Examples of How Feminism Helps Men.

Post Reply New Topic

I got 6 weeks off from work when my kid was born.

in Canada, either parent can take 35 weeks of Parental leave

I meant *minimum* 6 weeks.

I don`t see why a social change movement should target all social aspects. If these women are passionate about changing women`s societal roles then that is where their energy is best spent, one movement can`t change everything.

Not that I agree gender roles need changing because I see change as ultimately neutral. Generally the majority will be content and a minority will be uncontent no matter how things are... so long as people are meeting their basic needs.

Last edited by Subotai on 22 Apr 2012, 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

The increased labour pool helps to keep wages down for employers.

What do you define as "modern culture"? The last 30, 50, 100 or 200 years?

But the number of available jobs has also greatly increased, since a larger percentage of people are consumers with an own income. But you do have a point when it comes to the USA. Back in the day, men were the financial providers and had to earn enough to support an entire family. Nowadays, middle class families usually require two financial providers. But that's not the fault of feminism, it's the result of wages that haven't kept up with the inflation rate since... some sources say 1968.

In countries such as Germany, with strong labor unions, cheap education and good public infrastructure and transportation, it is still possible for a person of either gender to be the sole provider of a family. Not with the wage of a supermarket cashier, but in that case the unemployed partner would receive welfare. Child benefits also help support families with children.

But I also have to admit that families with only one working parent are not exactly the norm, and children spend less time with their parents than they used to. Then again, in my grandparents' generation, a great deal of the time that children spent with their parents was spent working alongside them in the household or in the field. In poorer families, children were basically unpaid labor. My father even worked in the factory of my grandfather from a young age. I guess things aren't black and white, but all in all, we are a lot better off than our grandparents were at our age. That goes for both sexes.

But, to some extent low wages (and reduced union participation) are the result of an increased labour supply, which is driven by increased female participation in the labour market, which resulted from feminism.

It's interesting to note that what one could argue began as a movement to make working outside the home an option for women in fact ended up making such participation compulsory for most families.

We don't see the same low wages in social democracies where most workers are unionized. If the low middle class wages in the USA were solely the result of feminism, we should see the same situation in all other countries with equal gender employment opportunities.

In the USA, many people have been raised to believe that unions are evil, "big government" is evil, taxes are evil, universal health care is evil, and the government shouldn't be involved in the education system. This leads to political decisions that create a socioeconomic environment where employers control wages, little money is spent on public infrastructure/transportation (which forces families to own two cars), and decent education as well as health insurance are extremely expensive. The costs (gas prices etc.) have risen dramatically and the wages weren't adjusted accordingly. That's the main reason for the current situation, imho.

That's life in America.

Here, salary negotiation is a 2-way street. Employers offer a salary, which the prospective employee may take, leave, or negotiate for something higher. Women seem to undermine men by being willing to work for less, and then whine because they work for less.

I am an advocate for classical feminism since it is so intimately connected with libertarian values and addressed problems like these, but I would not say that the feminist values helped as much as the libertarian values. For that reason, I disagree with the popular notion that feminism is considered equivalent to egalitarianism. Since I never did a bigoted thing in my life, I feel uncomfortable around people who are sure I am a bigot because I am a white man. (Because resentment and revenge are more progressive than reconciliation! )

IMAO, no one can claim to support one group and then claim to speak in favor of all groups. I went to a feminist art show a couple of weeks ago. Before everything started and we were released onto the free food, one of the artists said "If you support equal pay for women, you are a feminist". Why does "supporting everyone" means "supporting women"?

I would say that if egalitarianism is the goal, neither feminism or masculanism have any ethical function other than to act in response to unbalanced representation. Overall, I feel feminism and masculanism are harmful to everyone if people only make a point to listen to just one of them.

All ideologies are filled to the brim with bs that cover up the basic principles of the ideology and every ideology is perverted by each subject. Every ideology becomes personally interpreted through various psychological biases a person has, then reflects what the person believed in the first place.

The more self-righteous and convinced the proponent of an ideology is, the more that person should be ignored.

Yes, my thoughts exactly.

After women won the right to vote, men that had dashing looks became more electable.

EDIT:

I think the most entertaining study I've seen was one in which the results showed that if you were an attractive man and had your picture attached to your job application you were more likely to get an interview, whereas if you were an attractive women you were less likely to get the interview.

The reason? A large majority of "Human Resources" workers tasked with hiring are women who disqualify what they deem as attractive women.