"The success of feminism has always depended on the benevolence of men"

Taladar · 2009-12-21T18:42:54+00:00

The author seems to share the common misconception that high birthrates are always good and low ones always bad.

At a time of overpopulation lower numbers of well-educated (because there are more resources to spend on each) children might actually be the smarter way to progress.

i77 · 2009-12-21T18:24:37+00:00

This comment is better than the article:

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/21/patriarchy-works/#comment-16267

cryptogirl · 2009-12-21T19:00:56+00:00

This is like saying, "The sucess of racial equality has always depended on the benevolence of whites" While some people are stupid enough to beleive this too, most reasonable folks understand that no minority group got their freedom because one day the majority group decided they felt like giving it to them. Rights were fought dearly for and were not easily given up.

hopeless_case · 2009-12-21T17:42:22+00:00

I think the author is working from a good set of concepts but is missing a few things: the societies that figured out how to integrate women into the workplace (once non-farm work, that women weren't physically unable to perform, became plentiful and more productive than farm-work), and that therefore doubled their effective workforces, were destined to take power and resources away from those that didn't.

So a lot of the progress women made (in business and education) was not because men were humoring women, as the article seems to say, but because the women were able to generate significant wealth, which men and women together appreciated.

To rework the author's line "patriarchy works", I would say that:

integrating women into education and business works.

What doesn't work, is raising children without fathers, and depriving men of their civil rights in family court.

As bad as that is, it is not a visible threat to the economy yet. If the percent of fatherless children continues growing (I believe it is at 30% in the US currently), however, it will be all too visible soon enough. I tend to doubt it will get much worse, though, as I believe the tide is already turning.

Anyway, I think one of the more important tasks MRAs can take on is making the threat (or denying men's rights) to the economy visible.

Kuonji · 2009-12-21T17:00:17+00:00

"...to truly answer whether or not feminism really works requires more than a moral argument about how things should work or a social inquiry into the happiness of women.

For a society to work, it must first survive."

I've read a few articles that talk about how feminism, and what has come from it, could only be possible because we (the western world) have advanced sufficiently in order for it to be acceptable:

"Machines made equal participation in the workforce conceivable. The resulting surplus of wealth and goods, population growth, advances in medicine, lower infant mortality and longer life spans made it possible. The novel idea that labor offered personal fulfillment and happiness—and that individual happiness and personal fulfillment were more important than what was best or most practical for a civilization as a whole—made work desirable."

2009-12-22T00:41:06+00:00

Man is about nothing but competing with his fellow man.

Feminism is simply a new frontier in this competition. Powerful men gain by state-imposed feminism. Weak men suffer. That's all it is.

If men and women were truly equal, women would be able to sort all of this out for themselves. As it is today, they are nothing more than a federally protected gender.

Title	"The success of feminism has always depended on the benevolence of men"
Author	Kuonji
Upvotes	29
Comments	33
Date	December 21, 2009 4:58 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ah4lq/the_success_of_feminism_has_always_depended_on/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-success-of-feminism-has-always-depended-on-the.1051478 https://theredarchive.com/post/1051478

Comments