Two challenging feminist arguments

BuncyTheFrog · 2012-12-01T04:08:08+00:00

There have been many laws made about what a man/woman can and cannot do (i.e. vote)

Laws are largely one directional - They say what women cannot do, not what men cannot do.

You've just given yourself one example of a law that prohibited men from voting. Universal male suffrage came only shortly before women (in the UK at least).

I think a good retort to the first argument is that while government may seem to benefit one sex over another in terms of the laws on the books, common perceptions and attitudes will inform how those laws are applied, especially how equally they're applied.

War-torn countries have two dynamics: As a general rule, women are raped, men are killed or forced to kill others. That seems to me like a matter of weighing suffering, but no one wins when you play the oppression one-upsmanship game.

Curebores · 2012-12-01T05:34:09+00:00

Therefore as society becomes more liberal with gender roles over time, women have to overcome laws, men do not.

Men have had to overcome laws. We did not start out with the rights we enjoy today. They were hard won (usually with blood) over hundreds of years. Be it voting, the right to own property, the right to self governance, the right to a fair trial or the right of free unhindered movement, the average peasant man didn't start with any of it. We fought wars over it and killed kings, battled in court and lobbied politicians.

While it is true that some of these things (such as the right to vote) were not also given to women immediately as they were won for men, as soon as women simply asked for them they were granted it.

You have to remember that the times were different too. In the old days being a mother was an extremely taxing job (The same job in modern times is piss easy by comparison). They didn't have the time nor the inclination to have to bother with matters of state.

agarybuseychristmas · 2012-12-01T07:21:00+00:00

Laws are largely one directional - They say what women cannot do, not what men cannot do.

Yeah, uh, what about the whole "Men can't be legally raped" thing that exists in most countries?

I'd say that's pretty fucking up there.

Or how about:

"Men do not have the right not to be circumsized"

or

"Men cannot back out of the draft"

In countries like Saudi Arabia, things seem clearly worse for women

What is 'worse'? Less free? Certainly. Better quality of life? Incredibly dubious.

caesarkid1 · 2012-12-01T04:25:58+00:00

As for the first point, as gender roles become more liberal legislation involving strict verbiage such as Man, Male, Woman, or Female will be interpreted more or less as 'Human' or 'Persons'. This is already apparent in the case of The Constitution of The United States of America (All men are created equal etc.) . This however will only occur after a period of backlash in which the opposite of the original text is true. A perfect example of this is 'Affirmative action'. Once a law is created for a disadvantaged group it becomes political suicide to attempt to remove it when things even out. One might say that my logic is not true and that it would be simple. These individuals are correct, if for example the legislation has a specific and definite expiration date or percentage and will be 'removed' of its own accord. In cases where there is no expiration date any individual who attempts to remove the legislation will be seen as 'anti'-[insert a race,sex,health status or age group]'.

The second argument is based on a flawed argument that compares apples to oranges. the logical fallacy is that 'If argument A is true in place B than argument A must also be true in place C,D,E,F,G,H,I,etc.' while It may be possible that argument A is true in place B it does not necessarily mean that it is true in all other cases.

AManAlone · 2012-12-01T06:15:15+00:00

The first point: Laws have nothing to do with social construction. They are things that are moral and universal, and they are things that are not acceptable. Every law is about what PEOPLE can't do. What law states women can't anything? Men fought for the right to vote and received it in (IIRC) 1870, women fought for it and received it 50 years later; with none of the responsibilities or expectations that men have to give up. The law against physical assault is telling PEOPLE what they cannot do; not that men can do it but women can't. That's ludicrous.

The second point: In other countries which we cannot control; things are bad for everyone. You think fucking Achmed the Not-Terrorist wants to drive through a goddamn war-zone to go to work, be mistreated, potentially killed, then return through that war-zone again? No. He doesn't. He has exactly as many opportunities as women do, and if he tries to fight the system he'll be killed.

None of us would ever say that, we dislike feminism because it tells us we're not necessary and that it will solve the problem; provided you by into their bullshit theory. Then it does exactly fuckall to actually fix any of men's problems. If feminism left the MRM the hell alone nobody would give a shit; but they don't. They pass gendered laws and raise awareness for 'important issues' that sometimes don't exist.

mikesteane · 2012-12-01T06:37:49+00:00

Things seem worse in countries like Saudi: all the men in this country are genitally mutilated, they are the primary victims of political repression as well as the only ones drafted to fight in conflicts. Women may not be allowed to work outside the home, but then again they don't have to.

does anyone have any proof about laws saying what women cannot do, not what men cannot do. Do the feminists live somewhere it is legal for men to steal but not for women? A totally imaginary principle; these feminists are living in a fantasy land of their own making, best not to bother with them.

themountaingoat · 2012-12-01T08:22:15+00:00

I would question the situation in saudi arabia. I think because we always look at those countries through an ideological feminist bias we always see the women as disadvantaged, and ignore the ways in which the society disadvantages men. For example I remember reading an article on the high risk of rape that women faced in some parts of africa. The whole tone of the article was typical "women as the major victims", but there was one sentence where it mentioned that the men would be killed in the same situations the women were raped in. The fact is many of those countries such for both genders.

Regarding Islamic countries I think we often get a lot of sensationalist news regarding the situation of the women there, and when we do get hard statistics both sides are often not shown. For example women have higher enrolment in professionally schools than men in Pakistan, because the men are expected to be the providers and do not have the ability to get an education in many cases. Just keep in mind that the sources we have regarding the plight of women vs. men in other countries are anything but unbiased.

melb22 · 2012-12-01T08:43:36+00:00

The frame you have accepted isn't helpful.

In the past people tried to work toward what they believed to be a common good. That meant that both men and women made sacrifices for larger entitites, whether that be family, community or nation.

It's difficult to say which sex made the larger sacrifice. Many women died in childbirth, many men died in war or in the workplace. Women worked hard in the home and in home businesses (farms, workshops etc); men worked hard to support their families. Women gave up a degree of sexual power in their 20s; men did the same in their 30s and 40s.

We now tend not to work for the benefit of larger entities (except, in some cases, for immediate family). That might make us seem freer, but it means that we lose the rewards that the sacrifices we once made brought us, such as dynamic economies, stable family life, and a continuity in communal and national traditions.

hentaipolice · 2012-12-01T09:36:04+00:00

There is a huge problem I'm seeing when arguing or discussing things with feminists. They really like to bring up some sort of comparison war, like women are more oppressed than men or women have it worse than men. Such arguments are a waste of time unless you have compiled all instances of suffering for both genders, assigned them accurate measurements, and then compared the two. Has anyone done that? Not that I know if. Since there is no concrete proof, only observations of specific instances we can't say for sure which has it worse. It's also highly subjective. Mostly a matter of opinion, and arguing using opinions as proof or evidence is not a good way to argue.

Instead, when this happens, I usually point this out and try to get the feminist back on track to the main issues at hand.

AnnArchist · 2012-12-01T10:10:34+00:00

In countries like Saudi Arabia, things seem clearly worse for women

I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

Laws are largely one directional - They say what women cannot do, not what men cannot do.

Not true. Men can't just abandon their kids. They can't get away with infanticide. They can't skip child support payments without jail time. They can't just keep their kid even when its not their court ordered parenting time without it being kidnapping.

Some laws might have been at one point one directional. But we are not at that point in time in the west now. Most people in their 50s have never known that time.

Feminism is largely hijacked by radical feminists. Egalitarianism is the middle ground. Even as a former moderator here I've always considered myself to be more egalitarian than anything.

Affirmative action is racist, Title 9, in its current application is sexist due to disparate impact, for example. If you want equality, pass the ERA.

2012-12-01T05:54:34+00:00

Laws are largely one directional - They say what women cannot do, not what men cannot do.

Laws also tell men what they have to do: fight/die in war.

Male citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays and must notify Selective Service within ten days of any changes to any of the information they provided on their registration cards, like a change of address.

Registration for Selective Service is also required for various federal programs and benefits, including student loans, job training, federal employment, and naturalization. - citation

There is no such requirement, or punitive action imposed on women.

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-12-01T08:27:16+00:00

There have been many laws made about what a man/woman can and cannot do (i.e. vote)

For the US it was up to each state to decide who could vote and under what conditions. Technically men could be denied the vote based on sex as well, so the 19th amendment gave universal suffrage to both.

Laws are largely one directional - They say what women cannot do, not what men cannot do.

Men cannot abdicate responsibility for children to nearly the same degree women can; women can force men into parenthood, even via rape.
That thing called the draft.
Legal recognition and culpability for rape and violence in general.

In countries like Saudi Arabia, things seem clearly worse for women

And conflating Western and Middle Eastern cultures as if they are interchangeable is fallacious.

If there are no examples of countries/places that are worse for men, then the female gender role must be inherently worse

That entirely depends on how you measure "worse" and also depends on those things being worse for men and women being due to gender roles.

Deansdale · 2012-12-01T11:27:51+00:00

Both arguments are BS, actually.

Current laws are gender-neutral or favor women over men without exception. VAWA, anyone? Regarding the past the situation was waaaaaaaay more complex than feminists like to present.
a) "Seem" worse for women? It might seem like that for feminists because they know exactly nothing about Saudi Arabian culture except for "honor killings". They surely do not tell you that a lot more men than women gets killed/stoned/executed in muslim countries.

b) There are places when men have it worse. These mainly fall in two categories: 1. old matriarchies like the mosuo, and 2. new matriarchies like the US.

c) the whole original argument is a logical fallacy because there is no correlation between Saudi Arabia (or whatever country or nation or religion) and 'gender roles', and also, if there was any correlation, you still can not generalize like this and claim that because you think some/many/most cultures treat women bad (which is of course total BS in itself) then being woman is 'inherently worse'.

This whole argument reeks of feminist ignorance so much it's suffocating.

rightsbot · 2012-12-01T03:54:19+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

actanonverba8 · 2012-12-01T07:37:33+00:00

That feminists, unsurprisingly, has no clue what she (or he?) is talking about. Just off the tippy top of my head, there have been laws sending men to war (current), forcing men to pay alimony for life (current), chivalry laws, laws forcing men to pay debts their wifes accumulated and be punished and/or go to prison if they can't come up with the money, abortion laws in which women don't even have to notify the father, adoption laws in which women don't even have to notify the father, sexual assault laws in which the accuser is uniquely situated (rape shield laws, extreme limitations on defense lawyers examining accuser's past history, judge's required to make statements informing the jury that no actual evidence other than the accuser's word is required) to the detriment of the defendant, sexual harassment policies that are the opposite of fairness and due process, domestic violence laws in which the male (through anti-male "primary aggressor" legal mumbo jumbo) is automatically arrested, family court laws that ass rape men of their finances and children, laws and policies that discriminate against men in order to give women free favors and quotas, laws that provide women with billions yearly in free money (directly and indirectly--i.e. your bastard child gets a free place to stay you do too by default), laws and policies given women billions in free money for women only grants and scholarships and government programs, laws which allow aid and resources for female victims of abuse but not male ones, laws and policies which provide for more cash to female cancers than male ones.

The second point is also without merit. Look in any place and any time and dig deeply and you will find that the average man always has it worse than the average woman. One must look at the trade and labor classes and compare like circumstances.

Pecanpig · 2012-12-01T12:12:09+00:00

Laws are the ultimate form of social constriction.

I would have called her captain obvious for this one.

There have been many laws made about what a man/woman can and cannot do (i.e. vote)

Promoted to major obvious.

Laws are largely one directional - They say what women cannot do, not what men cannot do.

Half true. Most laws tend to be what women can or cannot do, while what men can or cannot do is often simply based off of this.

Therefore as society becomes more liberal with gender roles over time, women have to overcome laws, men do not.

Would have agreed with this in the 50's, but as this is 2012 and the number of laws discriminating against men seem to be larger in number I would just call BS.

In countries like Saudi Arabia, things seem clearly worse for women

Debatable as everyone women as a whole while oppressed still have a very high standard of living in Saudi Arabia, great healthcare for instance. Also worth noting that there are restrictions placed on men, they are not allowed to wear certain clothing, jewelry, to touch a woman, ect ect. All of these things tend to have very heavy penalty's.

If there are no examples of countries/places that are worse for men, then the female gender role must be inherently worse

England is an example of a place where things are far worse for men.

pcarvious · 2012-12-01T12:33:31+00:00

In places that had laws histlrically that denied women certain things in society, men were the ones liable for the "crime" that occurred. If a woman went into.debt the man was the one imprisoned. If he was unable to control his wife he was ridden around town on a donkey for everyone to laugh at. Men were punished for their wife's actions.

TheJollySatan · 2012-12-01T12:55:47+00:00

Therefore as society becomes more liberal with gender roles over time, women have to overcome laws, men do not.

We have government structure we need to overcome. The rate at which divorce ruins lives is evidence of this. This completely contradicts this argument unless of course society is becoming less liberal as a result of these polices.

In countries like Saudi Arabia, things seem clearly worse for women If there are no examples of countries/places that are worse for men, then the female gender role must be inherently worse

I agree with your answer here. Pick any country where men are likely to be victims of war violence or death. Women may suffer an oppressive government structure but they wont face the same level of risk that men in the same countries do. I think you will find this is true for ANY war torn country you pick. FYI aussie combat solider here, we profile men as fighting age as combatants to a much higher degree that we would a female in war zone. We do this for a good reason, we don't expect women in these countries to be willing to take up arms because of gender roles. I would not want to be profiled as a possible combatant just because of my age and gender with the amount of fire power the coalition has over there. I would shit my pants.

Mexico, Columbia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria; Libya and Palestine are a few places i can think of where life is a pretty cheap commodity. If you are born a man over there you may be expected to trade it in more often.

m9bearmanpig · 2012-12-01T17:14:08+00:00

Two errors in thinking. (1) Sexist laws? Not history please, here & now. I find arguing about gender relations a century ago very much a waste of time. (2) Assumption that humanity as a whole operates on some homogeneous rule set. What happens in Saudi Arabia is not everyone's concern unless you operate without personal boundaries figuring that someone else's Religion / Economy / Distinct & Separate Society is subject to your approval or design. If you think that way you should be able to appreciate the other side's unilateral view of the west (it is equally wrong thinking). So show some boundaries & tolerance & count your own blessings.

tacobacalao · 2012-12-03T15:18:54+00:00

To start with - you should not have a discussion about gender equality without having a frame of reference for example: gender equality in XVIII century France. Discussing anything without narrowing the context creates a situation when one could be speaking about Saudi Arabia and the other one about Sweden.

Secondly, you'd need to ask your friend what type of feminism does she subscribe to and what are the tenets of 'her' feminism. Is it liberal/socialist/marxist/radical/mix. Telltale catchphrases to look for are 'patriarchy', 'class', 'struggle', 'oppression', 'equal representation'.

P.S. I am not disavowing the role of women nor I am blind to the fact that different societies promoted different approaches to the role of gender.

C0CKPUNCHER · 2012-12-01T08:10:25+00:00

Laws are not social construction, they are mainly to protect money, they say murder is illegal, but they don't say you have to be nice or kind etc.

Social construction is parenting and school.

Voting is irrelevant to victimhood, .

Saudi is an exceptional place and proves nothing. Men face harsher punishments for the same crime in nearly every country.

Any country where men commit suicide at a greater rate than women is a country where it is worse to be a man. (Unless you think people commit suicide for fun of course).

Title	Two challenging feminist arguments
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	8
Comments	77
Date	December 1, 2012 3:52 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1436ub/two_challenging_feminist_arguments/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/two-challenging-feminist-arguments.1007885 https://theredarchive.com/post/1007885

Comments