Single Men and Bachelors: Feminism is not for you.

[Spectrum]

Okay, but what is the point? If you have a wife, it's best to have dual income, so supporting feminism seems logical. However, If you are a single male or a bachelor, being feminist does not really benefit you. Besides, it just makes you look extremely weird, telling people you are a feminist, as a male. And what would the women think? Many like macho guys who dominate, not scrawny guys who run around with pro-feminist T-shirts on.

What do you think, guys? Would you describe yourself as a feminist? Or would you just leave it at letting women vote, work, and have access to abortion? It seems pretty silly to go all the way, and jump on the feminist bandwagon, don't you agree?

[kılıç_mehmet]

I do not support any other ideology besides mine. My ideology already espouses equality between men and women, equal responsibilities and equal rights.
We do not need a seperate ideology that especially focuses on a single sex.

[Ocato]

I wouldn't describe myself as a feminist. I think everyone should have equal rights and opportunities though. I can't stand the new tumblr feminists you see so often online and in person now so that's just another reason to not call myself a feminist.

[Tiberius]

I'm a feminist in the sense that I want to see the end of discrimination based on gender. In this sense, I'm also a masculinist and (more generally) an egalitarian. If you think being a supporter of equal rights makes no sense when you aren't affected by them, you clearly don't understand the importance of equal rights. I don't support equal rights because I want to reap the benefits myself...I support equal rights because others deserve the benefits I already have.

Even if my life wasn't influenced by women, or I had no female contact, I would still support equal rights for them, just as I would expect them to support equal rights for me.

[TaraJo]

I'm a feminist in the sense that I want to see the end of discrimination based on gender.

Exactly. Part of the problem is that the definition of term 'feminism' is a little vague. I've seen a lot of different ideologies spread under the title feminism, from female supremacy, to communism, to environmentalism. Before someone can say whether or not they believe in something, they have to know what that something is.

[festive1]

I don't know how many times I've gotten the, "Oh, you're a stay-at-home-mom... You must be regressive and think that women shouldn't work" vibe, look, or flat out said to my face.
In my opinion being a feminist is being able to choose. To choose to stay home or to work and to have a flexible workplace that supports working parents. I don't think this is just applicable to women, I know stay-at-home-dads, as well as moms.
I don't think one sex should be put above the other. I second the idea of egalitarianism. It shouldn't matter if you are a man or a woman, if you do a certain job, one should receive the same pay as others in a given field. If you are able to choose to stay home with your kids, that should also be respected. I may not earn a paycheck, but I work my ass off taking care of my kids and my home. Just because I don't earn money, it doesn't mean my role is not important, for my family and for society at large.

[Annik]

I'm an egalitarian. Seems to me that it's the most logical ideal to bring about true equality.

[Dotard]

There is nothing inherently wrong with women having jobs, or their own money, or pursuing their dreams and aspirations.

Now, what those types of dreams and aspirations are sometimes irks me enormously, when one stands back and has a good long look at what society has transformed itself into.

One of the reasons that women earn less in the workplace is because of the jobs they choose. Women are often reporting that they want to have a job that will have some sort of a social impact, or benefit the community (who doesn’t, by the way?), as well as needing "flex-time" in order to meet the needs of their families. Women will take lowered pay in order to find a job that meets these criteria.
Now, that is all good and fine – in fact, it might even be noble.
But look at the friggin’ absurdity of what we have done since those dreaded, awful, horrible 1950′s. (Arguably the zenith of Western Civilization).
A man back then was able to earn enough money from a mere blue collar job that his wife could stay at home, he could pay for raising 4 kids, they could go on a nice family vacation once a year, he could pay for a decent home, and have a new car in the driveway. On his wage alone!
And often, after the kids were off in school, the house was nice & clean, and the fridge was properly reloaded, what did those oppressed women go off and do with the rest of their time?

Well, some of them gossiped like the dickens, I suppose, but many others did things they found socially rewarding. They raised money for charities, they volunteered time to help the elderly or the needy, they organized groups that enhanced the lives of their communities – from hobbies to sports, and so on and so on. In other words, they sought social rewards of their own volition, and had money in their jeans, er, pleasantly sexy sundress pockets, to boot!

And today? They have “liberated themselves” into halving the income of men by flooding the job market with labourers, forcing both men and women to work full-time jobs in order to live in a crappy condo with their 1.6 kids, and the two cars they need but can only afford on the never-never plan. (A lease). And what do they want out of their careers? To do something socially rewarding that benefits the community! See the irony here? And now, if they get to do such a thing called “social rewards” even marginally from their job, they have to do it in march step to their jerk-off boss under far less pleasant circumstances, while their kids are raised by strangers-for-pay.

Oh well, Ladies. I guess you’ve spent the last 50 years proving that men have been right for the past 5,000 years.

Quote from some dude: Women get paid less because they work fewer hours in less dangerous jobs. It has nothing to do with their noble humanitarian spirit (excuse me while I gag) to help others.

Women are often over-paid for the amount of work they do, leaving men to pick up the slack and subsidize women’s bloated paychecks.

If women were altruistic, they’d recognize the atrocious abuses of the current feminist regime in large numbers, but that hasn’t happened because women largely live in their own self-obsessed little worlds. In contrast, men gave women the “women’s liberation movement” because men actually DO have compassion and noble intentions."

Also, women will always put themselves first. And they are plagued with narcissism and are often self-obsessed – either with themselves or their own sex.

Also, I don’t doubt that often times the “charity work” they did in the past was often done for other than purely altruistic reasons. For example: Most men can instantly understand what I mean when I say, “It’s not charity if you talk about it.” I’ll bet that a lot of them ladies clucked very often, trying to one up the other hens with tales of how perfect they were, while they cackled about the hens that weren’t doing enough to be as good as them. They are, after all, social creatures far more than men, and need the approval of the herd, er, flock, to decide what is right and wrong.

But, at least the way it was before, it took features of “woman-ness” and harnessed them for the betterment of society – including their own families. Much like how patriarchy put sex to work. I don’t think the women of old cared so much about “keeping the door stoop swept” because of respect for what their husbands would think, but more to make sure that the other women thought well of them, and had nothing bad to gossip about when they knocked on the door. Also, as an added bonus, it kept them out of our hair all day, until we came home and got what we men wanted out of them.

[thesummerqueen]

ahahahahaha

Oh, I have missed Dotard's posts.

First of all, OP, "back in the day" a single woman would have to be supported by the nearest male relative if she didn't have the ability to support herself, so it makes more financial sense for single women to be liberated solely because then a brother, uncle, father, cousin, etc wouldn't have to feed her and his own family. These women frequently became 'burdens' and had to go to poor houses or work houses and live in appalling, dismal conditions that many could have avoided if it were socially acceptable for women to live by their own means without risking their reputations.

Second, Dotard, I think you'll find that the highest paying jobs have nothing whatsoever to do with "danger" - unless it comes from someone raiding their pocket book. I get paid more to do office work than our plant workers get to mess around with things in vats of molten zinc. That's because office work is deemed more "acceptable" and supposedly requires more intelligence. It really doesn't - if you're doing your job well and understanding what you're doing. Men earn more because people still assume them to be more intelligent. End of story.

That's not to say I don't agree with the flex-time part. I think it should be more socially acceptable for men to stay home with kids and not get flack for it if the woman decides she should be the bread-winner. It's biologically impossible for a man to trade places when it comes to bearing a child, but I see no reason for other roles to be traded. Me, I think it's silly for you to decide to have a child when you're absolutely engrossed in your career - it isn't fair to anyone involved.

As for society and men being able to support women back in the day - you have to understand that it wasn't just women liberating themselves. Things became more expensive because they came with better safety features, because the labor that went into electronics or mechanics got pricier, etc. People discovered that they could afford more with two incomes, adding to the economy. If you wanted to live like in the 50's, you can...just be prepared not to have all those wonderful toys we now all want (or are convinced we should by advertising and society pressure) unless your breadwinner makes mad money. You would need a very bare-bones car, a bare-bones house, probably no iPad and many other things.

[5thHorseman]

egalitarian here too.

Now cook my fucking dinner, TSQ!!