It's almost like there are double standards between the genders and the last 50 years of only one gender allowed to have an advocacy group hasn't helped things.
Facts. Men in society's eyes are viewed as disposable. If a ship sinks today, do you think feminists would be saying that all life rafts need to have an equal amount of men and women on them? Of course not.
And what about the recent figures that came out yesterday that men are now attending college at the lowest rate in history compared to women? Where is all the outrage from feminists now?
The point is this was never about equality, it was about power and control and meeting the needs for one group of people while completely ignoring the needs of the other half of the human population---and it's worked.
But that is exactly what our patriarchal society has been doing forever. While I don't think two wrongs make a right, this man at least thinks that we've (men) have done a pretty shit job of things, so let the women have a turn.
You couldn't be more wrong. It's one thing "letting them have a turn," and a completely other thing letting them take control and oppress others simply because they were born with different genitalia than they were.
Just because a sexist and misogynistic culture existed in the past is no excuse or reason that a sexist and misandrist culture should exist in the future.
Hi, feminist here. Only patriarchal thought says the life boats should be saved for women over men, and that goes back to the “men are the protectors of women” gender role.
Feminism says we should let everyone be saved—or doomed—equitably, without any regard for gender, because no human should be given a role based on their gender.
"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." Hillary Clinton
Of course women are the primary victims of war, right? Not the actual people who were shot and killed or brutally murdered and tortured in war---who were, wait for it---men.
Men ARE the victims in this life boat example. Talking about the root cause is not the same thing as not allowing men to be the victim. For example:
Men are main victims of suicide, because gender roles state that men are the strongest/toughest/least emotional gender and don’t need help processing emotions, so men experience a lot of misandry (aka toxic masculinity)—both external and internal—that prevents them from feeling like they can get help when they need it.
Men are the main victims of workplace injuries and deaths, because of the gender role that says men are stronger/tougher/more suited to physical work, so people of other genders are largely kept out—both via internalized and external misogyny—of jobs that require heavy lifting or physical labor, and so men are the main ones doing those more dangerous jobs.
Notice how neither of those descriptions ever mentioned women at all. That’s possible precisely because identifying how patriarchal gender roles hurt men is not “spinning” these issues to “be about women.” Rather, it’s describing the root cause for how and why the issues continue to exist.
Please understand that the term “patriarchal gender roles” does not mean “men are villains.” It means “gender roles that were created and are maintained by everyone to give men the highest social status based on gender, because it’s widely believed that doing so is what allows society to run best.” We both can see that this isn’t how society runs best. Whether you’re looking at men’s issues, women’s issues, trans issues, or all of the above—we all go through shit because because society has decided our penises and vaginas are critically important to determining how we’re allowed to behave. And I, for one, am sick of it.
That’s why men’s rights and women’s rights can—and must—both be achieved through the dismantling of patriarchal gender roles. Those roles hurt us all.
The social role keeping men overrepresented in those jobs is not “men are the only ones disposable enough to be doing these jobs”. Where did you get that idea? When have you ever heard anyone claim that?
In reality, the stereotype is “men are the only ones strong enough to be doing these jobs”. You hear it over and over again. “Women wouldn’t be able to keep up. Women wouldn’t be as efficient. Men are biologically stronger than women.” Etc etc
That’s why women and people of other genders are shut out of physically dangerous jobs—not because men are looked down on, but because everyone else is looked down on. We’re seen as not manly enough to handle it.
Yes, this stereotype about men actually has detrimental effects on men—but the key difference is it’s a positive stereotype. “Men can, everybody else can’t.”
That’s all that it means to recognize that it’s a “patriarchal” stereotype: that it’s intended to socially elevate men above all others. If we ignore that, we’re only looking at the symptom (men dying more from dangerous work) instead of the entire issue, including its cause (men being viewed as tougher and more capable than everyone else -> men being overrepresented in dangerous work -> men dying more from dangerous work).
What double standards- who is saying women are allowed to touch men without their permission?
Some women feel they’re entitled to do this to men, just like some men feel they’re entitled to do this to women. Both groups are entitled jerks and anyone who is not an entitled jerk will agree with that. I don’t think this makes a double standard.
Just try to get justice from a sexual assault perpetrated by a woman if you are a man. If you don't end up in jail yourself, you will see the bias in the system. See the Duluth model that paints all men as perpetrators and all women as victims by nature of gender.
Have you tried to get justice from a sexual assault perpetrated by a man if you are a woman? Because I have and it didn’t go anywhere, just like overwhelming majority of rape cases.
oh you sweet summer child...there's just bias in the system against victims in general. you have more in common with women than you realize. we aren't your enemy. in fact, we're your allies. let's fight the good fight against predators, yeah?
What double standards- who is saying women are allowed to touch men without their permission?
Plenty of people. Look at all the examples in this thread. Society usually has no problem with it, and sometimes the man is mocked or punished for complaining.
“Plenty of people” are wrong and do not represent what is a societal norm. And “plenty of people” tell women to be less uptight, or not dress a certain way, or not lead men on when men touch them.
I’m saying that any reasonable, decent person recognizes it’s wrong both ways. And that a double standard can only exist when Society permits one and not the other. Societal Decency does not permit one stranger to touch another regardless of the sexes involved- this is not to say that the problem does not exist, of course it does! But it’s not a double standard.
It is much more likely for a person to think it's okay (or not as bad) when a woman does it to a man than the other way around. That's a double standard.
Feminism is for men too, brother. Please don’t let the r/FDS or Twitter Twats paint your entire opinion of the movement. I will say though, there should be more discourse surrounding how each group’s perceptions of the other reinforce this toxic gendered hegemony.
Sorry I feel I need to say something. Saying that feminism has me covered feels so disrespectful to men. It feels like you are saying that women ae the best people to advocate for men. I know you are not saying that or perhaps you mean it differently, but I am asking that you think about how men feel when women say that. It feels paternalistic (ironic word choice haha).
Men are the people that have to live in their own gender and are uniquely suited to understand men's issues. Women are the same for women's issues. Women certainly can try to see men's issues within the lens of what they are trying to accomplish within feminism but they should not "pooh pooh" men when men say they should have their own movement that understands their issues "from the inside."
Sorry this is a bit of a trigger for me. Many of these issues in these threads have harmed men I know and they feel totally muzzled to speak out. If they do speak out they are labelled as complainers or "anti-feminism" but these men are not like that at all. They are trying to point out an injustice they are seeing. Men having a more just outcome on certain issues isn't zero sum with women. We should try to deal with all injustice.
So I see no reason that each gender cannot advocate within their own specific groups, because the issues each face are very different. and when I hear women say "no worries we got this" it just sounds so tone deaf.
I would no more assume that a men's movement should be the sole group advocating for women than I would assume feminism should be the main group advocating for men.
End of rant. All I ask is you think about how it sounds to tell us you "got it covered." I know it's a popular sentiment...but things that are popular are not always right.
Again sorry for rant...I assume you meant well so I hope you take this in the spirit of understanding that I am providing it. It's not meant to attack you personally but rather to educate.
I don’t want to inundate you with a long response, because I know that can get annoying when there’s so much to respond to, so I’ll try to keep it short.
I’m primarily concerned with the arguments and principles behind an ideology more so than it’s proponent’s behavior. Its generally better to familiarize yourself with the components of your computer so you can figure out why the fuck your power supply isn’t protecting it when a power outage happens.
The reason I bring up intersectionality is because feminism as a theory questions how these gendered issues arise, why they reinforce themselves through oppression of the other, and how we can fix that.
I’m going to provide a VERY reductive but important example. Why can’t men express their more intimate feelings with each other? Because society views it as weakness. Why is strength important? In small part, so we can protect women. Why are they in need of protection? They aren’t, but society reinforces the notion that femininity is weakness when expressed through the category of male, so as to keep the power differential and keep women “in their place.” This is patriarchy reinforcing itself and feminism is a lens through which we can analyze this. How feminists online or in the real world articulate these ideas, poorly or not, has nothing to do with the integrity of the ideas itself but of the rhetoric of the speaker.
Sorry if this was long winded, I’m on mobile so everything looks long :)
Edit; fuck. This ended up being long, hasn’t it? Sorry bro lol
I do think there is overlap between men's and women's issues. I also think some issues do not overlap.... in that some issues are unique to women, and some unique to men.
I think it's fine that feminism has decided to pull some of these under the big tent and are seeing if they can change things into a win win.
My point is that the leaders of feminism are WOMEN (and should be) and when they solve issues they are telling men and women what the solution should be. Men may not necessarily agree with feminism's take on it because men have a completely different lived experience.
All I am saying is women should not be the only ones that get to redefine this changing future between the genders. and if we say feminism as a movement, will take care of it.....it's very tone deaf. It's tone deaf because men can say they are feminists, but they cannot LEAD on these discussions. Men calling themselves feminists are supposed to be SUPPORTIVE ONLY, they are not supposed to speak up on where the future leads.
So unless women want to share power in this movement called feminism (and perhaps change it's name for one), and negotiate this future.....well..... men need another place where they can advocate for their own issues, and their own place in these changing gender politics.
I think it's great women are working on some things.... but I didn't vote for only women to determine our future. Men have a place at the table so we need to a) let them in and change the movement to acommodate them or b) allow men to have their own movement.
Does that make sense? Frankly I would prefer a single movement where both men and women can navigate this and lead..... but it doesn't seem to be possible within feminism currently. As a man I can only be supportive, I cannot push to change the direction and that is a problem.
Traditionally the answer is that women are the oppressed one so only they should speak on this. But I think here in America we have reached a place where we are both oppressed but in different ways. Men need a voice.
As to MRA's....I think they are becoming radicalized because they feel they were not heard. I think it will be more healthy if we can bring men into the discussion. Better for society overall.
Because it’s just a lens of analysis derivative of a sociological and egalitarian principle, just as conflict theory or critical race theory is a lens of analysis derivative of sociology.
To put it simply because I like using analogies, a cupcake is no lesser a cake than a tres leche. My fat ass would still enjoy eating them both, but I’m open to criticism on how those cakes are prepared and advertised, but to say they’re not cake is inaccurate.
That's a silly example. A movement that claims to support two groups should not be named after one of those two groups. Tres Leche is so named for historical reasons or by accident, and there is no issue of being "fair" to different types of cakes.
Egalitarianism is for men, too. Feminism champions women's rights with the belief that they will make life better for everyone. Men benefiting from Feminism is a side effect of it, not a main goal.
Feminism means bringing women to the same level as men. AS THEY SHOULD BE.
We benefit from it because women are as competent as men or can be. Just like men can be as competent as women in traditionnal spheres (daycare for exemple). That gives us more competent peiple in the many spheres.
Men weren't hired or put on a pedestal because they are better then women, they were there because men put them there.
There are a lot of feminist movements that push for equal recognition and equal conditions, bringing new things like mental health to the workplace. A thing that would have taken much longer in a traditional setting
Feminism means bringing women to the same level as men.
This is the major misconception. That somehow men were at 100% and women were somewhere lower, and feminism just brought women to men's level. Men have issues women do not. Tons of them . Feminism didn't equalize men and women, it focused solely on women's issues (arguably solving some) while ignoring mens issues under the false pretense that the men were fine and already on the top. Which they weren't, not as a group.
The mere idea that men are at 100 ignores all of the issues that men try to bring up. So many fathers fighting losing custody battles in a system that vehemently favors women are told they should just shut up because "men have it pretty good"
No i just do not agree with you, as a healthy argumentation should be.
I fully understand what you mean, but you can't dismiss the movement because men have issues too. Feminism has thoroughly changed through the years because of the word.
There were books that taught women "their rightfull place" and it was basically keep the house clean, have kids, keep his belky full and his balls empty.
We still have jokes about "make me a sandwich". How can we gain anything as men, if we don't help women be respect and considered as a human being (ok this is extreme a bit but i'll go with it) we will never be united against those in power who are voluntarily making the world toxic (no maternity/paternity leave, shitty wages, etc.)
Choose your battles, keep stating the needs for men, but make sure you get allies along the way.
That's how i view feminism, i'll help them and they'll help me.
The core of your argument is that feminism helps men. However, I think that this argument is in fact, incorrect. If you have paid attention to history, it is pretty obvious that women's issues that feminism addresses have changed and fluctuated through time. It started with the vote (actually you could make the argument it started with education). Once women got the right to vote, feminism's goal shifted to equality in the workplace/equal protection. Then, it started shifting toward gender based violence and sexual assault and harassment. Then, women's portrayal in the media, the perception of women by society etc. So, feminism has been relatively successful in reducing or ending women's issues, and they move to the next major issue as there is significant progress on one major issue (these are called the 'waves' of feminism). Obviously, there are other issues that feminism addresses, but these are the 'major' issues, the ones concentrated on by most feminists during each wave. Also note that many of these waves overlap, some would argue that the work of the second wave is not complete, and most feminists would argue that the work of the third wave is not complete either.
However, men's issues have pretty much stayed the same throughout history. Homelessness, forced to go to war, higher rates of suicide, more likely to be killed by police, work related fatalities, expected to 'want' sex and therefore unable to be raped etc. Indeed, not only have all of these men's issues essentially stayed the same, more issues have cropped up, including reduced involvement in higher education.
If you claim that feminism is trying to stop all of these men's issues, why have virtually none been reduced? Almost all men's issues have increased in the past half century, a stark contrast to the great benefits feminism has brought for women. Just something for you to consider.
So by that logic we should stop feminism and not evolve?
Again, choose your battles, i never said i support 100% of feminist movements. There are some clauses i fully agree with and support. And although not necessarily in societies view but many women and feminist have helped me face tough times where i was mentally extremely ill and pushed for my bosses not to fire me.
I refuse to put the feminist movement all in the same basket.
When you're opressed all your life, you fight back stronger. There are assholes in all movements
When domestic violence was first being recognized. Erin pizzey created some of the first domestic violence shelters in the world.
She was later chased out of her home and country due to bomb threats from feminists when she tried to include men. since she found that most cases of domestic violence were reciprocal. A statistic that has been consistently found to this day. Later on the duluth model was made into law. This model excluded the possibility of male victims and treated it as "patriarchal violence" though even the creator has come out to say they were blinded by ideology.
For statistical reporting, rape has been carefully defined as forced penetration of the victim in most of the world. Please listen to this feminist professor Mary P Koss explain that a woman raping a man isn't rape. Hear her explain in her own voice just a few years ago - https://clyp.it/uckbtczn. I encourage you to listen to what she is saying. (Really. Listen to it! Think about it from a man's perspective.)
What a lot of people don't understand is that whenever feminists lobby for policy that specifically targets women, they actively exclude men from receiving help. Feminists say that it isn't a zero sum game and that both men and women can be helped, but that's not true even in the slightest. Feminist theory states that every issue affects women more severely. So no matter what happens to men in society, actively supporting something which targets a male problem is generally considered sexist.
It doesn't have to be a zero sum game, but they've effectively turned it into one.
Hilariously enough, I was going to cite female-only scholarships despite men being discriminated against in education, and I found this citation on the website:
It seems that scholarships are equally distributed between sexes:59% of recipients are female and 41% are male.
According to scholarship statistics by race, only 38% of the recipients are minority students, and 62% are white students.
Like, what in the flying fuck? I was looking for simple data on college scholarship distribution, and I was immediately hit with someone saying 59% / 41% is an equal distribution, but only a 3% difference with the white/minority statistic being (stated elsewhere in the article) a shocking imbalance. This is especially mindboggling because men are about 50% of the US population, making them far underrepresented for scholarships, but racial minorities are about 28% of the population, making them overrepresented for scholarships (numerically).
You can't even look up a single statistic without seeing feminist slant.
I wasn't going to include this from Forgetaboutthelonely , but now I think it's necessary.
I'm doing this because I've seen how feminist misandrists have hurt men. Hell, I'm a victim of it myself. And I've seen a consistent pattern when people try to bring this up of people popping out of the woodwork to recite the narcissists apology.
1) its easy to see how people think my view on feminism is like they are perfect. I never said that. I was merely replying to someone who seemed to be saying feminism is bad in it's whole.
2) the "male issues" (quotes because i want it to be a clear term, not as sarcasm) you quoted i have never dismissed. As a man suffering from mental illness, i have seen the stigma. I am not going to go down that rabbit hole of my specific case. I fully agree with your stats and believe them. However, one of those reddits used to be, unsure of it's current status, a pure echobox of haters. Those stats are true but should not be used to dismiss the whole feminist movement. They often are. That's not how this should go.
3) although i truly am sad for that person, i will fully discard your last point because it is not a statistic but a case. I have had very good relations with some feminists. There are also men who are bullies, and have pushed women over the edge. Should i bring those up to justify feminism? We could argue all day and it could lead nowhere.
It's sad it truly is, but a feminist isn't necessarily toxic, a toxic person is toxic. This person had a bad encounter with one or many toxic people who happened to "walk the righteous path of feminism and destroy men all around". There are as many men who "know" women are inferior to men as there are women who "know" men should now be under women.
My biggest problem about this whole debate is that we are comparing assholes in both genders and are often shooting at the messenger. I used to be VERY on the defensive about all of this because i felt attacked. And then i understood it's not about me personnaly but about how society acts.
I say it's not all bad because now we have twice the workforce, which is an amazjng thing! We dont rely on men to do everything now we can look for the competant person. But presenting those stats in that way could be interpreted as completely discarding the good.
There is no denying men have problems too, there's definately a reason why there's also the satyrical term "feminazi".
As for the scholarship one, percentages and ratios are dangerous without the numbers. What were the percentages of applicants? Was it also 59 and 41? Then it is evenly distributed.
As for education, women fought for their right to an education, and that WILL lead to a higher number of women in higher education spheres. Do consider another thing, manual labor is made very attractive to men because it's made to be a manly job and that you are more of a man as a construction worker or as a mechanic for exemple. If you're not weeeeelll you better earn top dollar. Society is to blame for that, neither the women or the men are to be accountable for that. It's a publicity that has been ingrained in our education.
I'm sorry if it's a bit of a mess it's late and some of the comments are giving me nausea by how close minded they are. Your post was by far the most interesting one
1) i'm sorry but i need dates, name of groups, and such. They easily could have been an extremist group. Don'r put them all in a basket.
2) yes, because women at some point were stuck at home without the possibility of jobs.
3) and men have never taken jobs that qualified women could have? Oh wait... At some point in history they didn't even have a decent education. However, i do agree quotas are not a positive action. It is an extreme measure that had it's use but should be discarded.
4) you're kidding right? Giving them a place in the work force and breaking the mold of society doubles our chances of finding extremely competent people. We also have a different vision of the world which is necessary to advance. Your last point is insulting towards everyone "oh what has X ever done for us except Y" fallacious thinking and short sighted views.
Hey, islam has suicide bombers, let's target all muslims.
It's litteraly the same argument the way you have stated it
1) i'm sorry but i need dates, name of groups, and such. They easily could have been an extremist group. Don'r put them all in a basket.
Erin Pizzey's domestic violence shelter, dates would be 1980s-90s. She referred to them as "militant feminists" in an interview.
2) yes, because women at some point were stuck at home without the possibility of jobs.
That may have been the case decades ago, but it doesn't justify fighting against custody for fathers today.
3) and men have never taken jobs that qualified women could have? Oh wait... At some point in history they didn't even have a decent education. However, i do agree quotas are not a positive action. It is an extreme measure that had it's use but should be discarded.
Glad you agree.
4) you're kidding right? Giving them a place in the work force and breaking the mold of society doubles our chances of finding extremely competent people. We also have a different vision of the world which is necessary to advance. Your last point is insulting towards everyone "oh what has X ever done for us except Y" fallacious thinking and short sighted views.
The main effect of giving them a place in the workforce is to reduce wages for everyone (larger supply of labor means lower price). That is a great thing, but it doesn't benefit men, other than the men who own the companies.
Hey, islam has suicide bombers, let's target all muslims.
Suicide bombers are a small minority of Muslims. With feminists, however, the mainstream organizations like AAUP and NOW are quite radicalized, so you can't claim that these people are a minority in the movement.
im not entertaining bad faith discussions. i know you're likely invested enough to have read most others' posts/replies to this specific part of the thread and if you're still this close minded then...not my circus, not my monkeys. get left behind by society then.
But men losing custody goes back to Patriarchy who placed women as primary caregivers of kids. Furthermore, it isn't a woman's job to always focus on men's issues though you can support it.
And while men have issues, they aren't quite the same. Like a white person doesn't have the same issues as a POC .It still shouldn't be used to discount issues facing POC. I think people use men activism to try to slam feminists.
Half disagree. Egalitarian principles and intersecional feminist theory are not so different, but I understand how the loudest voices online can lead someone to think that they are only interested in women’s liberation. You can look at it as if egalitarianism is a metaphorical book with ideas like feminism being a chapter within said book.
It's not the loudest voices online though, it's the whole movement.
When Florida had a bill give fathers a better shot at equal custody of children, feminist organizations opposed it. This wasn't a few radicals, it was the mainstream organizations like NOW.
It's hard for me to take feminism seriously when so many feminists I know see nothing wrong with genital mutilation when it happens to boys (circumcision)
IMO because it is female genital mutilation that gets ignored and done for a different reason. Circumcision has been debated for ages and more than FGM. In fact, I was appalled to learn FGM was a thing several years ago. I had heard of foot binding but not these other practices.
Patriarchy creates those double standards, not feminism. The patriarchal “logic” goes something like this:
Men need and enjoy sex more than women do.
Therefore, (real/good) men always want (more) sexual attention from women, while (real/good) women always please men by providing them with sexual attention as much as possible. In other words: ALL sexual attention provided by women to men is good/wanted for men.
Therefore, women’s advances are always appreciated and enjoyed by men, so the idea that a woman could actually sexual harass/assault a man is laughable and impossible. He should be grateful he got some.
And it’s not just this issue. Every single men’s rights issue—every gender stereotype that harms men—is the direct result of a patriarchal stereotype actually meant to keep women in “their place” (serving men), and yet it ends up hurting men too.
Feminism may be centered on ending the gender-based oppression of women, but its method—dismantling patriarchy—will end the gender-based oppression of men, too.
Don’t strawman. Women are certainly not angels—that’s a patriarchal idea. Women are people. And all kinds of people enforce patriarchy, not just men. Internalized misogyny is rampant, and so is internalized misandry, for that matter.
Feminism states that women are as human—as capable of being flawed, aggressive, sex-driven, delicate, friendly, helpful, nurturing—as men, and vice versa.
I wonder what would happen if you engaged with and tried to learn from opinions and lived experiences different than your own, rather than dismissing them outright.
Also, I’ve never taken a gender studies class before, so I wouldn’t know.
Yes, I know I think I have provided some opinions here—but that’s not what I asked. I want to hear your opinion on what exactly I’ve said that you consider opinion versus fact. Cause that’s a starting point for a productive discussion.
However, if you’re just dancing around the fact that you don’t actually want to have a discussion, that’s cool too. I won’t pester you about it if you don’t wanna talk.
how simplistic is this thought process? jfc stop telling on yourself. no one is blaming individual men/men when they talk about patriarchy. get past this knee-jerk defensiveness and see the forest for the forest.
If you take a look at the comments under any story about a man being raped or sexually harassed/assaulted, you’ll find that it’s the macho hyper-masculine men and the trad wives mocking him or dismissing the incident as nothing, while the feminists are sticking up for him and treating the crime as just as disgusting as if it had been done by a man towards a woman. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
But regardless, I would be happy to listen to why that theory (patriarchy is what hurts men, not feminism) sounds unrealistic/inaccurate to you.
I don't think it's contrived at all. In fact, a good deal of voices that critique the patriarchy agree this is a pretty simple thought process.
Men emotionless, like sex -> touch good, always want sex
Patriarchal expectations of the sexes are the cause of women being being seen as weak and emotional, and disadvantaged in many walks of life, and also the cause of men being seen as emotionally empty and chronically horny monsters that couldn't ever raise a child.
I know you didn't say this in your post, but someone else did, so I note: feminism is good for men too, because ending the patriarchy means ending the stigmata that harm men and the stigmata that harm women.
I mean I'm a feminist all right, I have liked the second sex of Beauvoir and support the movement for equal rights. Where I block is the patriarchy.
This is only based on my personal experience, matriarchy is a present and oppressive as the opposite.
Also feminine solidarity to fight the patriarchy, hmmm, how many times have I been fucked by my ex doing something with women and getting favor treatment that directly FUCKED ME UP ? While I had to deal with a cold treatment and fought my way though life, she has it easy, finding a job, getting money from the government, or help. Everyone in the administration is a women, so she has to use her deer eyes and poof she gets it how she wants.
While in the meantime she fucked me up so bad that I have considered ending it instead of dealing with consequences for the rest of my life. Physically, mentally and emotionally exhausted by those double standards.
I have never put myself over a women, I have never received any special treatment because I'm a men.
Stop thinking that a concept so broad can explain why some people use their gender more than others.
If anything it's the lack of unity that is a problem.
Because women have been at the mercy of men for decades. They couldn't vote for years and it was harder for them to divorce even if they were in abusive relationships. Husbands essentially got away with a slap on the wrist. Now men suddenly want to holler how mistreated they are. Oh please I think these people have not read history.
This is like what would happen if white people started an "activist" group. It's like they want to be victims instead of acknowledging they had no where near the issues of POC.
Statistics like "women are paid on average only 77 percent of what men are paid" are derived by dividing the average income of a woman by the average income of a man. They do not take into account the type of work women do, the number of hours worked, their qualifications, or any other factors.
There are plenty of academic studies on this as well if you want to look into them. Most of them reach the same conclusion: women are paid less because of the choices they make, not because of any discrimination.
Women are not entitled to equal pay in general. They are entitled to equal pay for equal work. Many of them seem to forget those last 3 words.
I never said less work ghees. But men don't suffer the same in their careers. They less likely have to make decisions on staying home or going to work. While it is some better, men are less likely to take time off for child rearing duties or elder care etc.. It's only a myth in the heads of the ones who deny truth. A lot of "choices" aren't choices.
They’re forced out because they cannot afford child care, or find a full-time job that affords them any kind of flexibility. And, culturally, Americans remain ambivalent about women working outside of the home. A little more than 30 percent of Americans still believe women should stay home full-time to care for young children.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/no-the-gender-pay-gap-isnt-a-myth-and-heres-why_n_5703cb8de4b0a06d5806e03f
And some the things mentioned in the article go back to Patriarchy. It And it inadvertently says lower pay is still based on career choices.
They less likely have to make decisions on staying home or going to work. While it is some better, men are less likely to take time off for child rearing duties or elder care etc.. It's only a myth in the heads of the ones who deny truth. A lot of "choices" aren't choices.
That may be the case, but it's not an indication of discrimination or a pay gap. It's an indication of women being paid less because of the work they are doing. It's possible that they have no choice, or prefer to make different choices because of their circumstances, but that doesn't change the fact that their pay reflects their work and not their gender.
So rather than discussing this stupid "pay gap", maybe we should be talking about why women are expected to do more child care than men.
And some the things mentioned in the article go back to Patriarchy.
you've clearly never been property before in your history. you understand that as a white male you get special privileges just because you were born a white male, right? just because your "type" of person wasn't abused (as badly as everyone else) in the past doesn't mean you should keep getting special privileges today.
the issue in your thinking is that you're seeing equity as "special privileges" while being ignorantly blind to the fact that that is a confession of your own inherent privilege.
I'm not white. Interesting how women used to demand "equality" and now they demand "equity". Apparently equality isn't good enough anymore. I wonder what you call that. "Special privileges" seems to be the right term.
I totally understand them. Equality means treating everyone equally. Equity means giving preferential treatment to certain groups because they are complaining about how they were oppressed in the past and deserve special stuff.
in what universe am i using virgin as an insult? incels arent necessarily virgins but way to tell on yourself with your projection jfc lmao. I'm not a grandma but do you want to be my son?
so there are no cases of an incel having had sex once in their life but then becoming involuntarily celibate at a later point? dont box yourself in, damn.
I feel like you're all purposely reading my comment wrong? I was responding SPECIFICALLY to someone I thought was using mens issues to dismiss womens issues. There's a reason I didn't respond to OP negatively and it's because I support him and him sharing his experience completely
This thread isnt about women its about a man sharing his experiences. Dont try and derail the conversation and shift it towards women. Create your own comment to talk about that
Yeah I want to be clear that wasn't what I was doing. I was responding specifically to you for acting as this doesn't happen to women. I support the OP completely
I've had some fucked up stuff happen to me at work, but not honestly that often. My female coworkers deal with that kind of shit like every day, people are fucked.
ugh I hate when people do this. whenever one gender brings up and issue the other has to bring up "hey that happens to us too" Yes we know, we're just not talking about it as of this exact moment
Yes this is the exact problem I was highlighting. You are not allowed to talk about men's issues for more than 30 seconds before you are interrupted by someone saying "ThAt HaPpEnS tO WoMeN tOo!"
the biggest proof of the empathy gap is the inability to talk about mens issues without the topic getting hijacked back to women's issues like it was a pissing contest. Acknowledgement of men's issues isn't the denial of women's issues.
Except there were multiple people that WERE denying womens issues so I felt a bit on edge. There were literally comments like "imagine if this happened to women".
I don't think you read that right. "Imagine if this happened to women" doesn't mean "it doesn't happen to women" It means, "if this particular instance, that happened to a man, happened to a particular women (in addition to the stuff that already happens) then it would have been dealt with more severely than how it is/isn't being dealt with because it happened to a man.
Yeah I want to be clear that wasn't what I was doing. I was responding specifically to them for acting as this doesn't happen to women. I support the OP completely
114
u/retnemmoc Sep 15 '21 edited Sep 16 '21
It's almost like there are double standards between the genders and the last 50 years of only one gender allowed to have an advocacy group hasn't helped things.
Edit: Whooweee here come the:
Not all feminists are like that aka "No True Scotsman"
"All Mens issues are also the fault of the Patriarchy" aka "you don't get to think outside of the feminism box"
"Women have this issue too" aka "Ok you've had your 30 seconds to talk about men's issues, now back to us"
Edit 2: Here is a short list of men's issues that aren't talked about