Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

A thought just occurred to me, after reading a long post (from 4chan jumps out of the way of a tomato thrown from the audience) and it gave a highly detailed description of problems and sexism faced by men. And, the replies to that post were also very very convincing and made solid points.
Here is the post for those curious: https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/398429-women-logic.

This is a serious problem, but I believe it is also undeniable women deal with serious, and abundant sexism (from what I've observed much of it is in the middle east, no offense to areas in the middle east that aren't as sexist as other areas).

Masculinism is a serious, existing term, meaning: Masculism or masculinism may variously refer to advocacy of the rights or needs of men; the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, attitudes, etc. regarded as typical of men.

Feminism means: the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Instead of treating these like a political party of you're one or the other, why not be both at the same time? Both sides make good points, both sexes do deal with very prominent problems, and I have yet to see anyone else suggest this. What are your thoughts on Masculinism and Feminism? Should we focus on both? Should we focus on one? Should we focus on something else entirely? Thoughts and commentary on both ideologies are welcomed.

uh
that's just called "believing everyone should have equal rights, regardless of gender"

If you break it down, Egalitarianism (in relation to gender) is essentially Women's Rights (i.e. best case for feminism) and Men's Rights combined. So yes, absolutely.

Well, that's always been my philosophy.

I'm not convinced that all the double standards, unfortunate interactions, and stereotypes based on gender will go away until a mad scientist makes the human race into a bunch of hermaphroditic slug people.

Until then, I just would prefer that existing laws call as little attention to the differences between men and women as possible.

I despise gender politics probably above all other debates online, even religious ones and I hate those plenty. They're just so pointless to me and usually invasive. People spend too much time arguing what to fight for, how to, and what to call it instead of actually doing shit. It's mostly just white noise to me at this point. I'm especially indifferent and attached because I have been both genders at some point in my life and have experienced some problems of both (but mostly the problems that go with flipping).

I just say who cares about what you call what you're fight for some people fight for both and still call it feminism, there's egalitarianism, there's not giving a shit about what it's called, there's getting mad at people and demonizing them for not using the same word you do even if they believe in the same things, etc. Treat men as women the same, if you see a problem, speak up about it. That's it. Don't be a douche.

I believe the term you are looking for is "humanist."

I really don't care about what term you put on it, but yes, everyone should be fighting against the gender norms that is forced on both genders. What many people don't realize is that sexism hurts all genders. Feminists and MRAs think they are fighting each other but they are really just fighting the same beast.

I don't know many "forced" gender norms. Can you give examples so I know the kind of thing you're talking about?

I mean the things that are "expected" of each gender. Women are expected to bear children to the point where there are more than enough people out there that will tell a woman that decides to not have kids that she isn't "fulfilling her duty as a woman". Women are expected to be nurturing, gentle, overly emotional, and are thought to not handle stress that well. Meanwhile men are expected to be the breadwinners of their family. God help their soul if their wife makes more money than them, it's just the most emasculating thing ever behind admitting to a woman raping you. They are expected to be stoic, sexual deviants, and violent. Fathers rarely gain custody of children after a divorce because women are thought of as being better nurturers and caretakers. It would have to be proven that the mother is extremely unfit to take care of children before the father could dream of getting custody

My wording may have been poor, but what I mean is feminists and MRAs alike should be fighting against what is expected of them by society based on their gender, not making petty fights with each other.

Well, I can't think of any that are literally enforced through physical force, but there are some trends that are worth questioning. For example, according to Pew (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/06/05/growing-number-of-dads-home-with-the-kids/) in a 2013 poll of 1003 people done in America (complete documentation of methodology is available from the link):

If the results aren't skewed or coincidental, that means men are less likely to receive support if they decide to be a stay-at-home dad, regardless of how logical it is for them to choose to do so in their circumstances. This lack of support provides an incentive for men to act a certain way, hence the metaphorical "forced" gender norm. In this case, for men not to raise kids.

Here's another example from Pew:

(Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/29/most-americans-now-say-learning-their-child-is-gay-wouldnt-upset-them/)
The data from this graph was collected from surveys in Los Angeles in 2013 and 2015. See the citation for more information on methodology. Anyway, this graph implies that, once again, if the results aren't skewed or coincidental, then more than one in three young women have to face emotional trauma they would not receive if they were male, presumably. (To be fair, I haven't actually seen any studies done on surveys done about the acceptance of heterosexuality, but if you have any hard data, then I'd be happy to read it.) Once again, this gives an incentive to people of a specific gender (the fact that there is an analogous situation for gay men does not change this, since analogous is not equivalent to identical) to behave a certain way, thus the metaphorical "forced" gender norm. In this case, for women to be attracted to males.

Now, how logical these gender norms is an entirely different discussion, as well as whether they can or should be promoted (and to what degree) without "punishing" those who opt out of them with things like stigma or emotional trauma. But I think it's fair to say that our society isn't exactly egalitarian, for better or worse.

What are the reasons against supporting both causes at the same time?