cause I don’t think I am one, but I don’t agree with some of the things they say, and I keep hearing you all wanting people to speak up against it and when many of us do good work, it’s not “big” enough for it to count, I don’t think.
I’m talking folks like the big brains behind Shakesville, Feministe, Feministing, Finally Feminism 101, etc….
1. Folks that have no problem generalizing all MRAs but don’t think its fair to generalize all feminists. (And some will even go as far as to think its fair to generalize all men but unfair to do the same to women.)
2. They’ve got no problem mischaracterizing or even straight up lying about people who disagree with them (manboobz seems to be scoring big time off of this one).
4. As mentioned above some of these folks have no problem marinalizing male victims of DV and rape for the sake of making sure they remain defined as “something men do to women”.
5. Ever notice how these folks have selectively redefined sexism as male against female only and also adamantly deny that female privielge does not exist?
Now as for the “not big enough” to count thing I really feel you. That’s the same criteria that a lot of these same feminists hold over our heads. The bad things that happen to men don’t happen as much as they happen to women so mention of men is strictly limited to back burner status. And any disagreement with that is taken to automatically indicate that we are trying to make it “all about teh menz” which is the same as “hating teh womenz”.
OK, if you’re denying the current influence of Dworkin and Daly, and rejecting Twisty Faster because you don’t read her, how about Rebecca Watson? She generalizes the MRM as a bunch of whiners and misogynists and crucifies some poor schmuck via YouTube who has the temerity to hit on her in an elevator. Yet for some reason she’s hugely influential in both the New Atheist movement and the younger feminist movement.
Julie, I sense your weariness with this topic. I don’t blame you. Feminists tend to get a beat-down in the comments to articles like this. But frankly, that’s simply because articles like this have no value. They’re not going to change anyone’s mind and are doing nothing but pandering to the elements of a movement that would never read this site in the first place.
Peace. You continue to do good work.
Just so you know, my focus in my personal advocacy isn’t even really feminism. It’s relationship and sexual rights and equity, sex ed, and social justice in general.
I was not a women’s and gender studies major. I was a fine arts major with a master’s in applied behavioral sciences. No formal “feminist” training. My mother grew up in the 30′s so she would have been first wave, and really only identified officially with feminism in the 70′s and even then it was in the context of being a liberal. As such, my experience with feminism has had much more to do with the issues listed so well by WellOkayThen:
That and things like people being able to get out of abusive situations when they are in them.
When I first read MacKinnon I was appalled. I saw Solanas for her place in a wacked out radical time, and as someone who needed help. I was always pro sex, pro people not getting raped (and always have known that men could assaulted) etc etc ad nauseum I’ve listed it here.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. Weary? Yeah, sometimes yes. Because I didn’t come from a radical tradition, I don’t necessarily always get (what can seem to me like) a radical response. I was raised to find pragmatic solutions to things while trying to understand the systems that created the problems. I was not allowed or encouraged to just complain with no action. Sometimes this space feels like a great place to vent (and certainly I am very aware of the feelings, anger, frustration and pain that so many of our writers and commenters feel safe bringing here), but I don’t always get to see the actual pragmatic work people do on the outside (which I am sure most of you are doing-volunteering, writing letters, finding in real time advocacy groups, talking with politicians etc) and I’d love to see more of that in the comments (that’s just personal to me).
Ultimately, whether I am weary doesn’t matter. I know what I do in real time (outside of the web) to support changes for men, women, trans, etc and my focus will remain as such. In many ways, it won’t matter if people here see me as an ally or not, because I’ll keep doing the work I’m doing on my own and with the many many people I know in the “real world” who seem like minded, focused on making change incrementally, and so forth.
Julie,
That’s great that you think that. I work to advocate for men too. So how do we find more of me, and get us in positions of leadership? That’s the action question. I hear that you want allies, what do we do when we find them, how do we find more, and how do we build a movement that makes actual positive change for all?
I don’t know that men can do these things for Feminism. Feminism is a movement for women by women. Even male Feminists are sublimated to these trend. I just don’t think men have a place in changing or redefining Feminism, or in advocating from within Feminism for better leaders. That’s something Feminists need to do for themselves.
Men like me, and definitely men in the MRM can only clean our own house. Trust me, we’ve got enough of our own problems to deal with before we’re ready to tackle anybody else’s.
We do need allies, but considering the extreme difference in power between Feminism and Masculism, it’s difficult to see men instigating sincere change any time soon without severe efforts that just aren’t possible in the MRM’s current incarnation.
That said, as you mentioned in your latter comments, people are taking action. We just sometimes forget to talk about it in the comments section! ; )
You may be misunderstanding me. I wondered how it would be possible to find more people like myself to get in positions of leadership in feminism to change the system.
I’m a huge believer in allies. Straights need to come out of the closet to support (actively) the LGBT community, white people need to examine privilege etc. I would very much see men and women allying towards a more humane and human world.
It doesn’t matter though. My role in this world wasn’t as a “feminist” leader anyway, but a humanist one (if I’m a leader at all, even). And I can ally for people whether I’m invited or not. I have spoken about 4 times in the last week locally (one to a group of 2000 people, several small groups, a couple of 1-1s), and in each place I brought up men, men’s rights, and men’s reproductive issues. Got a few odd looks, and also cheers, and several changed minds.
A lot of women who are feminist (or consider themselves such) have no fucking idea that these issues are there. So I bring them up. Johnny Appleseed and all that. And it doesn’t much matter to you all if I do, I get that, but if it makes the world a more equitable place, I’m happy to do my part.
Julie,
You may be misunderstanding me. I wondered how it would be possible to find more people like myself to get in positions of leadership in feminism to change the system.
Maybe I am, because I thought I responded to that. I don’t think it’s possible for men to find or get more people like yourself into positions of power in Feminism for the reasons I noted in my previous comment.
And it doesn’t much matter to you all if I do, I get that, but if it makes the world a more equitable place, I’m happy to do my part.
It matters to me =)
Ah. Well, the question was in part rhetorical. I don’t care who finds them, just that they join in.
there’s a reason I specifically say “radical” or “political” feminism when I talk about these things- (or I try to anyway, I’m sure it’s slipped my mind at some point) it’s precisely because I don’t see feminism as monolithic.
“Wasn’t she mentally ill? Lots of radical radicals in the 60s, of all kinds, race too.”
For me the issue with Solonas and scum isn’t the fact that a woman wrote something hateful about men (What? A human being is prejudiced??). It’s that so many generations of feminists felt the need to justify her views and remould them as acceptable and even funny.
I know you probably don’t, but the women who claim to represent you certainly seem to.
it is also inaccurate to portray Solanis as alone in her “kooky” belief. A recent Feminist convention in Perth, Western Australia advertised using SCUM as a catch cry. Check it out here http://allecto.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/scum-radical-feminist-conference/
“ah at last!!!, was disappointed the melb feminist futures conference in May had transgender contributors. so missed the alternate real feminist one…. somehow tho there have been female only lesbian live in events in SA, NSW and Vict for last x years run partially by us older radical lesbian feminists/ womens liberationists(see Jean Taylor) , hope yr weblog fairly secure????- been court cases with EEO
is this tho my old womens refuge friend, Gillian Alecto, or another Allecto???anyhow, good on you ggrrls. – an eagle, radical landwomyn”
Now I see the hatred for trans people. Can I use this as proof feminism is a hate movement like the SPLC did for the MRM?
Hey! What about that wonderful show on CBS , ‘The Talk’. When they brought up the story about that guy who was drugged , castrated by his wife, and his genetalia thrown in the garbage disposial. Did you see the way all the hosts cheered? Sharon Osborn even hollared out “You go girl!” Even the studio audience cheered along wildly. As a man, that really gave me pause to think!
A typical reaction among women to violence towards men. When you hear stuff like that, you *know* you’re in the middle of a gender war. And it’s not hard to figure out who’s winning.
All the things you mentioned are only for Americans. Women were given the right to vote on the same day men were in my country. About “materials with accurate information”- you really think men were given these then ?
About birth control and abortion…. many European nations (mine included, 1.3 child/woman ) are facing… well, extinction in the long run. Of course, there are many factors, but…
There are also women who enjoy these privileges and while you may call them feminist, they do not see it that way; they call it “egalitarianism” or “equal rights,” forgetting who fought for them for women, and do not identify themselves as feminists. I’m just saying, women vote and manage not to ID as feminist.
more feminism=more single moms. That is not saying it is good or bad.
1. Gives us equal partners. We don’t have equal partners if women are equal to men, but men are not equal to women. In Illinois the feminist lobby fought against criminalizing interference with child visitation. Feminism actively excludes men from receiving DV services unless it’s counseling for being a batterer. How many tax funded DV shelters are there for women and where are the corresponding shelters for men? When one partner can’t escape an abusive relationship, they are not equal. In what ways has feminism advanced father’s rights? How many times have we seen feminists state that men commit the overwhelming amount of DV and sexual violence, while we’ve provided statistics to the contrary?
2. Provides a model for constantly changing gender roles. Yes, I’ve seen the gender roles change. Look at education where boys are being under educated. Just providing a model doesn’t necessarily benefit men. It has to be a beneficial model for men to benefit men.
3. I don’t have a major problem with this one, but I’m not sure it was feminism that did it. The abolitionists we fought to end slavery changed a tradition that was around for 1,000s of years and when the black man got the vote, it caused people to wonder why white women shouldn’t have it also. Look at the civil rights movement in the 1950s followed by the feminist revolution in the 1960s/70s. Social constructs seem to have been more impacted by the struggle for racial justice than by feminism. Feminism used these changes to reach for a new social construct for women.
4. Encourages us to speak as our own voices. Like many of the other people on this thread, I’ve had my voice silence on many occasions by feminists. Look at the FBI definition of rape. Feminists supported legislation to make the overwhelming majority of male victims of female perpetrators invisible, so much for your voice.
5. Makes us all more free. Please reread numbers 1 – 4. I am unconvinced that feminism makes men more free.
Yes, I know that not all feminists are this or that, but the article makes generalizations, which just happen to put feminism in a favorable and I’d contend undeserved light at least as it relates to men. I’d agree that feminism enriched the lives of half the population and that is a good thing.
“How many times have we seen feminists state that men commit the overwhelming amount of DV and sexual violence, while we’ve provided statistics to the contrary?”
I think that this is one of my major issues with Feminism. Instead of objectively looking at studies and statistics they always seem to cherry pick the ones that suit their agenda.
I mean even the Department of Labor says the wage gap isn’t real but we keep hearing about it from Feminists, in fact they just had a holiday for it…
I guess my first comment was deleted for some reason. I don’t see it anywhere.
I posted a point by point rebuff that got held under moderation and now is gone. Maybe somebody would care to tell me what was so bad about it?
Okay. That’s two responses deleted thus far.
Obviously I’m not welcome in this discussion. Thanks for nothing.
Feminists spent my entire childhood beating me, forcibly drugging me, denying me protection from the violence of others (particularly women and girls) and taught me to hate and fear my own maleness to the extent that I still lack any sense of positive gender identity. As a result, I was clinically depressed by the age of eight, a condition which continues to this day.
Feminist censorship has prevented me from expressing my experiences and views in academic and professional setting, even when those views are backed by mountains of peer-reviewed studies and hard evidence.
Feminist-supported legal policies have made an equal, or even safe, relationship impossible for me by denying me the same legal protections offered to women (as a survivor of past abuse, this is very important to me). Thay have also worked to ensure that I experience the same social obligations in any relationship that I would have had I lived a hundred years previously, but receive none of the benefits intended to make them worthwhile. An equal relationship cannot exist under these conditions.
Feminists made me sit through three seminars on rape, which were not required of women, when I entered university, but ensure that I was unaware that men could be, and frequently are, raped by women until it happened to someone I knew. As a result, I was entirely unequipped to offer that man the help and support he needed from those around him (needed more desperately than a woman would in the same situation, as several large organizations exist to provide them assistance unavailable to men).
Feminists created hostile work environments in which I experienced constant harassment, sexual and otherwise, from women and was provided none of the options and protections available to women in the same position. Any attempt to address these issues resulted in ridicule and threats, also from feminists.
Feminists did not teach me to think for myself or question my roles and obligations. I learned those things from writers, philosophers and scientists, many of whom lived and wrote long before feminism was even a shadow of a thought in the back of someone’s mind. These same people also provided me with the tools to analyze feminism and identify its fabrications, omissions and general failure to meet any kind of proper academic standards.
I think that all five of your points are nothing more than unsubstantiated fictions; convenient bit of PR to mollify growing public resentment and hostility engendered by decades of corruption and hate.
I love you, bro.
You’re not alone.
1. Gives us equal partners.
Women are not equal partners; when they can obtain custody 70% of the time in divorce; when they can kill their husband , claim a history of abuse and not even have to prove it. When women commit crimes and receive the women’s discount in sentencing; when women paedophiles are not placed on a sex offender’s register for life, when it is even law in some countries that a woman cannot commit rape, only sexual assault.. When women have programmes of placement in work (but only the safe ones) and tertiary study. This is privilege of women, not equality.
2. Provides a model for consciously changing gender roles.
Feminism only concerns itself with venerating women’s gender roles and vilifying those of men. All men are rapists, all men are abusers, all DV is men on women. Patently false positions but they are the mainstay of feminist-inspired government policies.
3. Provokes us to consider the many identities that yoke us, sometimes in competing directions.
This one I agree with; men are finally recognising the golden yoke is still a yoke and are forgoing it in increasing numbers. Of course, feminists are calling men who don’t marry “child-like” to try to shame them into a deal that has a 40% chance of leaving them financially and emotionally ruined.
4. Encourages us to speak in our own voices.
Feminism encourages women to believe they are experts on men; what makes a “good Man”, what men should do for women. It is long on women’s rights and short on women’s obligations. Men though, are forbidden to pass comment on what makes a “good woman” as that is portrayed as sexist.
5. Makes us all more free.
It makes women free of responsibility; yet oddly demands be more responsible. Feminists want their freedom and their pedestal, and women are slowly realising you cannot have both.
MOD EDIT: Please avoid generalising feminism in this manner.
“Of course, feminists are calling men who don’t marry “child-like” to try to shame them into a deal that has a 40% chance of leaving them financially and emotionally ruined.”
I keep hearing feminists deny that feminism as a whole has an interest in shaming men into marriage.
Because this gender war is a zero-sum game (due to funding) I find this hard to believe. If men walk away from the boardgame then women can no longer “win”. Because if men have no interest in marriage, we tend to only work hard enough to support ourselves. This means we will pay lower taxes and the money for all those women-only services will dry up, particularly support for single mothers living off of the state. I understand that single mother households are now the most common family structure in our country. Without men busting our asses to make money the math just doesn’t work out. I think this is why we see magazines like Forbes writing about young men not getting married, because they see strong financial implications.
And from my experiences with women I think most of them want to get married. So feminist or not, I would imagine that most *women* want to shame men into marriage, because if we refuse to marry, then they won’t be able to.
I’d like to see some evidence either way. Either evidence of feminism taking an active role in shaming young men into marriage or feminism taking an active role in defending young men’s right to abstain from marriage.
” If men walk away from the boardgame then women can no longer “win”. Because if men have no interest in marriage, we tend to only work hard enough to support ourselves. This means we will pay lower taxes and the money for all those women-only services will dry up, particularly support for single mothers living off of the state. I understand that single mother households are now the most common family structure in our country. Without men busting our asses to make money the math just doesn’t work out. I think this is why we see magazines like Forbes writing about young men not getting married, because they see strong financial implications.”
Yes, exactly. Men are deciding that the only winning move in this society is not to play. This will have a devastating effect on the economy and society. Unless men are treated fairly again by society the future of America is that of a 3rd world country.
Forget to mention, Google – Misandry Bubble – for an excellent essay on how this is going to unfold.
Word, thanks bro. I’ve seen it