Thread: Time for Male Equality Movement?

Feminism has already brought forth a lot of important changes and still has a few goals, like equal wages for equal work. However, I believe it might be time that a Male Equality Movement was now born as well. Here are some areas in which I see the need to improve equality:

1. Parenthood: In recent years an increasing number of fathers are starting to wish to play a bigger role in their children's raising while at the same time saying that they are unable to do so. The main reason for this is the inflexibleness of the job market which is largely unable or unwilling to create flexible working hours for men. Furthermore, society is still not very accepting of stay-at-home fathers since I believe they are often belittled for their decision. Moreover, in the event of a divorce, or separation if not married, women are often given sole custody, as far as I know.

2. Gender stereotypes/roles: I believe that men are much more subjected to gender stereotypes and roles than women are nowadays. A little girl playing with toys won't raise many eyebrows while a boy playing with dolls certainly will. Furthermore, the ideal of the "strong, masculine" man is still ever-present in the media, while a show of emotion often carries an undertone of "effeminate". Even the things men are supposed to like and enjoy are much more streamlined (e.g. cars, sports, guns,...) than the interests of women are. Any divergence from these "safe" interests is often viewed as a little weird. At least that is my experience.

3. Underrepresentation in social professions: Due to said gender stereotypes there is an underrepresentation of men in social professions in my opinion. This is especially true in jobs that involve caring for the elderly and young children. And I believe it's these professions which could benefit greatly by a larger male influence, especially were children are concerned.

Now, I do not demand that all men change who they are and what they do. That would not only be stupid but counter-productive to what I really want. What I want is that male gender stereotypes and roles are opened up and seen as more fluid, just like female gender stereotypes and roles. What are your thoughts on this issue?

I prefer just having everyone legally equal and leave the rest. Men and women are different, ignoring such an obvious fact is silly. And since we are actually different we can expect to see that men generally are better in some areas, women in others, men choose that, women that etc.

Interesting point OP. Here in Canada the Government has bent over backwards in the name of gender equality. For example, a woman can legally go topless anywhere it is legal for a man to do so.

Originally Posted by robini123

Interesting point OP. Here in Canada the Government has bent over backwards in the name of gender equality. For example, a woman can legally go topless anywhere it is legal for a man to do so.

hihi, I kinda like that..

Originally Posted by robini123

Interesting point OP. Here in Canada the Government has bent over backwards in the name of gender equality. For example, a woman can legally go topless anywhere it is legal for a man to do so.

Over here, they`re even allowed to p1ss standing up.

Originally Posted by aussiefree2ride

Over here, they`re even allowed to p1ss standing up.

Now that is just crossing the line. Is nothing sacred anymore?!

(-:

I concur with the sentiments of the OP but would not personally be comfortable being associated with a Male Equality Movement for concern that the movement would be vulnerable to attracting a large number of male sexists more interested in being anti-feminists and reactionary champions of traditional values than advocates for gender and sexual equality. Nevertheless, I’m compelled to say something serious needs to be done about the first two points you brought up, and that the third item is at its roots a product of the second.

I would add a fourth item to the list in the United States, where men are required to register with the Selective Service, something that essentially makes them eligible for conscription if it is ever re-instituted by the state. Women are exempt from the requirement and, although I’m in favor of an all-volunteer military and unconditionally oppose conscription, consider it sexist of the government to require this when a significant number of women meet the requirements necessary to be effective soldiers - regardless of whether they get assigned to combat units - and an appreciable number can keep up with if not physically and/or psychologically outperform many of their male counterparts on the battlefield. Either start to judge the eligibility of citizens based on personal ability or get rid of the Selective Service.

Now in regards to Mr. Sweden’s remarks, I acknowledge that men and women differ psychically from one another but consider gender roles social constructs - inventions of the human mind - in much the same way as are ethnicities, nationalities, and races. I am concerned that it restricts the extent to which one can actionably exercise their freedom when people tend to be pressured from early on in their lives to conform to social mores which address nearly every aspect of their lives. People have the ability to defy those norms without being persecuted by the state for it but that is inadequate since it is mainly fellow citizens who punish deviance and demand “proper” behavior.

Increased permissiveness concerning and widespread acceptance of diversity is still needed in the West, and to combat bigotry and prejudice - with the aim of making individuals freer by removing incentives for self-censorship and discouraging unquestioning conformance to any particular way of life - I think it is important to instill in children values compatible with the development of a highly-individualistic yet also tolerant, open-minded society.

Originally Posted by Redalgo

Now in regards to Mr. Sweden’s remarks, I acknowledge that men and women differ psychically from one another but consider gender roles social constructs - inventions of the human mind - in much the same way as are ethnicities, nationalities, and races. I am concerned that it restricts the extent to which one can actionably exercise their freedom when people tend to be pressured from early on in their lives to conform to social mores which address nearly every aspect of their lives. People have the ability to defy those norms without being persecuted by the state for it but that is inadequate since it is mainly fellow citizens who punish deviance and demand “proper” behavior.

I'm sceptical as to wheter that is even possible to achieve actually, due to, as always, human nature. If you're going to stick out there's almost always a social price to pay, and regulating people's thoughts and social sphere is not one the state's jobs in my view. sadly.

Aye, upon further consideration I imagine you are on to something there. Not only is the regulation of thoughts a nearly impossible task for the state, but also one I wouldn’t consider at all appropriate for it to pursue. And although the views and behaviors of human beings are at least somewhat malleable, some things are simply hard-wired into our genes and present challenges to which governments cannot always implement effective solutions. There is indeed a social price to pay, as well, as you mentioned. But then again, we can’t really have any rights or liberties without sacrificing others along the way. Hmm...

Perhaps there is an unsettled conflict in me, with a libertarian urge to minimize the extent to which governments can harm, abuse, and coerce individuals often being incompatible with another desire of mine to harness the power of states to socially engineer environs in which individuals seem less likely to be deeply harmed or treated abhorrently by each other.

However much I try to rationalize the positions I reach, at the root of the matter maybe I am just in disagreement with many other folk about which rights and freedoms are most worthwhile to have. It bothers me tremendously that people are wronged for not always putting up the veneers, having the habits, and selecting the preferences expected of them by others. So what can be done without encroaching on the rights of the people in general to go after the persecutors amidst their number?

What do you think? Is it one of those issues where it is likely best for everyone in the long-run to be pragmatic rather than inflexibly idealistic... or is there something else that deserves to be taken into consideration?

I can see the reason behind it. I think what happened with women's rights is that they got all kinds of new rights but never gave up the old privelidge. A woman still keeps the right to be taken care of (at least there's no stigma to being a stay-at-home mom), the social convention is still ladies first or open the door for a lady, those kinds of things. Women generally are assumed to be the best caretakers of kids, and should get child support. At work, honestly men are still expected to do much more in the heavy lifting than a man -- If there's a heavy lifting job guys are simply supposed to do it. If there's a dirty or physical job, it's men's work. Men are supposed to be willing to put in more hours and relocate for their job, but women don't. I'm all for equality, but what's happening is not really equality, it's women getting more male privledges while keeping the traditional female ones.