Examples of how Feminism works to benefit men

[Tono Makt]

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?

My wife has a really short stepladder that I could set up, and sit at the bottom of to think of how much I've disappointed the OP. If I'm very polite, I could create a personal anecdote as to how feminism has benefited men (Me, Mr. Makt) by asking her if she would be so kind as to set up the step ladder for me, as generally setting up things like stepladders has historically been considered a "man's" job, and so a woman would be equally competent in performing that job would be a wonderful, concrete example of how feminism has benefited me?

 

[Terminal Blue]

Just to provide a counter point to this, women actually earn more until they have kids, implying that it isn't sexism at work causing a wage gap, but their own choices.

Why does that matter?

Let's assume this argument is true. In all the hundreds of times I've seen it raised with the implication that it should have some deep meaning or consequence for how we view the situation (like somehow it's all okay now because it's the womens' own silly fault that they earn less money) it's funny how noone seems to ask the incredibly blatant question. Indeed, the actual feminist question.

Why are women making choices which disadvantage them?

Do women just have poor little brains which get confused by the idea of earning money, or is some form of social pressure inclining women to behave differently as regards their careers, even if it has negative consequences for them.

When masculinity scholars look at male under-achievement in schools, do we shrug our shoulders and say "well, it's their own fault for dicking around and not studying hard enough so it's obviously not a real issue, let's move on". No, we look at male under-achievement as a social symptom, we don't brush it off with a cursory sentiment like "boys will be boys", we look at it as something socially created and look at ways we might correct it through social action.

I'm being a little unfair. There are real points to be hammered out here as to how far political action can go to correct imbalances which are caused by differential behaviours rather than simple discrimination (if indeed that is the cause in this case which I have yet to see concretely proven, but let's assume) and yeah, sometimes people ignore those issues. But the fact remains that unless you accept that there are inherent differences which make women less capable of earning than men, there is sexism somewhere in this equation.

 

[Catrixa]

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.

So, basically your point here boils down to "He should accept loses to make me happy."

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.

And what exactly do you think that proves? What are you taking from that and why are you taking that away from it.

Please forgive my bad formatting, I'm not particularly adept at this.

"So, basically your point here boils down to 'He should accept loses to make me happy.'"

I'm saying "why is he assuming I'm going to make a baby, then leave his company?". Why is he not treating me like an individual? What if I don't want children, or can't even make them? What if I do want children, but fully intend on working there after maternity leave? Why aren't these options for me; why am I just excluded based on his limited experience?

"And what exactly do you think that proves? What are you taking from that and why are you taking that away from it."

I'm sorry if it wasn't your intention, but it did seem like you just wanted to use my explanation to tell me how wrong I was, not to have a conversation. If I've interpreted your intentions wrong, just let me know and I can go into more details if you like.

 

[Lilani]

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.

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.

Damn. Only one thing to say to that:

Anyway, I love how this thread is acting as the perfect sounding board for figuring out exactly how everyone on these forums defines "feminism." You've got the ones who assume it's about equality, and you've got the ones who assume it's about retribution and male suppression. Fascinating. You hear about these frames of mind being talked about in other topics, but rarely is everybody's stance so clearly laid out.

 

[Terminal Blue]

They are more likely to work in part time jobs or take less overtime. I would hardly call it sexism that they are more likely work to live rather than live to work. When you look at the gap of people with identical backgrounds the gap is only about 2% or so. 2% too much but it's not as bad as some people make it.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like was trying to make you look like a misogynist. It was a rhetorical question to advance the point, I wasn't seriously suggesting you believed that.

But okay then.. let's invert the question.

If this is true, why aren't men doing the same?

If these jobs are more rewarding to work in, why aren't men seeking to do them? Indeed, why are men more likely to prioritize financial success over personal happiness and well-being? If we accept that men and women possess equal capabilities, why is there a discrepancy at all in their aspirations or outcomes?

In fact, let's make this even more complicated..

Why are these "female" professions less financially rewarding in the first place? Is it because they are easier? Is it because they are lower skilled? Is it because they are less vital to the economy? Or is it, in fact, because they have historically been the only careers open to women?

 

[Terminal Blue]

That said, why should he?

Because it's discrimination, and illegal.

I propose the following, since you have complete control over your reproduction, how about we let companies have you sign a legally binding contract that says you will not get pregnant while you work there or something something, fine or whatever, it ultimately depends on where you live and how the maternity leave works there. The idea being that if you get pregnant anyway they get compensation or you don't get compensation, once more, depending on where you live. That could be fair.

I propose the following. How about, since you no longer need to be primary breadwinner, you take responsibility for sharing childcaring roles in the event you get someone pregnant and don't assume they will automatically take a hit to their career because they weren't born with a penis.

I also propose that we ask that companies actually follow the law on statutory parental leave and moreover, that we ensure parental leave is available to men on similar or equal terms (as many countries already do) to enable men, should they wish, to spend more time with their children immediately after they are born and to enable them to take an active role in parenting.

Then you should both be able to put that to paper in the form of a contract.

No, sorry.. This isn't how non-discrimination works.

If I'm a black person and I am applying to work for a racist, I shouldn't have to sign a contract saying that I won't be lazy and leave fried chicken grease everywhere because my employer believes that's what black people are like. It is up to my employer to keep their prejudices out of the hiring process, and if they can't do that then under employment discrimination law I can take them to court.

This is no different.

 

[BaronUberstein]

I'll start out with the easy one - the fact that we don't bar women from most professions for no real reason any more means that in the aggregate we have a larger and more productive economy, which in the aggregate means we all have access to a level of economic development that wouldn't exist otherwise [http://www.financialtaskforce.org/2012/03/08/investing-in-women-is-an-economic-imperative/] and on the smaller scale means more of us menfolks get to benefit from double incomes [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxFGhQsaSwI]. When we deal with the glass ceiling, our country will have an even better pool of talent to draw from for top positions. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Atlas_New_York.JPG]

Indeed, in fact, while this may count as a godwin, from my casual reading* the World War 2 German economy and war effort took a major hit from not allowing women to work in major factories, thus splitting their manpower unnecessarily, verses the US and British economies that allowed women to work in the factories during the war.

What we really need to do is just ask, "Are you the best for the job?", not "What gender are you?"

*If I'm incorrect, sorry.

 

[Catrixa]

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.

So, basically your point here boils down to "He should accept loses to make me happy."

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.

And what exactly do you think that proves? What are you taking from that and why are you taking that away from it.

Please forgive my bad formatting, I'm not particularly adept at this.

"So, basically your point here boils down to 'He should accept loses to make me happy.'"

I'm saying "why is he assuming I'm going to make a baby, then leave his company?".

Because beyond that age Women become less fertile, it makes sense that they would want to have children while actually being capable of doing it.

Why is he not treating me like an individual?

First of all, this isn't fair.

That said, why should he? He is running a business, not a charity, why should he be taking a potentially damning risk to treat you like a individual?

I propose the following, since you have complete control over your reproduction, how about we let companies have you sign a legally binding contract that says you will not get pregnant while you work there or something something, fine or whatever, it ultimately depends on where you live and how the maternity leave works there. The idea being that if you get pregnant anyway they get compensation or you don't get compensation, once more, depending on where you live. That could be fair.

What if I don't want children, or can't even make them?

Wanting Children or not is kind of irrelevant, you could always fuck up with the contraceptives and be against abortion. However, I'd say that if you can prove that you aren't fertile he wouldn't have any reason to decline you based on pregnancy.

What if I do want children, but fully intend on working there after maternity leave?

Then you should both be able to put that to paper in the form of a contract.

Why aren't these options for me; why am I just excluded based on his limited experience?

Because you are a liability. Like I said, it's a business, not a charity, these things aren't irrelevant, so why should they be treated as if they were? Why should the person who owns the business be taking a inherent risk? Like I said, (we have to) make it so that you actually have to stick to said things and can't just change your mind without real repercussion, that would be fair.

"And what exactly do you think that proves? What are you taking from that and why are you taking that away from it."

I'm sorry if it wasn't your intention, but it did seem like you just wanted to use my explanation to tell me how wrong I was, not to have a conversation. If I've interpreted your intentions wrong, just let me know and I can go into more details if you like.

I was actually asking what exactly you think your computer class proves.

I don't know if I am here to tell you that you are wrong, maybe you are, maybe you aren't. I'm more interested in things actually being sensible and fair, so simply telling you that you are wrong for no reason wouldn't be productive.

If you want to boil my way of thinking down by, well, ALOT, it pretty much comes down to "Men and Women are equal, but we are also different, pretending that we are the same isn't going to get us anywhere."

I feel like the contract idea, while good on paper, would result in a lot of problems later down the road. You're right in that life is messy, and good intentions are still just intentions (not wanting a kid does not mean never having one), but what you're proposing is enacting a financial punishment for what could amount to an accident. Or even the result of a crime, if the woman was raped. I think this would go: woman has baby->woman lies about it to avoid punishment->baby suffers (it doesn't get any attention for the first few months of its life) and woman's productivity is lessened (no sleep from caring for baby).

Another solution would be to simply disallow maternity leave. This would let women choose if they wanted to leave the company or not, and not give employers any illusion as to whether she was coming back or not, which was the real problem. This would still leave the babies with the short end of the stick if the woman needed money to care for them (babies are insanely expensive), and possibly the company, if the woman was unable to care for a newborn and work at full productivity, but everything would be up front. You have a baby, you deal with it on your own time.

Personally, both of those sound insanely harsh. Were life up to me (and thank goodness it isn't), I'd say give maternity leave to both the father and mother. Now there is no more risk hiring a woman than there is hiring a man! Plus, the child gets to have the love and care of both parents. This also assumes that it is now fully acceptable to be a stay-at-home dad (which it should be anyway).

As for my personal experience: I honestly don't think it proves anything. It's anecdotal evidence. That's the worst kind of evidence, and I wouldn't use it unless it was all there is. Luckily, there are statistics, which is why I suggested those to begin with. My personal experience is mine alone, and should not be used as a measuring stick for all of society.

I guess, as far as your last post, I think we're different, but I don't think we're all that different. Really, I can boil it down to: There are two stances on this issue: that most of our actions are dictated by our genetics, or that most of our actions are dictated by societal pressures. I personally feel like society has a bigger impact. Unfortunately, to prove my case I have to change society. Equally unfortunate is that to prove genetics, you have to perform the forbidden experiment. Neither of which is possible, but both are interesting to discuss. Just don't do it at 5am (tried this once, it was way more funny than productive).

 

[Terminal Blue]

One could be that to acquire a mate a man must try to impress a woman so he tries to gain status and one way of doing this is to acquire wealth.

Okay, I can buy that.

So why does this trait exist, and why does it factor into our decision making process when I think we can all generally agree that men and women should theoretically be equal.

Throughout history men have traditionally filled the hunter-gatherer role so making more money could be a modern version of this trait.

Interesting idea, but hunter-gatherer societies come in many shapes and sizes. In fact, nowadays it's very rare to encounter a hunter gatherer society where men are working harder than women.

Maybe woman are more suited to jobs like teaching and nursing due to their role as being a mother throughout history? It could be an ingrained tendency to be more receptive to this kind of job than in men.

The problem, again, is that this is not strictly true.

Women have nursed very young children throughout history, for obvious reasons, but until a few hundred years ago there's really not much evidence that women spent more time with children than men did. Engaged parenting and supervised play are very new, in historical terms.

The idea of women possessing an inherent bond to children or of mothers being particularly important to children's lives is certainly very new. Until just over a century ago women had no legal rights over their children whatsoever.

Maybe men are encouraged to earn more money growing up than girls are? Maybe men are encouraged to do those kinds of jobs that pay more and women are encouraged otherwise. Gender roles in a nutshell.

Pretty much. It strikes me as all that's left.

Feminism, I think, demands that we do not accept mumbled assertions of "biology" or "history" or "tradition" as justifications for the organization of our society. It demands that we be better than the limited roles we have carved out for ourselves.

Why? Because the alternative insults and belittles us all, men included. Good example.

Underneath the anti-feminism may be perhaps the most insulting image of masculinity around. Males, you see, are savage, predatory, sexually omnivorous, violent creatures, who will rape, murder and pillage unless women perform their civilizing mission and act to constrain us. "Every society must be wary of the unattached male, for he is universally the cause of numerous social ills," writes David Popenoe. When they say that boys will be boys, they mean boys will be uncaged, uncivilized animals. Young males, conservative critic Charles Murray wrote recently, are "essentially barbarians for whom marriage . . . is an indispensible civilizing force". And what of evolutionary psychologist Robert Wright, who recently "explained" that women and men are hard-wired by evolutionary imperatives to be so different as to come from different planets. "Human males," he wrote, "are by nature oppressive, possessive, flesh-obsessed pigs".

So, we can sit here and accept that women are programmed to be infantile wombs on legs whose primary role is to have babies and that men are emotionally stunted, sexually aggressive throwbacks who cannot be fully controlled and must merely be excused. We can continue to organize our society on that principle, as we have always done. We can sit here and pretend that saying these things is actually a point of pride rather than a symptom of pathological self-loathing.

Or we can accept that any claim to this effect is highly selective. That despite these claims women remain capable of competence, intelligence and fortitude and men remain capable of compassion, care and nurturing. We can accept that appealing to nature or referencing a (largely imaginary) past does not provide us with a suitable model for the present. We can assert (correctly, based on all current evidence) that it is not only possible, but is in fact desirable to treat our inequalities as things which can be fixed, not as things we just shrug our shoulders at and say "oh well, that's just men being men/women being women" but which we actively work to overcome.

I dunno.. I'm really tired now and this post has gone kind of rhetorical and shitty so I might go to bed. I guess the key point is that, whatever motivates men and women to behave differently in ways which prejudice one or the other is not something we should just be shrugging off. "Sexism" is not just discrimination, in literal terms it refers to the belief that "sex" carries inherent and immutable qualities and that these qualities should be the core organizing principle of how our society treats men and women. People buy into that all the time, it doesn't require some outside agent or aggressor to enact prejudice against them, it merely requires that people refuse to acknowledge the individual capabilities of themselves or those around them because those people posses or lack particular sex organs.

 

[Aslyn]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but the ERA is continually put forth in Congress by two tireless Congresspeople. At least, it had been put forth every year since ratification failed (in...'82 I think) as of 2009, when I covered the ERA in grad school. The ERA is the Equal Rights Amendment, and would benefit men in that it would become illegal and unconstitutional to deny a man paternity leave, to favor the mother in custody cases, to demand unfair levels of child care or alimony, etc etc. Men really get the shaft (oh look, a phallic reference) when it comes to children. And sometimes in marriage. I have no references for this because I am lazy, this is a gaming forum, and I doubt anyone will read this as it will be on the 5th or 6th page of comments. Do a google search if you want.

 

[Cat Cloud]

Who says that Jane and I don't both have the same amount of Coins and she is failing to realize it?

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.

You do realize that there is more than one type of discrimination, right? Women are treated differently in the media as well as in what kind of job they are expected to get (same for men). In the top 100 CEO's, less than 5 of them are women. There are more women, however, in elementary education. Stereotypical "female" jobs earn less than jobs that are seen as being for men or more masculine (engineering, sports, CEO again). Society has expectations for what kinds of jobs women should hold. This is why people get so bent out of shape when the "girl" aisle for toys is completely pink and filled with "domestic" barbies while the "boy" aisle has science-y spy toys and superheros. They're telling young kids where they should focus and what they should be.

Additionally, relationships tend to be uneven. Women end up doing more household work, despite holding a job, and going to school if they're still a student. People talk about how feminism has begun to pave way for women to be more loose sexually, but it doesn't always benefit women. Most hook-ups don't lead to full blown sex, and most of them are concentrated on bringing the guy pleasure (blow jobs, hand jobs). Even during hookup sex (if I remember the article correctly) women feel more pressure to pleasure their partner (based on a survey). If you want a source for any of this just ask.
Basically, pay is not the only area where women are at a disadvantage.

OT: Feminism is about changing society's view on gender in order to alter a power balance. Making society view males and females as having the same value on most fields could lead to less pressure on men to be super macho and emotionless, etc. Women might not be as pressured to be as girly girl (pink every where, shopping focused, high pitched voice, whatever). So if those people annoy you, I guess that would be another plus.

 

[Catrixa]

Who says that Jane and I don't both have the same amount of Coins and she is failing to realize it?

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.

You do realize that there is more than one type of discrimination, right? Women are treated differently in the media as well as in what kind of job they are expected to get (same for men). In the top 100 CEO's, less than 5 of them are women. There are more women, however, in elementary education. Stereotypical "female" jobs earn less than jobs that are seen as being for men or more masculine (engineering, sports, CEO again). Society has expectations for what kinds of jobs women should hold. This is why people get so bent out of shape when the "girl" aisle for toys is completely pink and filled with "domestic" barbies while the "boy" aisle has science-y spy toys and superheros. They're telling young kids where they should focus and what they should be.

Additionally, relationships tend to be uneven. Women end up doing more household work, despite holding a job, and going to school if they're still a student. People talk about how feminism has begun to pave way for women to be more loose sexually, but it doesn't always benefit women. Most hook-ups don't lead to full blown sex, and most of them are concentrated on bringing the guy pleasure (blow jobs, hand jobs). Even during hookup sex (if I remember the article correctly) women feel more pressure to pleasure their partner (based on a survey). If you want a source for any of this just ask.
Basically, pay is not the only area where women are at a disadvantage.

OT: Feminism is about changing society's view on gender in order to alter a power balance. Making society view males and females as having the same value on most fields could lead to less pressure on men to be super macho and emotionless, etc. Women might not be as pressured to be as girly girl (pink every where, shopping focused, high pitched voice, whatever). So if those people annoy you, I guess that would be another plus.

Yeah, I know, I was using coins as a metaphor for inequality. I chose "coin" because other people were discussing money earlier (so, where I got the idea) and it was easy to visualize. I've thought about using water, but it's not as easy, and could be picked apart with "well, what about rain/oceans/lakes/etc.?" I actually agree with all of what you've said, I just picked a simplistic and confusing metaphor. I'm sorry for the confusion.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

When masculinity scholars look at male under-achievement in schools, do we shrug our shoulders and say "well, it's their own fault for dicking around and not studying hard enough so it's obviously not a real issue, let's move on". No, we look at male under-achievement as a social symptom, we don't brush it off with a cursory sentiment like "boys will be boys", we look at it as something socially created and look at ways we might correct it through social action.

Did you just seriously draw a direct line of comparison between the consensual choices that are made by grown adult women, and the academic under-performance of adolescent boys due to environmental and biological factors largely out of their control?

That's.. not a helpful comparison to make, and I suggest you never make it again.