Feminism: How has it affected men?

[Riverwolf]

Well, it allows me to be an open fan of Sailor Moon, and allows other men to be openly bronies (for those not in the know, a brony is a male fan of the new My Little Pony.)

So it's helped us get away from perceived stereotypes and expectations.

 

[Alceste]

That made sense in a time when he was forced to work and she was forced to house work.

That's an oversimplified picture for this part of the world. On homesteads, she joined the man in the fields doing half of the "mens work" all day, but ALSO did everything else. He did ONLY the men's work (half of it, anyway), then chilled out for the rest of the evening. She never chilled out. Every moment awake was a moment of work. My grandmother, who grew up on a homestead, is still like that at 93. She feels like she has no identity if she isn't constantly working. She's out in the garden right now.

When the man had to leave the homestead to work and raise cash (on the railroads, for example), she would run the farm alone.

Despite the fact that she did about half of everything he did, plus 100% of everything involved with clothing and feeding everyone and keeping house, plus extras like selling butter and eggs, he owned 100% of the homestead and 100% of the revenue from it. So, I think "forced to work vs. forced to do housework" is a bit of a misrepresentation. He was paid for his work AND hers, and had a limited number of hours of work in a day. She worked continually and earned nothing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's an oversimplified picture for this part of the world. On homesteads, she joined the man in the fields doing half of the "mens work" all day, but ALSO did everything else. He did ONLY the men's work (half of it, anyway), then chilled out for the rest of the evening. She never chilled out. Every moment awake was a moment of work. My grandmother, who grew up on a homestead, is still like that at 93. She feels like she has no identity if she isn't constantly working. She's out in the garden right now.

When the man had to leave the homestead to work and raise cash (on the railroads, for example), she would run the farm alone.

Despite the fact that she did about half of everything he did, plus 100% of everything involved with clothing and feeding everyone and keeping house, plus extras like selling butter and eggs, he owned 100% of the homestead and 100% of the revenue from it. So, I think "forced to work vs. forced to do housework" is a bit of a misrepresentation. He was paid for his work AND hers, and had a limited number of hours of work in a day. She worked continually and earned nothing.

Yes, but men never get to experience the joy and wonder of growing another human being inside you and then pushing it out of a small hole in your body. I'd say that makes it all even in the end.

 

[Alceste]

Yes, but men never get to experience the joy and wonder of growing another human being inside you and then pushing it out of a small hole in your body. I'd say that makes it all even in the end.

Lol. So very true.

 

[Me Myself]

That's an oversimplified picture for this part of the world. On homesteads, she joined the man in the fields doing half of the "mens work" all day, but ALSO did everything else. He did ONLY the men's work (half of it, anyway), then chilled out for the rest of the evening. She never chilled out. Every moment awake was a moment of work. My grandmother, who grew up on a homestead, is still like that at 93. She feels like she has no identity if she isn't constantly working. She's out in the garden right now.

When the man had to leave the homestead to work and raise cash (on the railroads, for example), she would run the farm alone.

Despite the fact that she did about half of everything he did, plus 100% of everything involved with clothing and feeding everyone and keeping house, plus extras like selling butter and eggs, he owned 100% of the homestead and 100% of the revenue from it. So, I think "forced to work vs. forced to do housework" is a bit of a misrepresentation. He was paid for his work AND hers, and had a limited number of hours of work in a day. She worked continually and earned nothing.

Sorry, I didnt thoughT your grandparents were a farmers.

 

[Alceste]

Sorry, I didnt thoughT your grandparents were a farmers.

Everybody was originally a farmer in Canada, basically. There were a few miners and fur traders, but mostly farmers. To get and keep a piece of land, you had to develop it into a farm and get enough happening there to subsist. When men worked, they generally left home to do it and their wives developed and maintained the homestead while they were gone.

There were people living in cities and towns, but the balance was the opposite of how it is today. More farmers, less city dwellers.

City dwelling women sometimes didn't bother to get married because they could see no advantages - if they got married their income from working (because they were working) would have belonged to their husband and they would have had to do everything around the house on top of that - like babysitting a grown child - for free. There were also WAY more men than women in the colonies, so it did not feel like there was any pressing need to choose a husband.

Women only had a handful of career options - domestic, nurse, teacher or secretary. I can imagine that for those who worked as domestics it might have seemed like a pretty lame deal to do the same job and more for free.

 

[Me Myself]

Everybody was originally a farmer in Canada, basically. There were a few miners and fur traders, but mostly farmers. To get and keep a piece of land, you had to develop it into a farm and get enough happening there to subsist. When men worked, they generally left home to do it and their wives developed and maintained the homestead while they were gone.

There were people living in cities and towns, but the balance was the opposite of how it is today. More farmers, less city dwellers.

City dwelling women sometimes didn't bother to get married because they could see no advantages - if they got married their income from working (because they were working) would have belonged to their husband and they would have had to do everything around the house on top of that - like babysitting a grown child - for free. There were also WAY more men than women in the colonies, so it did not feel like there was any pressing need to choose a husband.

Women only had a handful of career options - domestic, nurse, teacher or secretary. I can imagine that for those who worked as domestics it might have seemed like a pretty lame deal to do the same job and more for free.

It is my understanding they generally werent seen bad if they choose not to work (city ones) . When was the time then that the wife was generally the housewife?

 

[moodys]

That's an oversimplified picture for this part of the world. On homesteads, she joined the man in the fields doing half of the "mens work" all day, but ALSO did everything else. He did ONLY the men's work (half of it, anyway), then chilled out for the rest of the evening. She never chilled out. Every moment awake was a moment of work. My grandmother, who grew up on a homestead, is still like that at 93. She feels like she has no identity if she isn't constantly working. She's out in the garden right now.

When the man had to leave the homestead to work and raise cash (on the railroads, for example), she would run the farm alone.

Despite the fact that she did about half of everything he did, plus 100% of everything involved with clothing and feeding everyone and keeping house, plus extras like selling butter and eggs, he owned 100% of the homestead and 100% of the revenue from it. So, I think "forced to work vs. forced to do housework" is a bit of a misrepresentation. He was paid for his work AND hers, and had a limited number of hours of work in a day. She worked continually and earned nothing.

City dwelling women sometimes didn't bother to get married because they could see no advantages - if they got married their income from working (because they were working) would have belonged to their husband and they would have had to do everything around the house on top of that - like babysitting a grown child - for free. There were also WAY more men than women in the colonies, so it did not feel like there was any pressing need to choose a husband.

Women only had a handful of career options - domestic, nurse, teacher or secretary. I can imagine that for those who worked as domestics it might have seemed like a pretty lame deal to do the same job and more for free.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this thread about men's issues and rights and how feminism affects men rather than women's issues and rights?

 

[Secret Chief]

Yeah, woman, stay on topic.

 

[Me Myself]

Yeah, woman, stay on topic.

Now now you behave too

Any gentleman here up to make me a veggy sandwich?

Seriously though, I think in general the changes are very good.

I also think that given feminism gave focus to gender based discrimination, we became also aware in the ways in which is affect us directly.

 

[Secret Chief]

Kilgore, shut up you fool. Are you trying to undo generations of hard work developing our aura of shambling incompetence???

 

[Secret Chief]

Alceste, I think that is a major psychological enhancement; the identification and focussing on gender in so many arenas where previously it was not.

I'd frubal you, but I only give them to blokes.

 

[Alceste]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this thread about men's issues and rights and how feminism affects men rather than women's issues and rights?

No, you're right. But feminism does affect men in that where he used to earn 100% of the income from both his wife's labour and his own, now he only earns half of their combined income. That's not such an awesome deal for men, but hopefully the benefits outweigh the costs.

It can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing I guess. On the one hand, you're not seen to be solely responsible for your family's financial situation, while on the other, you own less property, have lost the right to a full time unpaid servant, and are more likely to end up divorced because there is no longer an economic necessity for women to stay married in order to access to the proceeds of their investment of labour.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Kilgore, shut up you fool. Are you trying to undo generations of hard work developing our aura of shambling incompetence???

No need to worry. Women's inherent need to feel superior guarantees their continued acceptance of our bumbling acts of foolishness. It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

[Aquitaine]

Ultimately I think anything that dissolves preset gender roles, and works towards equality and improving the fairness in a society is better for all.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

No need to worry. Women's inherent need to feel superior guarantees their continued acceptance of our bumbling acts of foolishness. It's a symbiotic relationship.

Nah bruv, I say, cuss the man down and make him do it over and over until he gets it right.

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

It gives misogynistic men an endless supply of women who feel 'sexually liberated" who are willing to have sex.

(Yes, endless supply, like jelly doughnuts).

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It gives misogynistic men an endless supply of women who feel 'sexually liberated" who are willing to have sex.

(Yes, endless supply, like jelly doughnuts).

You don't have to be misogynistic to enjoy sexually liberated women. In fact, I'm pretty sure that, traditionally, misogynistic men don't want women to be sexually liberated.

 

[ignition]

You don't have to be misogynistic to enjoy sexually liberated women. In fact, I'm pretty sure that, traditionally, misogynistic men don't want women to be sexually liberated.

Traditionally yes. But times have changed.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Traditionally yes. But times have changed.

The time always changes. Everything else generally changes much less than people like to think.