People use the “fem” in feminism to make the movement seem unequal.
Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men, like shelters for abused men, helping men with legal fees to retain access to children or similar causes?
Or does it (obviously) go towards bettering women’s lives (which is the obvious stated purpose of feminism)?
There isn’t much wrong with establishing necessary things for women. Pretending those organizations are going to spend their efforts on male specific gender egalitarian issues is unrealistic.
On top of that, there are multiple incentives to help women and girls go into male dominated fields. This is good. I have yet to see incentives to help men and boys go into female dominated fields. There has been a feminist social change on how male nurses and such are seen, which is a good thing, but, organisations as such are not out there setting up drives to get more boys and men in those industries.
Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men
Yes.
One of the big ones that has been in active discussion is toxic masculinity (the social expectation that men act a certain way and more importantly that men not act a certain way), which has detrimental effects on boys and men, who in many cases grow up emotionally stunted and unable to cope with their emotions in a productive, safe, and healthy way. These feminist organizations are big on how to raise boys, how to talk to men about emotions, and other topics that relate to the mental and emotional health of boys and men.
In a related push, a big portion of pushing openness in certain spaces also has the effect of becoming more welcoming for certain men. Trying to make veteran spaces, science/technology/engineering spaces, sports/fitness/athletic spaces, business networking spaces, and other traditionally male-dominated spaces more open to women is often about opening things up to a lot more men, as well, especially men who don’t fit the stereotypes of those spaces.
For example, sometimes a gym that is intimidating to women can also be intimidating to lots of men. Recognizing and addressing the factors that drive away women also have the intended purpose of reducing barriers that we know affect men, as well.
I’m fully, unabashedly feminist. I’m also a straight cis man who fits a lot of male stereotypes (playing and watching sports, lifting weights, a career path through multiple male dominated professions), who recognizes that society leaves behind a lot of men who don’t fit this mold, and I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children), actively parent my son in a way that I hope will help him grow up to be a good man living a good life with fulfilling relationships with those around him, etc.
There’s no separating feminism from broader societal gender roles and expectations. And the things I do for my daughter are closely overlapping with the things that I do for my son.
The problem with your long and heartfelt reply is that it cuts in half the point I am making. I am posing the hypothetical question of if the funds go to assist in aliviting problems that are exclusively suffered by men, not if the efforts and funds of the feminist organisations have knock of effects in making men’s lives better, which, yeah they do via making a more gender dispersed society, and decreasing stressors in environments.
Do the money that feminist organizations go towards problems that affect men, like shelters for abused men, helping men with legal fees to retain access to children or similar causes?
These are scenarios that exclusively benefit men. My statement is that I do not believe such transfer of resources to enable things to be better exclusively to assist men do not happen, and nor is it expected to be that way; and framing feminist organisations as not being biased towards helping women as their central objective is misrepresentative.
and because this topic is constantly a powder keg; yes, those organisations are doing good , necessary work that I approve of.
I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children)
that’s great, you are doing commendable work and the orgaisations you work with are doing great work.
Yes, and I’m saying there are prominent feminist voices advocating for specific approaches and helping boys navigate the world, with only incidental benefits to women (who avoid being abused by those men). They’re publishing books, running workshops, providing online resources for these specific things.
Feminist organizations dedicated to protecting women’s reproductive rights are also distributing condoms that go on penises, even for men fucking other men.
Maybe they are motivated by the “knock on” effects on women, but it’s very clear that feminist organizations and advocates are doing things to address problems that only affect men and boys.
I am posing the hypothetical question
I’m talking about actual things we’re doing, not just hypotheticals.
I’m mainly arguing against a narrow view where addressing problems is thought in terms of the demographic identity of the recipient of that help. Organizations try to tackle problems, and trying to gender code the problems and solutions I think is counterproductive.
Are you asking feminists to stop helping men or something? I’m describing how feminist groups and organizations help men. The organizations they work for usually don’t have gendered names, and even when they do, they tend to take on specific causes regardless of gender, because those causes are themselves important for elevating women’s status towards equality.
The ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, co-founded and operated by prominent feminist Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did some big work in the 70’s, and their goal was to elevate women by fighting for gender equality, including (and perhaps especially) when men were the victims of discrimination. Craig v. Boren was probably the most famous example of their work on that front, where the Supreme Court struck down a higher drinking age for men in Oklahoma.
So it seems to me that you’re pivoting away from “but why don’t they help men” argument to fussing about the way they name themselves. The name is the name. I’m a feminist, I volunteer for feminist organizations, for important causes for women, in a way that often helps men directly.
Do the money that feminist organizations also go towards problems that affect men, like shelters for abused men, helping men with legal fees to retain access to children or similar causes?
Or does it (obviously) go towards bettering women’s lives (which is the obvious stated purpose of feminism)?
There isn’t much wrong with establishing necessary things for women. Pretending those organizations are going to spend their efforts on male specific gender egalitarian issues is unrealistic.
On top of that, there are multiple incentives to help women and girls go into male dominated fields. This is good. I have yet to see incentives to help men and boys go into female dominated fields. There has been a feminist social change on how male nurses and such are seen, which is a good thing, but, organisations as such are not out there setting up drives to get more boys and men in those industries.
Yes.
One of the big ones that has been in active discussion is toxic masculinity (the social expectation that men act a certain way and more importantly that men not act a certain way), which has detrimental effects on boys and men, who in many cases grow up emotionally stunted and unable to cope with their emotions in a productive, safe, and healthy way. These feminist organizations are big on how to raise boys, how to talk to men about emotions, and other topics that relate to the mental and emotional health of boys and men.
In a related push, a big portion of pushing openness in certain spaces also has the effect of becoming more welcoming for certain men. Trying to make veteran spaces, science/technology/engineering spaces, sports/fitness/athletic spaces, business networking spaces, and other traditionally male-dominated spaces more open to women is often about opening things up to a lot more men, as well, especially men who don’t fit the stereotypes of those spaces.
For example, sometimes a gym that is intimidating to women can also be intimidating to lots of men. Recognizing and addressing the factors that drive away women also have the intended purpose of reducing barriers that we know affect men, as well.
I’m fully, unabashedly feminist. I’m also a straight cis man who fits a lot of male stereotypes (playing and watching sports, lifting weights, a career path through multiple male dominated professions), who recognizes that society leaves behind a lot of men who don’t fit this mold, and I do my part to try to mentor younger men, volunteer for organizations that help people generally (including a domestic violence organization that primarily deals with women and child victims, but takes all comers including husbands, fathers, etc. seeking help with abusive spouses or children), actively parent my son in a way that I hope will help him grow up to be a good man living a good life with fulfilling relationships with those around him, etc.
There’s no separating feminism from broader societal gender roles and expectations. And the things I do for my daughter are closely overlapping with the things that I do for my son.
The problem with your long and heartfelt reply is that it cuts in half the point I am making. I am posing the hypothetical question of if the funds go to assist in aliviting problems that are exclusively suffered by men, not if the efforts and funds of the feminist organisations have knock of effects in making men’s lives better, which, yeah they do via making a more gender dispersed society, and decreasing stressors in environments.
These are scenarios that exclusively benefit men. My statement is that I do not believe such transfer of resources to enable things to be better exclusively to assist men do not happen, and nor is it expected to be that way; and framing feminist organisations as not being biased towards helping women as their central objective is misrepresentative.
and because this topic is constantly a powder keg; yes, those organisations are doing good , necessary work that I approve of.
that’s great, you are doing commendable work and the orgaisations you work with are doing great work.
Yes, and I’m saying there are prominent feminist voices advocating for specific approaches and helping boys navigate the world, with only incidental benefits to women (who avoid being abused by those men). They’re publishing books, running workshops, providing online resources for these specific things.
Feminist organizations dedicated to protecting women’s reproductive rights are also distributing condoms that go on penises, even for men fucking other men.
Maybe they are motivated by the “knock on” effects on women, but it’s very clear that feminist organizations and advocates are doing things to address problems that only affect men and boys.
I’m talking about actual things we’re doing, not just hypotheticals.
I’m mainly arguing against a narrow view where addressing problems is thought in terms of the demographic identity of the recipient of that help. Organizations try to tackle problems, and trying to gender code the problems and solutions I think is counterproductive.
Then why are we gender coding the name of the movement?
Are you asking feminists to stop helping men or something? I’m describing how feminist groups and organizations help men. The organizations they work for usually don’t have gendered names, and even when they do, they tend to take on specific causes regardless of gender, because those causes are themselves important for elevating women’s status towards equality.
The ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, co-founded and operated by prominent feminist Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did some big work in the 70’s, and their goal was to elevate women by fighting for gender equality, including (and perhaps especially) when men were the victims of discrimination. Craig v. Boren was probably the most famous example of their work on that front, where the Supreme Court struck down a higher drinking age for men in Oklahoma.
So it seems to me that you’re pivoting away from “but why don’t they help men” argument to fussing about the way they name themselves. The name is the name. I’m a feminist, I volunteer for feminist organizations, for important causes for women, in a way that often helps men directly.