Examples of how Feminism works to benefit men
- Thread starter DevilWithaHalo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ok, I've been thinking (see: doing lame math on a piece of paper), and you're right, we're not really talking a zero-sum game, since new jobs/opportunities/"coins" are being created all the time. But, as far as taking jobs from other people: it's more about taking opportunities than actual jobs. And that's really what affirmative action is around for.Matthew94 said:
Back to the lame metaphor:
You have 10 coins from birth, Jane has 6. You now each get one coin per day (you're right, there aren't really any jobs left that women aren't allowed to take). No matter how many days go by, Jane is still down by 4 from you. In order to make up the difference, for two days, Jane would need two coins instead of one (this would be where affirmative action comes in). Once Jane has an equal number, she will receive one coin per day, the same as you.
Now, for the idea that women get something for having a vagina (i.e. people will hire based solely on gender, without regards to qualifications): if I know anything about the hiring process (I'm not a manager, but I've spent a while studying it to find jobs), this would be insanely risky as it's a huge loss to hire someone who doesn't work out. Arguably, I'd say that anyone who was hired would be hired because of skills and personality first and genitalia second.
As far as when people stop complaining about it? Honestly, that's hard to say. I have no doubt in my mind that some people will try to take it too far (there's always some people who try to take it too far; the internet is practically a manual on how to take things too far unto itself). But I think talking about it and debating it helps. If it's on the forefront of everyone's mind, it's a lot easier to keep track of. So, keep asking questions (be skeptical!), and keep an open mind. Just because people aren't telling working women to get back in the kitchen in front of you doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and not everything ever with boobs in it is sexist.
Incidentally, this is called a "microinvalidation".Matthew94 said:
It's where a person makes a seemingly harmless statement which nonetheless carries the clear implication that another person's experience is not valid because, as a member of a social minority, they are incapable of making the same kind of "neutral" judgement of the situation which the speaker can.
Sorry, it's just kind of ironic to hear someone say there isn't much sex discrimination any more because the only people saying it happens are women. Always cracks me up a bit.
Feminism benefits my sex life. I can have access to a large amount of pussy and be able to have access to it in the space of anywhere from a single night to a month, rather than have to work for years to get at it and then marry it. The creation of the dumb slut is both the gift and the curse of feminism.
That's...pretty much it.
That's...pretty much it.
I was more thinking of the coins as opportunities/power/whatnot, but you're right, human society isn't really a closed system. Unfortunately, I've yet to come up with a really good metaphor on this subject. I'm really trying to boil an entire class I took on this down to a paragraph, which is not doing it any justice.evilthecat said:
Dumb for wanting to sleep with you? I know we're all our own best critics, but you really shouldn't be so hard on yourself. Confidence is the key to success, I'm sure there's all kinds of nice qualities those sluts see in you that you're probably not even aware of! I suggest making a list.Angryman101 said:
Unfortunately, this is the part where it would be better if I had a list of statistics to show you, but I don't really have time to look them up (I'm sorry). But really, this question seems to be asking "does gender inequality exist, or is it really just a figment of the feminist imagination?", to which I could suggest taking a diversity course (really, this is the best option, as actual teachers can explain these things infinitely better than I can). I'm also pretty sure, after the jillion threads people have made on the subject, that there are some good sources around this site you could look at (people post them all the time). Sorry I'm not more help.Jiggy said:
Actually one of the biggest problems with the American economy is the outsourcing of jobs or the replacement of human labor with that of the machine. Jobs aren't being created fast enough in the places that actually need them, and America continues to give incentives to corporations to outsource labor.itsthesheppy said:
You're also avoiding his main points, which are that single incomes were PREVIOUSLY more than enough to provide for a larger family. Correlating with the induction of women into the workforce, single wages no longer are capable of sustaining anything short of a single person's living. Whether that's due to the inclusion of women skewing the supply/demand value of labor to worker's detriment or outside forces is TBD.
And you've stumbled upon the reason that women were given the right to vote and were allowed to be inducted into the workforce: they would spend more money. Those on top of the economic food chain saw a market yet to be fully exploited and have spent the last century taking measures to tap it, and they have wildly succeeded.
I hope you didn't strain yourself with that reach, mr. or mrs. pedant.Chemical Alia said:
There was an AMA on Reddit awhile back where a hiring manager admitted to not hiring women of a certain age (I think 24-30) because they would leave the company in a few years to have children (they would take maternity leave and not come back, causing a loss for the company). He knew this because the few women he had hired had done it, so clearly all women in that age bracket were a risk, just because they were potentially capable of childbirth.Jiggy said:
I could go into gory details about my life, like how many other women were in my Computer Science classes, but I don't actually know if you want a huge page dump. Something tells me you just want to tell me how deluded I am. So, I guess, go ahead and tell me. I don't mind. I just don't want to write 10 paragraphs if you don't really want to read them.
Nah.. I didn't want to derail, I just don't think it's right to talk about men accepting a loss when many aspects of male capability (the freedoms open to men, the ability to perform actions which give rise to happiness, the distribution of opportunities) have actually increased.Catrixa said:
The most common mistake in thinking about men's relationship with feminism is assuming that "privilege" or "advantage" equates to "freedom" or "happiness". This leads to two very common and very defective assumptions.
1) That because individual male lives are difficult or individual men's aspirations are limited, male privilege is a myth.
2) That the reason men's lives are difficult or limited is because women have obtained privilege (and therefore happiness) at the expense of men.
I think it's important to understand the difference between losing privilege and losing capability. Where there is material advantage then yes, men will have to relinquish some of it in order to create an equal society, just as they have been slowly doing for some time now. That does not mean that men's capability, their ability to make meaningful choices in their lives or to do the things which make them happy, is going to reduce.
I don't think this is the case, actually. Not in a real sense, anyway.DVS BSTrD said:
What feminism seems to have done is to allow for families to have two incomes. That seems to support you bolded statement, right? And taken in a vacuum, it does - but we don't live in a vacuum. Coinciding with the rise of feminism (and not CAUSED by feminism!) is a huge rise in materialism and a change in the fundamental ethics of manufacturing. Pre-1950ish, things were built to last. You were expected to buy one car for the family and that was expected to last 10+ years, and most of the maintenance and general repairs could be done by the owner. You were expected to buy shoes that would last for 5 years, and then you would resole them if necessary. Clothes were expected to last for 10+ years, and for childrens clothing they were expected to be handed down to younger siblings. If they were ripped or torn, they were patched. Etc.
In the general culture of pre-1950's, having two incomes would be like winning a small lottery. So your statement would be entirely correct... except that we live in a more modern culture, where buying a new car every 3 to 5 years is considered normal. Shoes don't tend to last more than two years of daily wear, and clothing tends to be so flimsy that you need to have a large wardrobe just to ensure that the clothes you have will last more than 100 wearings. The general idea now for manufacturing is to make it last only a few years so that the consumer will buy new items sooner. The more someone buys of your items, the more you make - if you make something that is built to last 10+ years, you're losing money.
What does this mean for your statement? It means that the pressure isn't off of the man to be financially responsible for the family - the pressure is on both parents to bring in enough money to support the new needs of the family.
OT: How does feminism help men? By adding someone to help take the financial load off of the man of the family.
OffT: Going to agree with one of the other posters that classic/original feminism was about equality, whereas modern feminism seems to be more about making women stronger than men, not equal to them. If modern feminists really wanted to make the genders equal, they would be fighting tooth and nail to ensure that men could stay home and care for the children without repercussions. They would be revising divorce laws to ensure that the children had as much access to each parent as possible and weren't often financially crippling to the fathers. I`m sure that I could go on about how feminism could help itself by helping men, but you get the gist of things.