comment: >
  
  The stats show the dissatisfaction of the worthless greedy hookerbeggar women who then out of the other side of their mouth claim equality
  When convenient I guess
context: At this point, why should I even care about gender equality?
  
  
  Men are much more likely to die in a war, be a victim of violent crime, go to prison, die at the workplace do to unsafe conditions, commit suicide, and a million other things.  One cause of this is gender inequality, as you yourself describe how the worth of a man is determined. Since you are a man it is your interest to have gender equality to reduce the risk to your own life.
  You have a mom and might have a daughter. You don't want them to be equal to men?
  
  
  And feminists don't care about this.
  
  Forming opinions on the world in reaction to people you find annoying or hypocritical is illogical. My bully in middle school was black, so I should be against equality for black people now? Not a good way to think. >
  
  
  You have a mom and might have a daughter. You don't want them to be equal to men?
  
  Men had mothers and daughters under patriarchy as well. >
  
  I agree and and it was stupid for them to support it for that reason.
  In slavery times men would rape their slaves, and then their own children that came of it would also be enslaved. People don’t always do the logical result. It’s logical to want the best possible outcome for one’s children. >
  
  Sons are also children
  Patriarchy is their best possible outcome
  Only one gender can win
  Might as well be men >
  
  No best possibility for my son is to live in a society with equality. >
  
  Very unlikely. There's a reason patriarchy existed in the first place. >
  
  Is / ought fallacy. Just because something exists doesn’t mean it should exists.
  “There is a reason slavery existed” >
  
  Equality is impossible. For example, when women earn more, those marriages have higher divorce rates. When women aren't kept in their place, men suffer. >
  
  Are you married? Do you have a gf? Children? >
  
  I'm not sure why my personal life is relevant to this discussion >
  
  
  ”the worth of a man is determined by how much he is a good provider…” 
  
  What you’re describing is a traditional gender role we force on men, something feminists tend to oppose. Things like male disposability and other differential treatment of men seem like they would be directly addressed with gender equality or eliminating those gendered social expectations. >
  
  I already said, it’s evolutionary. It’s written in our DNA. We cannot change it. >
  
  So you insist people can't control their own behavior?
  Then explain why plenty of men and women no longer ascribe to traditional gender roles and contribute to society just fine. >
  
  It's fake and temporary
  Marriages where women outearn men have higher divorce rates >
  
  Perhaps because those women are less financially dependent on their husband and have the ability to walk away? >
  
  Ergo marriage is temporary and unstable where women have choice
  Stability requires patriarchy 
  So be it >
  
  Do you think it’s preferable to force women into marriages they don’t want to be in? 
  Like you could also have the state forcefully marry every adult at 18 to give the kind of “stability” you’re referring to, but that would also be an awful policy that makes people unhappy and less free. >
  
  Nah, not the state, just do it the way patriarchy did
  If only one gender can win, it might as well be men >
  
  
  If only one gender can win, it might as well be men
  
  Win what? The Gender Cup? >
  
  Protection of their interests >
  
  
  Evolutionary psychologists
  
  Evolutionary psychology is pop science that shouldn't be taken seriously. Ever since religion lost its status as providing absolute fact people turn to science. The problem is science doesn't provide explanations for most of our social behaviours, social science does. The thing about social science is that it awknowledges the fact that there isn't a right/wrong or natural/unnatural way for a human to behave in a lot of scenarios.
  For example:
  
  It is not an absolute fact that fat people are objectively less attractive than skinny people. Beauty is subjective and what people are attracted to is strongly influenced by their upbringing.
  
  It depends heavily on the culture. So what do people do to avoid having to examine all of their beliefs in a critical manner. They use evolutionary psychology.
  For example
  
  It is an absolute fact that fat people are objectively less attractive than skinny people. Men are genetically predisposed to find fat people less attractive because skinniness indicates health.
  
  The problem is I can't prove or disprove any evolutionary psychology theory because I can't raise a human in a cultural vacuum. I can however prove that there are countless cultures were skinny is not seen as attractive and even seen as ugly. And you know what evolutionary psychologists from those cultures would say:
  
  It is an absolute fact that fat people are objectively more attractive than skinny people. Men are genetically predisposed to find fat people more attractive because skinniness indicates less food meaning that growing, birthing, and raising children will be harder.
  
  I could come up with a reason for any one of my beliefs to be valid then claim its evolutionary psychology. Its all bullshit >
  
  
  Everywhere you go, men are treated as disposable garbage.    
  At this point, why should I even care about gender equality? It's none of my goddamn business. And it's not only about me, it's about half of the population whose problems and struggles are always neglected. If you don't care about us, then why should we care about you?
  
  Seems like you justified why we should care about gender equality. >
  
  Also like if NOT being these things is already limiting his dating options, imagine if it was totally normalized? He already isn’t meeting the criteria and according to him this is the easy level. >
  
  
  Everywhere you go, men are treated as disposable garbage
  
  This seems like a good reason for men to support gender equality. >
  
  Gender equality is always about improving women's lives, never about men's
  Only patriarchy improves men's lives >
  
  Patriarchy is about a hierarchy.
  Feminism is about women's rights.
  Patriarchy is not about rights.
  Maybe the word does not exist for men's rights advancement, but gender equality implies all genders. >
  
  Perhaps we just need a more righteous patriarchy. One which gives women the rights they deserve.
  I only say this if we are recognizing there is a patriarchy but it can’t change. 
  I don’t even agree there is a patriarchy. At least not one run exclusively by men. I do exactly what my wife says so if I were to commit any violence it was probably her idea or at her direction. >
  
  This would be closer to a flat hiararchy. Righteous patriarchy is still putting men at the top of the hiararchy (which is where the archy of patri-archy) comes from.
  Patriarchy doesn't mean ALL men have the power, but that men have the power from most small systems and most large. >
  
  Do women who influence the decisions of men ever play into this? I’m not trying to pass any sort of blame or claim any sort of importance. We’re just having thought experiment conversations.
  If we get into the philosophical implications of power and whatnot, in order to be considered in a hierarchy wouldn’t those at the top require absolute control? The way in which women can influence the decisions of men(I know men control their own actions) is almost so great, IMO, men can’t be considered “rulers” because so much of what we do is through the inspiration of a woman. 
  I’m not denying misogyny. Men can sometimes  have a tendency to be cold and treat women as objects. That is shitty and shouldn’t happen. But the assertion that all systems big and small are controlled by men I think falls on it’s face when you consider how much of a role women play in everything everywhere all the time. 
  Obviously we’re talking about modern times. Yes, society was run as a patriarchy at a time but let’s not kid ourselves, it’s not now. We had a woman run for president, almost 7 years ago. And the guy that won is an anomaly, or at least I choose to see it that way. >
  
  Individual men and women are not the same as the structure of society. >
  
  Ok? Women “as a whole” are in control of plenty of things. I’m not getting how what you’re saying is relevant. >
  
  Any examples? Are those plenty of things the structure of society?
  Patriarchy doesn't mean a woman can't be a CEO. But that isn't exactly common either, is it? >
  
  Women also have different choices than men. Would you say a matriarchy prevents stay at home dads or the patriarchy prevents stay at home dads? >
  
  
  If you don't care about us, then why should we care about you?
  
  gender equality is not about women tho. it's about all genders, men included; that's why you should care because men need to care for themselves. i'm sure you suddenly don't want women on top, right?
  when genders are considered equal it gives men permission to unabashedly pursue anything not normally associated with men, including being a stay-at-home parent, nursing, primary school teaching, reception or administrative assistant to name a few. when genders are considered equal men feel confident to do 'girly' things like talk about their feelings and seek mental help.
  
  Women are genetically predisposed to look for men who are good providers and protectors
  
  no, they're socialised to do this. because up until recently the only option women had was to bear children and take care of her husband. she didn't have a paycheck so of course the husband needed to be a good provider. moreover, women are still socialised to do this because men are not socialised to give up their career to be the primary caregiver of their children, so of course women are attracted to a good provider because they know they may have to sacrifice their career for their children. if genders were equal tho more women would be the breadwinner, which benefits men. 
  
  Everywhere you go, men are treated as disposable garbage.
  
  how? 
  also, you realise it's men that run society; they overwhelmingly dominate government, lawmaking, law enforcement and business. 
  
  And feminists don't care about this. Feminists only care about "unrealistic standards of beauty on women " and "objectification of women in media".
  
  who cares tho? feminists are not in charge. they do not dominate government, lawmaking, law enforcement or business; they don't even make up the majority of average citizens, so i wouldn't expect them to come to men's rescue if that's the hope here. >
  
  
  when genders are considered equal it gives men permission to unabashedly pursue anything not normally associated with men, including being a stay-at-home parent, nursing, primary school teaching, reception or administrative assistant to name a few. when genders are considered equal men feel confident to do 'girly' things like talk about their feelings and seek mental help.
  
  Women earning more than their husbands leads to higher divorce rates
  It's all fake nonsense
  Men need patriarchy >
  
  
  Women earning more than their husbands leads to higher divorce rates
  
  That’s because women have the financial independence to leave abusive or toxic relationships. That’s a good thing because before women were forced to stay in bad relationships because they had no other option. >
  
  This implies that the women who don't earn as much would also leave
  Meaning all women want to leave men, they just need the money lmao 
  If only one gender can win, might as well be men >
  
  No, you need money to survive, so if women can’t earn, she has no choice but to rely on a man, no matter how horrible he is to her.
  But once you remove that barrier from women, they will be more likely to pursue and be in relationships with men whom they actually care for. Women don’t just want men for money, but once you instill a barrier for them to earn their own, they have no choice. Your needs come before your wants. >
  
  They can earn whatever they want now
  They outearn men
  They divorce men when they earn more than men
  A man supporting anything but patriarchy is supporting his own destruction >
  
  Any statistics to back anything you said up?
  Because I have some statistics for you.
  Women earn 82 cents for every dollar that men earn.
  So women aren’t outearning men
  Men are three to five times more likely to die by suicide than women. And that can be attributed to the fact that a patriarchal society pressures men to “be a man” and suppress their emotions. >
  
  
  Women earn 82 cents for every dollar that men earn. So women aren’t outearning men
  
  Muh wage gap is a victimhood myth
  Single childless women in large cities outearn single men
  
  Men are three to five times more likely to die by suicide
  
  Women attempt more >
  
  
  Much wage gap is victimhood myth
  
  Wage gap isn’t a myth. Even when controlled for occupation, time worked, etc, women still make less than men. And at any rate, women definitely aren’t earning more than men which you originally argued for.
  
  Women attempt more
  
  So then why do men die more from it? 1) They have more intent to carry it out and 2) they’re less likely to get support for mental health >
  
  It's because women suck at even that
  Childless single women in big cities outearn men >
  
  Feminists regularly point out how anti feminist rhetoric hurts everyone, including men >
  
  And they turn around and censor anyone who dares point out how their rhetoric hurts men >
  
  How does feminist rhetoric hurt men? >
  
  Pushing narratives that claims should be believed without evidence, garbage like the Duluth model that is literally enshrined in law in multiple places, getting men's shelters shut down >
  
  Number 1 is a deeply misunderstood way of framing that and number 3 needs a source if you don't mind. I don't know what 2 is so I'll let that pass >
  
  How so is it deeply misunderstood? Having been on the wrong end of some random jackass accusing me, I certainly don't see why we should believe people who refuse to put forward any evidence for their claims. 
  If I said that secret government ninjas were trying to kill my family, would you automatically assume it true, or would you question why I would be making that claim? >
  
  Women getting abused by men is demonstrably more likely than that weird fantasy scenario, and should be taken seriously. You know this, come on >
  
  The statistics show that the overwhelming majority of claims are entirely baseless and without sufficient evidence to be proven in court. >
  
  That does not mean that you should default to all of them are always lying >
  
  
  Everywhere in this world, the worth of a man is determined by how much he is a good provider and how much he is a good protector.
  
  Really? I've never provided for nor protected anyone and I'm fairly certain I'm not considered useless or without value.
  I'm also fairly certain the company I work at judges my value simply by how good my translations are and how quickly I finish them.
  
  Evolutionary psychologists have been saying this for decades. Women are genetically predisposed to look for men who qre good providers and protectors.
  
  Evolutionary psychologists are pseudoscientists, and don't agree with each other as much as you think they do.
  That you think they have such a consensus suggests you simply look up the articles that affirm your view. And all they are are columns, they don't conduct any actual scientific experiments and simply conjecture random things with no measure of control.
  
  It doesn't matter if you live in Afghanistan, India, China, Russia, America, Canada, Brazil, Sweden, Britain, Netherlands, Denmark or moon or mars or Uranus. Everywhere you go, men are treated as disposable garbage. As the comedian Chris Rock once said: Only wome, children and dogs are loved unconditionally. Men are only loved under the condition that they provide something.
  
  Apparently not, because I live in the Netherlands, have never provided for anyone but my own income and my family and friends clearly love me and that's hardly exceptional. I know many males who have never provided for anyone and clearly seem to have close ones that love them.
  
  And feminists don't care about this. Feminists only care about "unrealistic standards of beauty on women " and "objectification of women in media". It's as if Cardi b qnd Megan Thestalion are more repressed than I am. It's as if sexis is only bad when it hurts women but it's completely normal for men to be hurt because that's our job.
  
  Yes, that's why they're feminists.
  It turns out that identity politics is filled with self-serving gutter. Why would feminists care or be mentioned in this? It's as though one be surprised that people who campaign for the rights of Christians don't care about Muslims or atheists. 
  
  At this point, why should I even care about gender equality? It's none of my goddamn business. And it's not only about me, it's about half of the population whose problems and struggles are always neglected. If you don't care about us, then why should we care about you?
  
  Because “gender equality” as you call it would make these standards even?
  You seem to use the word “gender equality” to mean “female problems” for whatever reason.
  Indeed, from a self-serving rational perspective, as a male, thus a non-female, you have no interest in caring about female issues. >
  
  Good answer. OP give this guy a delta because he basically slayed your entire premise with the fact that you base your worldview off pseudoscience. >
  
  He didn't really but people tend to be very biased when it comes to topics like these. >
  
  I am a little confused as to what exactly you want your view changed on and why. It seems like you believe how men are valued and treated is just evolutionary truth, ergo there is no reason to push back against it. The end of post, however, is asking why you should care about feminism when they don't care about you. 
  I find both ideas to be a little disconnected. If there's no point in pushing back against gender roles and feminists are wasting their time, then why do you care what they have to say at all and why do you want your opinion on it changed? Shouldn't you just not care at all because they cannot win against the inevitable? >
  
  It sounds like it's not that you don't think gender equality is important, but more that your frustrated and want to throw your hands up and say fuck it.
  The fact that if you even talk about mens rights you are then seen as some type of sexist suggest radical sexist undertones towards men. >
  
  Supporting gender equality would mean treating men as complex humans with deep emotions deserving of care and affection just like women are. If your concern is that men aren't treated this way, pushing for gender equality would be your goal >
  
  Feminists only care about “unrealistic beauty standards and objectification”.
  Here are 3 things feminists actually care about.
  
  
  Reproductive Rights.  Women want access to abortions, birth control, etc.
  
  
  Domestic Abuse.  Women want not to be beaten by  their partners.
  
  
  Globally, Female Genital Mutilation.
  
  
  These are bigger issues for feminists than Cardi B related issues. >
  
  
  Everywhere in this world, the worth of a man is determined by how much he is a good provider and how much he is a good protector.
  
  People can even try to change your view here, but you’re right for the rest of the world: it is what it is.
  But before you say that this is not fair for men, think about what you like in a woman or partner and see that they still have yours and society’s expectations to meet. >
  
  You’re falling into the very trap sexism created for men, it reduced them to fighting rutting machines. 
  You don’t want a woman who cares about eliminating sexism if you’re only looking at women who care about having provider men. If you care about women who are focused on being traditionally attractive and spend the majority of their time wooing “provider” men, these are not the same women fighting gender norms in dating and marriage. 
  Ever heard of the “female gaze”, it’s pretty famously not focused on men who look like masculine manly men. The type of people who give off the aura that they would fight a lion and bring home a hog they killed with the bare hands for you. Most straight feminist women are interested in sensible, intelligent, funny, creative and emotionally mature men. Someone they can build a life together with, whatever they agree it should look like. >
  
  
  You’re falling into the very trap sexism created for men, it reduced them to fighting rutting machines
  
  Patriarchy enabled men to maximize what they desire. Yeah, except for a few black sheep or whatever, nothing works perfectly for everyone >
  
  As a feminist, and a man, I care a ton about the troubles men face!
  Feminism isn't about wanting women on top. It's about wanting everyone to be treated well regardless of their gender!
  So men shouldn't be told that they have to hide their feelings, or that they have to have lots of sex and be rich to be worthwhile, or that they need to be the provider in order to be worthwhile.
  What gives you the idea that feminists don't care about men? I will guess that you have either paid too much attention to a small set of angry internet feminists on Twitter, or to right-wingers who have an interest in presenting feminism in the worst possible light. >
  
  
  ... Evolutionary psychologists have been saying this for decades. Women are genetically predisposed to look for men who are good providers and protectors. ...
  
  Do you have any examples of papers where people scientifically tested that idea and tried to falsify it?   Whenever I've see people talking about evolutionary fitness in the context of evolutionary psychology, the people are assuming a connection between whatever they observed and evolutionary pressure without any scientific evidence.   For example, they might do some experiment where they test what jokes from comedians women laugh at, and then tell some just so story about how humor is an evolutionary virtue signal.
  People have been talking about men as providers and protectors of women for millennia, but if there were clear scientific evidence for this "genetically predisposed to look for .. providers"  stuff then we'd see it getting credit beyond the context of people selling men guides on how to pick up women. >
  
  
  People have been talking about men as providers and protectors of women for millennia
  
  Divorce rates go up when women outearn their husbands >
  
  And thats bad bcs? Also up from what to what? >
  
  It rises by 50%
  Instability, chaos, disorder, at men's expense.
  If only one gender can win, might as well be men. >
  
  Lmao, so women can choose to leave dysfunctional relationships, bcs they can support themselves and thats bad thing...
  
  It rises by 50%
  
  From what to what? >
  
  Great now we've got the specific numbers, thank you, and it shows equality is a scam and patriarchy needs to be restored ASAP >
  
  But its your conclusion that less divorces = good, the study doesnt really tell. 
  If a women can support themselves and leave bad relationships, I think its positive. If men leave relationships, bcs they feel insecure about women earning more, thats on them and society that they were brought up in.
  I mean, we could as well ban divorce altogether, which would be seen as positive thing by you, if I understood your position correctly. >
  
  
  I mean, we could as well ban divorce altogether, which would be seen as positive thing by you, if I understood your position correctly. 
  
  It should be the divorce regime of 1950. Divorce rate was ~4% >
  
  I almost didn’t read the whole of your post but the more I read the more I warmed to it, in a perverse kind of way.
  Men and women have a lot to learn from each other if we could just stop being offended and feel oppressed or discriminated against. >
  
  I don’t understand the correlation between men being valued for their provision and being treated as “disposable garbage.” We value women for thinks like their physical beauty—that doesn’t make them garbage. >
  
  Patriarchy is needed to make sure men can be in the position of provider, since when women earn more than their husbands divorce rates go up >
  
  I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make. Can you elaborate? >
  
  Women value men for their providership, but men can only reliably  maintain that role through patriarchy >
  
  Ok. What does that imply regarding my comment? >
  
  Without patriarchy, expecting providership from men is treating them like disposable garbage >
  
  Ok I think I understand. I’m still not sure how you arrive at that conclusion. So are you saying we should keep the patriarchy? >
  
  Restore 1950 patriarchy, minus the racial stuff >
  
  What would that solve? >
  
  Puts every man at the head of his family, including as the provider >
  
  Evolutionarily speaking women are judged on their beauty and ability to bear and care for children.  
  And if men are only judged in being a provider how do you explain stay at home dads? >
  
  
  And if men are only judged in being a provider how do you explain stay at home dads? 
  
  Divorce rates goes up by 50% when wives  outearn their husbands
  Fuck stay at home dads the effect is seen with a difference of as little as $5,000 in income >
  
  If the divorce rates increase it probably has more to do with the guy getting in his own head about it (like you clearly would). >
  
  Oh right it couldn't possibly ever be the woman's fault 
  HOW COULD I FORGET WOMEN ARE PERFECT FAULTLESS SELFLESS FUCKING ANGELS
  This society is like an open air insane asylum >
  
  Wow you have issues.  Trust me the woman doesn’t care if she makes $5k more.  You clearly do.