~ archived since 2018 ~

In the context of "progressive egalitarianism", where do men and women stand?

Strikester101

November 25, 2019

12 upvotes

So, I should explain why I'm asking bizzare questions in this subreddit. I like to apologize if I don't articulate my thoughts here:

I've this deep-seated sombre-like feeling that men as a gender aren't that good than women. I don't why it always persists. Usually, my line of thinking goes this; if we account for male advantages, where do we stand in society? I've seen people outright praise women for their accomplishments (something I support) because of the barriers they have to face, as well as pointing out the benefits of women in the workplace, as mothers, e.t.c. Like I get their idea (it's to tackle gender inequality), but if we account for male advantages in these situations, where do we stand? Are we equal, worse or better?

I prefer we are equal but I have a tendency to be objective about it, whether it's silly or not.

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	In the context of "progressive egalitarianism", where do men and women stand?
Author	Strikester101
Upvotes	12
Comments	36
Date	November 25, 2019 7:48 AM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/e1cr6a/in_the_context_of_progressive_egalitarianism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/in-the-context-of-progressive-egalitarianism-where.1064371 https://theredarchive.com/post/1064371

Comments

[–]LacklustreFriend 15 points16 points17 points 6 years ago (57 children) | Copy Link

I really don't like discussing the gender in terms of which gender has the more "privileges" or "advantages", I feel it's reductive.

How I like to discuss it is in terms of liberation of gender roles. Both men and women have historically been limited by their gender roles, out of necessity, the need for survival. A division of labour made the most sense. Now days, with modern technology and medicine, the need for survival is no longer relevant, and therefore gender roles are no longer (less?) relevant.

The feminist movement has been successful with liberating women from their gender roles, which is great. At least in the West, women can essentially choose any lifestyle or career path they want.

Men have yet to be liberated from their gender role, there is no mass movement or acceptance of men's issues, and feminism is actively reinforcing the male gender role in some cases. Men are still expected (forced) into being protectors and providers.

That's simple version of it. Women have been liberated, men have yet to be. Obviously it gets more complicated when you consider things like psychology or socio-biology, but that's the crux of it.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

As you say, MensLib ≠ men's liberation. I would go far as to say they are antithetical men's liberation from gender roles.

I don't really agree with your assessment that egalitarianism is what will eventually liberate men. The MRM is a focused movement with clear goals, which is what I think is needed for any real societal change to happen. As feminism did for women's liberation, hopefully the MRM will do for men. Egalitarianism, I think is the end goal, the "post gender role" society, but not the movement itself. In other words, I think egalitarianism is the outcome, not the solution.

Obviously it's more complicated than that. Feminism has always had a streak of female supremacy, notably in the radical feminist movement. I hope (and believe) the MRM will never end up in the same way, maybe the MRM have learned from the mistakes of feminism. I realistically can't ever see a MRM version of Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas every getting wide acceptance like they did (the SCUM Manifesto is still studied in some gender studies courses as an important piece of feminist writing which is disgusting to me).

There's also the socio-biology aspect that men and women are both conditioned to care about women more. In many ways feminism was always going to succeed because it plays right into our innate bias. When women complain, we listen. One of the things I think about most for the future of the MRM is how we are going to overcome this innate, pervasive bias? Though, I feel like this innate bias is also why I'm not too worried about the MRM becoming as decadent or corrupt as feminism has become, as MRM can't afford to be with the cards stacked against them.

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 7 points8 points9 points 6 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LacklustreFriend 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, men's libs, at least on reddit, works just as hard to reinforce negative stereotypes (about men) and traditional gender roles as feminism does.

And

/u/LacklustreFriend

MensLib ≠ men's liberation. I would go far as to say they are antithetical men's liberation from gender roles.

What are you guys going on about? That's literally the focus of the subreddit.

There's way more men there concerned with defining a new Masculinity and just overwriting a new way to conform and police men than there is anyone saying MensLib promotes traditional gender roles.

I understand people here don't appreciate the assumed pro-feminist stance or the heavy moderation but this is just parently wrong. Not everyone even identifies as a feminist.

And in case, you only get out what you put it, you're absolutely able to have conversations about liberation of gender roles there, people do so every day.

We just read one of the original texts of the Men's Liberation Movement from 1975

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLibRary/comments/dcryll/fall_reading_discussion_mens_liberation_a_new/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body

Not everyone is engaged at this level, nor want to be, but if that's what you're interested MensLib is absolutely able to facilitate that conversation.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

Here’s the crucial problem: men are never going to be liberated.

Women’s liberation is easy from a structural perspective, at least in the short term. Just drop all your expectations for how a woman is supposed to act. We are starting to see the negative side of this, mainly lower birthrates, later and fewer marriages, and more divorces. It’s not destroyed our civilization yet, but these are not going to be good things in the long term.

However, men’s liberation is impossible. Women are never going to voluntarily give more power to men. You will be VERY hard pressed to find a men’s rights activist that is a woman. This is because decreasing or letting go of expectations for men, and men accepting that change, will literally destroy everything we have. There are difficult, dangerous, and essential jobs that are 90%+ held by men, roles that women would never step into unless forced. Men still almost entirely bare the burden of “making moves” in a sexual relationship, regardless of how many feminists tell you this isn’t the case (spoiler alert: they’re saying that so that you will never get laid, because that’s exactly what will happen if you are not physically assertive when pursuing a woman). Men still carry a massive amount of negative stereotypes, that feminists are never going to drop involuntarily because accepting that men have it hard in some ways runs entirely counter to their movement.

Men’s liberation is not going to happen anytime soon. You cannot look to social change to help you, you need to fix your own life and make your own choices, even if it makes you controversial or offensive. That is how you survive this.

[–]LacklustreFriend 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

I don't agree with your aggressive pessimism. While I agree that men's liberation is going to be much hard than women's liberation, I don't see it as completely impossible.

You will be VERY hard pressed to find a men’s rights activist that is a woman.

Karen DeCrow, Erin Pizzey, Karen Straughan, the Honey Badgers, Suzanne Venker, Janice Fiamengo, Christina Hoff Sommers. The list goes on. Not all of them call themselves MRAs (or similar term), and not all of them I agree on their views/methods, but women who support men's issues very much exist. Is there enough? Probably not, but there's not enough men who support men's issues either.

Will men always hold the large majority of dangerous and dirty jobs? Probably. Biology plays a big role how men and women act, and I think even devoid of any societal pressure men would still be the majority of those jobs. Many men like the thrill of the military or the police force or firefighting.

The goal is not to try and get gender parity in every profession, nor to create an androgynous society. The goal is to remove societal restrictions on how men should behave and act. The majority of dirty jobs will still probably be men, just how the majority of homemakers will still probably be women. I think that's okay. As long as we remove the gender roles and give people choice, and remove the taboo surrounding men's pain and lack of compassion for men. I think that is a noble and achievable goal.

[–]fcsquadleft-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

The goal is not to try and get gender parity in every profession, nor to create an androgynous society. The goal is to remove societal restrictions on how men should behave and act. The majority of dirty jobs will still probably be men, just how the majority of homemakers will still probably be women. I think that's okay. As long as we remove the gender roles and give people choice, and remove the taboo surrounding men's pain and lack of compassion for men. I think that is a noble and achievable goal.

There are biological realities preventing that last part. Unfortunately, men who appear stoic, mentally stable, and confident are always going to be valued higher than men who are not because our brains are wired to be that way. Weakness will never be seen as a virtue. It is not ideal, especially considering the fact that men are probably in a worse position now than they ever have been, but remaining strong in spite of that is how you make people respect you.

[–]LacklustreFriend 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fatherhood isn’t possible without a mother... ultimately that goes back to the woman. Women choose who they want to mate with, if they pick people who are bad fathers, that’s a woman problem, not a man problem.

You could be the best father in the world, but if you don’t have the traits to make a woman pick you and stick with you, you are never even going to be able to showcase that side of you.

Also, women who enter STEM/politics and excel at what they do are a minority. It’s the same thing with men, some of us might have viable mating strategies that revolve around traditionally feminine characteristics, but it’s going to be a minority of men who are very good at utilizing those characteristics - not something that should be the go-to strategy.

I do agree that men need both a masculine and feminine side. Your masculine side needs to be much stronger though, and modern men are typically already feminized enough.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 6 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[+]cargocycleaustin1 points 6 years ago [recovered] (26 children) | Copy Link

Literally just posted one you dumb piece of shit

[–]highmrk 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fcsquadleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

We are starting to see the negative side of this, mainly lower birthrates, later and fewer marriages, and more divorces. It’s not destroyed our civilization yet, but these are not going to be good things in the long term.

Let me preface this by saying I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm legitimately curious: Do you see yourself as left wing? If so, how? (Long ago, I remember meeting a self-identified communist who thought population growth and productivity growth were inherently good things, but I think most people on the left these days are opposed to the former and skeptical of the latter.)

FWIW, I think lower birthrates are absolutely essential for humanity's long term prospects. I also don't see anything bad about "later and fewer marriages," nor do I see anything inherently awful about more divorces if the alternative is keeping people who no longer love each other together through social compulsion.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you see yourself as left wing? If so, how? (Long ago, I remember meeting a self-identified communist who thought population growth and productivity growth were inherently good things, but I think most people on the left these days are opposed to the former and skeptical of the latter.)

Climate change awareness & reduction, wealth inequality, environmental sustainability, and international cooperation are all things I value highly, and are left wing views.

FWIW, I think lower birthrates are absolutely essential for humanity's long term prospects. I also don't see anything bad about "later and fewer marriages," nor do I see anything inherently awful about more divorces if the alternative is keeping people who no longer love each other together through social compulsion.

This is where a healthy dose of reality is useful. The facts are that the western world is essential to the survival of the human species. We are currently developing technologies that have a CHANCE of mitigating climate disaster, provided we put funding in the right places. But if the western world collapses there is no chance in hell any of these things are going to be created, let alone funded. It would be incredibly naive to think that the western world is gonna be doing just fine if we choose to displace our entire native population with mostly uneducated immigrants. Or, possibly worse, just die out entirely as our birth rate slowly decreases to zero. Cohesive family units are essential to a sustainable society - it’s been this way for millennia. There are some demographic realities you should research about this, maybe start with racial makeup of the US over time, and birth rates of various countries over time. The success of the west until this point is not a coincidence. If we continue at our current pace though, we won’t be successful for long.

[–]fcsquadleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The most important contribution the "western world" has made to humanity has been in ideas and values, primarily the legitimacy of the scientific method and the benevolent aspects of the Enlightenment. Neither of these things is dependent on the dermatological hue of the person receiving or using these ideas — just look at Hong Kong, or the Arab Spring — and frankly your mentioning of the "racial makeup of the US over time" is a huge red flag. Anti-racism is a foundational part of today's left and logically derived from the Enlightenment.

The western world is not in any danger of collapsing — at least, not in any greater danger than any other part of the world — nor is there any chance that we are going to displace "our entire native population with mostly uneducated immigrants." (Although strictly speaking in North America we already have displaced almost the entire native population, but I suspect that's not what you meant.) The notion that the western world is facing collapse due to external cultural forces is most often a talking point for a very rancid part of the right wing and not a part of any actual left, so if you truly identify as part of the left you really need to re-examine what the hell you're on about here.

The western world is now in many important aspects a global phenomenon. No culture which attempts to reject the scientific method will remain influential for very long, much less outcompete those that embrace it. And the Enlightenment ideals of freedom, democracy, and equality have a universal appeal. Sadly the British and U.S. governments have for many decades fought against the implementation of those ideals in foreign lands, so the notion that there's some sort of benevolent "western world" which needs to be defended against foreign barbarians just doesn't square with reality.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

> The most important contribution the "western world" has made to humanity has been in ideas and values, primarily the legitimacy of the scientific method and the benevolent aspects of the Enlightenment. Neither of these things is dependent on the dermatological hue of the person receiving or using these ideas — just look at Hong Kong, or the Arab Spring

You might argue that is the most important contribution, but it is nowhere close to the only contribution. Almost every technology we have today originated in the West, there are some exceptions to that but they are few and far between (especially if we are talking past the year 1000 AD).

> frankly your mentioning of the "racial makeup of the US over time" is a huge red flag. Anti-racism is a foundational part of today's left and logically derived from the Enlightenment.

I don't know why people keep conflating recognizing demographic realities with racism. Hell, I would say that your complete lack of concern for white people is racist - it seems as though you couldn't care less if they died out entirely. What if somebody said that about Asians, or black people, or latinos? It would not be received well. Whites are soon going to die out, they are slowly decreasing population in every single country they exist in. It's just simple math. I am similarly concerned about the Japanese, look at their demographic pyramid, an absolute fucking disaster. Nobody should want to end up like that.

> The western world is not in any danger of collapsing — at least, not in any greater danger than any other part of the world — nor is there any chance that we are going to displace "our entire native population with mostly uneducated immigrants." (Although strictly speaking in North America we already have displaced almost the entire native population, but I suspect that's not what you meant.) The notion that the western world is facing collapse due to external cultural forces is most often a talking point for a very rancid part of the right wing and not a part of any actual left, so if you truly identify as part of the left you really need to re-examine what the hell you're on about here.

It is definitely in danger of collapsing. I bet there were people just like you saying the same thing about Rome in 150 AD... things are going wonderfully now, no way there's anything bad that will ever happen to us. Right up until your entire city gets slaughtered. Honestly, we're even in more danger than that, there are several major existential threats we can point to even today, that have a chance of completely demolishing us within the next century. Take nuclear war for instance, we are definitely at a higher risk than the rest of the world. Which city do you think is more likely to get nuked, Philadelphia or Accra?

Cultural forces are definitely negatively impacting the western world... and yes, our "native" (yes, I suppose it is not truly native, but what matters is that it's the population that has kept the country running up until now) population is definitely being displaced, if you look at any population chart it will be very clear to you. I am part of the left because I care about the environment and wealth inequality, and the survival of our species.

[–]InitiatePenguin 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]InitiatePenguin 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Faulgor -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I can't really get behind the notion that we should abolish gender roles altogether. They have been with us in one form or another since we became human. I strongly believe they are necessary for the healthy development of the human psyche and sexuality.

This becomes more clear, at least in my opinion, when reviewing how other cultures defined these roles. Especially in foraging societies, this is exemplified by rites of initiation, when a child is welcomed into the community of adult women or men. Historically, for girls, this transition is mostly defined by biological inevitabilities, such as menarche, first pregnancy, and the like. For boys, it commonly requires a sacrifice, test of endurance, or show of skill. They are required to offer something of complementary value to the community, and depending on the material conditions of said community, masculinity can vary widely. In a somewhat hyperbolic summary: Every girl becomes a woman, but not every boy becomes a man.

For present day women's liberation this means, societal expectations were only able to be stripped away because there is a biological core underneath that can't be taken away from women, a kind of fall back position of gender identity. Losing societal expectations did not actually cost women their femininity.

Men, whose role has always been much more influenced by culture and material conditions, do not have such a position. They are inevitably harmed more by our lack of rites of initiation, our lack of community in individualistic capitalist society. Inside this vacuum, young men strife to create ideas of masculinity for themselves, which leads to all kinds of pathology - fascist resurgence, gang violence, the wider manosphere, etc. Abolishing societal expectations of gender would thus not liberate men in the same way it did women. On the whole, the inability to express their masculinity would actually harm them.

Gender roles are not just limiting, they are also invaluable tools of expression, identity and belonging. Just like language can be restricting in its representation of reality, it can also be a tool of liberation, self-expression and bringing people together.

It is the inherent dilemma of these social constructs that they are arbitrary, but necessary. You can chose, but you must chose. We can bemoan the limited nature of our existence, or be glad it is up to us to decide what these constructs look like.

But we cannot be afraid to make these decisions. If we do, they will be made for us by circumstance.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cromulent_weasel 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shit-zen-giggles 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link