Indeed; how is it fair that men are "forced" to work and provide income (with all the stress associated for that, especially for low-earners) and are "forced" to miss out on their kids? It seems to me that's just as much of an injustice as women being "forced" to stay at home. ("forced" in quotes as it's not strongly forced, but rather "forced" by expectations, prospects, etc.)
I've long considered traditional gender roles of man works and provides income and woman raises kids and cooks to be unfair to both genders and a general issue that affects everyone, and not really a "feminist" issue as such (or rather, not exclusively feminist).
In my country there's been a lot of discussion that a lot of women are working part-time rather than full-time, with many claiming this is horrible and evidence of discrimination. Maybe that plays a part, but it seems to me the real question is "why aren't more men working part-time?" rather than "why aren't more women working full-time?"
And more general: up to a few decades ago it was entirely normal for a single earner to support an entire family and still have money for a yearly holiday. Now that's much harder financially, if not outright impossible. Something really profound changed in our economy with seemingly few people noticing or commenting on it.
Men are socialized to work by the same society that women are socialized to stay home and make babies. Feminism's direct goals would be breaking that down so that men could stay home (unfortunately we cannot make babies) and women could work, or any other combination, without the traditional gender role boundaries. Feminism's goals are good for everyone.
There are examples of men who want women to be chained to the kitchen; we should consider the reasonable views though, and not throw the baby out with the bath water. Ignore the fringe elements, even though that’s the thing that the media and social algorithms push since they’re the most “engaging”. They are the small minority.
Your whole argument hinges on this word, you are not arguing in good faith, but rather, building a strawman. I'm not going to engage with this style. Thanks.
> I have no papers to show but I have been watching the debate from the sidelines:
You are arguing a strawman, for the simple reason that the results of this hypothetical would be the same: The average man or woman does not wish murder or slavery on another person. If you live in a social web where this is not the case, that sucks. It's time to get new friends.
No, in fact now you are strawmanning me, creating a dumb version of what I wrote and tearing it down.
My point is that among mainstream feminists it is more ok to write even gross hate speech against men (#killallmen) than it is to write even bad jokes about women (they should be chained to the kitchen) amongst not-feminists.
I'm not suggesting mainstream feminists conspire to actually kill all men.
That "reasonable subset" is to a first order approximation feminism.
All "isms" contain outliers, but it's a mistake to get too hung up them in almost all cases. One of the oldest tricks in the book for people trying to push back against idea is to identify these outliers and generate a narrative that this is what the idea is actually about - it's bad faith argument and shouldn't be engaged with.
It sure could be if you were trying to represent it as most/many men or whatever.
Which is I think what the sibling commentor was trying to say, no?
The bad faith argumentation doesn't come from the specifics of whatever group you are talking about, it comes from trying to represent a fringe view or characterization as definitive of the group, then attacking them all for it.
Take for example the current news about Canadian trucker convoy, there was some coverage of people in the convoy being pictured with swastika flags.
It's perfectly reasonable to say: "hey, what's up with the neonazi's ? Are you guys really ok with them being part of your protest?"
And it's perfectly reasonable to judge them on the response to that question. There are even nuanced answers that it's hard to judge.
However, it's a bad faith argument to jump from that to: "Canadian truckers are nazi's".
> Sibling comment to yours is writing about men who want women chained to the kitchen.
I said:
> There are examples of men who want women to be chained to the kitchen; we should consider the reasonable views though,
and
> Ignore the fringe elements
Emphasis added on the important parts. I was arguing there are always fringe elments, and to ignore those, not that the men who are shitheads are important to focus on. You're really twisting things around and I won't comment further on these bad-faith arguments, have a nice day.
Sure, I'm not "against" feminism in general or anything, although re-reading my previous comment I can see how it gave off that impression. I just think it's a very limited view on things, which translates into suboptimal solutions. I also think it can feed alienation among men at times, rather than involving them in the conversation.
From what I've read and people I've spoken to, quite a large number – though far from all – feminists seem to agree on that in broad lines, yet somehow the public discourse still remains fairly narrow IMHO. Personally, I blame the "MRA" people and their nonsense.
Women, regardless of their own earnings, do not want men that are unemployed, lowly employed, "in between jobs". You will be completely ignored. It's a crude reality, but a reality nevertheless. Men are selected by utility.
Read the article again. It seems there's whole armies of men with time on their hands. Unemployed, unable to get a partner. A great supply of male homemakers one would think.
But no. Nobody wants them. A male without utility is cast aside like trash.
Likewise, women do not really want the feminine or sensitive men that they claim to want. They may want it after first securing a man with good looks and good earnings, after which said man may at times express his emotions. But don't overdo it, obviously.
This feminist idea to destroy male gender roles directly contradicts what women actually do. For as long as feminists do not marry economically disadvantaged men and financially take care of them, none of this will change, and it's all just a bunch of hypocrisy.
This entire comment is steeped in a deeply bitter tone, which you would do well to disabuse yourself of (it is not endearing and frankly is a little worrying).
> women do not really want the feminine or sensitive men that they claim to want.
You are wrong. Yes, as a partner you're supposed to have drive and groom yourself properly - this is true for everyone. After those basic life requirements, what is important is that you are capable of having a mature relationship with someone else. Part of that is knowing that you should express yourself and how to do it in such a way that it isn't a fight every time.
It's not bitter, it's reality. Dodging inconvenient truths because they make people uncomfortable is exactly the issue I'm trying to describe. The massive divide between what people say they do and what they actually do.
But if you don't believe me, do go ahead and create a fake dating profile. One in which you show economic fragility (which is the point of the OP article) yet that you're very much in touch with your feelings.
Enjoy the crickets. Nobody wants you.
Hence my point: be attractive, economically successful and only then might you also express some feelings. The thing you're missing here is "economically successful". You describe it as a basic life requirement but I made my remark in context of the article, which describes millions of men for which this is out of reach, even if they try. So the "mature relationship" doesn't apply as they won't be in any due to their economic status.
And as this lack of economic success leads to a lack of romantic success, they sink into a depression, start drinking, and then kill themselves. None of which apparently is worrying, instead the worrying part is saying that women select for economic success, as this sounds shallow, bitter or even offensive.
It's not offensive, it makes total sense from both a biological and cultural perspective.
I didn't read it as bitter. I'm a happily married guy with kids, never struggled to date, has high income, etc. Even then, I agree with what he says. That's simply the way the world is. My wife comes from a non-Western culture and fully agrees with "A male without utility is cast aside like trash". The consequences of selecting the wrong husband are dire for a woman.
Thanks. If it has a bitter tone, it would come from my conviction that modern progressive politics are entirely backwards, and therefore regressive. How very typical is it that millions of men have nothing to live for, end up in the gutter, drink and die, and not one prominent feminist cares?
People have become experts in dodging and bending realities they dislike. When it rains outside they deny it, change the subject, or even redefine the meaning of the word rain.
But to me it still just rains. I'm a man and I know what is expected of me: utility. I have to deliver it and there's no safety net. Failing is not an option. It doesn't matter how I feel about it as it doesn't matter how I feel about the rain. Rain doesn't care, and the world doesn't care about men.
I'd like to see some stats that feminism has led to women marrying men who make less than them. From what I've seen, the expectation that a man should provide holds true even with egalitarian couples.
Until a few generations ago everyone worked from home. The kids were with whichever parent or often extended family.
You lived on your farm or in your village. Both parents did work on the farm as needed. Dad was never far from home and did take the older kids to the fields.
I've long considered traditional gender roles of man works and provides income and woman raises kids and cooks to be unfair to both genders and a general issue that affects everyone, and not really a "feminist" issue as such (or rather, not exclusively feminist).
In my country there's been a lot of discussion that a lot of women are working part-time rather than full-time, with many claiming this is horrible and evidence of discrimination. Maybe that plays a part, but it seems to me the real question is "why aren't more men working part-time?" rather than "why aren't more women working full-time?"
And more general: up to a few decades ago it was entirely normal for a single earner to support an entire family and still have money for a yearly holiday. Now that's much harder financially, if not outright impossible. Something really profound changed in our economy with seemingly few people noticing or commenting on it.