Devolution
Member
My main concern lately is everybody "isn't that guy who harasses women" but isn't telling him to shut the fuck up.
Practical Tools for Men to Further the Feminist Revolution
- Status
Sure, and guys statistically die 5 years before women do, yet we have to pay the same rates for health insurances and pension schemes by law. Point being: It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to try to balance out physical differences with financial ones. And even less if you chose to ignore all cases in which it is exactly the other way around.
No offense, but to me this sounds like a nicer way of saying "Well sure, it's not exactly equality, but hey.. there's an advantage to be had!".
So, why base all this on some abstract idea of statistical differences between men and women when you could very precisely phrase this as "just have a discussion on how much each of the partner specifically earns, and have them split the costs proportinally to their income"? Isn't that just as easy to understand, yet much fairer on an individual level instead of just saying "the guy has to pay"?
I mean that's debatable but oral contraceptives are associated with risks and do present more than a fee hormonal changes to your body when you they're taken. Just speaking from my own experience. I wouldn't force my girlfriend to use them if she doesn't want too and make her pay for them from her pocket on top of that. It doesn't cost me much to wear a condom and they aren't that expensive in comparison. *shrugs*
All it means is "don't be a creep". If you're on a train car with mostly empty seats, but there's one woman sitting alone, don't sit directly across from her. She'll probably think you're going to bother her, and it might make her uncomfortable.
When walking at night, don't invade personal space. That's it.
Vermillion
Banned
Pretty much, lol (except for 5, which still confuses me).
In retrospect, what were the arguments against chivalry towards women, again? I thought it was positive sexism, yet here we are.
I get the idea of taking into account how society is set up and showing empathy; I really do. But I don't see how the chivalry arguments that have been made don't spit in the face of these. I'm genuinely interested in an explanation.
The people asking why we just can't treat everyone equally would probably do well to read the last section of the faq:
It doesn't seem particularly controversial to me that unequal social/cultural/econonic standings need to be actively fought against or they'll continue to perpetuate themseleves, but maybe I'm wrong considering the content of nearly all of these discussions.
It doesn't seem particularly controversial to me that unequal social/cultural/econonic standings need to be actively fought against or they'll continue to perpetuate themseleves, but maybe I'm wrong considering the content of nearly all of these discussions.
I'd hate to ask this, but is the constant fear that is alluded to more of a cultural thing? It might be because I live in Canada, but none of my friends -- male or female -- have exhibited this behavior and this includes the ones that lived or worked in the roughest areas of town.
Even the sitting next to women on the bus part. It's just... That level of discomfort never really happens in my city. People either say hello or just fall asleep.
Even the sitting next to women on the bus part. It's just... That level of discomfort never really happens in my city. People either say hello or just fall asleep.
Some good points and some bad ones. Number 6 is a crock of shit and insulting. I understand where it's coming from but I've heard too many instances of the word "sexist" being thrown out just to shut down a conversation or argument with no effort put into explaining why, because why bother? The power of the word itself was enough to win you that one. Sorry but I am not going to cede a point on anything to anyone just because a woman said it. Or am I supposed to agree with this one because a woman wrote it?
Also, suggesting that men should go out of their way to cross the street or move to another area of the train car just to give a woman "personal space" is absurd. This crosses over from being respectful and courteous towards women in public to giving them special privileges with regards to public space. How about just don't be a creep towards women in public and give them the same respect you'd give to men. Maybe that will help to actually build trust and comfort in women instead of further engendering a sense of fear of men in public.
Or, you know, she can cross the street or move to another seat herself.
Also, suggesting that men should go out of their way to cross the street or move to another area of the train car just to give a woman "personal space" is absurd. This crosses over from being respectful and courteous towards women in public to giving them special privileges with regards to public space. How about just don't be a creep towards women in public and give them the same respect you'd give to men. Maybe that will help to actually build trust and comfort in women instead of further engendering a sense of fear of men in public.
Or, you know, she can cross the street or move to another seat herself.
I get that. I think the problem a lot of women experience (and what personally bothers me the most) are the instances where there's PLENTY of space, but for some inexplicable reason a man you don't know has opted to place themselves RIGHT next to you (and often against you). When there's space, then everyone deserves a minimum personal bubble. There's no reason for me to be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with someone I don't know, in an empty elevator.
entremet
Member
The origins of chivalry are religious in nature and were rules for Christian knights, which later morphed into the concept of courtly love and is the basis for the contemporary notions of Romance.
Much of the codes of chilvary were for civilizing the violent nature of soldiers in society. Remember this was before more extensive police forces and more readily enforceable laws.
Even still, I dont see how men paying for it all furthers feminism. Any couple should be able to work out what is right for their case.
The Librarian
Banned
Because it's more cost efficient that way and it's fair.
Dragonborn
Member
I get that. I think the problem a lot of women experience (and what personally bothers me the most) are the instances where there's PLENTY of space, but for some inexplicable reason a man you don't know has opted to place themselves RIGHT next to you (and often against you). When there's space, then everyone deserves a minimum personal bubble. There's no reason for me to be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with someone I don't know, in an empty elevator.
Ah, I see what you mean. Yea, in that case I agree. If there's empty seats on a bus I'll take them over sitting next to someone. If there's space then there's no reason for someone, man or woman, to be overly close to you.
Especially since I feel like that makes it seem like Sex is something for men. Now correct me if I'm wronv, but I'm pretty sure women enjoy it just as much.
I don't think it's likely. While I actually agree with the sentiment, the reason it's necessary is that 1) men are physically stronger on average and 2) men are more violent on average, and both of these qualities can be explained as natural phenomenon. There's strong reason to believe they aren't cultural constructs, in other words.
That's why points 5 and 15 are probably the most important.
Most harassers are misogynistic dickweeds who don't give the faintest whisper of a fuck about what women think of their actions. They will probably listen to guys, if they're told that their actions aren't acceptable. I would guess that most harassers think their behavior is normal.
Be careful because people will call you out on saying men are stronger.
I doubt the efficiency part, quite frankfly. This was actually common practice in my country, until a court ruled it was illegal due to concerns about gender discrimination.
As for being fair, that may be a subjective matter, but for me personally, the fair rate would be the one that breaks even your expected payoff when you're old. So shorter live expectancy of life -> lower rates. I appreciate you might argue it should be equal for everyone because of solidarity, but if you subscribe to this argument, then I don't see much of a reason why this shouldn't apply to the blog author's argument as well.
There no reason to issue with people thinking this furthers feminism if it actually does the opposite which it doesn't. That's just being nitpicky
Vermillion
Banned
You know what I mean when I say "chivalry." I'm aware that it's a general code of honor, but I mean specifically with regards to the treatment of women (and in the modern sense).
She actually addresses that this seems counterintuitive in the FAQ. If women pay, it seems to increase their agency, but at the very real cost of their pocket book, which is already diminished via societal unfairness in pay. On the other hand, if men pay for the contraceptives, it seemingly diminishes their agency, but actually leaves them with more money. And given that women already bear most of the risk involved in contraception -- it's not men who are going to have to carry a baby or get an abortion -- the idea is that given the larger context, it makes more sense for men to pay.
One does not have to agree, by the way. All through the FAQ the author discusses that while these are good general guidelines, people differ. Some women may prefer to pay for contraceptives, or split the cost, and that's okay, too.
One of the things I think many people are getting bogged down on is that these are meant to be general guidelines, because it's impossible to deal with every specific situation. If one or more of these don't work for your relationship, and your SO and you have discussed it and are comfortable with your own solutions, then obviously those take precedent over these guidelines.
RockTurtle
Member
when you put it that way then the equity thing makes more sense. some things aren't equal . So men can give up a little more, because we can take it. we're strong and tough. wait is that promoting the toxic masculinity narrative?
Devolution
Member
The contraception subject to me is both people should be paying for it if it means less problems acquiring it and less stress/unwanted pregnancies/babies. From what I've seen many couples pool their financial resources anyway, so it rarely comes out of "just her pocket."
I can see how a man paying for that shit would bother plenty of women though. Some like to take charge of their own crap and really don't want the burden of the man paying. It's kind of refreshing to take charge of your reproductive destiny without having some dude involved in the process. If I was single or living alone I wouldn't like some guy being "charitable" in that way. It'd feel controlling.
I can see where the argument comes from but at the same time it's one of those things that I want for myself and I don't want interference from other parties or to suddenly be financially dependent on a guy for what I consider my needs. It just makes me feel like daddy's getting my prescription. Now, I'm rambling so excuse me.
I can see how a man paying for that shit would bother plenty of women though. Some like to take charge of their own crap and really don't want the burden of the man paying. It's kind of refreshing to take charge of your reproductive destiny without having some dude involved in the process. If I was single or living alone I wouldn't like some guy being "charitable" in that way. It'd feel controlling.
I can see where the argument comes from but at the same time it's one of those things that I want for myself and I don't want interference from other parties or to suddenly be financially dependent on a guy for what I consider my needs. It just makes me feel like daddy's getting my prescription. Now, I'm rambling so excuse me.
Dragonborn
Member
I don't see why anyone would. It's a biological fact. There are, of course, exceotions (like really weak guys or really strong girls) but it's just the way each gender is built.
Booty Patrol
Banned
I mean, if giving women the same considerations men already have counts as giving women 'special treatment' then I'm all for it.
There's a difference between not sitting next to the only other person on an otherwise empty subway car, and having to cross the street just to convince some stranger you aren't going to attack them.
I agree but you'll always have people who say it's wrong for some reason.
I struggle to see what this has to do with this topic which concerns feminism, social and economic equality, and what us men can do to help up in very small and practical ways. Describing physiological differences between the two sexes has no bearing on this I think and may even act as a red harring like it is now in this discussion
That just seems like an odd issue to plant your flag on as a feminist. I don't understand how paying for something (or not paying) instills some weird power dynamic. Maybe I'm just ignorant in that respect because this has never been an issue in my life.
The One and Done
Member
GAF is going off right now lol.
Seems very patronizing. Most of the list assumed women lack agency and are 1950s housewives.
No one should have to give someone else money because patriarchy. It's kind of ridiculous to apply these kinds of academic sociological conditions to people's practical relationships. These things aren't so easily applied without endorsing sexist social engineering.
Try to treat people equally in the best way that you can. Be aware of stereotypes and your unconscious biases. Educate yourself. It's really the best anyone can hope for.
No one should have to give someone else money because patriarchy. It's kind of ridiculous to apply these kinds of academic sociological conditions to people's practical relationships. These things aren't so easily applied without endorsing sexist social engineering.
Try to treat people equally in the best way that you can. Be aware of stereotypes and your unconscious biases. Educate yourself. It's really the best anyone can hope for.
Devolution
Member
Because there is always a power dynamic at play when it comes to money, unless you're in a relationship where you've hashed that shit out quite well. Financial dependence can and is used a lot to justify controlling and abusive behaviors.
Moff
Member
I dont see the sense in giving advice how couples should spend their income. my GF and I earn about the same amount of money, so we spend about the same amount on everything on shared costs, including contraception. of course if she would earn less I would pay more.
but I dont see why this issue needs general advice, when it boils down to affect just two very close people. but then again, where I'm from the pill is basically free because its covered by (mandatory) health insurance, so maybe thats why its not such an issue here.
but I dont see why this issue needs general advice, when it boils down to affect just two very close people. but then again, where I'm from the pill is basically free because its covered by (mandatory) health insurance, so maybe thats why its not such an issue here.
RockTurtle
Member
read the faq, still scratching my head at some of these:
a lot of of her suggestions basically boil down to "If it seems unfair, do it anyways because of symbolism"
a lot of of her suggestions basically boil down to "If it seems unfair, do it anyways because of symbolism"
I agree there are probably creeps who do this intentionally to get close to another person. Not sure how often this happens, but yea I can imagine this could happen.
Having that said, you can't just naturally assume somebody is creeping up to you just because they're sitting next to you in a relatively empty train. It happens to me quite a lot (I'm a guy), and to be fair I did wonder why at the beginning and was a bit uncomfortable about that.
E.g. there are 4 seats facing each other at each side of the train, so 8 in total. So if I'm sitting on one of them, why sit right next to me when you could choose any other?
After a while, I figured there are ton of really simple explanations. Specifically, the sun is going to shine in your face the entire ride if you're sitting on one of the particular sides of the train, which "eliminates" 4 of those 8 seats. Plus, most people are uncomfortable sitting opposite to the side in which the train is moving, which rules out the other 2 empty seats as well. Hence, they're sitting down next to me, even though there are seven empty seats around.
Again, point being: There may well be creeps, no doubt about that. But if people are looking for a certain reason, they'll find it, even though there may often be different, at times much simpler explanations. But, that one saying somewhat applies here: "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
As horrible as this analogy is but it's like paying for both people then next time you pay separately but the person who paid for both last time whines until their way is met.
Or that's how I see it.
I get the issue and what you're saying, but it isn't debatable. The risks are very low; these risks increase if you're older, smoke, weigh more, have underlying clot disorders/have a history of clots, etc. Most women have some sort of baseline increased risk to cause a clot/stroke if they get one while on OC. They also have benefits besides preventing pregnancies as well. I get what the author of the article is saying, but this isn't a 1/10, 1/100 risk like the article implies.
Whether men should pay for it, I suppose when looking at it from an all encompassing view it makes sense seeing as most men pay for condoms. I agree with most of the article as that is how I treat everyone, but the tone of the article seems like it's indicating women should be put on a higher level then men.
this housework thing always bothered me, how do you even quantify what 50% means? Does it mean that any chore should be done alternately? What if one works 3-4 more hours every day than the partner, or has a job that is considerably more exhausting? What if one enjoys doing chores and does it even when not necessary(I had a gf who would clean the carpet every day with a sticky roller and wash towels after a single use because she was a neat freak)?
In most kinds of real life situations 50/50 divide is just not practical, and even if it were it would often be highly inefficient. The only thing you need to pay attention to is the amount of effort put in, that both of you are happy and that things get done. Who does what couldn't matter any less as long as you're both fine with how things are working out.
Devolution
Member
And they use it in a long string of guilt tripping because they paid for this, this and this. The other she or he thinks "oh they offered though", meanwhile...
There you go bringing gender back into it again..How about someone that makes comments about everyone in general? That would be the same consideration but it would go against #18.
Yep. So it's easier to just nip it in the bud and say, "Na, I got it."
I'm saying if my partner doesn't want to take those risks or pay then I can still do my part and wear condoms. Like I said I know and been with women who have been negatively effected by OC in different ways to varying degrees. Being intimately aware of the risks I won't impose on my partner that they take OCs. Describing how big or small the risks are is irrelevant.
Yeah. Not everyone that makes me uncomfortable should have to walk across the street. I think it's weird to use statistics in that way. A homeless person or drug addict may be more likely to rob me in the most violent city in the country, but I wouldn't expect them to move across the street. They could most likely physically destroy me if they wanted to. I treat people like they're human and worthy of basic respect.
I may be naive, but I would never be in favor of a guideline that made statistically "scary" men or women be responsible for making me feel comfortable.
The Librarian
Banned
Why? You spread the costs around and it'll cost less for the people who need it. If you only make women pay for, say, birth control or pregnancy needs, you're shifting the costs on to women, making healthcare more expensive: http://www.salon.com/2013/10/31/republicans_want_to_make_women_pay_more_for_insurance_again/.
You should read up on how healthcare costs work.
mullet2000
Member
Yeah, I really have a problem with some of these points and the overall tone of the list.
2. Do 50% (or more) of emotional support work in your intimate relationships and friendships?
I mean, yeah you should, but isn't this very dismissive of the emotional support work that men do? I can tell you that in all of my relationships (only four, I guess) I've done more emotional support.needed less emotional support than my partner. Is that abnormal? For me it's the norm.
8. Be responsible for contraception
I have big issues with this one and her responses in the FAQ. In the FAQ people question why it is not 50/50. She states that this is of "you (both) derive benefit from it, but she has all the physical risk". Why does the risk completely outweigh all the pleasure you gain from it? She states that a reason is that "Women earn less than men", but that varies completely by relationship. My girlfriend makes more than me, for example (the bane of being a history major). She states that "Most women don’t generally ENJOY putting stuff in their bodies to prevent pregnancy" but do you think I enjoy using condoms? Depending on the female contraceptive used this may or may not be comparable, but you get my point.
Overall these are just smaller nitpicks in the overall dismissive tone of male sexuality I was feeling when I read this point and the FAQ. A lot of it is very "sit down, shut up and deal with it, she gets all the say". Men carry plenty of risks when having sex or enter a sexual relationship with someone as well (though different ones) and she is very dismissive of these as well. I firmly think that contraceptives should be treated as a 50/50 thing when you are in a relationship with somebody.
23. Don’t treat your spouse like a “nag.” If she is “nagging,” you are probably lagging.
Basically: Why is this here? What does this have to do with feminism what-so-ever? If a woman is nagging at a man the man must be doing something wrong? What message is that sending? No, no no no. This doesn't belong on a list like this and has nothing to do with feminism at all.
33. Walk the walk about income inequality. Women still earn about 77% as much as men. If you are in a position where you are financially able to do so, consider donating a symbolic 23% of your income to social justice-oriented causes. If 23% sounds like a lot to you, that’s because it is a lot and it’s also a lot for women who don’t have a choice whether to forfeit this amount or not.
That's a lot to ask and is not taking like-for-like careers into account. I get the point she's making but enhhhh...
--
Anyway there are more points I could make but I'll refrain. I also did not not enjoy the general "Men should do more than 50/50 because they need to make up for the past / play catch up" tone in her FAQ. For some things that's fair but for stuff like housework? No, come on now. 50/50 is completely reasonable/fair in those cases. Anyway, I am a feminist and I had huge problems with this list/article. I don't think the overall tons she makes about male-female relations is a very good one.
2. Do 50% (or more) of emotional support work in your intimate relationships and friendships?
I mean, yeah you should, but isn't this very dismissive of the emotional support work that men do? I can tell you that in all of my relationships (only four, I guess) I've done more emotional support.needed less emotional support than my partner. Is that abnormal? For me it's the norm.
8. Be responsible for contraception
I have big issues with this one and her responses in the FAQ. In the FAQ people question why it is not 50/50. She states that this is of "you (both) derive benefit from it, but she has all the physical risk". Why does the risk completely outweigh all the pleasure you gain from it? She states that a reason is that "Women earn less than men", but that varies completely by relationship. My girlfriend makes more than me, for example (the bane of being a history major). She states that "Most women don’t generally ENJOY putting stuff in their bodies to prevent pregnancy" but do you think I enjoy using condoms? Depending on the female contraceptive used this may or may not be comparable, but you get my point.
Overall these are just smaller nitpicks in the overall dismissive tone of male sexuality I was feeling when I read this point and the FAQ. A lot of it is very "sit down, shut up and deal with it, she gets all the say". Men carry plenty of risks when having sex or enter a sexual relationship with someone as well (though different ones) and she is very dismissive of these as well. I firmly think that contraceptives should be treated as a 50/50 thing when you are in a relationship with somebody.
23. Don’t treat your spouse like a “nag.” If she is “nagging,” you are probably lagging.
Basically: Why is this here? What does this have to do with feminism what-so-ever? If a woman is nagging at a man the man must be doing something wrong? What message is that sending? No, no no no. This doesn't belong on a list like this and has nothing to do with feminism at all.
33. Walk the walk about income inequality. Women still earn about 77% as much as men. If you are in a position where you are financially able to do so, consider donating a symbolic 23% of your income to social justice-oriented causes. If 23% sounds like a lot to you, that’s because it is a lot and it’s also a lot for women who don’t have a choice whether to forfeit this amount or not.
That's a lot to ask and is not taking like-for-like careers into account. I get the point she's making but enhhhh...
--
Anyway there are more points I could make but I'll refrain. I also did not not enjoy the general "Men should do more than 50/50 because they need to make up for the past / play catch up" tone in her FAQ. For some things that's fair but for stuff like housework? No, come on now. 50/50 is completely reasonable/fair in those cases. Anyway, I am a feminist and I had huge problems with this list/article. I don't think the overall tons she makes about male-female relations is a very good one.
meltingparappa
Member
There was a lot more confrontational doubling down in that FAQ than I would have imagined.
weemadarthur
Member
It sounds like you didn't read the additional points in the FAQ on these two points.
29. Is about offering, not insisting. Also, the sort of man who harasses women in the street generally doesn't respect her opinions enough to go away.
And 26. Is about being willing to accept that a female may hold a position of authority. Not every woman in the world, but if you happen to have a female boss.
I'm sorry, but this is a terrible example. There are different types of doctors. for example surgeons, internists, GPs. They aren't doing "the same work" or are in "the same field" just because they are all doctors. They are doing completely different work. Internists for example have in depth knowledge about medicine. Surgeons don't. Surgeons on the other hand do surgery on patients. An internist on the other hand wouldn't be capable of doing surgery. All of those are getting different types of education and knowledge. It's simply not the same. At all. An expert surgeon simply can not be an expert internist. That's also why plenty of times internists and surgeons are working together.
GPs are the worst paid out of those. Sure. But on the other hand they don't have to work 24+ hours at once in a hospital. I'm actually working in a hospital and the job that some surgeons are pulling is literally insane. I have seen senior surgeons do surgery at 3am, then work through the whole day in the surgery rooms. And then do another emergency surgery at 2am on the following day. And that's not the exception, that's the norm. I have no idea how they pull that off without killing patients left and right. Oh and btw. there are more and more female surgeons at my hospital. Internists are mainly female. pediatricians are also mainly female. I don't have access at home to the staff list, so I can't look up exact statistics currently.
Internists in a hospital do similar shifts as well, but they don't do surgery. a GP on the other hand has none of that. He/she may still have lots of work, but it's not that insane.
If someone is doing the exact same work, while having the exact amount of experience and education, they will be paid the exact same. Otherwise noone would employ males anymore. Females, who never had a child, will even paid more than males on average, because on average such females have higher education. Sure, when you get a child and stay at home for a few years, you will earn less. But this has nothing to do with gender, but with having a child and staying at home.
- Status