Why Don't All Men Love Feminism?

Source: http://scroll.lib.westfield.ma.edu:2108/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=mlin_w_westsc&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA488638680&inPS=true&linkSource=interlink&sid=AONE

Traditionally, men have had things the rough way. It was the men who had to wake up early, leave at sunrise, and perform back-breaking labor until sunset in order to come home with some money, and put food on the table. Why then, don't all men love feminism? One of it's main themes is the destruction of gender-roles, especially those in the workplace. Feminism is largely a fight to allow women into jobs like construction and law enforcement. If more women worked these jobs, then more men could stay at home and take care of the house - or work easy part time jobs, while the women of the house works her life away in order to pay the bills. That sounds like a much more comfortable life, to me!

I think inherently, men would rather be in control than to have comfort. Because most men (or people in general) can't feel comfortable if their life is not in their own hands. Being a stay-at-home man is tough for a lot of men, not because they want to work - but because they want to be in control of their household. If they are not making more money than the women of the house, then the women assumes a sense of power over the decision making and such in that particular home. In an article published by W. Bradford Wilcox and Samuel Sturgeon, we read "young adults are more likely to embrace traditional attitudes about male breadwinning, female homemaking and male authority in the home, according to a new report from sociologists Joanna Pepin and David Cotter." We would expect our elders to hold more traditional views then we do, but actually, it is the younger generation that would prefer to revert to the days when the man was in charge of the household.

Perhaps this is due to the alarming rate of fatherless homes today, compared to in the past. Today, we have more children than ever before growing up without fathers. While in the past, many homes were plagued with angry, oppressive fathers, today, many homes don't have any father at all. This change in household makup explains the shift in ideal among youth, because it seems our kids would rather have a stern father, than no father. In the good old days, many families were stuck with mean fathers that did not necessarily know how to be a leader of a family - and they began to question why it was generally the man in charge, and not the kind, caring mothers. Today, the opposite is happening. More women are forced to work because of a lack of a father in their kids lives, which leads to the women becoming angry and bitter similar to the fathers of the olden days. Now, kids look at their stressed mothers, and just wish they had a father to take the load off of her and run things so she could do chores and relax!

In this sense, the traditional household isn't a bad household. In fact it was the norm because, it was the most widely accepted setup. Women tended to be better at doing the household chores, while men tended to cope better with the stress of work and paying bills. The inherent problem with this is that it gave men the power in the house, and some men abused their power. While many women are content to let a man run things, today, the mere idea is not to be uttered aloud. Any women who allows herself to be taken care of by a man is seen as needy, when women are supposed to be independent and strong! Personally, I think people should set themselves up in a way that they are happy. Whether the man is in charge, the woman is in charge, or it is a joint operation. Whatever works best for an individual household, is the proper way for that household to run, and nobody needs to tell them how to run themselves!

"Feminism is For Kids"

Source:http://scroll.lib.westfield.ma.edu:2108/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=mlin_w_westsc&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA488626243&inPS=true&linkSource=interlink&sid=AONE

"Feminism is for kids. At least that's what the Academy would have you believe."

That quote opens Kelly McGarry's article, which goes on to focus on pop culture, specifically the box office. He talks about how "Zootopia" won The Best Animated Feature Film - telling the story of a female police officer overcoming discrimination. He says that the movie's lead character was female and uplifting, even if though she wasn't human - which seems to be a "win" for feminism. As such, is is a great thing that this movie won such a prestigious award. It seems that a movie staring a female lead, about overcoming discrimination, can be a top-seller after all!

Well, only if it's a childrens movie, is what McGarry points out. He talks about "Manchester by the Sea" which contained "best actor" winner, Casey Affleck, and how it failes the Bechdel test - designed to grade how "female friendly" a movie is. The Bechdel test asks whether a movie has a female lead - whether females talk to other females in the movie, and when they talk to each other about something other than a man. According to McGarry, Manchester by the Sea fails the Bechdel test quite miserably. While the childrens movie about an inspiring female managed to win awards for it's feats, it seems adults don't care so much for feminist-friendly movies, as the movie which won one of the most prestigious awards (best actor) was anything but feminist-friendly. Is this a bad thing? Should directors be conscious of this when creating their films? If every movie producer made it their primary goal to pass the Bechdel test, there would no longer be any movies about men. Perhaps, the best selling movies are those about men. In this case, you can't blame hollywood for making movies the way they do - film producers are simply looking to profit off of their content. We would need to blame our society then, for being more interested in the affairs of men, than women. However I would love to challenge the Bechdel test by reversing the genders that it considers. I'm sure there are few movies where men talk to other men about something other than women (action movies aside). Still then, why aren't there more action movies with female leads, which pass the Bechdel test? Likely, because fewer women have the desire to be the action-heroes/villains that we see on screen. While men want to be like those movie-stars, women want to be with those movie stars! While this does explain why the Bechdel test is relevant, as there are more action movies featuring men, that does not make it just for hollywood to present us a skewed perspective on action adventure. In this way, Hollywood plays a large role in perpetuating gender roles in our society.

What would Karl Marx think about the debate?

Source: http://scroll.lib.westfield.ma.edu:2108/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T002&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=6&docId=GALE%7CA477203389&docType=Report&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE%7CA477203389&searchId=R1&userGroupName=mlin_w_westsc&inPS=true

Karl Marx, while highly controversial, has produced some of the most influential ideas to take hold of mainstream society. He was a revolutionist, and his beliefs were rooted in the idea that a class-less society could exist, where everybody is of equal class to each other. Where would he fall then, on the Gender-Issues battle? Would be be a MRA? A Feminist? Neither, or both?

Lilia D. Monzo argues that Marx would have been a feminist, in her article "Women and Revolution: Marx and the Dialectic." She talks about how Marx wrote, "...a class of oppressors who dispose of the labor of an oppressed class of producers." in reference to the way society had be run. She is inferring that men are the oppressors, and that women are the oppressed class, using the words of Marx. Not only does she imply that Marx would have been a feminist, but she even says that in order for women to understand feminism, they "need to look to Marx and to his dialectical method" in order to understand oppression. The article talks about how Marx seemingly didn't fight for womens rights - and that he spent a small amount of time pushing for the ideals of gender equality. However, in his private research and writings, it is found that he spent a good amount of time learning about the history of oppression towards women. "Marx notes the different ways in which 'man' (human being) treats men and women and argues that our evolution as a species could be measured by the way in which we treat women" - she also points out a piece by Marx, "The Working Day", which is 80 pages long and contains critiques of the enslavement of women and children. It is clear that she believes Marx would have fought for women, and not men, in his time, as women were clearly not treated with the same respect, or given the same privileges that men were. What would Marx think of the social dynamic today?

I do believe that is he could witness the current situation, he would turn his back on mankind, begin to weep, and walk back into his grave. I bet he would hate both movements in their current form - as each one is simply fighting to put itself over the other at this point. He would likely believe that women are no longer oppressed the way they were in his time, and that they are allowed to do all of the things that men normally did. In fact they are encouraged to do so, and even receive additional resources to men in order to do "mens things". I think Marx would denounce modern feminism because women are already allowed to do what men have traditionally done - and I think he would denounce the Mens Movements as well, calling us brutes who are afraid of losing our power as the dominant sex. And this is somewhat true. At the root of modern mens movements, there is some level of fear that women will end up in control of men. You couldn't be mad at a man for feeling this way - it's natural. Who would feel safe giving up power to another demographic, who likely have their own best interests in mid? The problem is, women don't have that luxury. They have never been "in charge" of things and it is questionable today whether they are, or not. In this respect, the power balance in our current time is the most neutral it has ever been, and for this reason, I think Marx would tell us all to be happy where we are at! This is almost ironic, given that Marx was a "revolutionist" in his time!

What are the critiques of each movement?

Sources:
 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/anne-theriault-/mens-rights-movement_b_5049999.html

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10831043/Modern-feminism-has-got-it-wrong-about-men.html


According to the Huffington Post, the Men's Rights Movement is garbage. "let's get one thing straight: men, as a group, do not face systematic oppression because of their gender. Am I saying that literally no men out there are oppressed? No, I am for sure not saying that." This is a common point that people bring to attention when critiquing the Men's Rights Movement. While I disagree personally, recognizing that there are many areas where men are in fact systematically disadvantaged (custody battles, child support, college scholarships etc.) this tends to be the first point brought up by people when presented with the idea that men need fighting for, in addition to women. This is likely due to the mainstream nature of feminism; when most people are presented with an idea perpendicular to the norm, they are quick to question it's validity, and point out why the common belief is the common belief. How can men be oppressed, if women have always been the oppressed ones in the past? (the key word, in this discussion)!

Later on in this piece, the Huffington Post blames the woes of men on the Patriarchy, and it's promotion of masculinity. We are told that men learn to avoid doing anything that makes them appear feminine - such as seek help in an abusive relationship, and that this is why there are nearly zero resources available to men who need help after such events. Yes, it is argued that men don't get resources because surely, we wouldn't use them if they were variable, because it would hurt our egos and make us feel feminine. 

An author from the Telegraph, in UK, published a piece on their website about why she believes feminism is silly. She states tat she is bemused by "twitter feminists" and tells about one in particular who posted a photo of a man on a subway, captioned "creepy - disgusting". She critiques this, saying that is contains no meaningful or intelligent ideas and therefor is useless in making any progress. Many people see "twitter feminists" on the internet sharing similar photos, statuses, updates, and so on - and it sheds a bad light on the feminist movement. These people who call themselves feminists are actually just sharing angry photos and perpetuating the problem - causing a divide. This is a common misconception about feminists - that they're all angry men haters. Of course that is false; the idea is created because of the "twitter feminists" who share angry photos on the internet without contributing any intelligent conversation to the matter.

Whether you are on one end of the Mens/Womens rights spectrum or the other, is is easy to criticize each movement. Feminists are angry, focused on menial problems,  hate men, living in the past. MRAs are bitter neckbeards, who hate women, are misogynistic, and want men to rule the world. It is easy on both ends to point out the problems that each movement conveys (mainly perpetuated by radical "members"). Why does each movement produce such radical views that differ from the actual fundamental focus points that each movement holds?

What misconceptions are held about the MRA/Feminist movements?  

Sources:  

http://www.berry.edu/womens_studies/myths/ 

https://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/10-misconceptions-about-the-mens-rights-movement/ 

  

Not all "feminists"understand feminism. Not all "MRAs" understand the mens rights movement. This has lead to the tarnishing of both labels. What then are some common misconceptions held about each movement?  

Berry College in Georgia released an online article titled "Myths About Feminism." The article contained a numerical list, which stated the top three misconceptions as "they hate men – they are angry – they are ugly and un-feminine". Another list posted on the Huffington Post website lists the mens rights movement's top three misconceptions, as being "It's misogynistic, conservative, and it's members don't participate in activism". While the common myths about true feminism seem to relate to the subjects themselves and their emotions, the myths about the MRA movement are primarily centered around the belief that MRAs fall into a specific "conservative" political stereotype – and hold traditionalist views. 

It is clear that the stereotypes plaguing each movement are false and not logical. Feminists who are fighting for the equal opportunity of women to men are not inherently angry, ugly, or biased against men – and MRAs fighting for the equal legal protections of men to women are not inherently misogynistic, conservative, or "lazy internet warriors". These myths are easily disproven on both sides of the spectrum. A feminist would point out Emma Watson – one of the most attractive modern actresses, who is an avid feminist supporter, and has used her fame to help push feminist ideals in the media. She is by no means angry, unfeminine, or a "man-hater" (although her role in the Harry-Potter series may lead some to think otherwise!) 

On the flip side, men will point to conscription as a mens equality issue; traditionally, women have not been forced to register for the draft in the USA. This is a deep-held Republican/conservative belief – that we need to protect our sisters and daughters, and keep them from enlisting. Yet, the vast majority of MRAs push for conscription by both males and females, which is inherently against the common conservative ideal that women need to be protected at home, while men do the fighting overseas.  

With a clear idea of what types of misconceptions each movement faces, we need to ask ourselves the question: how can we clear the air around each movement? How can we end the silly stigmas that each faces?

Defining the Mens Rights Movement 

Sources: Reproductive Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know?  ~ Rickie Solinger 

Unlike it's perpendicular movement (feminism) the mens rights movement has not yet received the honor of a Merriam Webster Definition. However in a very similar fashion to the feminist movement, the mens rights movement seems to be made up by two separate factions: Those who are concerned with fighting for mens rights, and those who are primarily just opposed to feminism. In the same way that some feminists label themselves as such, yet fail to understand the current use for feminism – many people who call themselves "MRAs" are labeling themselves as such, without actually fighting for mens issues. Rather, this faction is only concerned with battling against feminism. This is talked about in Rickie Solinger's book, "Reproductive Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know?" Where he states that the rise of feminism in the 60's and 70's is what created a backlash movement "made up of men who believed that feminism harmed mens interests and status in society". 

Sadly, this idea still holds true among a chunk of "MRAs" or "Anti-Feminists" today. Many people who are opposed to the idea of feminism fail to realize that there are areas in society where men are seriously lacking; and in which we are being discriminated against, and unfairly treated. Many people are simply tired of hearing about feminism – or disagree with the ideas it is pushing in the modern day. Not only is this a shame, as mens issues continue to be overlooked, but it also sheds a bad light on the MRA movement, when people call themselves "MRAs" but are only concerned with providing backlash against feminism.  

It is easy to see that each movement needs to be concerned with the labels that it's members are using to define themselves. Modern feminism is not necessarily a fight for womens rights, but rather it is a fight for women to have equal opportunity to men, and to avoid prejudice in society. Similarly, the mens rights movement is not supposed to be a backlash against feminism, it's intent is to help solve legitimate social and legal issues that men in particular have to deal with. While both movements are concerned with a noble cause, each has a separate faction of members which identify themselves as members of the movement(s) yet fail to understand the actual core concepts that each is fighting for. Whatever the label, no movement is entirely untainted by ignorant individuals.

     

Defining Feminism

"Definition of feminism

1. 1:  the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2. 2:  organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"

(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

       The difference between the two definitions that Merriam Webster gives us, is that one implies the label "feminism" fights for everybody - while the other, implies the term only encompasses woman's issues/rights. What is interesting is, if you ask ten "feminists", you will get conflicting answers about what the real definition is. Most all feminists agree that one of the two definitions provided by Webster is the correct way to describe their personal label; but there is no clear answer as to whether feminism as a whole fights for everybody, or whether it fights for women.             Regardless of who the collective whole of feminists are fighting for, we know that they are fighting for the rights of people who need more rights. We know that the cause is a good cause and has the best of intentions. In it's beginning form, feminism fought for the basic rights of women; the ability to vote, own property, to work. And today, it fights to make society "fair" (but that really means, equal - which isn't always fair)! From the beginning to the current form, feminism is a good thing. Why then has it come to face such great opposition, especially from the Mens-Rights-Movement? 

       The most common argument against feminism, is that it is no longer necessary to fight for rights of women, as women have essentially the same amount of rights as men. This means either, that giving women more rights would be unfair to men; or, that women already have all of the rights that can be given to them. The problem here is that most feminists aren't actually fighting for the "rights" of women anymore - but rather, they are fighting for the equal opportunity of women and men. When people hear feminists say they fight for "equal rights" this creates confusion - as the binary genders have parallel "rights" in today's first world society. If more feminists said that they fight for equal opportunity, or to eliminate prejudice (which is what the actual fight is, these days) then it would be much harder for anybody to create an argument against feminism. Many of the people who call themselves feminists however, have not put so much thought into why they are calling themselves such.