Comment by tossandthrow
1 day ago
> It's ridiculous since women's issues are only being better represented recently while men have long dominated politics
This statement has more than one issue:
1. First and foremost, it is simply a rewrite of the history. There is a difference between descriptive and substantive representation. And it is true that men have been descriptively better represented. But the thoughtless implication that this leads to better substantive representation is simply wrong.
2. It justifies the idea of "reparations" for previous generations misdoing. Not only does this induce a high level if dissent, it is simply immoral. Even if we would accept reparations, it is still only justified by the rewrite of the history.
I appreciate the call for nuance, but I think the historical framing here deserves scrutiny.
You're right that men have dominated politicly, but it's worth distinguishing between who held power (descriptive representation) and whose interests were served (substantive representation). Most men throughout history had no political power - they were subjects of monarchies, excluded by property requirements, or conscripted into wars they didn't choose. The men making decisions were a tiny elite.
On "women's issues only recently being better represented" -this depends heavily on what we're measuring. If we look at something like life expectancy as a rough proxy for overall life quality (capturing war mortality, occupational deaths, access to resources, healthcare), historical data suggests men and women faced roughly equal burdens pre-industrialization, just distributed differently. Women faced maternal mortality and legal subordination; men faced conscription, dangerous labor, and social expendability. The female longevity advantage only emerges clearly in the modern era.
The point isn't to claim men had it worse - it's that "men have long dominated" obscures that most men were themselves dominated, and bore unique, severe costs within the same system.
I agree completely that rigid gender roles harm everyone. But framing current attention to men's issues as acceptable only because "patriarchal roles harm men too" still treats men's suffering as derivative of women's concerns, requiring feminist justification. Can't men's rising suicide rates, educational struggles, and social isolation warrant direct concern on their own terms?
The discourse does need less competition. But that requires actually taking men's issues seriously, not just when they can be reframed as collateral damage from patriarchy.
Honestly, I think that this delineation between descriptive vs. substantive representation is the more likely attempt at rewriting history. Even if you look only at political elites across time, you’ll easily see women disenfranchised from positions of power because of male lines of succession, or from certain lines of work (even knowledge work) because such activities were expected of and considered rightful for men. That’s not to say that women have it worse. While it’s true that men have been victims of conscription to wars and dangerous labor, by your own explanation, these forms of oppression would go away if only those men were rich—-but there wouldn’t be any respite for women even if they could change their socio-economic standing.
As regards generational blame, I disagree that it is immoral to place accountability (which is different from blame) on a people even across generations, and ergo, time. You might not have a hand at something that your ancestor did, but you could be reaping the benefits of it today. You don’t have to be sorry for it with your every breath, but since we’re already talking about morality, you do have the responsibility to recognize the past and where your current resources are from, and to make reparations towards people who are still suffering the consequences to the present.
And as a man, I would like for men’s issues to be more out there and recognized in its own right, but honestly, “men’s rights” is a very recent thing and only came about as a reaction against the rise of feminist discourse in social media. How could one not see that as a derivative of women’s issues? It’s not even talking about the things that really matter to me as a man, such as the discrimination of men against an “alpha” ideal which, I could argue from experience, is really what’s driving those mental health issues and suicidal thoughts. I’ve seen that men’s rights movements are actually trying to defend this ideal, and it doesn’t even seem to consider LGBT men in the picture.
First, we have only discussed equal representation of men's and women's issues with the argument that an imbalance in the public discourse leads to an imbalance in personal opinion. You are going of of slope to misrepresent this as a mens rights movement - that is not very polite.
You are completely right in your observations about women being disenfranchised from power and not hold the same rights. But this is just a minor aspect of life and invite you to reflect on whether this in its own right led to worse lifes as a whole for women - if you take all other obligations and privileges into consideration. I tried indicating that life expectancy could be a well understood proxy, but you are free to find other holistic proxies.
I do believe in full gender equality. and as while women has gained autonomy and agency men need to gain the same amount of protection of that of women. Men can not be the only ones conscripted for war. Men can not be the only ones taking dangerous and physical jobs.
I am also not here to push a zero sum view of these things - But to push a reasonable understanding of "sum" and be open for being taught something if it turns out that what we thought was not right.
Your comment about generational blame for entire groups of people is abhorrent and needs to be rejected. It leads to people "paying reparations" or "taking blame" for something they have not done just by being a part of that group. It is out of touch with societies based on rule of law. And it needs to be rejected.
You have absolutely no responsibility to accept or recognize anything you have not been a part of. This mere idea that you can force people to adapt (by accepting) a truth i borderline authoritarian. It is such an extreme form of mental coercion and needs to be rejected.