Poor journalism, yet again.
Factor implies causal link. It's just a correlation in this case.
Factor implies causal link. It's just a correlation in this case.
I think the most likely thing that changed over time is Z: the first wave(s) of feminism began to liberate females from the traditional limitations of roles in society. However the true from of feminism is a recognition and reconstruction based around /all/ gender roles being bad for mental health, emotional health, and positive relations among individuals.
Men haven't had that liberation; a large part of society still believes in specific roles and responsibilities for men that coupled females are (at their option) exempted from. This probably leads to increased stress to both individuals and also an increased risk of negative feedback loops for the situation and everyone involved.
The inherent bias in society is even reflected in the premise of the study. It's tracking a specific type of male/female relationship and a specific correlation of role towards problems. Instead a more balanced study would look at the starting condition, determine what percentage of the population (restricting to males and females alone is OK, but including all sets of couples is better) fits different configurations, and tracking for outcomes as well as associated economic, emotional, mental, and physical health in the related intervals would be a better study design. The study might also have a follow-up for 'marriage failure' cases where isolation of the root causes is performed.
Sadly that role restructuring, when driven by men, is still almost universally derided. Look at the men's rights movement or mgtow. The trope of the basement dwelling virgin is immidately deployed to minimize their concerns. Feminism isn't the tool needed. Men need to drive their role in society. Society just isn't ready for it.
EDIT: heavily down voted, almost makes my point for me.
Men do face many challenges. Some men have dangerous jobs which they die providing for society (fishing, war, etc). This doesn't get enough acknowledgement. But one doesn't have to be a total jerk to make this point and tear others down.
?? Are you implying that feminism is limited to just helping women? Surely you're not that naive. If we were to play a game where each time you post a crazy thing an MRA has said, I have to post two crazy things feminists have said, I'll win that game. I'll win it easily. I'll win it with politicians and academics and people who have real power in our society while you'll be scouring fringe websites. And if ever I run low on important people, I still have the Tumblr feminists.
So yeah, I don't really know what point you thought you were making, unless the point was to demonstrate the totally different standard that you hold these groups to.
If you think feminism has legitimacy (and it most certainly does) it's because you're choosing to listen to the points that have merit, and disregard those that don't. It's selection bias, sure, but I do it too.
Consider trying the same thing with three MRM
On the other hand, when looking at the MRA scene (again, going by self-identification of the speakers), the mainstream seems to consist of "incels", red pillers, and the like. So, as far as most people are concerned, the label is firmly associated with that sort of stuff. Consequently, suggestion to listen to "points that have merit", when they come in a binder with "MRA" on the cover, is not going to fly. If you want to be heard, you'll have to break the association by using a different label - or by finding enough like-minded vocal associates to reclaim the label (and at this point it would need to be a supermajority with a hefty margin before we can seriously start talking about this).
You might object that this is unfair, because the label is descriptive and appropriate, and all those misogynists have misappropriated it. Tough luck - descriptive labels get misappropriated all the time. For example, if you happen to be a socialist and a civic nationalist at the same time, a common sense descriptive label would be "national socialist" - but you really shouldn't be using it for obvious reasons.
I've associated feminism with "women make $0.67 for every dollar that a man makes for the same job, working the same hours" and equal gender ratio over equal opportunity.
The negation of "attacking women" isn't "supporting women", it's "not attacking women". Not saying anything at all about women is "not attacking women", but it's not "supporting women".
Well now, that point couldn't have been more directly substantiated if you tried!
I believe this in the same sense that all food and your metabolism is bound to kill you in the long term. Utopian social engineering at this scale and depth rarely pans out. It's usually built on very shaky epistemological foundations -- usually a narrative about how utterly terrible the current social order is and a vague sense that there should be something better possible. This is not to say that all utopian social engineering is bad or wrong.
Utopian social engineering experiments are a lot like startups. There are generally a lot of them popping up all the time. Often, they seem wonderful and magical to a small number of people for awhile. Sometimes, they scale and stay around for awhile, appearing to be magical and of-the-future for somewhat more people for a while longer. It's only rarely they become forces that change society and really last.
Exactly what empirical data is this assertion based on? -- "/all/ gender roles being bad for mental health"
Liberation from what? The "burden to provide" comes with a lot of benefits, and I know I wouldn't trade them all for "liberated" homesteading.
In many ways, what you call "the true form of feminism" for men is just a long way down, a fall from grace, in the same way as Enlightenment was for aristocrats. It's not surprising that most turkeys refuse to vote for Christmas.
The idea is that we should be free of societal expectations, and free to choose our own path, is liberation I can get behind. It is the part of the modern, western world I embrace and am happy for, that I am free to chose my own path. Neither I nor anyone else should be judged against a sense of universal criteria, because my happy life might be someone else's living hell, and the multitude of lifestyles possible is something I like.
Sometimes, I think all sides get this wrong. Feminism that doesn't value stay at home mothers who freely make that choice from personal preference is just enforcing a different norm, not a freedom from norms. Ditto the reverse and a view women should only be SAHM, or that men should be providers, or strong, or whatever.
I have no idea if any of that is possible at scale and, quite frankly, I don't care. I am going to live my life how I see fit, grant everyone else the same privilege, and let ideologues argue amongst themselves about what people should do.
But feminism never cared for that. They only tried to make women more like men, implying that men are better, a position I cannot agree with.
It's probably going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. As it stands right now, women have nearly all the power in heterosexual relationships, so they are able to see to it that progress is made in removing their own shackles while keeping them firmly in place on men. This is not some evil conspiracy, it's just a natural consequence of self-interest combined with a power imbalance. (Incidentally, one of the other rigid expectations of society is that this power imbalance is never discussed out in the open, so I fully expect a harsh negative reaction to this comment.)
The only things which could change this situation are technological emergences which directly impact the power dynamic: realistic sex robots, artificial wombs, AI strong enough to put everyone permanently out of work, etc. Some of these might balance things out to a more equal level, while some of them might tip the scales wildly in one direction or another. It remains to be seen how things will play out as technology advances, but it is doubtful that things will stay as they are now over the long term, even if they do in the near / foreseeable term.
What? I think I know where you're coming from, but surely you realize there are many relationships where this is not the case, so it's strange to state it so absolutely.
I'd love to see this unpacked though - why do you think women hold nearly all the power in heterosexual relationships?
Huh? Why do you think so? I guess legally, after marriage, they do have more power (on average), but not in all cases and much less before marriage.