Great post, Marc.

I wish I had some good ideas, but it seems like every conversation I've had or seen with an MRA has just gone in circles because they're more interested in bashing women, dismissing what women have to say, and trying to trip up the feminist than having a conversation between two people. They are, in my view, MRAs because they are completely unwilling to examine their sexist assumptions, the ones that you so eloquently snarked on, and if they aren't willing to do that, you can't get anywhere. Unfortunately.

"Is it simply out of ignorance that they see feminism as the "enemy,"

This goes both ways.

I agree with wax ghost. Every MRA I have dealt with is more interested in blaming women and/or feminism for their own failings in life, or bemoaning their loss of privilege. They are not interested in learning if they have gotten to that point already. Hell, half the time they aren't even interested in actually doing anything to help other men, they just want to co-opt the language of progressive movements to try and "destroy" feminism.

it's sad, but I don't feel like I have any responsibility past giving them the resources they need to do actual research and then just stepping back. I occasionally delve into mockery, but that is rarely gratifying or worthwhile.

I'm an MRA, and I'm encouraged that you actually want to have a conversation. Most of the time, MRAs on this site are permitted at most one or two comments, before they get permanently banned or moderated. If you truly want to have an intelligent conversation about the merits of feminism, I'm all for it.

Let me express agreement with you on a couple points. You pointed out how MRAs like to remind people that men die earlier than women, and that the solution to this is not the defeat of feminism but rather a rejection of traditional gender roles. I wholeheartedly agree. If a man doesn't eat right, resigns himself to working all his life outside the home in a paid position, and depends on his wife to nurture his kids, he absolutely will not be as healthy as a man who insists on living a more balanced life. Men need to take responsibility for their own health and well-being, and it's not feminism's fault that they die earlier.

But this isn't about fault. We MRAs dispute the feminist myth that women are oppressed and men are privileged. If a man dies earlier while his wife lives longer, and if she chose to nurture family and home while he provides the sole income, then that is absolutely not oppression. The fact that she is even offered the option of either working a paid job, working part time, or staying home and working (or not working) in that context -- all these options that are available purely because the husband is OFFERING them to her (but not the reverse) -- this makes me reject the idea that such women are oppressed.

You may come back with the argument that such homemakers or housewives are made helpless over time by their lack of job skills, and perhaps there's some merit to this if you consider helplessness to be exemplified by someone with poor job prospects. But just remember, like you pointed out earlier, we all choose the roles that we want to be in. If a woman decides it suits her to be a housewife or stay-at-home mom, and years go by before she suddenly gets the notion that she's going to be a career woman (and that her husband is to blame for her life choices), I call bullshit. Don't tell me such a woman is oppressed; if she made a bad choice (or a good choice that she is now abandoning on a whim), then it's simply poor life planning on her part and she needs to take responsibility. Enough with the "women are oppressed" B.S. when she had all these options -- OPTIONS! -- to begin with.

I find it absurd when feminists accuse MRAs of wanting to get women "back into the kitchen barefoot and pregnant." If a woman CHOOSES to be skilled in the kitchen, and remains in that role that is made possible by a MALE provider, and if she CHOOSES to get pregnant knowing that her husband will financially support the family that he loves, then don't tell me that she is barefoot and in that kitchen because someone tied a chain to her leg and forced her.

John, do you know who works the hardest to debunk the gender essentialist myth that men are inherently violent?

Feminists.

Although, we manage to do it without pretending like all choices exist in a vacuum, like your analysis here seems to.

Dori:

Perhaps some feminists oppose what you call "gender essentialism." Some. But to the degree that it happens, I welcome the effort.

As far as the "not all choices are made in a vacuum" concept, such reasoning applies to men too. It does help to put yourself in the shoes of the other person, and perhaps all sides in this discussion would be served by doing so.

"The fact that she is even offered the option of either working a paid job, working part time, or staying home and working (or not working) in that context -- all these options that are available purely because the husband is OFFERING them to her (but not the reverse) -- this makes me reject the idea that such women are oppressed."

The use of the word "offered", I think, is telling, as is your assertion that a husband offers a woman her life option. How would men even be able to offer choices like that, if not from a position of dominance?

I was probably unclear. A few examples might work.

I offer you a piece of pie. I'm in charge of the pie.
I offer you a job. I'm in charge of your being hiring.
I offer you as a sacrifice. I'm in charge of your impending doom.
I offer you a choice to stay home or to work. I'm in charge of that choice.

Your being hired, sorry. Apologies for the triple-post -- I wish there was a way to edit.

Katemoore wrote:
"The use of the word 'offered,' I think, is telling, as is your assertion that a husband offers a woman her life option. How would men even be able to offer choices like that, if not from a position of dominance?"

If you consider the willingness to work a paid job as your ONLY option -- and in support not just of yourself, but also of another -- then by all means, please join the "dominant" class. Work begins at 8:00 AM. Don't be late.

Katemoore wrote:

"I offer you a piece of pie. I'm in charge of the pie."

This part of your analogy I agree with.

Each person is entirely in charge of his own labor. If you want to work extra hard so that your family can afford to live in a house (rather than just you, living alone in a smaller condo or apartment), then you certainly have the right to offer the fruit of your labor (that's LABOR, not privilege) to others as you see fit.

If she doesn't like being offered such options, the man's wife can easily go out and work a full time job at any time. Don't agree? Are you asserting that women don't work in paid jobs as often as men, because their options are blocked? That women are teeming in masses of would-be laborers, just itching to enter the paid workforce and join the bliss of that daily grind? Do you believe that no woman in her right mind would choose to remain in the home if she could help it? If so, then that is the point of difference between MRAs and feminists. MRAs believe that women opt against being the primary or sole breadwinner, because they'd rather not. For many stay-at-home nurturers, it's a lot more fulfilling to raise a family and tend the home than show up at a corporate job at 8, and leave at 5 (or 6, or 7, or later) every day.

In other words, what MRAs would term "female privilege," feminists would term "male dominance."

MRA's can kiss my ass! Theyre the KKK and Nazis of women.

Right, like its MEN that have been traditionally oppressed and non-represented in the nation and world. Like its MEN that havent had all the power since the cave days due to violent oppression and misogyny!

Dias,
Men die earlier due to biological differences. Evolution made women to live longer because theyre more needed. Thats a well-known fact. It doesnt matter how long one works, men die sooner - its biology not sociology.

"We MRAs dispute the feminist myth that women are oppressed and men are privileged. If a man dies earlier while his wife lives longer, and if she chose to nurture family and home while he provides the sole income, then that is absolutely not oppression."

A woman that "chooses" not to work is not doing so out of autonomous volition but societal, cultural and many times religious pressure. She usually doesnt work not because she autonomously chooses not to, but because the man has an unequal investment in the household (investing less in child and household duties) and making the woman compensate her time to cover for it. Its not right for a woman to have more time with the kids than the father. If the household is equally invested there is no need for the woman NOT to work. How will we have female representation if women arent working in the world. How will we shape our society for future generations of daughters if women arent working. Women work, and have worked throughout the world since the cave days. Women were made for working, and do it better than men. You cant become US President unless you WORK. It is also a bigger safety net in case accident happen, and you have a more seure foundation for children. If the husband dies, or she divorces she has to start from zero. What partner would want that for her, or the kids? It is not right for a woman to waste her potential behind a kitchen, pregnant. So, if a woman chooses not to work it is not her, but the misogynistic society we live in that value female investment less than a mans - in spite of being better for society.

Your insinuation that there is no male privilege in this country is a fucking joke. Real rich coming from a dick.

Gopher:

I disagree with your contention that women who choose to be stay-at-home moms have zero influence on future generations. It's the whole "hand that rocks the cradle" thing.

John, feminists coined the idea of gender essentialism. The idea that we are more than our biology is a feminist idea.

As far as the rest, I have dealt with your kind before. As long as you insist that feminism is your "enemy" you will always be addressing the wrong end of the issue. It will be like trying to fix a horse's teeth by sticking your hand up it's ass.

And yes john, because we haven't been hearing "women effect the world by raising children! what more do you want!?" for thousands of years.

and no one said that stay at home parents have zero impact on society, you decided that this is what was said because you think it makes you look more reasonable.

I'm not sure what your example is meant to prove, John. A feminist analysis of it reveals a lot of different factors involved. Why did the woman choose to stay home? Was it something to do with her job? Did she hate her job, her boss, her coworkers, the people she was serving, her work environment, commuting, or etc.? If so, why? Was it because they mistreated her? Denied her promotions? Laughed at and/or stole her ideas? Or maybe it simply wasn't the right avenue of work for her? Maybe she wasn't qualified to do it, or thought she would love it but realized she didn't? Or was it something to do with her home life? Did her husband want her to stay home so that he could take care of her? Did he want her to stay home so that he could argue that he shouldn't have to do any housework or childcare? Did he want her to stay home because he thought she was really good at domestic stuff? Did he want her to stay home so that she was dependent on him? Did he support her in her decision, knowing that they could afford it and she would be happier? Did he think a proper woman stays home to clean the house and a proper mom stays home with her children? What kind of example did the women in his life set for him? What kind of example did the men in his life set for him?

I could go on and on but, as you can see, there are tons of questions to be asked in situations like these. Plus, we've already slid quite easily into an analysis of the husband in this situation, who is absolutely part of the equation and whose role in life must be dealt with as surely as the wife's in feminist analysis. I believe this is why Dori said that your example seemed to occur in a vacuum, and I have to agree. I've completely skipped the historical aspect, which is vital to an understanding of such situations but doesn't seem to exist in your example.

I also think it's interesting that you are emphasizing "options" for the woman but not the man. Men have options too. Just as no one is apparently forcing or coercing the wife in your example to stay at home, we could say that no one is forcing or coercing the husband to be the sole breadwinner either. There are, of course, situations where men don't feel like they have options like that, but so are there also situations where women don't feel like they have options like that.

katemoore,
Ugh...an MRA. MRAs simply try and pretend like misogyny doesnt exist. Its obvious WHY they dont want to admit it exists - then they wouldnt be able to inherit privilege and be might be prohibited from exercising their misogyny. Even KKK think they have valid arguments against blacks/ and non-whites. So does (Dias) this dupe.

Dori,
"Every MRA I have dealt with is more interested in blaming women and/or feminism for their own failings in life, or bemoaning their loss of privilege"

Exactly. Sentences like this prove it:

"If you truly want to have an intelligent conversation about the merits of feminism, I'm all for it."
(merits?)

"You pointed out how MRAs like to remind people that men die earlier than women, and that the solution to this is not the defeat of feminism but rather a rejection of traditional gender roles. I wholeheartedly agree. If a man doesn't eat right, resigns himself to working all his life outside the home in a paid position, and depends on his wife to nurture his kids, he absolutely will not be as healthy as a man who insists on living a more balanced life. "
(he seems to think hes a victim or something which is the only reason he pointed this out)

"We MRAs dispute the feminist myth that women are oppressed and men are privileged"

"If a man dies earlier while his wife lives longer, and if she chose to nurture family and home while he provides the sole income, then that is absolutely not oppression. The fact that she is even offered the option of either working a paid job, working part time, or staying home and working (or not working) in that context -- all these options that are available purely because the husband is OFFERING them to her (but not the reverse) -- this makes me reject the idea that such women are oppressed."
(Blames women. he thinks the husband OFFERS it to her. A womans health is worse off if she chooses to stay home, than work, and shes at a greater risk of alzheimers. Like monotonous repetition isnt a life killer! Once again this is ony used to insinuate that the man is the victim)

"You may come back with the argument that such homemakers or housewives are made helpless over time by their lack of job skills, and perhaps there's some merit to this if you consider helplessness to be exemplified by someone with poor job prospects"
(DUH!! Theres more than SOME merit to this)

"But just remember, like you pointed out earlier, we all choose the roles that we want to be in. "
(and he chose the role of misogynist)

"If a woman decides it suits her to be a housewife or stay-at-home mom, and years go by before she suddenly gets the notion that she's going to be a career woman (and that her husband is to blame for her life choices)"
(More blame. I havent heard the term "career woman" since the 60's)

"she needs to take responsibility"
(how paternalistic)

"Enough with the "women are oppressed" B.S. when she had all these options -- OPTIONS! -- to begin with."
(yeah, or the option of choosing to wear a burqa, or not. These options wouldnt even be offered if a misogynistic precedent hadnt be instituted in the first place)

"a woman CHOOSES to be skilled in the kitchen...(then she should be a gourmet chef)

"and remains in that role that is made possible by a MALE provider, "
(apparetly in this "all option" ficticious universe, only the woman has the option of staying home. Clearly the "provider" part sums up his bullshit)

Marc, in theory, I think listening to and working with people like MRAs would be a way to educate people who may think differently from us feminists and promote changes in the ways people think.

The problem is that in practice, this doesn't work quite as well. It goes without saying that John Dias is not the sole mouthpiece of or spokesperson for the MRA movement, but his comments here are very telling, and I think representative of the sentiments of that movement.

Being a MRA is not just about helping to better the lives of a specific group of people that happens to be men. It's is about the WILLFUL denial of the facts and reality of society and interpersonal relationships. It is about shifting blame from society and institutions to individual feminists or the feminist movement. It involves mental gymnastics in order to create ways in which feminists and women have rigged society in specific ways; ways that are not only made up, but that are also logistically impossible.

The entire premise of the MRA movement is illogical, and that makes it all but impossible for there to be any productive discourse.

As for addressing Mr. Dias, I won't go too far in-depth with that. Posters above me, wax ghost, Dori, and others, have done an excellent job. However, this one choice bit pops out at me:

"The fact that she is even offered the option of either working a paid job, working part time, or staying home and working (or not working) in that context -- all these options that are available purely because the husband is OFFERING them to her (but not the reverse) -- this makes me reject the idea that such women are oppressed."

That right there is why this discourse will never work. According to this unsophisticated and limited analysis of a complex, multi-dimensional situation, women are ONLY allowed to make choices about their own lives because men are offering them to us.

"Offering" is about the best word that could have been used here, actually, because it SO exemplifies the thinking behind the MRA positions. We have options because they are offered to us by those in a position of power. You can't offer someone something without being in control of what is offered. Men=ruler. Woman=the lucky recipient of generous offers from the ruler. That is not my reality.

According to this line of thinking, am I supposed to be thankful that I even *have* options? Why bother getting upset that I am paid less, or looked over, or harassed in the workplace? Instead, I should spend all of my time thanking the *MEN* in my life for allowing me to even have the option to work outside of the home?

Hardly. Not only is it absolutely heterosexist to even assume that the person who would support a woman working in the home would necessarily be male, but it's also ridiculous. What ever happened to mutual decisions between two adult people in a relationship? Agreements. Negotiations.

To address the "not in reverse" aspect, which seems to imply that women are allowed to have options while men do not, what about when female partners DO negotiate with their partners [of any gender] about the division of labor inside and outside the home? What about men who stay home while their female partners have the sole income?

Or is your beef with the fact that this doesn't happen? Whose fault is that? Which power structures and institutions have dictated that it isn't acceptable for men to be anything other than the sole breadwinner? I assure you that it wasn't feminists. In fact, I promise you that the feminist movement is working more quickly, effectively, and passionately to solve this very real problem than the MRAs are. But it's just so darn convenient to blame us, isn't it?

Yeah, I kind of figured that. I still thought it was interesting how he's basically arguing my point. Women can work outside the home or be stay-at-home mothers because men offer them that choice. They're still in charge.

If it's any consolation I used to post on some pretty sketchy forums, and even there, the one or two dyed-in-the-wool MRAs were pretty much treated like ridiculous trolls.

Yeah, I kind of figured that. I still thought it was interesting how he's basically arguing my point. Women can work outside the home or be stay-at-home mothers because men offer them that choice. They're still in charge.

If it's any consolation I used to post on some pretty sketchy forums, and even there, the one or two dyed-in-the-wool MRAs were pretty much treated like ridiculous trolls.

Dias,
Show me ONE example where a housewife has had power in society. Countless examples since the dawn of time show a woman at home isnt one iota of power in the world. Give me ONE reason why she shouldnt work.Of course YOU would be for women staying home, you dont want women to have power in society.

"he think a proper woman stays home to clean the house and a proper mom stays home with her children?"

Exactly! Girls are still given "toy" vacuum cleaners, dolls and cooking sets as children. Indoctrination anyone? According to Susan Faludis book, "Backlash" (Chapter Three) women in the 40's were encouraged to work and the government offered minimal day-care and household assistance, and 5 to 6 million women went to work and by the wars end they represented 57% of working women. 75% reported in government surveys that they were going to keep their job after the war and the younger generation (88%) said they wanted a career too. Working class women flooded the unions, protested for equal pay, equal seniority rights and day-care. Feminists revived the fight for the ERA. However, after the war 800,000 women were fired from the aircraft industry, and by the end of that year, 2 million had been fired from heavy industry. Employers revived prohibitions against hiring married women, imposed caps on womens salaries, shut down day-care services, prohibited women from receiving employment assistance and defended veterans rights to displace working women. Groups also lobbied against the ERA. This era also brought about a revival of media and government propoganda telling women to stay home, and be a mother. The book, "The Feminine Mysique" revealed that many women took inibriating drugs such as valium and drank simply to numb themselves from the tedium and waste of their potential.

I wonder Dias, if you think its more important for a mother to stay home than the father?

Dias, a woman cant be president by rocking a fucking cradle all day. And if its so great, why arent you doing it?

Gopher wrote:

"Countless examples since the dawn of time show a woman at home isn't one iota of power in the world. Give me ONE reason why she shouldn't work."

The above comment defines power as public power, i.e. power as status, power as military might, or power as political authority. I believe that women who nurture their young have an enormous amount of influence. The fact that you insist that I provide you with ONE example -- when in fact there are billions -- speaks to the vast difference in opinion between us about the value of stay-at-home moms. We seem to have arrived at a fundamental difference, in in my book there's no useful purpose for debating fundamental premises.

Katemore wrote:

"Women can work outside the home or be stay-at-home mothers because men offer them that choice. They're still in charge."

Any woman who wants to work can do so. Whether or not her husband wants her to fulfill some predefined role, no one is forcing her to be confined to the home. College beckons. So does the workforce! Achievement and fulfillment await. Women today are doctors, scientists, financiers, business owners, athletes... Despite what you claim about institutional impediments, it's a fact that woman are graduating from college in far greater numbers than men. Women are taking their destinies into their own hands. And guess what? Some women, having graduated from college (and perhaps having worked a little while in the paid workforce) are still opting for stay-at-home motherhood. Who are you to tell them that their choice has been coerced?

If full-time parenting is truly as powerful as you say, John, why don't you become a full-time parent yourself? There are women (mostly feminists, from what I can tell) who would be perfectly willing to be the sole breadwinner for a stay-at-home dad. And if you can't find one, well, a lot of women can't find men willing or able to be the sole breadwinner either.

If full-time parenting is truly as powerful and important as you say, why are you and your fellow MRAs unwilling to acknowledge that importance with child support? Why do you and your fellow MRAs denigrate it after divorce by insisting that she shouldn't have the kids even though she was the primary caretaker for years? If full-time parenting is truly as powerful and important as you say, why is it still an unpaid position?

Who are you to tell these women that they HAVEN'T been coerced when they are bombarded with anti-working mom sentiments from every side?

And what the hell do stay-at-home moms have to do with anything anyway?

I'm definitely a proponent of equal opportunities for men. I think most feminists are. I think that both men and women should have the options and choices of working/staying home, whether they are married, single, straight, bi, gay, trans, whatever. It shouldn't be that the woman automatically gets custody of the children - it should be based on children's needs and who can provide the best home for them.

With that said, I think that a lot of MRAs are trying to do things that they think are right, but I also think that they are missing pieces of the puzzle. It's the gender essentialism and sexism that's hurting them, not feminism. Feminism, from my knowledge, does not seem to rally behind the women-make-no-mistakes camp. That's not to say that there aren't feminists who feel this way, but I would say that the majority have no qualms about saying that there are women who make poor choices, are not good/kind people, and that generally, cruelty knows no gender. There is definitely gendered violence, but I think feminists would say that it's socially constructed, not biologically determined.

Also, the assertion that jobs are just "the daily grind" and that men are "taken advantage of" says to me that the issue is bigger than gender. That's an issue of work and employment, and how employers treat their employees. If a man (or women or anyone in between) is treated poorly at work and is miserable, that is not inherently gendered. It's important to examine what makes a person unhappy and consider more than "grass is greener" options. Staying at home, from what I understand, is not a walk in the park, either.

Men living a shorter time than women likely has to do with the stereotypical attitude men take towards health. Women's manufactured obsession with appearance and their health prompts more regular doctor's visits, more awareness of what the food they're eating contains, more exercise, more awareness of health issues such as osteoporosis and skin and breast cancer, and an increased likelihood for eating healthier. Men, stereotypically, are encouraged to eat red meat, play sports (yes, it's an exercise, but it can be very hard on your body), and "tough it out", which can lead to men ignoring real problems that women may not.

The "offering" has been talked about, but I do think that it undermined Dias' point and that it's important, so I echo the other posters here.

Again, it's not a cakewalk and super-awesome to be the stay-at-home parent. Raising kids (essentially alone in Dias' scenario) is hard, hard work. There are no lunch breaks and workers' unions. It's not just a full-time job, it's an always job. You don't get to retire, either. It gives you no insurance, it does not help you put food on the table, it does not provide many of the benefits that working does. It's fulfilling for many people, sure, but that doesn't make it the right choice for all. I think if many of the people who insist that they are miserable working had to stay at home with children all day would discover that it's not lounging with martinis and bathrobes, but more of poop-cleaning and behavior modification.

And it has been an issue for women of color to have the option to stay at home with their children. The argument is fairly classist, because it's assuming that all families have the option for one parent to just stay home. It's also heterosexist, in assuming that it's a man-woman pairing. I think that the standard MRA rhetoric could use some expanding, because it's been asserted in the past that MRAs are a "white, straight man's" movement and I think it's a little true.

The best way to help anti-feminists understand the feminist point of view is to be calm, explain respectfully, and avoid blaming. That doesn't work in all situations, nor should all people be expected to do all these things at all times. There are certainly times when shouting is warranted. But I think that discourse that is respectful, it can help lessen the feeling of accusation, which might be what MRAs are responding to.

wowcabbage, I really wish that respectful worked with anti-fems, but that rarely seems to be the case. occasionally you get someone who is truly angry because they feel blamed for something they had no personal responsibility for, but more often than not it is someone who just wants to say that feminists suck.

Replies to Wax Ghost:

"If full-time parenting is truly as powerful as you say, John, why don't you become a full-time parent yourself?"

Because there's no one to support me in that endeavor. So I must work. Get it? Work is something one must do as a means of survival (and provision); work is not some sort of privilege for the privileged! If someone wants to come along and support me, I'm all ears. I'm not holding my breath, though. But if you know some ladies that want to oppress me like that, I'm certainly interested in meeting them. By the way, I have a 70% timeshare, and still I pay child support yet receive not a dime from my Ex, who still doesn't work.

One definition of privilege, as I see it, is the lack of the need to fend for one's survival, despite one's ability and option to do so. Do you tell the serf in the field that he is privileged, while the lord in the castle is coerced by "the system" (or whatever or ideology calls it) to decline similar labors?

"a lot of women can't find men willing or able to be the sole breadwinner either."

I agree. Who could blame the men for declining to live as workhorses during marriage, then paying 40-60% of their incomes to their Ex after divorce (alimony and child support)? Whether or not you support alimony and child support laws, it's not hard to figure out why men don't consider the risk of such a scenario too great to bear.

In my heart, however, I would love to work as the sole provider for a loving and nurturing wife and family -- so long as I knew that I wouldn't be taken to the cleaners. I wouldn't fault a working woman from feeling the same.

"If full-time parenting is truly as powerful and important as you say, why are you and your fellow MRAs unwilling to acknowledge that importance with child support?"

Child support awards increase in tandem with the size of a given parent's timeshare. When two parents share custody equally (or close to it), comparatively little child support is usually exchanged. MRAs favor substantial time by both parents with their children (so long as both parents are fit to do so). Child support is not the issue; parental time is (in our view).

"If full-time parenting is truly as powerful and important as you say, why is it still an unpaid position?"

If a full-time parent chooses to be a full-time parent, it must be a rational decision; you wouldn't decide to parent full time without a roof over your head or food on the table. If you had no means of support, full-time parenthood wouldn't even be possible; you'd have to work. So, to answer your question, parents who work full time are doing it because they can, and the fact that they haven't chosen to enter the paid workforce by definition means that they find their role as parents worth even more than they would have been paid in any job they would have qualified for. If they forgo a $60,000/year job in order to be a full-time parent, then this means that being with their kids and in the home is worth at least $60,000 -- TO THEM. But you'll never know how much money they are choosing to forgo, and therefore you consider the choice they make to prioritize nurturing kids over a $60K/yr. job to be coerced or irrational. To me, however, it's entirely rational!

"Who are you to tell these women that they HAVEN'T been coerced when they are bombarded with anti-working mom sentiments from every side?"

I am not meddling into their decisions; you are. Your ideology gives you permission to intrude into their lives and condescendingly tell them that they have been manipulated and duped. My world view doesn't affect them in the slightest; I would prefer to leave them alone and let them lead their lives free of meddling borne out of political dogma. That is the difference between us.

john, I ahve some links for you:

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/faq-isnt-feminism-just-victim-politics/

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/faq-but-men-and-women-are-born-different-isnt-that-obvious/

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/

And the big one:

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/you-feminists-just-want-to-tell-women-to-do-what-you-want-instead-of-letting-them-choose-and-we-all-know-girls-choose-the-girly-stuff/

Dias,
Do you not think that a woman can have a beneficial influence on her kids life by being a mother AND work?
Yes, while women CAN work they face discrimination, sexism, pay gap, sexual harassment, unfair work loads at home that negatively impact her work outside of it, and childhood indoctrination that encourages her to stay within the domestic sphere. She may also grow up in a religious household that pressures her to make babies and stay home. There is also a subcurrent in society that noes not encourage a girl as much as a boy, and places more limits on a female than a male. There are also countless books written by pricks like you that tell ignorant parents about "innate" male and female nature. That lie to parents and tell them girls arent good at math and science, and boys are. There are also countless right-wing authors such as "Dr." Laura that tell women to be subordinant and to structure a household that encourages instituting limiting gender roles for their daughters.Do you think that a woman would choose to stay home and NOT work if there were no men on this planet. Of course not, as working is beneficial to her society and community and positively shapes it for her daughters generation. This is something that would be widely applauded and she would be encouraged to continue.

"it's a fact that woman are graduating from college in far greater numbers than men"

Not in FAR greater numbers.

I think a member of the womans KKK who reads shit like this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/R27U89AZDAUAAY/ref=tag_tdp_rb_elst

admire "men" like this:
http://www.gate.net/~liz/fathers/farrell.htm
(who advocate for genitally caressing their daughters genitals, and claim that a woman who refuses to "put out" after supossedly promising to is guilty of "date fraud" and believes that rape simply used to be known as exciting before the feminists "turned" it into something bad)

wowcabbage,
Do you think the KKK are innocently confused as well? Or do you think theyre using their rhetorical claims of victimhood by Blacks, Jews and other Non-Whites as a thin cover employed to deny their real intention to maintain hateful racism and racist irrationality? Same with the MRAs. Theyre not simply "misguided," theyre liars who dont give a shit. Its a misogynistics mens response to a loss of privilege. It has nothing valid about it.They use a ficticious and delusional "injustice" that they claim victimizes men as their cover for wanting to maintain sexism and male privilege in society - thats why they deny it exists at all.

"Again, it's not a cakewalk and super-awesome to be the stay-at-home parent. Raising kids (essentially alone in Dias' scenario) is hard, hard work. There are no lunch breaks and workers' unions. It's not just a full-time job, it's an always job. "

A mother doesnt stop being a mother just because she works. Its a full-time job for her too, even while shes working. What do SAHM do during the school days from 8 - 3? Doesnt sound like its that demanding. Women who work spend more time with their kids than SAHM do. Its also not right to deprive the father of equal effect on the kids.

"I think that the standard MRA rhetoric could use some expanding, because it's been asserted in the past that MRAs are a "white, straight man's" movement and I think it's a little true."

Duh! White men have no reason to complain UNLESS it arises from a distorted sense of injustice to themselves. Do you really think a MRA would attract a rational, enlightened person? The KKK doesnt, why would the MRA.

Dori wrote:

"john, I ahve some links for you:"

FinallyFeminism101? Not the killfile! Amanda Marcotte banished me from Pandagon and instead redirected my IP there, a few weeks ago. It's a place meant to punish, isn't it?

I don't mind reading, and I will check out those links. But would you do the same if I had provided you with links about my beliefs? I think I know the answer.

Gopher wrote:

"Do you not think that a woman can have a beneficial influence on her kids life by being a mother AND work?"

The question assumes that what others think, and whether they approve, somehow matter to that mother. What difference does it make whether I approve or not? She's working and parenting for a reason (either because she can, or because she must). Why should social pressure make any difference at all (if she has a spine)?

Okay, I'll take the bait: I think that a child is better off with greater contact with both parents, than with less. Whatever the working situation is, I would hope that the parent(s) prioritize that, even above their careers. I would hope.

Gopher,

I dont see the point of you debating here if you are absolutely convinced that MRA's are the spawn of satan.

KKK analogies? Amazingly parallel to Limbaugh's "feminazis".

I dont believe MRA is more anglo-centric than feminism.

"Because there's no one to support me in that endeavor. So I must work. Get it?"

Why didnt you go and find a wife who wanted to do that for you?

"In my heart, however, I would love to work as the sole provider for a loving and nurturing wife and family -- so long as I knew that I wouldn't be taken to the cleaners"

And here you contradict your claim of 'loving' to be provided for.

" Work is something one must do as a means of survival (and provision); work is not some sort of privilege for the privileged!"

Spoken like a true man. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. Women have FOUGHT for the right to work so they can have power in their society. Work was always given to men. You also seem to take a negative and paternalistic point of view in that last line. You seem to think you need to educate us women. Work is more than used simply as survival and for food. Work gives you an extension into the world, power, and the ability to shape your own community. Men have attempted to keep women from working exactly because of that.

"One definition of privilege, as I see it, is the lack of the need to fend for one's survival, despite one's ability and option to do so. Do you tell the serf in the field that he is privileged, while the lord in the castle is coerced by "the system" (or whatever or ideology calls it) to decline similar labors?"

Thats very simplistic. You omitted the other definitons, as there are more than one. While the male serf is working for the king, the serfs wife is a concubine, gets paid less or not at all and the black worker is a slave. If a society values one gender and not the other they would rationally pay them less than the other that is more valued (which goes for race and sexual orientation as well).Not to mention the owner of the land with all the power is a KING.

"it's not hard to figure out why men don't consider the risk (of being sole worker)of such a scenario too great to bear."

Many do simply because they want all the power and influence in society. Oppression builds their sense of self.

"Child support is not the issue; parental time is (in our view)."

Think about the kid. The kid cant be switching houses everyday.The woman bore the kid, its hers.

"If a full-time parent chooses to be a full-time parent, it must be a rational decision; you wouldn't decide to parent full time without a roof over your head or food on the table"

Its never a rational decision. A kid needs two incomes. The husband could die, disasters happen, and a child needs to see their mother doing something more than simply BEING a mother. A kid needs to see their mother shape and mold society not simply "tend to the youngens." There is no replacement for a womans influence on her own society. A man IS NOT a woman so he cannot have their views, and should not be solely relied upon to cast an imprint for one-half of the nations population. A woman speaks for herself, not a man.

"I am not meddling into their decisions; you are. "
Really? Is it meddling to question why a woman who lives in an oppressive society (for example such as Afghanistan) says she "chooses" to wear a burqa rather than not? Of course she wouldnt choose to wear a bee costume if she hadnt had to deal with oppressive forces in her life that distort what her decisions would be, her range of what she believes herself capable of, and her views about herself. It is not wrong to see that when oppression happens in society that it distorts and negatively shapes how the oppressed see themselves, and shape their lives around that self-perception. In the South, many Blacks thought they were less than whites. Many homosexuals thought they were perverted to have their sexual impulses.Would it have been wrong to think that MAYBE it came from unfair social indoctrination and not something autonomously created? Of course not, but you cant see that because you live in a cowards life, safe and insulated within your ignorance because change makes you piss your pants.

I just finished reading the last of the FinallyFeminism101 links that were recommended to me above. I read all the content, but skipped most of the comments at the bottom.

In reply, I should say that I disagree with many of the fundamental assumptions that were put forth. I imagine that the blog is an attempt to clear the air of myths and misconceptions about feminism. But it is a misconception to assume that such a blog can transcend conflicting premises. When fundamental views collide, there is no purpose in debating.

I notice a common thread in the articles that were recommended to me. Systemic inequities and injustices are considered so pervasive that the need for feminism is self-evident. While I agree that there is injustice of horrific proportions in this world, I disagree with feminism as to the cause(s). And so what if I do? So what if MRAs do? Can you handle it? There are people who disagree, and I hope that there always will be. Somehow, feminism's lofty goals of overthrowing the patriarchy and replacing it with the political hierarchy and bureaucracy of the State seems less like a utopia and more like a disaster. But to each their own. You can be feminists, agitating for global revolution -- while the rest of us just want to live our lives in peace, apart from the obsessive political struggle that seems to have overtaken your lives and your minds. There's that disagreement again; it keeps popping up, challenging you (because I, of course, am willfully ignorant of my profound male privilege). Or something.

You ladies are hell-bent on saving the world.

"Somehow, feminism's lofty goals of overthrowing the patriarchy and replacing it with the political hierarchy and bureaucracy of the State seems less like a utopia and more like a disaster."

Your dismissive characterizations about the nature of the government and law are irritating, but I have to say:

FOR.YOU.
You. A disaster for YOU. Because your privilege is being threatened, and because you don't see how you gain from that arrangement.

But we, as women, who are currently experiencing the short end of the stick here, see an opportunity in challenging the status quo. We have to do so in order to have equality.

"You can be feminists, agitating for global revolution -- while the rest of us just want to live our lives in peace, apart from the obsessive political struggle that seems to have overtaken your lives and your minds."

Yes, doesn't this sound like a great deal for you? You get to happily sit around while the status quo gives you privilege and benefit at the expense of other people, and roll your eyes at how giving up that immense privilege is so inconvenient and not peaceful. News for you, sonny: being oppressed isn't peaceful either. I can't live at peace while assholes like you still have an edge over me based on arbitrary constructs like binary gender. That you CAN have peace and not HAVE to engaged in this political struggle is exactly why you have privilege.

But I forgot. Somehow, you've created an alternate reality for yourself in which there is no such thing as male privilege. You absolutely refuse to recognize your position in society. Do I have to spell it out for you? Would that help? Your PENIS, or, most likely, the inference that you have a penis, GETS YOU PLACES. If you can't recognize that, it is for no other reason than the fact that you don't want to give up that very penis-based privilege.

Go ahead, though... keep arguing things from your perspective. Keep ignoring social and political realities. Ignore the research. Ignore statistics. Ignore the way every single institution in this country and virtually every other around the world operates. It makes you sound so intelligent, really it does.

LlesbianLlama wrote:

"But we, as women, who are currently experiencing the short end of the stick here, see an opportunity in challenging the status quo."

"...we, as women..." Don't kid yourself. You, as feminists.

"The question assumes that what others think, and whether they approve, somehow matter to that mother"

See, the thing you like, is to isolate these women and keep them footed to a vulnerable place so they remain there and never climb out. You wouldnt want an alternative thought pattern that interupts the sexist indocrination society has saddled her with. You try and cover it up with rhetoric (all vapid lies) that "the most important job in the world is a housefrau" or "its her choice," but its all just a desperate means to keep her from having power in society and seeing something more in herself than simply a housefrau. Yes, Dias, others views DO matter, and SHOULD matter. Take note Dias:Life doesnt exist in a vacuum.

"Why should social pressure make any difference at all (if she has a spine)?"

Answer this: does social pressure make people act unreasonable? Does 1950s segregation make a white person choose to marry the white woman or man rather than the black woman or man she or he might be in love with? Does social pressure make a man think he should work, or else hes going to be disrespected by other men in our misogynistic society? YES! Thats why you dont have social institutions that privilege one gender over another, or else you make it more beneficial to cave in, rather than live enlightened. If she feels guilty for working (which many books and other mediums such as trash TV encourage) then shes going to feel relief to quit simply because she identifies working with a burden - not that shes quitting because it has to do with the work itself. It ends up putting more focus simply on caving into the immediate need to not feel the negative guilt rather thanexamine it and see the long range views of it.Societal pressure and societal indoctrination saturates the mind and development of a person and consequently has an effect on the decisions they choose to make and the endeavors they choose to embark on. This happens the moment babies come out of the vaginal canal. Why is it there was so much resistance to blacks entering "white" schools? Because whites had been spoilt on a system that made them feel superior based on a forced inferiorization of blacks, and now they were losing it. The only ones that have a spine are the enlightened feminists that think for themselves and break the oppressive system. Youre the spineless one. You pissed your pants when Hillary ran, didnt you?

"While I agree that there is injustice of horrific proportions in this world, I disagree with feminism as to the cause(s). "

Oh really? So you dont think the aswer to abolishing the burqa is to enact (what?) in Afghanistan? Regardless of whether or not YOU "think" its the answer, it is, and has proven to be since the 1840s (and further back). Feminism is women advocating for womens interests. Apparently you think a MENS "rights" activist IS necessary? Now why is WOMENS rights wrong, while MENs rights, right?

"....So what if MRAs do? "

Because you oppose women and feminists. A KKK is not simply just a "different" opinion, its one that advocates racism and oppression - just...like...you!

"Somehow, feminism's lofty goals of overthrowing the patriarchy and replacing it with the political hierarchy and bureaucracy of the State "

Now why would you think obliterating a male only society would be negative? Do you think its right that 48% of the US population represent the other half? See, thats why you are...a...sexist prick.

Dias,
And what about that "genital caresser" Warren Farrell? Is he your Furor?

Qwerty,
By comparisons to the KKK, I meant that it has no societal value and the organization exists simply to oppress and lie about their real motives and what inspired it. Clearly KKK has no value in our world, right? However, in order to maintain and sustain themselves they conjure lies about the targeted races and distort reality to try and claim that they have a valid reason for existing. They actually believe someone will think that they arent racists but advocates for "white rights." thats why I say MRA's are KKK, Taliban and Nazis against women. Theyre full of shit and piss their pants when a woman takes power.

By the way Dias, quit bullshitting. You know feminism is about advocating for equality for women, and obliterating an oppressive societal system. Of course that means the patriarchy. Why is it okay to have a patriarchy, but not a matriarchy?

I do not recognize John Diaz from the Glenn Sacks blog regulars, or any other site I know of, but I would say his views are fairly representative. Don't you all believe the questions asked in the OP were answered quite well? Yes, this is why many MRAs, white males in the US, feel like the oppressed class, and women the privileged. And this is what you think about each other's views. IMHO, the women, on a feminist blog, were being very courteous.

That kind of brings me to one of the other questions from the OP:

"this incident does show their ignorance of feminism as a whole, which begs the question: are we responsible for reaching out and teaching them?"

Regrettably, I believe it is the responsibility of feminists and supporters to teach them. Yes, it is extra work. It looks to me like the most visible forms of feminist efforts are education and advocacy. But how else will decisions be made by the ones in positions of power, if their ignorance or misogyny leads them to believe that feminism is unnecessary or the devil? Didn't past society need to be taught why women should be allowed to vote, pursue an education, or work? Did the white men of that society just decide one day to hand over that power to their wives and daughters because they suddenly felt it was the right thing to do from a humanist standpoint? Did white men simply decide one day in 1973 that a woman does have the right to her own body, and recognize a woman's right to an abortion? No, it had to be argued, and they had to be convinced, and law needed to be enacted to have it enforced. And people 35 years later still don't get it, despite it being the law. They need to be taught, if nothing else, that it is the law of the land. It would be better if they realized why it was the law, and respected women who make those sorts of decisions, and the health professionals and others who support them. Apparently some need reminding that shootings, bombings and arson are illegal.

"Why is it okay to have a patriarchy, but not a matriarchy?"

If there were an official MRA position, one would be, they don't believe in the patriarchy, and need it proven. Hence the need for education. Opponents of feminism won't give it to them, or the truth about it (see female privilege vs. positive sexism) so yes, it is up to feminists and supporters to do so.

gopher wrote:

"By the way Dias, quit bullshitting. You know feminism is about advocating for equality for women, and obliterating an oppressive societal system. Of course that means the patriarchy. Why is it okay to have a patriarchy, but not a matriarchy?"

I know that feminism uses the word "equality" in its lexicon. But along with that comes an assumption about the initial conditions of society. If you assume that society is tilted in favor of men, then to you, equality means tilting power toward women. Those of us who consider the initial conditions equal at the outset (or to some MRAs, slanted against men) will view the drive for "equality" as a supremacist movement that is hostile not just to a system, but also hostile to men. We have a fundamentally different perspective. Call this difference of opinion whatever you want -- it won't make us ashamed to believe in what we consider to be right and just. It does sound like you want not only to stamp out "inequality," but also thought crimes. What a lovely utopia it will be when you femmies rule the world -- everyone will all agree with your female hierarchy (of course they will; all suspected detractors would have been eliminated by then).

I hate the platitude of equality. Hate it. More inequality has been imposed through brute force simply because this platitude was invoked. In the 20th century, Marxist movements were responsible for the wholesale slaughter of approximately 100 million people. And don't tell me about breaking eggs in order to make an omelet. All this death was nominally in the name of achieving equality.

"Those of us who consider the initial conditions equal at the outset"

I believe it will be extremely illustrative for you to explain how or why you believe that conditions are or were, equal for men and women. This sort of understanding would be fundamental for understanding your reasoning.

Why does pursuit of equality need to be anything like what happened under "communism?" (I do not believe that true communism has been achieved anywhere on the national scale.)

BTW, here is one reason I agree with MRAs that someone sometimes needs to speak up for men:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhpevdl2Sng
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aUOibCglL4

Try that with roles reversed. Funny? I submit to you that equality does not mean allowing men to be abused or ridiculed in society or media the way women have been traditionally victimized, but to eliminate the abuse or ridicule for both sexes.

Feminism usually focuses on issues mainly affecting women, like naturally, women's health. I have no problem with that. I also see why an entire society should put a priority on women and children's health. However, there do happen to be issues where primarily men are affected, like men's health which I don't see as a feminist priority, despite 30-40,000 men per year dying in the US, comparable to with breast cancer, and eight to ten times more than with cervical cancer. Campaigning for prostate cancer awareness, research or treatment so I can be "one less" just doesn't have the same oomph as when support is sought for cancers affecting women. According to National Prostate Cancer Coalition CEO Richard N. Atkins, M.D., "Prostate cancer has a 99 percent survival rate if caught early through annual screening.” Obviously simple awareness is lacking, and someone needs to tell the menz. I doubt the education or funding will come from feminists.

"Question: what the hell makes privileged, middle-class white males wake up one day and decide they are oppressed?"

Also, as I have posted numerous times, I believe many readers at e.g., the Glenn Sacks blog are simply pissed off at the conditions or circumstances surrounding the breakup of their own relationships, and the imposed conditions on seeing their children, whether or not their former partners honor those conditions regarding partial custody or visitation, and possibly paying to support the former partner and children. The finding in the state of IIRC, Wisconsin, that 80% of "deadbeat" dads were low income, primarily minority men in manual labor, who could not afford to pay despite working (which would include me if I were divorced, despite being a nurse), was a surprise. That goes against the popular image of the "deadbeat" dad as simply being manipulative and vindictive.

Anyone have a good anti-feminist/MRA bingo card?

gopher: Do you think the KKK are innocently confused as well?

No, I don't. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that the confusion was totally innocent. Do I think some KKK members don't really understand what their ideology means? Probably, but it's a minority and in no way representative of the movement. I think part of the difference is the way that racism vs. sexism is treated in our society and that's it's still sortof okay to show a little sexism, but it's definitely not okay to be show a little racism. That doesn't always stop people, but I think that it changes the observers' reactions.

The way a person behaves is often a reflection of the society that they live in. Do I blame men who have lived in a society that devalues women all their lives for devaluing women? Yes and no. I do because they are responsible for their own actions, but they were not responsible for their own upbringing. In their case, I think it is best to provide information and help foster an understanding of equality, and to assist those that were hurt in the system, should they want it.

A mother doesnt stop being a mother just because she works.

You're completely right. I just meant that she isn't being a parent who is present at that very moment. It doesn't make her any less of a mother, but it changes what kind of work she is doing. It would be the same for a father. I'm not really sure what SAHMs do when the kids are at school. I'd have to ask one to be sure.

Its also not right to deprive the father of equal effect on the kids.

Of course not! I was focusing on the mother because that seemed to be the thrust of the argument, but I definitely think that fathers deserve equal time with their kids. Economic needs might dictate that one parent or both parents work more than they'd like, but I don't think that it should mean that the man must work and the woman must stay home.

gopher: Do you think the KKK are innocently confused as well?

No, I don't. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that the confusion was totally innocent. Do I think some KKK members don't really understand what their ideology means? Probably, but it's a minority. I think part of the difference is the way that racism vs. sexism is treated in our society and that's it's still sortof okay to show a little sexism, but it's definitely not okay to be show a little racism. That doesn't always stop people, but I think that it changes the observers' reactions.

A mother doesnt stop being a mother just because she works.

You're completely right. I just meant that she isn't being a parent who is present at that very moment. It doesn't make her any less of a mother, but it changes what kind of work she is doing. It would be the same for a father. I'm not really sure what SAHMs do when the kids are at school. I'd have to ask one to be sure.

Its also not right to deprive the father of equal effect on the kids.

Of course not! I was focusing on the mother because that seemed to be the thrust of the argument, but I definitely think that fathers deserve equal time with their kids. Economic needs might dictate that one parent or both parents work more than they'd like, but I don't think that it should mean that the man must work and the woman must stay home.

Sorry for the strange double post, which seems to be missing a paragraph. :/

"I'm not really sure what SAHMs do when the kids are at school. I'd have to ask one to be sure."

They look after the house and perform related chores such as cleaning, as well as make preparations (shopping, cooking, laundry etc.) for when the family returns, and for the next day. Depending on how meticulous one is and the size of one's home or family, that can take all day and longer, in itself. I would never, ever have the patience to take hours to prepare a single meal, even for Thanksgiving, Christmas, or to impress family and friends, the way some women do on a daily basis. Nor would I vacuum and dust or clean windows daily, unless I actually saw grime accumulating. Some people are conditioned to be that clean, or have little choice, like having husbands who want to see that their wives are "doing something" during the day other than watching TV, talking on the phone, and having affairs.

There also just so happens to be a lot of "female-centered" programming on during the time people with day jobs are expected to be out of the house, and the kids in school, for women to watch; dating back to before cable and its variety of choices and acceptance of diversity in lifestyles. Game shows which require consumer awareness, like ranking nine random products from least to most expensive, without error; or properly evaluating a wide selection of consumer products costing as much as or more than a new automobile. That and dramas with a continuing story line of over 50 years about the trials and tribulations of fictional families.

What are you expecting?

"The woman bore the kid, its hers."

Do you honestly see nothing wrong with this?

To jump in late and respond to a previous point...

If you consider the willingness to work a paid job as your ONLY option -- and in support not just of yourself, but also of another -- then by all means, please join the "dominant" class. Work begins at 8:00 AM. Don't be late.

As you can probably tell from my name, I'm a woman. And I've pretty much accepted that this is going to be my life. I've seen my mother be a housewife her entire life, and I don't want to do the same thing. So don't talk down to us. I'm guessing that the majority of the bloggers and commenters here have worked before or are working now. I'm in college, I have a summer job in an office right now and I've worked at several work study positions on my campus. I've had nice bosses, cool bosses, mean bosses, domineering bosses, control-freak bosses, dumb bosses, and bosses who couldn't give a clear set of directions to save their lives. Boring days, normal days, crazy days at work. We know what it's like to work, and we know what it's like to expect to work for the rest of our lives. You're on a feminist blog, don't pretend like you're dealing with a bunch of girls who expect men to take care of them or who don't know what work's like, okay?

Wow, a lot of hate towards John Dias. As expected.

I consider myself a MRA as well. So feel free to personally attack me.

But let me talk about my situation first. Not long ago my daughter was born. Currently I stay at home with my wife to take care of her. In a month my holiday is over and I am going to work fulltime, while my wife stays home to take care for our kid. If I had the chance I would have loved to stay at home. Our little one is so amazing everytime she looks at you, holds your finger, even farts or burps, those are magic moments. This is one thing probably parents can only understand. I am not excited on going to work fulltime again only to see that my daughter is asleep when I come back and I missed all the "magic". Why did my wife stay at home you may ask? As my wife earned less than me, we decided that she stays at home while I am the only breadwinner. I had no problems to stay at home if my wife earns more. By the time our girl gets older she plans to work part time again to support our little family financially as well.

My cousin and neighbour had a similar decision to make. He works as a carpenter and his employer went bankrupt. So he and his wife decided that he stays home while she worked fulltime.

In both cases there were economical choices made. I often see this in my surrounding the parent that earns less usually stays with the kid(s) while the other one earns the money.

There is a cliche that women tend to choose men that earn more than themselves. Well when I look at my friends I must say a lot of the times this is true. If those pairs get children I wouldn´t be surprised if they use their paychecks to determine who stays home with the kids.

Is there anything wrong with making decisions that way? Is there someone opressed?

Well someone said sth about women geting the short end of the stick. I really am not sure what is meant with that. I asked my wife as well and she couldn´t tell either (she told me she never has felt discriminated because of her gender. Is she a rare exception?). Is this about the so called wage gap? If yes let me qote Wikipedia:

In 2004, women's wages in the USA were 76.5% of men's wages.[5] However, some studies, such as those done by the Independent Women's Forum, conclude that when taking into account variables when comparing male and female employment within the United States - type of job, hours worked in a week, tenure, benefits (for example maternity leave) - women make 98% of men's income. For further information, see Male-female income disparity in the USA . ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_gap & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_USA )

Could above argumentation be true?

If not please enlighten me. (also on this short end of the stick thing)

With best regards
Feck

"If you assume that society is tilted in favor of men, then to you, equality means tilting power toward women"

See, the difference is one view is right (sexism exists for women) and the other is a distortion arising from your misogyny and ignorance (MRA). You use stupid twists of reality like this to avoid seeing yourself for what you are:a sexist prick. Show me ONE example where you think sexism exists for men.

"Those of us who consider the initial conditions equal at the outset (or to some MRAs, slanted against men) will view the drive for "equality" as a supremacist movement that is hostile not just to a system"

Thats why youre wrong. You actually think men are the victimized in this country. You have NOTHING to back it up with. KKK also think theyre the victimized ones in this country too, do you sympathize with them? They think Blacks control everything and now society hates whites. Clearly theyre wrong - just like you. You have no proof to claim men receive MORE sexism in this country than women. R U stoopid?

"It does sound like you want not only to stamp out "inequality," but also thought crimes"

So its wrong to want to boycott the Nazi club at a college campus, because it would be against "thought?" You dont need any "thought" to be a misogynist. You sound like you want to deny inequality even exists so then you dont have to be outed as the misogynist you are. Thats not intellectual, nor progressive. Youre the hostile one to feminism, just like KKK are hostile to race activists. Unlike differing views, yours are oppressive and offensive. You admitted you think equality is hostile to men. How is not being a doormat "hostile" to men?

"I hate the platitude of equality. Hate it. More inequality has been imposed through brute force simply because this platitude was invoked"

Really? So then I guess you wouldnt mind it if we had a matriarchy in this country where men were at the bottom. After all, you hate equality, right? If you were actually victimized in this country you wouldnt have the view taht you hate equality because youve never been treated with anything other than privilege. It just shows youre full of bullshit and lies. Show me ONE example where the fight for equality has resulted in something negative? You must also be a racist. Surely you feel those black activists brought the hoses amd police dogs on themselves, because after all, they were fighting for equality. It was Lenin and Stalin who were both communists, not feminists (so they didnt believe in equality) only sympathized with the proletariat and undermining the elite. His views on equality didnt extend to women or other races. He was a rapist and killer. Neither of those communist leaders ever believed in equality, just the dismatlement of the elite. Never had they said they were for equality, except perhaps to gain votes. Using the words of a known genocidist and rapist is no way to frame an argument, only escape from the realities youre trying to hide from. Youre overlooking ACTUAL fights for equality which happen everyday by homosexuals, races and women. Do you think the southern blacks shouldve just stayed in their "place?"

First:

Yay Genenvieve! I commented on the same thing way above. I found it highly patronizing and paternalistic. Typical crap you'd get from an MRA!

Second:

A male,
No amount of outreach can change them. They CHOOOSE to be misogynists. For nuts sake, they ACTUALLY believe theyre the ones that are mistreated in this country!!! Theyre not innocent by-products of a misogynistic society (something that they dont even admit to existing in the first place) theyre perpetuaters of it. They have instituted lies and excuses to explain away reality. Feminists have to take power and squash these little dipshits. Do you think black activists in the 1950s would have gotten anywhere if they went to all the KKK rallies, and gave out "little" pamphlets explaining racial enlightment? Of course not. Even in the 50s the KKK claimed THEY were the victims of Blacks, rather than the other way around. Its all just a thin shroud they employ simply to keep from openly revealing their hate.

" Didn't past society need to be taught why women should be allowed to vote, pursue an education, or work? Did the white men of that society just decide one day to hand over that power to their wives and daughters because they suddenly felt it was the right thing to do from a humanist standpoint? Did white men simply decide one day in 1973 that a woman does have the right to her own body, and recognize a woman's right to an abortion?"

No, it had to be TAKEN. You act like the men were actually convinced a woman should have the right to vote in the first place. Those women who fought for the right to vote were put in an insane asylum and had to protest and cause hell while locked away there. They used that as leverage to get the vote. (Watch Iron Jawed Angels). You act like now there is no resistance to the rights women have won - anywhere from education, to reproductive rights being played out in our political landscape. MRAs are the ones trying to take away any aspect of female independance. Whether torwards birth control, abortion rights, equal pay (like advocating against the Equal Pay Act), employment des