Examples of how Feminism works to benefit men

[ZippyDSMlee]

Isn't it commonsensical that there is nothing inherently wrong with it, least until reason leaves the issue and you get whack ass extremism.

But you know what they say about common sense.

Extremism is not something inherent to a movement/ideal/philosophy or what have you. You can have extremist opposition to a movement too (Anti-Feminist Extremism?), like people who vehemently oppose an ideal based on draconian principles/codes and hearsay.

People can object to principles or ideals until the cows come home, but there are people who are just unwavering in their mindset, despite having obscenely flimsy foundations.

I don't think there is a single cultural movement that isn't met with this kind of reaction. There is no clear cut right or wrong for these people, just social principles and dogma. They certainly don't see themselves as being ignorant or prejudicial.

Most movements seem to create more over reaction at first than anything else. Then after awhile the crazies from both sides of the "train of thought" come out of the woodwork making everyone feel dumber.

Perhaps common sense should be called intelligent common sense, and common sense called idiot sense since the common person is an idiot locked in their own little world.

Let's call it as it is, there are crazy people, stupid people and ignorant people on all fronts. Common sense is not falling into any of those 3 categories. Feel free to expand on that, but I think it would be easier to define common sense by its disqualifiers rather then its qualifiers.

Good point. It seems that anyone with any sense of introspection will eventually see the ramblings of madmen and knuckle draggers, then think to themselves "do I sound like that?" and promptly re-access priorities and perspectives.

A self-righting mechanism for society perhaps?

I hope this is not derailing I R already in trouble for "spamming" my site(creations) LOL

Mmmmmm I guess you are right I was trying to figure out how to define common sense simply and the most I could come up with is survival instincts which is pretty sparse, so I try another train of thought.

Common sense at least to me is a mix of simple reason and logic, most people are to rushed with their daily lives to worry much about such constructs rather focusing on things around them. Thus why you have a good amount of WTF.

I dunno you need a smattering of intelligence to handle introspection right.

I can only blame big businesses for our dismal EDU system and government, money=power=influence, without the removal of money and government we are doomed to produce spoon fed drones that can only see in black and white making things worse for everyone but the 1% of the world that owns everything.

Tho neo (zero thought) parenting that turns children into "friends" that may not be punished for any reason is also destroying us.

Tho I can't quite pinpoint the constant funding for the trend, sure its an after thought of the 60's and on its face sounds great but other than the physiatric(sp) and self help/guro industries I can't lock into it. I don't really feel the democrats(or as I like to call Dims to be paired with the Republican Reapers, two sides of the same caustic coin) are much to blame its more or less a good sound bite they do use from time to time but the issue is deeper than that.

It all goes to the foundation of current society, IMO the lower general IQ, knowledge and or tolerance tends to create a sterner louder assbackwords nation sure modern tech and media offset the general march to go backword to some degree it also creates issues. But everything tends to start with knowledge wisdom tends to come in next via life experience and tolerance should follow as we learn to get over our self's... (ah sorry thinking aloud)

Ah sorry for the tinfoil hat rambling too ><

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

So I had a few notifications when I logged in today, and more than I care to comment on an individual basis. So let me try to nip some of this in the bud and respond in mass to everything that is commented here.

1. The point of this thread was to address a specific claim by feminism. Instead, it has begun devolving into yet another ?feminism blah? thread with half the commentary denouncing its very existence and arguing the working points.

2. The 2 points where required based on the argument itself. You?re disagreement with the argument or its premise can certainly be noted, but it was important to point out the basis of it. I don?t personally agree with them, but I?m capable of discussing an idea from a specific point of view.

3. Many of you have posted many arguments, which I have reviewed and can accept from an arguments stand point, but that isn?t what I?m looking for, and I don?t think is too much to ask for. I will continue to look for it elsewhere.

Overall I have to say I?m terribly disappointed in the community as a whole. Many of you often claim that threads containing gender issues are merely breeding grounds for picking fights; when you yourselves have contributed nothing but snarky commentary to this one. Others posted their continued issues with feminism, definitions of feminism, and/or seek the change the premise the thread was created to operate from. All of which I pointed out I wanted to avoid. And when only a single person read, understood and pointed out the goal, it was again met with criticism and condemnation.

I have niether the time nor the patience to continue a discussion with people who are either incapable of having or are intentionally detracting from; so the thread is yours to continue to do with as you please. I'm out.

 

[Redryhno]

snip

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. You started a thread on the internet and didn't expect there to almost immediately be snarky comments, asshats, and opposing views on a somewhat controversial issue? Welcome back to the world of...well, snarky comment, asshats, and opposing views. Opening with threats to report probably didn't help your case either, but, that's just me.

Onto the thread thingy itself. While I consider Feminism and equality of the sexes a good theory, implementing it completely would be a waste of time in many places. Sure, income's the same, but the woman asking for maternity leave and full pay by doing no work for the company doesn't do anything but hurt her employer. The same could be said of physical labor, most, not all, but most men in that field, can do a hell of a lot more work than a woman, therefore, I believe that men should be getting paid more for the work, but most Equality(it's somewhat more accurate to call it that imo) arguments I've seen are that women should get paid the same wage, no matter that little thing called effort and ability.

Out of work and jobs, implementation of pure Equality into social things wouldn't work for many situations. You've got men hitting drunk women that won't leave them alone, and that'll be demonized by someone no matter the Equality standings, while the opposite will make the hitter a candidate for either sainthood or deification(hyperbole, you religious fanatic types). Double standards are all around the board on this issue, My girlfriend lives two hours away from me, yet she comes here to visit about every weekend when she isn't off visiting her family, and I'm happy to pay for whenever we go out, and her gas for coming this far out of her way from her college. However, the few times I am able to go visit her(I have to bum a ride from a friend(incidentally her older brother and because mine lost the ability to go more than twenty mph), I still end up paying for my own stuff and everything we do when we go out, again, not a complaint, but her friends ***** and moan about how they have to split almost everything with their boyfriends,husbands, etc., when they have the means to make more money than the guys they're dating.

I guess I'll go back to my original point,complete Equality/Feminism/whateveryouwantacallit, is good in theory, but implementation wouldn't work in most places I know of.

Also, I'm a bit screwed up today, so my points may not make as much sense as they do in my head.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I think that that in general feminism does not befit men. If we acknowledge that feminism works for gender equality then we acknowledge that that equality does not yet exist or is in contest. Therefore, one gender must have more power and the other must have less. I think everyone agrees that since its 'feminism' and not 'masculinisum' its women who have less power and want equality. Assuming power is a zero-sum game, I know that this is debatable but lets just assume for a moment that it is and resources, like jobs, money, etc. is finite and a significant amount of new resources cannot be made. Then in order for women to have more, men must give up some of what they have, thus inherently meaning its a bad thing for them because men will end up with less. If we assume that power is not a zero-sum game and more resources can be made then theoretically, women can gain more power by attaining more resources as they are created, or losing less as they are destroyed. If however resources are equally distributed at creation among people, i.e. no one gender receives more then the other, then the situation will never change. It will stay the same forever. Therefore, in order to achieve gender equality in a non zero-sum game, women, at least for some period of time, must be given a greater share of new resources as they are created, i.e. more job, money, political positions, etc would have to go to women. Thus, feminism, once again, a bad thing for men who would then have to receive less of new resources in proportion to women. Therefore, in either case feminism proves to be a detriment to men in regards to resources.

Now, before you burn me at the steak as a sexist pig, I actually am a feminist and I believe in the cause. Although it doesn't befit me in terms of world possessions and resources it does benefit me elsewhere. It benefits me mentally in that I want to live in a world with equality. Even if I have to give up what I potentially could have in order to achieve this equality, I'm willing to do it for benefit of knowing that gender equality exists. That's the benefit of feminism to me, as a man.

 

[Eynimeb]

So I had a few notifications when I logged in today, and more than I care to comment on an individual basis. So let me try to nip some of this in the bud and respond in mass to everything that is commented here.

1. The point of this thread was to address a specific claim by feminism. Instead, it has begun devolving into yet another ?feminism blah? thread with half the commentary denouncing its very existence and arguing the working points.

2. The 2 points where required based on the argument itself. You?re disagreement with the argument or its premise can certainly be noted, but it was important to point out the basis of it. I don?t personally agree with them, but I?m capable of discussing an idea from a specific point of view.

3. Many of you have posted many arguments, which I have reviewed and can accept from an arguments stand point, but that isn?t what I?m looking for, and I don?t think is too much to ask for. I will continue to look for it elsewhere.

Overall I have to say I?m terribly disappointed in the community as a whole. Many of you often claim that threads containing gender issues are merely breeding grounds for picking fights; when you yourselves have contributed nothing but snarky commentary to this one. Others posted their continued issues with feminism, definitions of feminism, and/or seek the change the premise the thread was created to operate from. All of which I pointed out I wanted to avoid. And when only a single person read, understood and pointed out the goal, it was again met with criticism and condemnation.

I have niether the time nor the patience to continue a discussion with people who are either incapable of having or are intentionally detracting from; so the thread is yours to continue to do with as you please. I'm out.

I suppose the sad truth is simply that the majority doesn't believe it anymore.

These are very cynical and selfish societies we're living in. It's simply not going to happen that a large group, coming from a position of having been oppressed, with a huge range of negative experiences and differing opinions, is going to be trusted to want to settle for equality. Not when common human behavior is to seek benefit for oneself, and to get indiscriminate revenge, and certainly not when there is continuing stubborn resistance to women's rights.

In the Netherlands, we have had racist gays in politics, and homophobia is very common among nonwhites and muslims, both who are discriminated against far more than women are. Female racists, gay racists, women opposed to gay rights, heck, I've even known women who were opposed to voting rights for women. For all intents and purposes, it is every group against every other group.

I believe *you* believe feminism's goal being true equality and fairness. I believe there are many others who share that belief. I believe that that is a great goal, and that it is the best definition the word can have. But IRL I've met more who disagree. I can't see inside people's heads, but my personal experiences have told me that fairness is not a priority for most people.

I'm sorry if that disappoints you, and I'm sorry if my post offended you. I still stand by it, but perhaps I should not have posted it in the first place.

 

[-|-]

While not EXACTLY double, its roughly doubling the available workforce by including women as well as men in the pool of potential workers since there are roughly the same number of each.

You are half right, but the underlying cause is not feminism; it's the destruction of middle class incomes with cheap money. It's been going on for decades.

Watch this if you've got a spare hour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

 

[Terminal Blue]

Many of you have posted many arguments, which I have reviewed and can accept from an arguments stand point, but that isn?t what I?m looking for, and I don?t think is too much to ask for. I will continue to look for it elsewhere.

I think maybe you're looking for something which doesn't exist, and probably never did.

There is no "feminist movement", there has not been a "feminist movement" since the start of the 1980s. Feminists do not attend seminars where policies are debated and outlined and the unitary principles of feminism are disseminated and accepted. Feminists do not produce a manifesto. Feminists do not generally form political blocs or set up political parties, they do not spend millions on lobbying.

There's an old feminist slogan, "the personal is political". It expresses the principle that how people behave in their lives, down to the most intimate details, ultimately transaltes into macro-political trends. Pay grades and working trends cannot be separated from that one guy who grabs a coworkers arse because he thinks its funny, or that one boss who overlooks a woman for promotion because he can't separate his sexual attraction to her from an impartial appraisal of her competence. Every large trend in society is a product of millions upon millions of tiny, highly gendered, interactions.

Feminism is no longer primarily something which people campaign for, which people produce action plans or formalized political strategies for. Why, because actually feminists do not have very much influence in the political process and never have. What feminists do, primarily, is to resolve to live a life personally free of the pervasive influence of gender inequality, to think about how their own interactions are influenced by and influence the gendered world around them, and to propagate the ideas and the demands which allow other people to do that. Feminism has not changed the world through bra burning and lobbying government, it has changed the world through changing the attitudes of women (and men).

Before demanding that people point you to a "feminist movement" that helps men, ask yourself how the "feminist movement" actually helps women? What does it actually do, and how has it accomplished it?

If you want me to find you examples of feminists talking about men, I can do that. I can find hundreds of those examples if you so wish. However, if you're looking for an organized movement which goes out and spends money and takes direct political action, then it doesn't exist and it never did. Contrary to the weird assertions of the MRAs, feminism has never been listened to or taken seriously on the political stage. It has gained its influence by arguing and changing how individual people see themselves. Direct action has occasionally been important in raising the visibility of key arguments, but it isn't the bulk of feminist accomplishment. Feminism doesn't "do stuff" for women, it tells women they can do stuff for themselves. Why expect feminism to "do stuff" for men? It already tells men they can do stuff for themselves and how to do it.

If you're unwilling to accept that, then you're never going to be able to engage with feminism, and you'll probably spend your life searching for or believing in something which doesn't exist and never has. That would be sad.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

So I had a few notifications when I logged in today, and more than I care to comment on an individual basis. So let me try to nip some of this in the bud and respond in mass to everything that is commented here.

1. The point of this thread was to address a specific claim by feminism. Instead, it has begun devolving into yet another ?feminism blah? thread with half the commentary denouncing its very existence and arguing the working points.

2. The 2 points where required based on the argument itself. You?re disagreement with the argument or its premise can certainly be noted, but it was important to point out the basis of it. I don?t personally agree with them, but I?m capable of discussing an idea from a specific point of view.

3. Many of you have posted many arguments, which I have reviewed and can accept from an arguments stand point, but that isn?t what I?m looking for, and I don?t think is too much to ask for. I will continue to look for it elsewhere.

Overall I have to say I?m terribly disappointed in the community as a whole. Many of you often claim that threads containing gender issues are merely breeding grounds for picking fights; when you yourselves have contributed nothing but snarky commentary to this one. Others posted their continued issues with feminism, definitions of feminism, and/or seek the change the premise the thread was created to operate from. All of which I pointed out I wanted to avoid. And when only a single person read, understood and pointed out the goal, it was again met with criticism and condemnation.

I have niether the time nor the patience to continue a discussion with people who are either incapable of having or are intentionally detracting from; so the thread is yours to continue to do with as you please. I'm out.

So the thread didn't submit to your ideas, despite some rather immature 'do what I say or I'll report you' tactics?


Oh no?

 

[Fappy]

So I had a few notifications when I logged in today, and more than I care to comment on an individual basis. So let me try to nip some of this in the bud and respond in mass to everything that is commented here.

1. The point of this thread was to address a specific claim by feminism. Instead, it has begun devolving into yet another ?feminism blah? thread with half the commentary denouncing its very existence and arguing the working points.

2. The 2 points where required based on the argument itself. You?re disagreement with the argument or its premise can certainly be noted, but it was important to point out the basis of it. I don?t personally agree with them, but I?m capable of discussing an idea from a specific point of view.

3. Many of you have posted many arguments, which I have reviewed and can accept from an arguments stand point, but that isn?t what I?m looking for, and I don?t think is too much to ask for. I will continue to look for it elsewhere.

Overall I have to say I?m terribly disappointed in the community as a whole. Many of you often claim that threads containing gender issues are merely breeding grounds for picking fights; when you yourselves have contributed nothing but snarky commentary to this one. Others posted their continued issues with feminism, definitions of feminism, and/or seek the change the premise the thread was created to operate from. All of which I pointed out I wanted to avoid. And when only a single person read, understood and pointed out the goal, it was again met with criticism and condemnation.

I have niether the time nor the patience to continue a discussion with people who are either incapable of having or are intentionally detracting from; so the thread is yours to continue to do with as you please. I'm out.

So the thread didn't submit to your ideas, despite some rather immature 'do what I say or I'll report you' tactics?


Oh no?

Today will go down as the greatest tragedy in Escapist history.

Do not make light of the situation! It's too soon Daystar!

 

[TheKaduflyerSystem]

Ooof, scary thread

 

[Catrixa]

I think that that in general feminism does not befit men. If we acknowledge that feminism works for gender equality then we acknowledge that that equality does not yet exist or is in contest. Therefore, one gender must have more power and the other must have less. I think everyone agrees that since its 'feminism' and not 'masculinisum' its women who have less power and want equality. Assuming power is a zero-sum game, I know that this is debatable but lets just assume for a moment that it is and resources, like jobs, money, etc. is finite and a significant amount of new resources cannot be made. Then in order for women to have more, men must give up some of what they have, thus inherently meaning its a bad thing for them because men will end up with less. If we assume that power is not a zero-sum game and more resources can be made then theoretically, women can gain more power by attaining more resources as they are created, or losing less as they are destroyed. If however resources are equally distributed at creation among people, i.e. no one gender receives more then the other, then the situation will never change. It will stay the same forever. Therefore, in order to achieve gender equality in a non zero-sum game, women, at least for some period of time, must be given a greater share of new resources as they are created, i.e. more job, money, political positions, etc would have to go to women. Thus, feminism, once again, a bad thing for men who would then have to receive less of new resources in proportion to women. Therefore, in either case feminism proves to be a detriment to men in regards to resources.

Now, before you burn me at the steak as a sexist pig, I actually am a feminist and I believe in the cause. Although it doesn't befit me in terms of world possessions and resources it does benefit me elsewhere. It benefits me mentally in that I want to live in a world with equality. Even if I have to give up what I potentially could have in order to achieve this equality, I'm willing to do it for benefit of knowing that gender equality exists. That's the benefit of feminism to me, as a man.

This is what I've been trying to find a way to say for the longest dang time on this site. You, sir, deserve a grillion cookies. You can pick the flavor (or have any combination of flavors). This is the inherent problem with trying to fix privilege, and it's what a lot of people wind up translating as "those damn feminazis just want men to be slaves to them! They want all the power!" It's a damn shame the OP wandered off from this thread before he probably read this.

Another note - OP, if you come back, I thought I'd mention: If you want a lot of research on this subject, it might be more efficient to go to you local library and use their online databases. Asking random people on the internet to do very specific research for you is not very effective. This is especially true if you have very specific rules for the research you want done. Also, asking for only a specific kind of discussion without providing precise rules (and, in this case, it would be helpful if you provided more rules than less) won't lead to anyone having a good time. We can't give you what you want if you don't tell us what that is. And we're not trolling if we're not psychic.

OT: I actually think feminism can benefit men from a social standpoint, as opposed to just a financial one. If you think about how feminine traits are viewed, they're often seen as less than masculine traits. So, being in touch with feelings, being gentile to others, being concerned with how one looks, etc. are currently seen as women-only traits. If men were not seen as "less" by expressing these traits (say, expressing feelings to others), this could lead to better mental health for men, and better relationships with their partners. Just a thought.

 

[Phasmal]

So the thread didn't submit to your ideas, despite some rather immature 'do what I say or I'll report you' tactics?


Oh no?

Today will go down as the greatest tragedy in Escapist history.

Do not make light of the situation! It's too soon Daystar!

OP is very dissappointed.
We all need to sit on the bottom of the stairs and THINK about what we've done!

My house doesn't have stairs so I'm cool though, right?

 

[kingpocky]

Read what I said, man. Compared to 60 years ago, yes it's doubled. But I'm talking about today's feminist movement, which has totally different goals. Like fixing the wage disparity, which then helps couples live better. Then that takes us back to the OT

Oh, now I see, you think today's movement is different than the original feminist movement based on a division at some recent point in time?

Ok, with that premise, you are still wrong.

Wages are a finite pool. Let's say a company has $2mil they can spend on wages and 50,000 employees. That means they can pay an average wage of $40,000. Now, if previously the men made an average of $45,000 and the women $35,000 then they company can't raise the women to $45,000 on average without something giving. That means a general downwards pressure on wages to get it back to $40,000, or a reduction in the workforce, or an increase in the price of the product they sell.

If they simply equalize, well then everyone makes $40 on average and the men have taken a decrease and overall family income stays the same.

If they raise everyone to $45K and increase product cost, then over the economy as a whole inflation is fueled which forces the relative buying power of each dollar down, taking us back to the $40K salary for everyone in inflation adjusted dollars. This helps women, hurts men, and result in no net change for a male/female couple's family income.

Now these changes don't happen overnight, but they do happen.

I'm also not saying they shouldn't happen, they should. Women should have the full equal right to work.

But pretending their is no economic impact, or even worse claiming there is a positive economic impact on average, is wrong.

Of course, you could argue that by no longer excluding half the population, you increase economic efficiency and this results in a Pareto-superior situation where there is a greater total amount of resources going around in society. And while women didn't work much in the pre-WWII era, it wasn't that way through most of history up until the industrial revolution.

 

[Catrixa]

So to fix inequality we have to create inequality?

Also, what makes you think women will "give up" their extra "slice of the pie". You can hardly go, "hey, your time is up, time to take a few jobs back".

Seems a bit silly and unrealistic to me.

It's not so much creating inequality when we already have inequality. To put things metaphorically, imagine when you're born, you're given 10 coins. When Jane is born, she's given 6 coins. If you want to make things even, you'd need to give Jane 2 coins. From your perspective, all you know is having 10 coins, so giving up coins is a net loss. From Jane's perspective, getting two coins is a net gain. So, from viewing things from the individual's perspective, the system is giving more power to Jane. But, from the overall perspective, both of you now have 8 coins, thus being even. This is a really simple example of the zero-sum explanation. I feel like the metaphor might break down if we go into non zero sum, but I can try if this explanation made any sense and you're still interested.

 

[Terminal Blue]

It's not so much creating inequality when we already have inequality. To put things metaphorically, imagine when you're born, you're given 10 coins. When Jane is born, she's given 6 coins. If you want to make things even, you'd need to give Jane 2 coins. From your perspective, all you know is having 10 coins, so giving up coins is a net loss. From Jane's perspective, getting two coins is a net gain.

I think there's real problem in reducing these arguments to capital.

Capital is zero sum. It's true that if I earn 2 dollars more than someone because I have a penis then fixing that is going to involve me losing a dollar, and yeah, that is relevant to feminism.

But when we talk about "benefit" we aren't just talking about capital, we're talking about things like capability, utility, personal agency, wellbeing. These things are not zero sum, and these are the areas in which feminism truly benefits men.

I get your point and I agree totally, but I think it's easy to become fixated on capital and I think that's pretty much the problem with this thread as a whole. Feminism, contrary to many men's ideas, isn't really concerned with securing macropolitical advantage and "power". It's much more concerned with the way in which people live and "agency".

Agency is not necessarily zero sum.