Feminism and Men's Issues

Today I stated that I am a feminist who supports men's rights and attending issues in response to a video entitled "Why I am not a Feminist" by Lauren Southern. Of course this being the internet I got attacked by someone who claims that men are not part of the feminist agenda. This coming from someone I do not know, but whom I assume is a) does not claim to be a feminist, and b) is not educated in feminism (due to their responses, and the fact that if you research modern feminism you would be able to easily see that equality is the goal). Of course there are variables on all sides, I cannot speak for every feminist, woman, wife, mother, daugther, etc. I adhere to the definition of "Feminism is about getting rid of oppressive forces [patriarchy] that hold women down and also make men adhere to restrictive norms and ideals."

Here were my responses: 
"If you only read one of the following articles about feminists supporting men's issues, read this one: http://brutereason.net/2012/09/20/in-brief-do-feminists-care-about-mens-issues-a-handy-list/

It has links to pretty much every topic I saw covered in this video and more. 

Some issues feminists tackle in the following article: Ending sexual and domestic violence, better family policies, for men and women, 

http://now.org/blog/how-feminism-and-now-have-helped-men/

"Feminism to be an effective means of dismantling the systems that hurt both men and women and for achieving future equality. "

http://feministing.com/2014/04/04/why-im-a-male-feminist-and-not-a-mens-rights-activist/

The idea that suggests that giving all genders an equal chance in life is some how going to lead to the oppression of men is ridiculous. Where on any site did they shut down the male gender? It is a one baby step at a time thing, women have it worse at present, so those organizations are working toward equality in the female side at present. I'd bet you could do some digging into each site you mentioned and find someone who participates in that organization who has written about men's issues. "

His response was more or less "Those links are old"

So I responded: "The articles I presented are not "old", none of them are older than three years, and even then they don't have an expiration date. 

Feminism is merely looking at equality through a female lens, as in my perspective is how the lack of equality effects women and men due to the patriarchy establishment.

Feminism fights patriarchy, which is the system that is responsible for the fallacy that women need to be mothers in place of men; a lie that can cost fathers their children and women their lives. It places unreasonable expectations on young men, leaving them ill-equipped for the modern world and leading to an epidemic of mental health issues. It runs the entire country, and those that gain from it would prefer that women don't stand together for their rights because they have so much to lose.

And feminism is pro-men. In discussion of rape and sexual assault, it is feminists who have challenged the myth that men are incited by short skirt, and the belief that the average man can barely stop himself from assaulting a woman." 

He continued to say I was wrong, in the fact that the sites did not support that men are included in the feminist agenda, I continued to sling link after link, argument after argument such as:

"Here is the link to another article from 2013 (I know, older than dirt) http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2013/jul/16/feminism "

Do you think women are less than men? Do you think they are inherently less intelligent, are only equipped to be barefoot and pregnant? Would you want your daughters, sisters, mother or cousins to be treated this way? If not, then you, my friend, are a feminist."

He responded with going off topic, asking about my opinion about abortion, specifically if he knocked up a girl and she didn't want to keep the baby, and he did. I told him my personal opinion, he seemed to like my answer and became a bit more cordial, yet he still was adamant I was wrong in saying men's issues are feminist issues. 

.. Until I finally said, "There are inclusivist and exclusivist in any branch of belief, my use of the work "any" was a mistake but there IS a feminist branch (modern feminist, such as everydayfeminism.com ) that sees feminism as about equality (gender, race, religion, etc). I overgeneralized, I was not completely aware of the branches (so I thank you for inadvertently urging me to research). 
Hatred of men, on the other hand, is called misandry, which is not the same as feminism. They may coincide, but feminism doesn't endorse it." 

So basically, I spent the day trying to point out the last sentence of my rant, my "opponent" spent the day trying to be "right" by way of pointing out I used the word "any" too generally, which inherently makes my entire argument false. Oh well. I hope at least one person can understand where I was coming from, learn something about feminism and understand that it is for the benefit of all people. Please comment and let me know if you learned something, or if you'd enjoy a rousing debate :) 

More links to enjoy:

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/12/reasons-people-believe-feminism-hates-men/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/05/can-men-be-feminists/
http://mic.com/articles/88277/23-ways-feminism-has-made-the-world-a-better-place-for-men

Politics and Popular Myths

My political persuasion leans toward equality for all, and helping humanity. If you can achieve those goals somehow, I'll likely vote your way. Recently I got into a debate on Facebook, as you do, regarding socialism and Bernie Sanders as seen in this VOX interview, and I learned a few things that dispelled myths. It was argued that under the Obama administration cost of living went up, gasoline prices rose, and unemployment was high besides massive tax hikes.  Here are the facts I learned:

Obama fact-check:

Unemployment Rate -- the unemployment rate when he entered office was 7.8  percent. After his first term in office Is was at 5.5 percent, a decline of 2.3 percentage points since the recession-plagued month of January 2009, when the president first took the oath of office.

Consumer Prices – Overall inflation in consumer prices has remained moderate over Obama’s first six years, rising by only 11 percent between January 2009 and February, the most recent month for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has released the Consumer Price Index.  The average yearly rise under Obama of 1.9 percent is well below the post-World War II average of 3.7 percent. And thanks mainly to falling fuel prices, the CPI has actually dropped 0.8 percent since the last report.

Gasoline –  The national average price of regular gasoline has rebounded somewhat since the plunge that took it down to just over $2 a gallon in January. As of the week ended March 30, it stood at $2.45, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

That’s 33 percent higher than the unusually low point at which it stood on Inauguration Day 2009, but also 32 percent lower than it had been at the end of March 2014. (In other words, it fluctuates. This fact is obvious if you notice how during peak traveling times such as holidays, gas prices soar).

Real Weekly Earnings – As a result, the purchasing power of weekly paychecks took another big jump since our last report. The BLS measure of average weekly earnings for all workers, adjusted for inflation and seasonal factors, was 3 percent higher in February than it was when Obama first took office. Most of that gain is recent. Real weekly earnings have gone up 2.5 percent since fuel prices started dropping last June.

Also in the list found here for all the tax hikes under Obama ( http://www.atr.org/full-list-ACA-tax-hikes-a6996 ) I didn't see any (unless I missed them) imposed on regular working class people. 

On Socialism and countries in which it has succeeded: 

Some socialist ideologies really speak to me, such as basic human equality. Also, it should be a right that every person has healthcare and food, I'm not saying people should not work, but what if those who cannot afford medical care so they go without? That, to me, is an injustice. 

Some countries who would be regarded as "socialist" would be the following ten: 

• China
• Denmark: 

Denmark has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens. As a result, they also have the highest taxes in the world (to me, paying taxes to help myself and others is a noble cause). Equality is considered the most important value in Denmark. Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less.

• Finland:

Finland has one of the world’s best education systems, with no tuition fees and also giving free meals to their students. The literacy rate in Finland is 100 percent (America is at 99%). Finland has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Like Denmark and other European countries, equality is considered one of the most important values in society. 

• Netherlands:

In the Netherlands, government control over the economy remains at a minimum, but a socialist welfare system remains. The lifestyle in the Netherlands is very egalitarian and organized, where even bosses do not discipline or treat their subordinates rudely.

• Canada:

Like the Netherlands, Canada also has mostly a free market economy, but has a very extensive welfare system that includes free health and medical care. Canada is ranked as one of the best top five countries to live in by the United Nations and the Human Development Index (HDI) rankings.

• Sweden
• Norway:

In Norway, the government controls certain key aspects of the national economy, and they also have one of the best welfare systems in the world, with Norway having one of the highest standards of living in all of Europe. 

• Ireland:

Ireland has arguably one of the best welfare systems in the world. Around 25 percent of Ireland’s GDP goes towards paying for the welfare system, as compared to 15 percent of America’ GDP towards America’s social support programs.

• New Zealand:

New Zealand may not be a socialist country, but the welfare system in the country is very wide ranging, offering support for housing, unemployment, health, child care, and education as well. Therefore, New Zealand has many of the characteristics of a socialist country, even while remaining officially free market.

• Belgium:

Lastly, Belgium has most of the same social security benefits that New Zealand offers, including invalid and old age pensions. 

Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger.

These are evidence they a) you can keep a free market and still have programs to help the people b) not be classified as "socialist" in a technical sense and still utilize government support c) proof that small businesses won't cease to exist (if using the Denmark model) d) the workforce in a country will be better off, happier etc with assurance that they can get help (be that unemployment checks, paid maternity leave, paid vacation, general healthcare, medical and prescriptions). It makes the quality of life and satisfaction therein better. 

Yes, some of those countries have bigger flaws than others, but it is a system that can be useful, can work, and I do not see why people hate the idea of helping their fellow man through taxes. People are obviously not helping everyone who needs it without government intervention! 

http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7010350

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obamas-numbers-april-2015-update/

VOX.com

Self-Esteem and Societal Norms

Why does it seem to be a "radical" idea to be at peace with yourself? To have good self-esteem and love who you are as a person, and not care what others think of you? It is the media, this society we live in that has spread the nonsense that we need things to like ourselves, or worse, that we are not good enough and should refrain from liking ourselves in the first place. I do not like that we are constantly bombarded with the notion that we are not, nor cannot be, whole on our own. I love who I am, I feel you are damn lucky to know me, and for that I open myself up to criticism on a large scale. Women are not allowed within society to take a complement, it is considered rude. At the same time we are expected to be a doormat and respond to men who catcall us*. Women are expected to be not bold and fearless, but timid and shy, acquiescing to others' desires and never speaking up for their own or else they are being a b-word.

Why is it threatening to some people to have a woman be strong? What is so scary about a female having all the abilities and strength (which are considered the domain of a man)? How is that a threat to anyone? On that point, why is equality in any form a threat?  How is my making the same amount of money as a male in a job that that I am equally as qualified for a bad thing? Do people fear women making money, because that makes us less dependent upon men? Surely that is not the case, surely that is an archaic idea!

Do you believe women are as smart as men? Do you like that you have the right to vote? Do you like not being legally your husband's property? Do you like owning your own property as a woman? Do you enjoy having any rights at all? Do you believe men should be allowed to cry and not feel as if they are "less manly"? Do you believe men should be allowed to pursue their dreams, no matter if they do not fit gender stereotypes? If you answered yes to any of those questions you ARE in fact a FEMINIST. #sorrynotsorry I really rebel against injustice and being told I am inferior to anyone. If that makes me combative at times, than it is for the greater good. I will not apologize for striving to make others' lives and my own better by pursuing equality.

On the topic of femininity, that does not have to clash with strength. You can be a bold strong person and rock a lot of polka dots, lace, ruffles and bows. Being a feminist means allowing women and men the choice to be whoever they want to be and not judging them for their choice. It means allowing men the room to cry and feel emotions, because they have them and it should be fine to express them. It is all about the options, the choices we have, or perceive we have. The saying "Don't be such a girl" is demeaning to women, and I hear women say it to their sons! How, as a woman, can you say that?! Do you not hear yourself? You are putting yourself down as you demean and dismiss your son's valid emotions.

The message is to be who you want to be, be the person who makes you happy regardless of what anyone else thinks or says as long as you are not harming others'. Be true, be you and help those less fortunate.

It amazes me how blind people can be when they do not want to see something. How so many people believe that the issues women (and men) face all the time are not a reality. Just because you've been fortunate and have not encountered the prejudices that others have does not mean that they do not happen. Just because you haven't been discriminated against due to your religion, gender, sexual preference, or the color of your skin doesn't mean others have been so blessed. It is like saying that there is no racism because you have not seen it or experienced it yourself. It is like you ignore that portion of the population that has been judged or treated unfairly because it does not apply directly to you. How will you feel when someone someday treats you like you are worthless because of some part of you you have no control over? How will you feel when your daughter is beaten up by her boyfriend and accepts it because you never told her she was worth something as a woman? Protecting our girls should be something we can do by building them up, letting them be who they are and supporting their self-esteem and standing up for women's rights. The time is now, what are you doing about it?







*A catcall is demeaning and is not a complement, it is a bogus show of dominance over a woman and it is frankly quite frightening.