The problem with this is that it lets all of us men who aren’t rapists and who play catch with their daughters think we’re not part of the problem. But how about the men who won’t take paternity leave because they are convinced it will ruin their career? How about the men who won’t tell their boss that they have to leave on time because their wife has an important work meeting and can’t pick up the kids? How about the men who promote acerbic men but don’t promote or higher acerbic women with equal or greater skills?
Solving the problem is going to take a lot more than men not being evil.
That was not supposed to be a comprehensive list.
Add them in.
Add them in too
Definitely add them in.
I feel that this is where you started down the wrong path.
It’s not that women’s issues are more important than men’s issues. Or that men’s issues are more important than women’s issues. Both sets are issues are important.
But there are plenty of resources being devoted to most men’s issues while many women’s issues are suffering from a lack of resources. So it makes sense for some people to decide to devote their efforts to areas where the need for those efforts is greater.
They are to the women concerned.
I bring my new jeans to a tailor to make the pockets useful. I sometimes spend as much on pockets as the original purchase price of the pants.
Agreed. We can all think of many examples of this in politics and equal rights issues. Unfortunately, I would call it standard political procedure.
( cargo jeans? ) Oo｡.
I hate that these threads are so subtle that the necessary foundation to comment almost isn’t worth the effort. If you use any kind of shortcut in arrriving at a comment, then it leaves a place for attack in debate.
But I’ll do my best:
There’s a Venn diagram where on one side there’s hateful awful patriarchy, and on the other side there’s…hateful and awful misandry…and a blurry part in the middle where people just like what they like.
If a person (sex excluded for purposes of debate) want to hug someone they’re attracted to…it’s not particularly deceitful if they don’t want hugs from people they’re not attracted to.
The lines of this venn diagram are blurry, and the amount of overlap varies with time, weather, opportunity, and unaddressed childhood trauma.
Not sure if something isn’t going over my head here…
I am sure a feminist (singular) can care about men’s issues but the word ‘feminists’ is used and, to me, that means as a collective, organized group.
Criticizing feminists, as a collective and organized group, for not caring about men’s issues would be like criticizing labor unions for not caring about management getting pay raises or the collective owners of professional sports teams not pushing hard for players rights.
It’s just not what that group exists for. The group exists to promote their own interests.
My first introduction to the idea of intersectionality–not under that name–came in a book of essays I read as a teenager. I don’t remember the name, but it was by a bunch of American Indian Movement activists and other American First Peoples activists. A couple of the essays really stuck with me, one of them shaping my view of cultural appropriation (again not under that name), and the other introducing me to intersectionality.
I’m not a feminist, the author declared (with the proviso that I read this thirty years ago and am paraphrasing). Native men and women, we’re on the same side of the oppression. Our Native men aren’t the opposition in our struggle, they’re our allies, and feminism has nothing for us.
Later, I’d think about how mainstream feminism of the eighties was extremely focused on White middle-class women, and how that’s probably the kind of feminism the author was talking about. It may be that other, intersectional feminists would have had more to offer to that author.
But for that author, at that time, women’s issues weren’t more important than men’s issues. Rather, indigenous issues were her priority.
Agreed. I hope I’m not out of line to note “cherry-picking” or even “nut-picking” of certain talking points put forward by some feminists (such as, say, women shouldn’t have to care about men), contorting what may be a mere bumper-sticker for a more nuanced underlying position and/or what may be the position of only a fringe group of feminists into something supposedly endorsed as a universal truth among all feminists—with no deeper meaning—even as it is facially absurd, is a common tactic of MRAs.
Historically, men and women have been enslaved, killed, put in internment camps, displaced because of their race, ethnic origin, religion, to an extent never seen with gender. That really hasn’t changed in a historical sense as of 2022. Too much history otherwise. I do not think black men are culturally oppressing white women. Culturally, white women have always held power over black men. See To Kill A Mockingbird. So yes, any minority woman is more likely to find common cause on more important issues with her male minority peer group than with white women.
You ought to go read a few of those Reddit threads that are titled things like “What do you wish was different about being a man?” or “What’s the hardest thing about being a man today?”
It’s astounding how many men feel extraordinarily oppressed by the feelings that they have to be the sole provider for their families, be successful, and do so without any real emotional help from society.
I know that if I was in that situation, I’d probably be more likely to reach out to a woman for help, if only because the way that toxic masculinity works, women are ‘safe’ in the sense that you can be vulnerable to a woman in many ways that you can’t with other men, and that women actually discuss that kind of thing frequently and won’t be uncomfortable with it. If a man goes to another man and says that he’s feeling insecure and wants a hug, he’ll probably be mocked, and at the very least it’ll be an extremely awkward moment. Even if they’re close friends who’ve known each other for a quarter-century. Even brothers/fathers/sons might have some problem there, believe it or not.
But you see that’s the thing. It’s not a problem with women or feminism, it’s a problem with some men and/or toxic masculinity. Which puts it squarely in the realm of “man, heal thyself” or even “man, I am all for dismantling toxic masculinity, but let’s just be clear I’m doing it for the effect it has on women, not to be a better caregiver to you, so manage expectations accordingly.”
However, don’t confuse “radical feminist” with “loud militant feminist”. Surprisingly (at least to many folks), it’s the radical feminists who are most likely to regard the desire for power over others as artificial, not natural, as an artifact of patriarchy and it’s twisted value system — which, in turn, means that males are not “getting away with” patriarchy like it’s some wonderful prize and enjoying a great life as a consequence, but instead are living truncated little lives and would (and will) benefit from a feminist success. And are not the Enemy. The enemy is a system, not a group of people.
I understand. I’m just pointing out that it’s more a situation where men don’t know where to turn so they’re turning to the people who they think know how to handle that kind of thing. And I feel like maybe if women just give men the finger in the name of feminism, that’s probably counterproductive in the long haul.
I mean, if I were in that situation and I reached out to a woman for help, and in return got a load of feminist stuff about how it’s not a woman’s job to help men, blah blah blah, that would alienate me straight away from feminists in general. Why in the world would I want to help them if I reach out for help, and I get that sort of BS in return?
Er…we weren’t talking about sexual hugs. We were talking about someone hugging you when your mom dies, or similar situations where people need emotional support. The idea that hugs are only about sexual attraction is extremely toxic, IMHO.
But it’s also counter productive to turn to those who are already overburdened when you need help. Yeah, it might be easy and natural to do that. But it’s making the world a slightly worse place, and that’s something you should be mindful of.
That is, you are starting the “BS” in this situation.
No. If you look at the photo of laundry, you can see that the structure of the jeans is very similar, the difference is in the size of the pouch that makes up the interior of the pocket. I have a tailor remove the bottom of that pouch and add a longer pouch inside. The pants look identical on the outside when he’s done.
The first time i did it, i literally told him, “make these like men’s pockets”. Now i have several pairs of pants with good, useful pockets and give him the interior dimensions i want. My goal is that if i shove may hand as far as I can easily reach, my fingertips just touch the bottom. This is deep enough that my phone fits entirely “below the fold”, where it’s very comfortable. It also means that i can just barely shove my Kindle in my pocket, and my checkbook, which is handy.
If you start judging the importance of an issue by how much it concerns you personally, you run the risk of becoming Donald Trump.