Feminist how open minded are you?

Question

Can you play devil’s advocate? If you are up for a challenge, give three truly good reasons why men should be against Feminism. After you give your three reasons, if you wish, please by all means explain why these arguments don’t hold up.

Answer 1

The main reason for men to be against feminism is that it means giving up many of the privileges that come with being male. (Some of these are an important part of many men's self-image - for example, a man who feels especially manly because he's a manager at work can feel that his masculinity is threatened if he's given a female superior.)

Why these arguments don't hold up? Because it's not fair for one s*x to get most of the advantages.

Answer 2

REASON: There are anti-male laws in some parts of the world.

REBUTTAL: This is true. But you will find that the majority of today's feminists are opposed to them, and that they don't align with the original principles of feminism. So this would be a reason to oppose misandry, not feminism.

REASON: It will take away your traditional roles as protectors and providers.

REBUTTAL: So? Some would say that's a good thing. Now we're sharing the burden.

REASON: It will give women more impetus to divorce you.

REBUTTAL: It has given women more ability to divorce, but that rarely implies desire to divorce. THAT is dependent on the strength of the marriage.

A couple more:

REASON: It will feminize you.

REBUTTAL: "Feminization" has never been an essential goal of feminism; it was allowing men to embrace whichever feminine qualities they already had.

REASON: It will destroy romance.

REBUTTAL: Destroying romance has also never been an essential goal of feminism. If you happen upon an unromantic woman, it doesn't mean the imminent destruction of your love life.

Answer 3

Feminism and open-mindedness are usually incompatible notions so it would be a rarity.

Answer 4

Well, I know when I posed a question because I've observed that feminists actually seem threatened by strong black women that question got pulled.  I got the impression that modern feminists are merely seeking a switch from a rich white boys club to a rich white girls club.  That didn't come off as open minded at all.

Answer 5

Let's see if the moniker holds up...

Reason: Loss of male superiority status

Explanation: Sure things like losing the ability to rape your wife legally sucks (hah just kidding, thought I was gonna go there huh? lol) Really though, losing the ability to get a job simply because you have a p***s regardless of qualification, and other such male privileges takes you down a notch, BUT with women in the workforce un-discriminated against, it opens up a whole new realm of competition which should appeal to that traditionally masculine quality of competitiveness you may hold.  Now you know you have the title you hold because YOU won it, not because you own a p***s.

Reason: Loss of the ability to lead a traditional family

Explanation: The only way this statement would be true is if you meant it to say "loss of the ability to force a woman into wanting me to lead a traditional family".  No you can't force women into traditional roles anymore, but my guess is most of you wouldn't want to.  Many women, and even many feminist women hold traditional family values.  The difference between pre-feminism and now is that women now CHOOSE to have traditional lifestyles, knowing that they have other options, and yet many still choose traditional roles like SAHM's and submissive wives.  So, when you find that lady who wants to be the subby to your dommy, you'll know that she made the CHOICE to do so, and because of that CHOICE (which feminism gave her, btw) she'll probably be better at it than someone who was forced into it and didn't want it. (force can mean everything from physical, emotional, social or economic force)

Reason: Feminists are sexist

Explanation:  If by sexist you mean not fighting for men's rights, you'd be right.  Although I'd argue with you that this is not sexism because feminism is not intended for men's issues, it is a women's advocacy movement and is therefore well within it's boundaries.  People do not expect homosexuals to fight for heterosexual equality, or the NAACP to fight white discrimination, so why is feminism the lone duck? If discrimination for not fighting for the other groups is your issue, I would ask if you spend as much time trying to end HRC, PFLAG, NAACP, UNCF, and other organizations who's purpose is to fight for their own groups and not others.  If not, perhaps your vision of feminists as sexists is a little jaded.

EDIT: Ah His Dudeness, I thought you just added me to reportnik.

If you would have just kept your mouth shut for a few days, you could have reported all my q&a and I would have never been the wiser.

Sorry troll, blocked.

Answer 6

If party A controls 100% of a resource, and decides to grant party B access to this resource - as a group, they are no longer going to hold 100% of this resource, which will always represent a reduction, from their point of view, in terms of their share of the whole.

So, as the sexes become equal, men, as a gender on the whole, will lose power, status and control over others.  Hopefully, most men don't want that anyway though :-)

Answer 7

“Reason: Feminists are sexist

Explanation: If by sexist you mean not fighting for men's rights, you'd be right. Although I'd argue with you that this is not sexism because feminism is not intended for men's issues, it is a women's advocacy movement and is therefore well within it's boundaries. People do not expect homosexuals to fight for heterosexual equality, or the NAACP to fight white discrimination, so why is feminism the lone duck? If discrimination for not fighting for the other groups is your issue, I would ask if you spend as much time trying to end HRC, PFLAG, NAACP, UNCF, and other organizations who's purpose is to fight for their own groups and not others. If not, perhaps your vision of feminists as sexists is a little jaded.”

But the NAACP didn’t trample on white rights and caused court jurisprudence to shift against them, did they? I can’t say feminism didn’t, and don’t throw the same old tired excuse about – losing our “male privilege”.

Even since the dawn of society with the first civilisations in Sumeria and the Indus Valley, men having been treated as disposable tools and oppressed by other men at the top of the patriarchy – the truth is a few privileged men had 100% rights, those underneath didn’t’ (that’s the nature of patriarchy). Women though were also treated like baby producing tools by the patriarchy, however were placed on pedestals, were protected and cared for, while hundreds and thousands of men erected monuments to symbolize the ego of the patriarchy.

In the end I want movements to take responsibility for their own actions, whether or not they lead to the disadvantage of particular group of people. Feminism is no exception.

Feminists SHOULD fight for men’s rights, since they supposedly stand for “EQUALITY”, any gynocentric/misandric laws or standards in society as the result of the feminist movement, should be dealt by the feminism movement.

Don’t expect some poorly funded grass root men’s rights groups to correct the injustice resulted by an equal rights massive movement, funded by the government.

All in all feminism should get rid of the attitude of – Oooops! Sorry this movement has caused you to lose your job, real estate and child custody sir, but it’s your problem now, not mine! Suck it up and deal with it.