Feminist Men

Ambersky

I have been critical lately of the derailing of threads by men dropping into the Ladies Lounge, of the constant challenges to women of their perceived or actual experiences of sexism and of the lack of awareness even of well intentioned males of their becoming the focus of attention in what is suppose to be a forum dedicated to women talking about their experiences from their own perspective.
Here is a video of a man talking about how men can understand and challenge sexism.
I understand that here in the Ladies Lounge women don't necessarily agree on what constitutes sexism and I would imagine there will be various responses to this video from those who choose to watch it.
Personally this is the kind of work I would like to see more men doing especially those who identify as feminist too.
What do you think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJxUVJ8blw

Amirani

I've seen that video before, I'd recommend everyone watch it.

This is a good article that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter - http://www.policymic.com/articles/41655/feminism-needs-men-too

Some of the more notable points:

• "To be a male feminist means changing the way you speak about and treat women, and that often means challenging your male friends when they perpetuate sexism, which can be incredibly difficult."
• "Men who want to be feminist allies need to listen to women and give rise to women’s voices and experiences. Male feminists can play a vital role in educating other young men and showing solidarity with feminist women, but they need to understand that they are supportive allies, not headlining superstars."
• "No one is free until we are all free."

clairefontaine

I think you mean the perspective of white middle class leftist women. The charter should be more up front about that so we all know where we stand.

Far from all women identify with being feminists, so one can hardly expect the majority of men to.

GalwayGuy2

I remember seeing that on the Swedish twitter a while ago.

What I dislike about it is as follows:

The Freudian slip of "Why are so many male's rapists", rather than the statistically correct, and completely legitimate, "Why are so many rapists male"

The fact that he has the politically correct afterthought of "Women rape as well", but that completely disappears at the end.


The hints of a chivalric "Men must protect women throughout it all". And since I can't think of a society that sought to protect, and did not seek to infantilize them, I don't think that's the best way to go.

The fact that he says Gender Studies should think more about women, but a) Only talks about how men affect women, b) Lets be honest, I've heard these arguments before. Yeah, sure, he's talking about and to men, but it's really just the same arguments. Sorry, but the reason I disagree with feminism isn't because I disagree with women. You need a solid argument and not just a man on a stage.

It's been a long time since I've seen it, so maybe I've forgotten the positive and just remembered the negative.

Quick question to Ambersky: Are there any Male-Feminist Theorists?


And isn't this thread kind of "What about the men-ish?"

Amirani

I think there's a lot of broad generalisations in your post silentrust. Certainly there's a number of people who describe themselves as feminists who have deviated from the drive towards equality, but there's plenty more who haven't. Feminism in a modern colloquial sense can't really be used to describe one particular group. On the page 3 issue for example, some "feminists" will argue that it should be banned because it's demeaning to women, others will argue that it should continue because women should be allowed to pose topless if they so wish.

Despite you doubting the "credibility of the feminist movement", I presume you'd agree that both genders should have equal rights in a political, social and economic sense?

Amirani

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Are there any Male-Feminist Theorists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_feminists

Ambersky

clairefontaine says
I think you mean the perspective of white middle class leftist women. The charter should be more up front about that so we all know where we stand.

Far from all women identify with being feminists, so one can hardly expect the majority of men to.

If you mean the charter of the Ladies Lounge should be more upfront about feminism, this isnt a feminist forum, it is a forum for women.

I know feminism isn't a popular term here or elsewhere and I know from history it never has been, not when women were simply looking for the vote or equal pay or reproductive control. So I didnt expect the term Feminist Man to get away without some instant rejection and criticism.
Still it seems important for some men to be included as feminists and I would like to welcome them, criticism and all.
Some other men who don't like feminism seem to feel that without their presence and criticism we here in the Ladies Lounge would be without some kind of moderation and control of a kind of male hatred which could take over this forum.
So as I have been writing recently in another thread on the place of men in general on the Ladies Lounge and I was reminded that men could be feminists too I though it would be interesting to hear some opinions on feminist men from posters in the Ladies Lounge.
To get us started I thought it might be helpful if I posted a video with an example of a man who is feminist. Needless to say I like what he has to say but I am interested to hear all opinions on that.

Morag

Bras weren't burned.

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.asp

and yes there are those would rather see women squabble among ourselves and never get to meaningful discourse or solidarity, who think there is no room for disagreement and we should all have the exact same opinion.
We don't need to other then that women should have equal rights and opportunities to avail of those rights.

I am blessed to have many men in my life who are feminist, most are happy to call themselves feminists
a few don't adopt that label but are for calling people out on gender bullshít esp when it comes to asserting harmful stereotypes about women.

Femme_Fatale

NiallSparky wrote: »

"To be a male feminist means changing the way you speak about and treat women, and that often means challenging your male friends when they perpetuate sexism..."

To me, that's not even feminist - just fairness and commonsense.

Now that we are no longer second class citizens, any gender-related issues we face should come under the realm of human rights rather than feminism, IMO.

Morag

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

To me, that's not even feminist - just fairness and commonsense.

Now that we are no longer second class citizens, any gender-related issues we face should come under the realm of human rights rather than feminism, IMO.

Yup we need to be demanding and exercising our human rights but, often the attitudes which stop us from doing so are still ingrained in society.

Feminism is also about recognizing that double standards and patronizing attitudes towards women are still a problem for women. It is also about giving women the space to have those discussions about how they effect us.
So that we can then talk to others about making the changes which are needed.

Men who are feminists get this and are supportive.

um7y1h83ge06nx

As a guy I would identify myself as an egalitarian when it's comes to issues of sexual equality.

I feel that feminism and old chauvinistic ideas belong in the past.

Mod

Rightio silentrust, you can drop the inflammatory language such as "mangina/feminazi/mansplaining". You may make your points without trolling.

Mod

Silentrust has been banned for 1 week following abusive PMs. He will not be posting in this thread on his return to the forum.

Sleepy

As a young man I would have called myself a feminist as I was in favour of equal rights for women. As I learnt more about the world and feminism, I couldn't apply the label to myself any longer.

I started a thread on boards a few years ago about this asking how anyone could consider themselves a feminist since there's nothing approaching agreement on what "feminism" actually is anymore: is it simply there to fight for equal legal rights for women? (if so, hasn't it all but achieved it's aims in the developed world?), is it to fight for every area in which a women as a whole can be seen to at a disadvantage by looking at highly aggregated statistics? is it to fight for a world in which women can't be allowed to be offended? is it to fight for a world where women's rights should supercede those of men's?

I'd argue that those in favour of the original aim of the feminist movement (equality) should have abandoned the movement to the lunatic fringes (e.g. the Andrea Dworkin types) long ago and instead joined forces with the saner members of the mens-rights movement (which to be fair has it's own lunatic fringes) to campaign for equality.

It's my opinion that completely gender blind legal and justice systems would deliver an egalitarian society far more quickly and with far less acrimony than by expecting diametrically opposed forces (the modern feminism and the emerging malist movement) to somehow balance each other out and achieve the same goal.

Amirani

Feminism for me still means equality for both genders in a political, social and economic sense. Hence I'm still happy to apply the label to myself, it's not something I'll ever stop believing in.

I am fairly sure my husband would not describe himself as a feminist, however he would not listen to or tolerated any jokes or comment that puts women down and that an important point as he works in an overwhelming male environment.

The point I am making is that while most men might not like to describe themselves as feminists they can help to change the culture of any human situation by simply not engaging with certain jokes and comments.

clairefontaine

Equality and liberty are not always the same thing.

Feminists are a minority of women who have the presumptuousness to speak for all women. I don't want equality. I don't want the right to be conscripted, thank you. That's the problem with the equality barometer. Which bar are you going to apply?

From the 1960s onwards I have no appreciation for them. Catherine McKinnon and Steinem. NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Wibbs

Permabanned troll's posts deleted.

Sleepy

clairefontaine wrote: »

Equality and liberty are not always the same thing.

Feminists are a minority of women who have the presumptuousness to speak for all women. I don't want equality. I don't want the right to be conscripted, thank you. That's the problem with the equality barometer. Which bar are you going to apply?

Would it be fairer to say you want equality AND liberty? Because as you've phrased that, it reads as if you believe that women should be equal to men in rights but superior in terms of the responsibilities demanded of them by the state?

meeeeh

I think what Claire meant is that not necessary the same thing suit both genders. For example full equality in maternity care would mean that instead of woman getting 6 mths maternity leave, it would be split 50/50 between partners. Which makes breastfeeding after 3 mths practically unworkable. Conscription might not be the best example because most of the countries are moving towards professional army which is a lot more gender neutral. But proper equality doesn't necessary mean everybody having the same rights.

Sleepy

I'm afraid I disagree with you there meeeeh: how can we ever stop discrimination against women in the hiring process if parental leave isn't split on at least an approximately 50/50 basis?

In all honesty, I understand why hiring managers are reluctant to hire women of child-bearing age in our current society. There's no denying that maternity leave causes disruption to a business. Fair enough, in a large business that may be only a minor inconvenience but in a small one (and it's SME's that provide most jobs) it can have a serious impact on the business. If it's only one gender that causes such disruption, that gender is going to be discriminated against in the workplace no matter what the legislation says (and identifying that discrimination on a case by case basis is far from easy, especially outside of highly-defined roles). Yes, it's wrong but it's naieve to think it's going to go away.

While I can think of many situations where it may not suit couples to have a mandatory 50/50 split in parental leave (one partner earning significantly more than the other, postnatal depression etc.), it seems to me that without at least a couple of decades of such a mandatory split, our society is going to be very slow to reach any balance on this.

(TBH, I also think you're exaggerating the difficulties of breastfeeding for working mothers a bit too. I can't imagine using a breast pump to be an enjoyable experience but the technology exists and has been used by millions of women over the past couple of decades at this stage.)

clairefontaine

Sleepy wrote: »

Would it be fairer to say you want equality AND liberty? Because as you've phrased that, it reads as if you believe that women should be equal to men in rights but superior in terms of the responsibilities demanded of them by the state?

No what I mean is when partisan groups such as feminists talk about equality with men I quiver a little because injustice is complicated and tied in with other factors such as race, class and age. Meaning that, there are injustices, or as I see them injustices, such as men in the US between the ages of 18 and 24 have to register in case the draft is re introduced. Now I know it's unlikely it will be, but my point is when you talk about equality, equality with what exactly? This is not something i want to see happen for women, because i dont like to see it happenning to men either. therefore i have deep reservations qbout their aspirations. Perhaps it's more appropriate to tackle the vulnerability itself, such as the registration for conscription example I gave. But they won't see it that way. They just want uniformity across the board. I just can't get on board with this.

Maternity leave is a tricky one because women who have birth or had a Caesarian need time to recover. The next question about that is how much you want government administering over the practises of businesses. That will depend on how you see the states relationship with private enterprise.

meeeeh

Sleepy wrote: »

(TBH, I also think you're exaggerating the difficulties of breastfeeding for working mothers a bit too. I can't imagine using a breast pump to be an enjoyable experience but the technology exists and has been used by millions of women over the past couple of decades at this stage.)

I did use breast pump and found it complicated and annoying. And then you have Ireland on top of the fat children lists partly due to low breastfeeding numbers. If businesses want to have higher sick leave numbers and higher health costs in the future then what you are suggesting is the right way to go.

I've mentioned somewhere else that I've worked in SME's all my life. Funnily enough the maternity leave was never overly a problem. You deal with it when it comes. In the same way as you deal with long therm sick leave or similar. A good employee is not measured just by their presence at work.

That being said I'm all for parental leave, but it would have to be optional who chooses majority of it. Some minimum should be mandatory for men too.

hedgehog2

mariaalice wrote: »

I am fairly sure my husband would not describe himself as a feminist, however he would not listen to or tolerated any jokes or comment that puts women down and that an important point as he works in an overwhelming male environment.

The point I am making is that while most men might not like to describe themselves as feminists they can help to change the culture of any human situation by simply not engaging with certain jokes and comments.

Your husband probably does'nt tell ya the half of it.
I know the answer he would get in my work place if he openly criticised a biteen of a joke about women.
Sure what do we have other than a cup of tea and a few jokes to help us pass the coffee break.
The worlds gotten too pc unfortunately.

iwantmydinner

hedgehog2 wrote: »

Your husband probably does'nt tell ya the half of it.
I know the answer he would get in my work place if he openly criticised a biteen of a joke about women.
Sure what do we have other than a cup of tea and a few jokes to help us pass the coffee break.
The worlds gotten too pc unfortunately.

Those jokes sound hilarious :rolleyes:

Why would you criticise a man for not thinking sexism is funny??

And why is challenging sexism (or being "too PC", as you put it) a bad thing??

Stheno

I've not read the thread but has anyone here a partner who earns less and doesn't give a crap but celebrates when their female partner gets a new job/payrise?

I do, he expects nothing from it, and celebrates my small success, and that's what I'd class as a male feminist.

He also brings me breakfast in bed, helps with household chores etc

And yes, we frequently argue

Sleepy

clairefontaine wrote: »

No what I mean is when partisan groups such as feminists talk about equality with men I quiver a little because injustice is complicated and tied in with other factors such as race, class and age. Meaning that, there are injustices, or as I see them injustices, such as men in the US between the ages of 18 and 24 have to register in case the draft is re introduced. Now I know it's unlikely it will be, but my point is when you talk about equality, equality with what exactly? This is not something i want to see happen for women, because i dont like to see it happenning to men either. therefore i have deep reservations qbout their aspirations. Perhaps it's more appropriate to tackle the vulnerability itself, such as the registration for conscription example I gave. But they won't see it that way. They just want uniformity across the board. I just can't get on board with this.

I'm afraid I can't see how anything other than uniformity is equality. And I'm afraid I can't ever "get on board" with one gender having equal rights but less responsibilities than the other.

Personally I'd disagree with the draft as a concept too but if it's been democratically voted for, it's sexist to only enforce it on men.

Maternity leave is a tricky one because women who have birth or had a Caesarian need time to recover. The next question about that is how much you want government administering over the practises of businesses. That will depend on how you see the states relationship with private enterprise.

meeeeh wrote: »

I did use breast pump and found it complicated and annoying. And then you have Ireland on top of the fat children lists partly due to low breastfeeding numbers. If businesses want to have higher sick leave numbers and higher health costs in the future then what you are suggesting is the right way to go.

I've mentioned somewhere else that I've worked in SME's all my life. Funnily enough the maternity leave was never overly a problem. You deal with it when it comes. In the same way as you deal with long therm sick leave or similar. A good employee is not measured just by their presence at work.

That being said I'm all for parental leave, but it would have to be optional who chooses majority of it. Some minimum should be mandatory for men too.

Generally, I'd prefer very low levels of state interference with private enterprise.

If we're all agreed that an end to gender discrimination in the workplace is something we want, I don't see any other way to go about obtaining it than to enforce such mandatory parental leave on both genders. I'd love to hear an alternative though as such a move will definitely have an economic cost.

The status quo gives people redress if they can prove they've been discriminated against but in most cases, hiring and promotion decisions are extremely subjective so very, very difficult to judge whether candidate A was discriminated against or whether the hiring manager genuinely thought candidate B would do better in the job based on personality / attitude / less but more "relevant" experience / "better" thought process to problem solving questions etc.

meeeeh, I find it strange you compare Maternity leave to long-term sick leave. In my experience of SME's, the way of dealing with long-term sick leave is simply to replace the employee on a permanent basis i.e. after x months out of work that employee is let go. And while I'd agree that a good employee isn't measured solely on their presence, there's hardly a person alive who can take 3-9 months off without it negatively effecting their productivity.

I think we're thinking along the same lines however: parental leave has a cost to the business and, imo, this is a cost business must bear. I'd agree that the ultimate goal should be the ability for each couple to make their own decision regarding who takes what amount of parental leave each should take beyond a minimum amount which each must take.

How do we get there though?

Our current society looks down on men taking paternity leave. It derides stay-at-home fathers. The mother's role of "primary care-giver" is practically enshrined in our constitution.

How can we break that societal view? I'd suggest that if we implemented the ideal we agree upon, what would most likely happen in our current society is that the vast, vast majority of men would end up taking the minimum amount of leave under pressure from management / societal expectations and, while a massive improvement on what we currently have, I suspect that women taking more parental leave than men would still lead to them being "less desirable" candidates in employment situations.

newport2

Stheno wrote: »

I've not read the thread but has anyone here a partner who earns less and doesn't give a crap but celebrates when their female partner gets a new job/payrise?

I do, he expects nothing from it, and celebrates my small success, and that's what I'd class as a male feminist.

He also brings me breakfast in bed, helps with household chores etc

And yes, we frequently argue

Is that you dear?


(I'd consider a pay-rise for myself or my wife a rise for both of us. The more she earns, the better for both of us. Why anyone would think any other way is beyond me.)

Amirani

Stheno wrote: »

I've not read the thread but has anyone here a partner who earns less and doesn't give a crap but celebrates when their female partner gets a new job/payrise?

I do, he expects nothing from it, and celebrates my small success, and that's what I'd class as a male feminist.

He also brings me breakfast in bed, helps with household chores etc

And yes, we frequently argue

That's the way it should be really. Unfortunate that it's often still not the case.

Zulu

Stheno wrote: »

I've not read the thread but has anyone here a partner who earns less and doesn't give a crap but celebrates when their female partner gets a new job/payrise?

I do, he expects nothing from it, and celebrates my small success, and that's what I'd class as a male feminist.

He also brings me breakfast in bed, helps with household chores etc

And yes, we frequently argue

Well you are describing me, but alas, I'm far from a feminist. And, to be perfectly honest, I'd be ...offended is to strong a word but... ...I'd be quick to correct someone who called me a feminist.

Like Sleepy, I'd have consider myself a feminist when I was younger, but now I'm egalitarian. And Sleepy describes very succinctly how I came to my conclusions.

(Fair play Sleepy)

clairefontaine

@Sleepy. I don't want uniformity. I'm not a communist. And I recognise we are not equal at any level. The world is too diverse for that. I'd like to keep it that way. Different people have different needs.

If you want equality are you suggesting dropping maternity leave? Unless its leave of absence to do health.

What about disability toilets?

What about Muslim students exempt from class to pray several times a day?

What about not allowing anyone to be exempt from childhood immunisations?

What about the exception to the American draft (if it ever got re activated) being if you are an only son you are exempt?

Uniformity? Why? We are all different.

Sleepy

clairefontaine wrote: »

@Sleepy. I don't want uniformity. I'm not a communist. And I recognise we are not equal at any level. The world is too diverse for that. I'd like to keep it that way. Different people have different needs.

If you want equality are you suggesting dropping maternity leave? Unless its leave of absence to do health.

I think you mis-read my post, I'm suggesting that in order to remove the advantage men have in job selection we replace maternity leave with mandatory equal levels of parental leave until such point that it can be reduced and a couple allowed determine which way to split that leave most advantageously between them. Effectively social engineering to remove the notion that women must be the primary care-giver in families.

I don't see how equality necessarily equals uniformity. Making laws gender blind means uniformity of opportunity, not uniformity of outcomes. Anything else, tbh, means discrimination will exist for and against each gender.

What about disability toilets?

What about Muslim students exempt from class to pray several times a day?

What about not allowing anyone to be exempt from childhood immunisations?

What about the exception to the American draft (if it ever got re activated) being if you are an only son you are exempt?

Uniformity? Why? We are all different.

I think we're veering quite wildly off-topic there but briefly: I don't think anyone would argue for removal of disability toilets, I don't believe religion should be let within an asses roar of education, every child not immunised puts the rest at risk (and the arguments against are absolute horse-****e), and, coming back to the draft, I'd argue if it exists at all, there should be no exemptions for anything other than those engaged in essential services (e.g. doctors, nurses, teachers, police, EMT's etc.). But, in general, I wouldn't agree with it in the first place.

clairefontaine

Sleepy wrote: »

I think you mis-read my post, I'm suggesting that in order to remove the advantage men have in job selection we replace maternity leave with mandatory equal levels of parental leave until such point that it can be reduced and a couple allowed determine which way to split that leave most advantageously between them. Effectively social engineering to remove the notion that women must be the primary care-giver in families.

I don't see how equality necessarily equals uniformity. Making laws gender blind means uniformity of opportunity, not uniformity of outcomes. Anything else, tbh, means discrimination will exist for and against each gender.


I think we're veering quite wildly off-topic there but briefly: I don't think anyone would argue for removal of disability toilets, I don't believe religion should be let within an asses roar of education, every child not immunised puts the rest at risk (and the arguments against are absolute horse-****e), and, coming back to the draft, I'd argue if it exists at all, there should be no exemptions for anything other than those engaged in essential services (e.g. doctors, nurses, teachers, police, EMT's etc.). But, in general, I wouldn't agree with it in the first place.

I think the problem with introducing paternity leave is that it might put both at a disadvantage in that the burdens of expense become greater to cover it. Businesses will be able to hire less. So yes you have your equality, but to a mutual disadvantage.

There is also the recovery time needed after birth/section, this is accommodating a physiological necessity, arguable like disability parking and toilets do.

GalwayGuy2

If you want equality are you suggesting dropping maternity leave? Unless its leave of absence to do health.

What about disability toilets?

What about Muslim students exempt from class to pray several times a day?

What about not allowing anyone to be exempt from childhood immunisations?

What about the exception to the American draft (if it ever got re activated) being if you are an only son you are exempt?

Uniformity? Why? We are all different.

Those are some good points. Although, I'd argue that women/men aren't a subset of society, as muslim/christian/disabled are, but a 50 percent portion. I kind of wish I didn't drag in percentages there, but you know what I mean.

So, I'd be okay with treating an individual muslim women different, as in the prayer thing you mentioned.

But I wouldn't be okay with treating someone differently because they are a woman.

Femme_Fatale

Men who take an interest in improving certain areas for women don't need to be called feminists, just like I'm not any "ist" when I take an interest in improving men's lot.
I agree: egalitarianism (equal yet different, but with similarities) ftw.

HansHolzel

Among the prominent critics of the victim-psychology of the women's movement has been Joan Didion who, in The White Album (1979), saw it as little more than a symptom of a post-war society which promised too much too easily. For Sheila Rowbotham in Woman's Consciousness, Man's World (1973) such psychology belongs to the "sentimentalism" which elevates powerless people into innocents and she points out that innocence is impossible when people have never had the choice of becoming corrupt.

Femme_Fatale

HansHolzel wrote: »

Among the prominent critics of the victim-psychology of the women's movement has been Joan Didion who, in The White Album (1979), saw it as little more than a symptom of a post-war society which promised too much too easily. For Sheila Rowbotham in Woman's Consciousness, Man's World (1973) such psychology belongs to the "sentimentalism" which elevates powerless people into innocents and she points out that innocence is impossible when people have never had the choice of becoming corrupt.

What's that got to do with the price of beans in Peru?

HansHolzel

The catchphrase "Trust women" has been trotted out a lot lately, as if it were PC to acknowledge some inherent moral superiority.

Femme_Fatale

HansHolzel wrote: »

The catchphrase "Trust women" has been trotted out a lot lately, as if it were PC to acknowledge some inherent moral superiority.

Another random and irrelevant soundbite.

Can't say I've EVER heard or read the phrase "Trust women" being trotted out, other than in a "Trust women to be so [insert negative description here]" way.

HansHolzel

Ciara Conway TD is fond of it, for one. Read more news.

Femme_Fatale

HansHolzel wrote: »

Ciara Conway TD is fond of it, for one. Read more news.

Oh right, one person. Well that means so that it's regularly being trotted out.

HansHolzel

Labour types have been trotting it out since at least 2002 and the poster slogan

“Let's Trust Women, Protect Women's Right to Life”

Or are you too young to remember that?

Femme_Fatale

HansHolzel wrote: »

Labour types have been trotting it out since at least 2002 and the poster slogan

“Let's Trust Women, Protect Women's Right to Life”

Or are you too young to remember that?

Oh right, so in your first random post about "Trust women" you were deliberately misinterpreting the context. And your "Labour types" comment is pretty vague. "Trust women" is not being trotted out a lot lately as a way of saying women are morally superior... k?
What is your agenda? Cuz... you obviously have one.

HansHolzel

What did you think I was talking about? Trust women to watch the spuds?

My only "agenda" is to point out that any presumption of the moral superiority of women is foolish and wrong.

Femme_Fatale

HansHolzel wrote: »

What did you think I was talking about? Trust women to watch the spuds?

Just stop pretending the phrase "Trust women" is always being trotted out... k?
Lying is bold.

HansHolzel

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Just stop pretending the phrase "Trust women" is always being trotted out... k?
Lying is bold.

Misquoting/lying about what I actually said is obvious.

Sleepy

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think the problem with introducing paternity leave is that it might put both at a disadvantage in that the burdens of expense become greater to cover it. Businesses will be able to hire less. So yes you have your equality, but to a mutual disadvantage.

There is also the recovery time needed after birth/section, this is accommodating a physiological necessity, arguable like disability parking and toilets do.

What would you propose then? Mandatory parental leave for both parents equivalent to average recuperation time for a woman after childbirth with an additional number of weeks/months to be allocated as the couple decide?

I'd see that as pretty much the ideal but I'm not so certain that it would change very much for women as I'm not sure I can see our society doing anything differently in this scenario: i.e. the vast majority of men would take the minimum leave, many of them working from home during this time-period and the majority of women retaining the primary care-giver role. As such, I'd imagine when it comes to a hiring decision between a man and a woman (ceterus paribus), the man will continue to be the more desirable hire...

strobe

clairefontaine wrote: »

If you want equality [...]

What about disability toilets?

What about Muslim students exempt from class to pray several times a day?

What about not allowing anyone to be exempt from childhood immunisations?
.

I don't think you get what equality means in terms of egalitarianism. It doesn't mean left handed people being forced at gunpoint to use right handed scissors... which seems to be the road you're skipping down.

quietsailor

Sleepy wrote: »

What would you propose then? Mandatory parental leave for both parents equivalent to average recuperation time for a woman after childbirth with an additional number of weeks/months to be allocated as the couple decide?

What about a single form to be made available, to be signed by both parents where they divide up the maternity leave between them and then return the form to their respective employers.

If one parent is in a better job/needs to get back to work sooner the other parent can then use the rest of the leave.

An alternative is they can divide the leave equally and both are at home for the first few months of the child's life when it needs the most attention.

This way there is no male/female divide necessary.

JamJamJamJam

^ A friend of mine mentioned that there's a system like that in... eh.. Norway, perhaps?? I don't know if he was correct, but anyway, it seems to give the greatest amount of flexibility to parents depending on their particular situation.



With regard to the topic of feminist men, I would identify as a feminist man. I don't think I'm a perfect feminist, but I try my best! In my anecdotal experience some female feminists can be very hostile to male contribution and discussion of feminist issues. They also laugh at the idea of a men's rights movement, mock "misandry", and seem to reject that men could possibly suffer from a patriarchal system (men are mega privileged in a lot of ways, but for example, the policing of masculinity is pretty bad). Not many female feminists are like this, but it's frustrating to try educating yourself and improving your own behaviour and philosophy, only to be met by that. (Maybe they're occasionally right and sometimes I just have difficulty accepting that I could be in the wrong?? Hmm.. I don't know...)

Male feminists are useful in the same way that heterosexual LGBT rights activists and white anti-racism activists are useful to their respective causes. I think if the feminist movement focused on appealing to men, then a lot more men would soon adopt feminism. I think this post about street harassment was a good example of that. It would have been so easy to be condescending or sarcastic, but she avoids that. The video in the OP is presented in that way, and it also kind of explores it, too!

Sleepy

quietsailor, while that would be the ideal in an already egalitarian society, do you not see such a system just leaving the status quo in place? Societal pressure on men to be the breadwinner and women to be the main care-giver isn't going to be effected by such a move, and consequently, the woman of child-baring age is still left as the less desirable candidate than her male counterpart (ceterus paribus).

JamJamJamJam, how do you reconcile yourself with being part of a group where large parts of it consider you "the enemy"? The feminist movement, by it's very definition, acts against your best interests as a man. It's raison d'etre is to further female interests, not to pursue equality. I think it's a huge marker of the success of the way feminism has managed to portray itself over the years that my last sentence can be considered controversial.

While many within the movement would cite equality as their goal, it's akin, imo, to joining the PLO with the aim of achieving peace in the middle east.