"Trickle down" equality is the problem of how feminist frame mens issues as really being about/ caused by sexism against women... Also some great/funny examples of what it would look like if MRAs acted like feminsts & did this this about womens issues really being about/ caused by sexism against men

OkLetterhead10 · 2020-11-11T06:29:28+00:00

A feminist once told me "domestic violence policy and programs are only for women because they are considered weak" ! as if the victims of sexism is women who are getting services not men who are ignored !

It's like saying black people were enslaved because they were considered strong, therfore slavery is racist against white people not black people !

LacklustreFriend · 2020-11-11T18:01:29+00:00

You can see this most prominently in discussions of paternal leave. One of the most common (and probably primary) arguments for giving fathers leave is that "women will never be equal in the workplace if they're still expected to be the ones to take leave". Putting aside the fact this argument ignores the biological reality of women carrying babies. What really annoys me is that argument should be "men should have as much right to be fathers as women do to be mothers. It is only fair and moral that fathers be able to spend time with their child instead of working". But instead it's framed completely in how it negatively affects women. God forbid if any considers how men themselves are negatively affected.

Bad thing happens to men. Women most affected.

uq55 · 2020-11-11T05:52:44+00:00

Then there's the Cement Garden theory of crossdressing...

Girls can wear jeans and cut their hair short, wear shirts and boots, because it's OK to be a boy, but for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, because you think that being a girl is degrading.

These are extraordinary assertions that go against common sense and experience. Your lying eyes will tell you that boys are likely to be the scruffy ones with muddy jeans and girls are likely to be impeccably dressed. Your lying eyes will tell you that this seems to be by choice of boys and girls, that it's hard to persuade a boy to use a comb or to persuade a girl not to use a comb. Your experience will tell you that if there's any error, it's that boys put girls on a pedestal and have wrong ideas about the purity of girls.

But we're in a mode of thinking where everything can be made to mean its opposite - up can be down, rich can be poor - if the ideology requires it And instead of striking people as illogical or monomaniacal, everything is explained by insta-Freudian formulas whereby a person saying or thinking something is really saying or thinking the opposite. So of course, boys who think girls are pure and perfect really think that girls are disgusting. What an insightful person you are to say such intriguing things. Is the opposite true? Of course not, that would be silly, and wouldn't serve any purpose.

A century ago this style of thinking was an academic novelty or a provocative take among sophisticates. Now it's in the popular culture, the quote above was in a Madonna song, it's not surprising any more to hear 14 year olds, having picked it up from their teachers or the general culture, adopting this explanation about why boys don't wear dresses.

Ok-Tennis-5720 · 2020-11-11T08:00:13+00:00

On the draft; their response to why no women are conscripted:

"People claim that women not being subjected to the draft is an example of female privilege, but the reason they’re not subjected to it is because the men making those rules don’t think women are fit for combat"

That's like Southern slaveholders saying: "I can't free my slaves, they couldn't fend for themselves". That argument was actually used in the South for continuing slavery. It was wrong then and it's wrong for feminists to use it in the same manner now.

DIES-_-IRAE · 2020-11-11T13:50:08+00:00

This is a perfect example of Feminism Rule #0: Blame men, be a victim.

Melthengylf · 2020-11-11T16:28:17+00:00

> This could be called the “trickle-down equality” approach to men’s issues, because it means that we can focus on women and their issues and equality will “trickle down” to men and their issues.

I use the argument to turn it around. I can defend MRAs towards feminists arguing that it is good for them. And that male issues will trickle down towards women too.

> Slut-shaming happens to women because men’s sexuality is seen as dirty and demeaning to them. Men’s rights activists are very much against that.

This is true.

> The reason we expect women to care for children is that we don’t trust men doing it. It’s really just misandry working against women.

This is true

> Women make less money than men because we don’t see men as having worth outside of providing money to others, and so we encourage men to work longer hours, take longer commutes, set aside their passions, etc.

This is true

> Women are only treated as sex objects because their sexuality is seen as so valuable and desirable. It’s an advantage for women (disadvantage for men) that sometimes backfires against them. It’s like a rockstar who’s so famous and loved for their music that they have a hard time getting people to pay attention to their other endeavours, like visual art.

This is a confussion about what objectification means, but nevertheless.

I routinely use some of those points. Specifically, the one about the wage gap is my favourite to use.

-------------------------

The problem, though, is not the theory, but how empathy is redirected.

matrixislife · 2020-11-11T18:22:09+00:00

Just a quick comment about custody. The article says one commenter said:

First, allow me to point out that yes, women are typically favored in custody agreements. Again, this is coded misogyny working against males. Women are seen as the nurturers, the natural caregivers of children, which is why the courts tend to favor them in custody agreements.

It's about time we smashed these arguments out of existence. Court rules in favour of women because the family courts themsleves favours women. Prior to this being an issue we had the tender years doctrine, a concept thought up by feminists to grab custody of children.

Women get custody because the system itself is designed by women to benefit women. It is entirely of their own making.

Nath43673 · 2020-11-11T22:55:00+00:00

I've definitely seen this "backfiring patriarchy" argumentation used.

Men's advocates are often told that we should draw on the existing understanding of gender and discourse developed by feminists, rather than try to reinvent the wheel. But here, I think we also see how there is an implicit female-centering built into much of that discourse as it currently stands.

Historical Male Disposability is very much the flipside of the historical overprotection and infantilisation of women. Yet, because the concept of Male Disposability centres men instead of women, it is still unacceptable within the dominant discourse. (Or is it because it's associated with those god-awful MRAs? /s)

This is one reason why I think the re-popularisation of "patriarchy" as a concept hamstrings progress for feminists who want to address issues for men. While I acknowledge it's not defined the same by everyone, it generally places men in the oppressor role and women in the victim role.

But there's a deeper flaw in the logic of "it's because female=bad". As I keep saying, masculinity and femininity are not always two ends of a spectrum. A man who fails to live up to gender expectations for men is not automatically viewed as feminine, but merely as not masculine enough.

DevilComeKnockin · 2020-11-15T12:01:17+00:00

I've seen alot of this argument over the years. Back when I was an active ally I even believed it, because it's framed in such a way as to make it sound reasonable. "Yes means Yes" benefits men by placing the onus of consent on women" but in reality just allows a woman to revoke consent after the fact, by stating that she didn't REALLY mean yes. It's just another weapon for use against men.

And prior to unfollowing all my feminist friends on facebook, I would see them put up posts about how "feminism is for everybody" and memes basically stating "Not all Feminists are like that. (NAFALT). These same women invariably follow up such things with yet more statements about Male Fragility and condemnations of all men everywhere. It will never end.

bitoflippant · 2020-11-11T04:21:26+00:00

Plenty of crazy people say they talk to jesus. The quietly rational feminists (who don't argue on reddit) don't subscribe to the theory that feminism will solve all the problems of everyone. Don't look at the radicals and paint everyone with that brush. The rational feminists also don't think all men are sexist. They mostly believe many men are just ignorant and privileged. Which if you step back and look is obviously true.

bitoflippant · 2020-11-11T04:09:06+00:00

The only problem I see is that feminists don't claim feminism will solve all men's issues. Feminists say having women be equal is to men's benefit. It's putting forth the theory that some of women's challenges for equality affect men also and having those challenges removed will make life better for everyone including men. I would imagine that some men's challenges would also benefit women if they were solved. You know, that rising tide raises all boats crap.

"Trickle down" equality is the problem of how feminist frame mens issues as really being about/ caused by sexism against women... Also some great/funny examples of what it would look like if MRAs acted like feminsts & did this this about womens issues really being about/ caused by sexism against men

3. Gender-flipped examples

Comments