Change requires differential treatment. If you’re just helping women and men equally (by which I define “giving them equal resources and attention”) than it is not going to do a lot to change the imbalance. Since that movement would be problematic, I imagine that any gender neutral movement would actually end up having skewed practices.

So I think the real distinction between said hypothetical “gender neutral” movement and feminism is NOT whether it focuses primarily on women, because both of them would do that. “Helping men equally across the board” would simply fail to acheive any substantive change.

The question is whether it
-focuses on helping men as part of its mission, even though it will help them less often;
-does not focus on, but does not attempt to avoid, helping men; or
-actively avoids helping men.

From what I understand of feminism and feminists, they tend to be in one of the latter two categories, with most of them (thankfully, at least to me) in the middle rather than on the bottom. But in any case I think that feminism is obviously not about helping men, it’s about helping women. Which is as it should be.

How many people here are lawyers, anyway?

And I can tell you, I am also annoyed when I hear white males complain how hard they have it or that affirmative action is so terrible or how privileged women are… …I think that everyone has advantages and disadvantages, and I’d rather deal with that individually

One side effect of politicizing any given subject that I consider negative is that it becomes a race to claim the spot of the virtuous victim - which isn’t bad in and of itself, because in real life there are many actual virtuous victims and oppressive systems. But it forces everyone to focus on the negative (that’s my Dr. Phil moment) and all the injustices they suffer, and it doesn’t take long for the latter to slip into exaggeration or the recesses of their own imagination. I find a strong correlation between the political junkies I personally know, who have all the big name blogs bookmarked on their browsers, and having a victimized attitude toward life in general. Nothing good can come from the latter. What would be ideal would be a politically passionate society, that can take collective action to rectify inequalities and mete out justice, without becoming a pack of angry political junkies.

What I have absolutely no patience for are the powerful feigning as the powerless, the advantaged crying about their disadvantages. They combine the worst of both worlds - embodying both the oppressive systems that victimize real life people, and the eternal victim mindset. I disagree with traditional philosophical conservatism. I actively detest modern movement conservatism.

sylphhead - nowhere did I say “a separate men’s movement isn’t needed”.

Okay, my misreading.

I think that everyone has advantages and disadvantages, and I’d rather deal with that individually than make blanket statements based on race or gender that might not hold up for individuals - to me, blanket statments based on race or gender, in any direction, fall into the realm of racism and sexism.

But aren’t some blanket statements necessary, as a function of language? I can understand not taking blanket statements too far, but not using them at all would destroy public discourse, the very act of which accepts people’s feelings getting a bit hurt through language. The alternative is having no public discourse on anything and everyone being hurt through more substantive terms.

if no racial stereotypes existed, could racism even exist?

Hmm. I’d say it couldn’t, but it depends on how you parse the definition of “racism”. Without stereotypes - which is really the wrong word for this, the more proper one is racial norms, see “model minority” thread for a detailed commentary by me on this subject - institutional racism would die, though personal prejudices may linger. Institutional racism seeks to justify itself through “rational” means, where being “rational” reduces to adherence to stereotypes, and without them, it would crumble from lack of support.

I suspect the reason feminism “doesn’t help men” is more a function of the help men actually need, as opposed to the help many men want.

If you’re presupposing that you know what men need more than we do, than that is unfathomably arrogant.

Many men want help having or retaining power.

Perhaps, but who has the power in a given situation is open to subjective opinion. If a man wants a men’s movement to reinstate traditional breadwinner roles, then yes, it’s about reasserting power. If a man wants a men’s movement to promote father’s rights, then it’s a lot more dicey. Father’s rights can be about retaining power, but it doesn’t have to be.

to me, blanket statments based on race or gender, in any direction, fall into the realm of racism and sexism

Which is, again, a way of turning the discourse on its head: you can’t talk about sexism or racism without being sexist or racist. It’s a nice way to tut-tut about social ills without acknowledging that those ills affect anyone disproportionately, let alone (God forbid) looking at whether its benefits or drawbacks fall unequally.

If you know that I’m white, you certainly know that in America, I get a certain amount of privilege based on my race. The fact that I may also have disadvantages based on, say, my social class, doesn’t erase that fact.

As a lawyer, you’re capable of making more subtle and complicated arguments than you do–if you wanted to.

I suspect the reason feminism “doesn’t help men” is more a function of the help men actually need, as opposed to the help many men want.

Many men want help having or retaining power. Men NEED help understanding that if everyone is fighting to be on the top of the pile, a lot of men are still going to be on the bottom of the pile, and therefore it’s better to work for a society in which everyone, including the people towards the bottom of the pile, has a rewarding and meaningful life.

I seem to recall Amp taking a roll call on this site and discovering a dearth of theists. Too bad Amp didn’t ask how many lawyers are present.

No theists, many lawyers…are you suggesting we may have ended up in hell and never noticed it?

No, of course not. And I certainly wish to apologize if I implied that we hadn’t noticed it.

And I can tell you, I am also annoyed when I hear white males complain how hard they have it or that affirmative action is so terrible or how privileged women are - the difference is I also am equally annoyed to hear people whine about how privileged men are and so on in the other direction - not that some people don’t have it much better or worse than others, but because I think that everyone has advantages and disadvantages, and I’d rather deal with that individually than make blanket statements based on race or gender that might not hold up for individuals - to me, blanket statments based on race or gender, in any direction, fall into the realm of racism and sexism. I chose not to draw conclusions about a person based on their race or their gender - I prefer to find out who they really are, what their true advantages and disadvantages in life have been for them, and deal with them as an individual. Or, in lawyer-jargon, I deal with the facts of the case and do so on a case-by-case basis. If you find out someone is a white male and you don’t know anything else about them, to call them “privileged” is racist, sexist, and just plain ignorant. You don’t know them. Particularly if you only see them though text on a computer, you really know nothing about them. They could be in a wheelchair. They could have grown up horribly poor, disabled. They could have faced discrimination for being obese, for being ugly, for a general lack of social skills, or something else entirely. In short, there’s no way to know how “privileged” someone is without really knowing them as a person as opposed to just as a handful of demographics. Compared to some people, I’m privileged. Compared to others, those others are privileged over me. But without knowing an awful lot about every person in a comparison, the term is really meaningless. The “all other things being equal” argument doesn’t change this - because all other things are never equal - everyone is a unique individual. And other factors you know nothing about may make that “all other things being equal but X-factor” X-factor irrelevant. Ok, that’s a big tangent.

And where did I say that one would not have to deal with gender inequalities - that would be the whole point of breaking people out of traditional gender roles - once those roles are no longer bound to their respective genders (and those genders are no longer bound to those roles) then pretty much by definition you will have eliminated gender inequalities. That’s the whole point - eliminating gender inequalities, which exist based on traditional gender roles. My whole point was that a movement dedicated to promoting women is only going to deal with one half of the equation - sure, because of the nature of there being two genders, there is some effect that benefits men, but that is an afterthought, a side-effect. Feminism is simply not interested in advancing the interests of men who wish to break out of their own traditional gender roles. Or, in the popular nomenclature, as it is often pointed out in feminist threads on feminist sites: “It’s not about the menz.” So no use trying to pretend it is.

And really think about what you said about racism - if no racial stereotypes existed, could racism even exist? (Not that I’m advocating what you suggest in the first place - there is a big difference between steretotypes and traditional roles - stereotypes are often based on ignorance and have no reflection of the actual reality at all - traditional gender roles are real, and are ruthlessly enforced societally as “this is the role you must take because of your gender”. They are related - but not the same. Assuming a woman is stay-at-home because she’s a woman is a steretotype. Making it far easier for a woman to do so (and expecting that she do so) and making it far harder for a man to do so is about enforcing the traditional gender roles. (Or to make it clearer - it is a stereotype that all african american men just want to take away for themselves white women - it isn’t true, and it is an ugly slur playing on racist fears - but despite that, society doesn’t enforce and expect that african american men actually do that (and punish them for failing to do so).

And if all of this comment is inelegant and you think I’m a dunderhead, then just know that I agree with slyphhead’s comment, who said things much less verbosely (and thus much more concisely). I’m operating on little sleep - I’m living the single parent life for three days as my wife is in Florida for a professional conferense - so I have a two-year old and a two-month old and work… and I’m about ready to shoot myself…

Though I thought I did make myself pretty clear initially that I wasn’t saying that Feminism can’t help men in any way, simply that where it does so, it is incidental to feminism’s goals. And so it is just plain false to say that there is a movement out there already to break men from their traditional gender roles and that its called “feminism” - I see that said all the time (or its equivalent), and I just needed to call bs on that.

As far as lawyers go - the old saying is, everyone hates all lawyers until they need one. And better to have lawyers than to solve disputes the old fashioned way… (much less blood…)

sylphhead - nowhere did I say “a separate men’s movement isn’t needed”. (Please see Hugo Schwyzer’s blog, where he often discusses men’s movements that go beyond the usual MRA zero-sum games.) What I did say is that DBB is, indeed, positing feminism as something that cannot help men in any way. Suggesting that feminism does, indeed, help men neither states nor implies that an additional men’s movement is a bad thing.

Doubt you would know, though, since you think that feminism can’t possibly help men in any way–men and women’s interests, in your view, being a zero-sum game, and if men aren’t on top 100% of the time then women are “privileged”.

mythago, I agree with DBB that a separate men’s movement is needed, and it has nothing to do with men’s and women’s interests being a zero sum game. (A few of them are, but these are decidedly in the minority.) It’s because saying that a separate men’s movement isn’t needed because feminism acknowledges men’s concerns is like saying feminism isn’t needed because liberalism in general acknowledges women’s concerns. It isn’t a question of acknowledging or addressing, it’s a question of prioritizing.

This analysis seems to assume that the mother, but not the father, bears responsibility for caring for the kid. I’m curious about the foundation for that assumption.

Edited to delete comment. Mixed up threads.

No theists, many lawyers…are you suggesting we may have ended up in hell and never noticed it? Well, if so, at least the company’s good.

I seem to recall Amp taking a roll call on this site and discovering a dearth of theists. Too bad Amp didn’t ask how many lawyers are present.

Mythago, instead of limiting comments to non-racists, why not restrict comments exclusively to religiously-observant non-lawyers and see who is left to comment?

Personally, I think a movement focused on breaking traditional gender roles REGARDLESS of gender, not about just men or just women, would be ideal.

“Ideal” in the sense that it would ignore the existence of sexism and gender inequality, so nobody has to discuss any uncomfortable privilege.

You would never (I dearly hope) hear somebody proclaim that anti-racist groups really ought to just focus on getting rid of racial stereotypes, rather than addressing the groups most affected by racism, as if white people suffered just as much.

And DBB, the Michigan comment was probably a little unfair; but that’s where I went to law school, and it got very tiring to constantly listen to male classmates whine about affirmative action and how privileged women really are and how tough it is to be a white guy, etc., particularly when they turn around five seconds later to brag about how their dad’s golf buddy is a judge and so they’ve got a good in for a summer clerkship.

If the father doesn’t agree to take part of that work, then the mother is basically screwed. First, she has to find daycare for the child, a non-trivial problem in many places, even if one is willing to put up with bad daycare. Then she has to find a way to get the child from school to daycare every day, which means that she has to have a job that will allow her to take time off at about 3 pm every day to get the child from point A to point B. And she’ll probably be responsible for taking the child to school and picking him up from daycare, all of which take time and cut into the work day. Then too she’ll probably be the one who ends up taking care of the house, cooking, putting the kid in bed, etc. (She almost certainly was when she stayed at home and old habits die hard, even if her partner is willing in principle to take on some of the work.) So without her partner’s help (or the help of another relative or friend), she is basically limited to a part time job.

This analysis seems to assume that the mother, but not the father, bears responsibility for caring for the kid. I’m curious about the foundation for that assumption.

Families have existed for a long time. Family law has existed for a long time. I’d be curious if anyone knew of a legal case of child neglect/child endangerment in a two-career household where the kids are left at home, get into trouble, and the mom but not the dad is accused of the neglect. (As far as I can tell, “child neglect” cases involve only poor moms in single-parent households, or parents with addiction problems.)

While I haven’t found any such case, I did stumble across the web site of the Center for WorkLife Law. The Center is documenting an emerging theory for job discrimination litigation:

Family Responsibilities Discrimination is employment discrimination against workers who have family responsibilities. Pregnant women, mothers and fathers of young children, and employees with aging parents or sick spouses/partners may find themselves discriminated against. They may be rejected for employment, demoted, harassed, passed over for promotion, or terminated – despite good performance evaluations – simply because their employers make personnel decisions based on stereotypical notions of how they will or should act.

Here are some examples of Family Responsibilities Discrimination:

* firing pregnant employees or telling them to get an abortion if they wish to remain employed;
* giving promotions to less qualified fathers or women without children rather than to highly qualified mothers;
* developing hiring profiles that expressly exclude women with young children;
* terminating employees without a valid business reason when they return from maternity or paternity leave;
* giving parents work schedules that they cannot meet for childcare reasons while giving nonparents different schedules; and
* fabricating work infractions or performance deficiencies to justify dismissal of employees with family responsibilities.

The Center’s director is Joan C. Williams, professor at Hastings College of the Law and author of THE POLITICS OF TIME IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION, 4 University of Saint Thomas Law Journal 379 (Spring ‘07), regarding the gender disparities that arise in law firms that bill on the basis of numbers of hours worked. Chalked full of gender disparities stats; haven’t found a spot where you can read it for free on the web, though.

At the same time, I’ve seen feminists ridicule and demean men who would focus on breaking traditional gender roles for men….

Really? The only people I’ve seen ridicule and demean men in non-traditional roles are…other men. I guess maybe they could have been feminist men.

Hard to say.

And it isn’t that I don’t expect that feminism could possibly help men - it is that any such help would be entirely incidental and accidental - not exactly the sort of thing one would want to get behind as the answer to helping men break out of their traditional gender roles. I’m sure a movement focused on men breaking out of their gender roles would also have great benefits for women - but just how fast do you think I’d get slapped down if I tried to say that a movement for women then is unncesssary because MHMT and then said that there is already a movement to help women break out of their gender roles - it is called Maleinism (or something like it…) Would women really be particularly impressed by that? Somehow, I’m thinking, no.

Personally, I think a movement focused on breaking traditional gender roles REGARDLESS of gender, not about just men or just women, would be ideal. And no, that movement is not Feminism, sorry, for all the reasons I’ve already explained. Not that Feminism isn’t needed or wouldn’t continue, it is simply something different. It is for and about and for the benefit of women. Any benefits that accrue to anyone else are merely incidental.

At the same time, I’ve seen feminists ridicule and demean men who would focus on breaking traditional gender roles for men

Really? The only people I’ve seen ridicule and demean men in non-traditional roles are…other men. I guess maybe they could have been feminist men.

Doubt you would know, though, since you think that feminism can’t possibly help men in any way–men and women’s interests, in your view, being a zero-sum game, and if men aren’t on top 100% of the time then women are “privileged”.

I’m not at all surprised you’re a law student in Michigan, DBB.

Personally, I positively dread asking my wife to take on any more responsibilities around the house. I hate overtime. I like spending time with my son. But you know what? My job occaisionally demands a crunch, so I suck it up to do it for my family.

And comics like that are the thanks I get.

And feminism is NOT the movement to help men. Feminism is about promoting and increasing the options and choices for women, not men. At the same time, I’ve seen feminists ridicule and demean men who would focus on breaking traditional gender roles for men, classifying them all as “MRAs” and then dismissing them.

I’m sorry, I simply would not trust a movement focused on women to really look out for men’s interests. Just like I’m sure you would not trust a movement that focused on men to look out for women’s interests. PHMT is, simply put, bullshit - though that’s mostly because the whole “patriarchy” construct is a misnomer. Traditional gender roles (and people being locked into them) is what the problem is. Feminism has helped women get free of them. There really is no movement to help men get free of them (though some have managed to to varying degrees of success anyway). And no, feminism really won’t, because that is not its focus. Just like feminism won’t really do anything about racism. Not that it should - its focus is on women, not race. And that is fine. One can certainly work on both, but a movement needs to focus. (And of course, not that being anti-racist isn’t important - it is just a different movement that will handle it). Trying to claim a movement really will tackle everything is just asking for trouble (witness the recent dustup over feminism and race recently). But I’m not going to touch that whole thing with a ten foot pole.

My husband has worked at numerous IT companies where they would swear up and down they don’t discriminate; who cares if you pee standing up as long as you write good code, that sort of thing. But in reality, there are attitudes (not always conscious) that make it clear to women they’re not welcome.

One is the “4 a.m. rule” that I’m sure you’re familiar with: when we’re in the pre-release death march, do I want to work with this person at 4 a.m.? And while that does weed out technically-competent jerks, it also weeds out the “different”. We are more comfortable with people like us.

There’s also the different social expectations. A woman who seems to put any priority on her family is far more likely to get mentally slotted as a “mommy” who is not serious about his job, as opposed to a dad who is clearly being a good dad above and beyond what’s expected. (Unless, of course, he seems to be doing so at the behest of his wife. My spouse once begged off a spontaneous beer outing to be home with his kids and was told “Jesus, who wears the pants in your family?” But nobody questioned his commitment to work.)

During all my time working (5 years out of about 9 since graduating high school), I’ve been asked many times to do overtime, especially in my last job. I only accepted once. I refused every other time. My boss even knew before asking me most of the time in the end. And he still liked me as an employee. After I quit (I gave 2 weeks notice), they offered to rehire me.

Why?

My free time is more important to me than my paycheck. Getting more responsabilities is just a burden to me. It means I’m more unreplaceable, and as thus, if there’s overtime I’m stuck doing it.