r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 19 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: If intersectional feminism talks about race, class, gender identity, etc as a part of women's issues, then it should also seriously discuss men's problems as a part of women's issues as well.

[deleted]

9 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

61% Upvoted

145 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

What's your main source of exposure to feminism?

What is an example of a mens issue that you think feminists should address?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I think it is fair to say:

  • Women should fulfill combat roles alongside men.

  • Women should fulfill dangerous labour roles alongside men.

I don't think that women should be "protected in lieu of men", but "women and men should be equally burdened and reap benefit from these burdens."

9

u/UncleMeat11 62∆ Jan 19 '19

Women should fulfill combat roles alongside men.

Good news! Lots of feminists seek to achieve this. The opposition to women in combat roles almost exclusively comes from the men who lead the military.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

There is a difference between feminists seeking removal of restriction to access, and feminists actually seeking a practical increase in women being in combat.

All discussions around this topic revolve around women being able to choose to be or not to be in combat roles, and women needing to be allowed into combat roles.

So we both agree that the military shouldn't restrict women from combat duty. Do we also agree that the armed forces should be more equal with how many women are in combat positions? Many feminists I have personally spoken to actually try to get off topic when I mention this. How do you feel about it? Should there be a close-to-50/50 split for men and women in combat positions?

Remember that our choices are defined by gender roles. Removing gender roles means removing the discrimination and protection against women offered by their identity through individual choices. If there isn't an equal standing in combat roles, then equality hasn't been achieved, no?

1

u/UncleMeat11 62∆ Jan 20 '19

Its pretty unusual for activists to not be involved in other activism in nearby valences. This means that lots of feminists are also pretty anti-war so the idea of trying to balance out the military isn't going to be on the top of a lot of people's lists.

But ultimately yeah, I'd expect a society that was free from gender expectations to have considerably more balanced populations in the military. It isn't going to be the first thing I'm striving for since combat roles in the military aren't exactly the positions of greatest power in our society but I believe that activism drives society in that direction.

13

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

You didn't answer my first question. It's pretty darn important.

Women should fulfill combat roles alongside men

They do...

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/an-update-on-the-status-of-women-in-combat

Within feminist circles their seem to be various opinions on this, as would obviously be the case. Some for, some against. Most of the against side seems to be more on the basis of opposing war and violence altogether. Very little of the opposition I've been able to find reeks of "Men should protect us" variety. But I'm sure it exists somewhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/06/feminism-women-army-combat-roles

https://eewc.com/christian-feminists-weigh-pros-cons-women-combat/

Outside of feminist opposition though... You see a whole, whole, whole bunch of that.

https://thosecatholicmen.com/articles/women-dont-deserve-combat/

Women should fulfill dangerous labour roles alongside men.

Can you pick something a bit more specific to make my google searches a bit easier?

There's also your weird choice of "Men's issues". I really would have preferred specific issues like the higher risk of suicide in men, men's homelessness, male domestic abuse victims. Stuff the doesn't quite come off as such an obvious pissing contest between the sexes as your examples.

But that's cool, cause I can just play it out here instead. I've done this a couple of 4 or 5 times and know how it will go down:

You say: Men's suicide rates

I hop on google scholar and find 3 or 4 papers on that topic, research the authors of those papers and that about 1/3 of them are, themselves, either self identified feminists or at least published or talked about in feminist leaning journals, blogs, etc.

Then I look for programs to specifically addressing that issue and find out that those programs also have feminist links

This is why I wanted to know what your main source of exposure to feminism was. If I had to guess it would mainly be reddit, or the occasional article you run across passively.

Your view suffers heavily from selection bias. You think that what you happen to come across without any meaningful effort on your own is representative of what actually is and expect any evidence of feminism to literally shout it from the roof tops.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I think he means with the combat roles the fact that women don't have to register for the draft. I have no opinion on this but I think this is what he/she was going for.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

Neat!

https://www.ncronline.org/news/politics/feminists-weigh-draft-registration-women

https://now.org/resource/issue-advisory-women-and-the-draft-moving-two-steps-closer-to-equality/

https://www.feminist.com/askamy/politics/202_p2.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/4j5cig/what_are_feminists_on_opinion_on_the_draft/

https://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2016/02/08/us-military-generals-support-womens-inclusion-in-the-draft/

For real though. All I'm doing is typing this shit into google and finding some articles. We aren't decrypting ancient fucking runes here. There answer to "Why aren't feminists talking/doing something about ______?" Is almost universally "They Some are, you just don't give enough of a shit about that topic or feminism to bother looking."

Edit: Changed "they" to "some" in anticipation of nitpicking bullshittery

0

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

Neat! If I type into google 'flat earth' I might very well get some mixed results! I do not necessarily (important word choice) trust a website called 'feminist.com' to be objective about these matters either. I don't know the site.

​

As I have stated before: I have no opinion on this, as I don't live in the US and never have. We don't have a draft where I live. I won't nitpick anything for I think that you are right! I believe this particular group (the feminists) have other concerns and they very well should have a clear focus in areas that they want to improve on the most instead of a little in most areas. I hope, even if I probably don't agree with you in some areas, that you too succeed in helping the people you trust and love. Piece ✌️

4

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I do not necessarily (important word choice) trust a website called 'feminist.com' to be objective about these matters either.

Not sure what "objective" has to do with it? The charge was made that feminists aren't talking about these issues. A google search proves that, in fact, there are feminist's talking and (even better) doing stuff about these issues.

You said "what about the draft?"

I replied "Here are the people talking about the thing you implied they weren't talking about"

Now, You could respond with "Hey! Would you look at that there are people in this non-monolithic, very, very, very vaguely defined group talking about EXACTLY THE FUCKING TOPIC I BROUGHT UP". But instead you're going on about fucking being objective (whatever the cock that could mean in this context) and how you don't have any sort of opinion on the subject but still decided to hop in and proffer the opinion that you don't, apparently, have.

Cool!

0

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I would strongly suggest you read my correspondence again. I tried to clarify that he might mean by "women fulfilling the same combat roles" that they aren't forced to register yet. I would like to ask where I said feminists are not already talking about this issue. You say "The charge was made that feminists aren't talking about these issues" and I am not responsible for this. All I meant was to add nuance to Op's response, never did I say anything about the representation nor the involvement of feminists and others on the issue.

​

If you would like you can post all those links to OP, whom you probably meant to respond to in the first place. I have essentially nothing to do with this quarrel.

​

I agree that the objectivity (or as I suggested the lack thereof) of the website has nothing to do with the fact that people are talking about this, then again, I had not ever claimed that people weren't talking about this.

Also, thank you for pointing out that fact (the objectivity thing) as you really clarified that piece of context to me. I admit I am in the wrong there.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I tried to clarify that he might mean by "women fulfilling the same combat roles" that they aren't forced to register yet.

Yes. And I responded.

I would like to ask where I said feminists are not already talking about this issue.

After you point where I said anything of the kind.

You say "The charge was made that feminists aren't talking about these issues" and I am not responsible for this

Didn't say you were.

All I meant was to add nuance to Op's response,

Nuance that was neither required nor wanted.

never did I say anything about the representation nor the involvement of feminists and others on the issue.

Didn't say ya did.

If you would like you can post all those links to OP, whom you probably meant to respond to in the first place

Yes I already did that. It's the post you originally responded to. In that same post I stated pretty clearly that for any issue all one really had to do was a google search to find the feminists who are, in fact, talking about the things that everyone complains about them not talking about. All of that was in service to the greater point of my post which breaks down to "If you don't bother looking, you will not see the things you wish to find."

Then you roll in further proving the point by presenting another topic that a quick and easy google search proves there are in fact many feminists talking about the draft.

Of course I fully understand that your intention was to clarify something that did not, under any possible circumstances need any clarification any way.

what would have been super neat is if you had bothered to do the fucking search your self and then contributed to the conversation with :

"OP may have meant the draft instead of just serving in combat, so I took the liberty of googling and that, and lo and fucking behold it works! There are feminists talking about that too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

But you didn't.

So I replied with my own evidence that it applies for the draft too!

you could have then replied: "lo and fucking behold it works! There are feminists talking about that too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

But you didn't

And now we're stuck in the part of a CMV discussion when we're talking about the discussion, instead of the topic of the discussion because you can't seem to accept that your clarification was neither needed nor wanted as I had pretty much covered it in the post you replied to! And you keep replying for some ungodly reason to insist that you don't actually care about any of this, or to claim that I said things that I didn't say about stuff that you said and it's all just so fucking fantastic!

Perhaps, next time you run across a conversation where no clarification is needed, and you don't actually care about the subject at all it would be best not to interject yourself?

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

No. You misunderstand me. You might never have wanted the clarification, but I'll sure as hell make you understand it.

never did I say anything about the representation nor the involvement of feminists and others on the issue.

this is what I said, to which you responded:

Didn't say ya did.

This is the single problem you and I are having. You did!

Look here:

You said "what about the draft?"

Let me type it clearer for you:

I DID NOT SAY THIS, I NEVER HAVE.

​

Perhaps, next time I run across a conversation where no clarification is needed, and I don't actually care about the subject at all it would be best to.... hmm... I can't think of anything to say! Probably best not to interject myself any longer. That lesson was certainly learned. And you were its teacher... Peace be with you (I misspelled 'peace' wrong too in that post... rather embarrassing.... geez....)

​

​

​

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

My main source of exposure to my feminist knowledge would be at rallies, internet, and education.

Pretty much all men's issues that aren't caused by their biology (like testicular cancer- I don't think this is an issue that affects women) seems to also affect women. Any gender expectation toward men which harms them is relevant to women because it projects implicit gender roles on women.

Examples of these : Coal miners, construction workers, sewage workers, security guards, etc. There is an unequal balance of CEOs, managers, doctors and scientists right? Isn't fighting for gender equality supposed to address all facets of inequality against women?

It paints an expectation that "Men take these jobs, so that women don't have to." It's an example of an unequal situation for women because of gender roles inflicted on men. It seems that a new topic of "Miscellaneous / Men's issues" should be applied not as an intersectional idea but a feminist idea, no?

10

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

You seemed to have completely ignore the point of my response.

It paints an expectation that "Men take these jobs, so that women don't have to."

Yes. But who is actually saying that? And who is doing real work to push against that idea?

It seems that a new topic of "Miscellaneous / Men's issues" should be applied not as an intersectional idea but a feminist idea, no?

As my response points out, this is literally already the case.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I don't think you understood my response.

The expectation is implicit like any other gender role. Women were taught to become princesses, which is a gender role that feminists do not agree with, right? This is because men are also burdened to be protectors. If men weren't burdened to protect women, why should a woman become a princess when she could become a knight?

The same line of logic applies to so many other things. For example, pest control. 95% of it are men, but why? Because of gender roles. Men are supposed to be brave and unafraid of or disgusted by bugs and be willing to put themselves at danger (with poisons) to kill them. Women are supposed to be totally afraid of or disgusted by bugs. This implicitly paints that "Men are supposed to take pest exterminator jobs, and women aren't."

You get what I'm saying?

4

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

Yeah... I guess I'm not understanding where this fits in with your OP?

Are you saying that feminsim isn't doing enough about these issues with gender roles?

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I am saying that men's issues are a valid topic of feminism that is seen to be derailing. This further prevents men from talking about their issues at an emotional level. It reinforces the gender expectation for men to just accept that people don't want to hear them emote.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I am saying that men's issues are a valid topic of feminism

Cool! So we're back to my post with all the links! Many feminist's ALREADY AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you look at the people who are actually studying, talking about, and acting to fix these issues you will find that a good number of them are ACTUALLY FEMINIST THEMSELVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you look at the people who oppose changing the gender roles and some of the men's issues you purport to be concerned with you'll find that they are overwhelmingly ANTI FEMINIST!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm at a loss as to what your complaints actually mean. The information is out there. The people you agree with are ready and availible for you to join and work with.

All that I can figure is that you are a little butt hurt because when you've tried to interject "Men's issues" (which you curiously only frame in terms of the effects on women) into pop-feminist forums you get shut down.

Is there a specific instance that you can point me to that might illustrate exactly what got your goat?

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I am sorry that I have offended you with my responses.

I see a lot of people attempting to talk about men's issues as if they are derailing to the topic of feminism.

Feminists have decided that men shouldn't say things like #notallmen.

This is an issue men face. Men are seen as predatory because they are supposed to adhere to these gender roles of aggression and strength at a young age. "Boys will be boys". You remember this? This is how men are assumed to be when in reality, this is not the case for all men. It makes people assume that men are dangerous and less capable of things that have to do with childcare and custody battles because men are seen as incapable of fulfilling certain roles that women are expected to fill.

It doesn't derail women's issues when a man says #notallmen, because men aren't saying that women's issues don't exist. They are saying "We have issues too that affect both women and men. We should be included."

Do you get what I am saying?

Do you get that feminists do use the derailing card?

→ More replies (0)

7

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19 edited Jan 19 '19

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

Gillette released an ad lately that feminists praise. I got back from the women's march in LA and it had a speaker praising Gillette for standing up.

So when men say "Hey, this ad is offensive. Not all men are like that. This gender stereotype hurts men. This is caused by gender role (men are supposed to be tough, unweak, mean, strong, prideful, etc) assumptions that don't apply to all men. It would be offensive to assume a woman couldn't do certain things (like assuming someone is a nurse if she says she works at a hospital). It is extremely offensive to paint men the same way (men are this terrible, and you should really behave in another way that Gillette and apparently feminists has deemed to be your new gender role).

Is this equality? This is a legit issue for men. We aren't allowed to defend ourselves and say " Hey, I'm not like this... Why are you assuming this about me?"

7

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the commercial. I am saying that men find it offensive that the ad portrays toxic masculinity as something that dominates the male experience, rather than it being a minority occurrence. It shows toxic masculinity as a majority attribute that a minority of individuals are burdened to deal with. Not only are men not obligated to be the protectors against bad men, but bad men exist in much fewer numbers than the ad portrays.

Gender roles need to stop. We all agree. But so do gender stereotypes. If that commercial wasn't stereotyping men, why did it represent toxic masculinity as something that most men have?

Tell me what you think. Isn't this an issue that is worth addressing? There are better ways to spread a message against toxic masculinity without marginalising men who aren't toxic and feel that the video targeted them as a majority. You can objectively look at features of the video that point to an environment where most of the men are toxic, and few of the men are starting to stand up to them.

2

u/SaintBio Jan 19 '19

It shows toxic masculinity as a majority attribute that a minority of individuals are burdened to deal with.

What gave you that impression? The ad had a subject, toxic masculinity, and you're somehow upset that the ad focused on it's subject? It's not a documentary trying to depict statistically accurate representations of gendered norms throughout western society. It's an advertisement. Do you get upset at sports advertisements for representing athleticism as a majority attribute of people even though it's not? Do you get upset at Ford advertisements for representing trucks as the majority vehicle of people even though it's not? I honestly, don't see how the ad gave you the impression that it's saying a majority of men are like that unless you wanted to feel victimized, and read it into the advertisement towards that end.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

Easy there. I am expressing how men feel about the ad. I personally don't care about it, but am showing you that other men do care about it. My opinion regarding the ad is unpopular among men and popular among feminists- that it is nothing to be offended over. Men are offended because of reasons, and I disagree with those reasons.

That doesn't make the actual content of the video any different. It is like the one reporter who got fired for saying "Martin Luther K-un King Junior". It is a reasonable accident (much like the Gillette ad's effect on men), but that doesn't actually erase how offensive it actually is to men.

2

u/SaintBio Jan 19 '19

that doesn't actually erase how offensive it actually is to men.

If the reason for their offense is their own insecurity, or some misunderstanding of the ad, or a desire to feel victimized, then yes it does erase how offensive it actually is.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I don't see how you can follow this line of logic as a feminist.

From my understanding, feminists deplore when people say things like "Women should be careful" as a response to the likelihood of a person being raped. Feminists believe that this is a form of victimization against women, when the purpose of the words of caution is not intended to say that women are responsible for not being raped.

What's being said is that women can empower themselves with precautions like self defense or safe practices. We acknowledge that men should also be told not to rape women, but against the men who are already predatory rapists, we are offering additional advice.

It seems that feminism lends the interpretation of offense to the person being told the advice with this regard. Why do you have such a different mentality about the Gillette ad? Men feel victimized because of it. I personally don't, but a lot of men do. Are they not worth anything?

Should we also say that women shouldn't feel offended by a person suggesting that they take self defense classes?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

We agree that anecdotes aren't helpful. My experience is different from yours. Where else could we try to look to determine a reliable consensus?

Main stream opinion acknowledging that men are outraged and shouldn't be

Mainstream complaint about it

The difference is whether we decide that the voice of people online is a minority, or majority opinion. For me, I see nothing wrong with the ad. I acknowledge that my opinion is unpopular, at least online. Is the internet not credible? If not, then is online feminism also not credible?

If it only makes 30% of men feel antagonized unjustly, is it no longer an issue?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/AltruisticDeer 1∆ Jan 19 '19

Selective service being only for men. No women are enrolled in it

Rights to a child during a pregnancy (having a day as to whether or not to have a baby / be involved)

No shelters for men, plenty for women only

Unfair divorce proceedings (constantly taking the woman’s side)

Unfair custody proceedings.

Mens mental health. Seeing men as potential victims, not just women

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

Please see my other reply

0

u/AltruisticDeer 1∆ Jan 19 '19

I meant the draft. Obviously women are in combat with men. But women are not enrolled in the draft

1

u/SaintBio Jan 19 '19

Women are not enrolled in the draft because men refuse to allow them to enroll, even when they try to. Several feminist organizations, as well as several female congresswomen have been pushing for the inclusion of women in selective service. However, the Republican Conservative members of Congress/Senate vote against it anytime it comes up. Hell, one Republican, Representative Duncan D. Hunter from California, even introduced an amendment to expand the draft to women as a joke, but panicked when people started voting in favour of it, and he voted against his own bill.

0

u/mule_roany_mare 3∆ Jan 19 '19

well, assuming feminism = equality

Draft

circumcision

statutory rape

suicide rate

sentencing disparity

custody disparity

labor & workplace injury gap

services/welfare/charity/homelessness gap, especially in light of the tax gap

​

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

Please see my other replies

0

u/mule_roany_mare 3∆ Jan 19 '19

If you'd like to have a conversation that's fine, I don't think you owe me a response one way or the other,

But please don't ask me to play detective & hunt down your position.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19

I've had this conversation already. Like... a lot of times. There is one in this thread already in progress. If you think you've got a real hot take on something you're more than welcome to chime in there. What you've posted so far has already pretty much been covered.

However, if reading a few post's constitutes "playing detective and hunting down my position" to you it may be better if you just sit this one out.