Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Feminism versus egalitarianism?

33 replies

EldritchCleavage · 01/04/2011 10:30

Universities David Willetts has suggested here that working class men have lost out because feminism enabled middle class women to take educational and working opportunities that the men would otherwise have got. He appears (trying to see past the Daily Hate Mail spin to what he actually said) to see this as an unfortunate effect of feminism, rather than a pernicious effect of our class system. Thoughts?

OP posts:
dittany · 01/04/2011 11:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
EldritchCleavage · 01/04/2011 11:20

Presumably his argument runs, "Well, wewould have had a working class man in the Cabinet, but then we opted for Theresa May instead." It's her fault.

OP posts:
SardineQueen · 01/04/2011 11:20

Mind you this one is very good too:

"Harriet Harman once again making a complete mess of things!"

When she is not mentioned once in the article Grin

SardineQueen · 01/04/2011 11:18

I like this comment best!

"Today women are too interested in trying to be men. They pretend to be busy doing "important" work, "facilitating "or such nonsense INSTEAD of bringing up their children properly. They ship them (children) out to sausage factory daycare (Susan George anyone?) and the children turn out to be foul mouth illiterates with facial jewellery and multicoloured hair, pregnant at fourteen. One woman is worth a thousand men to society, but no! Today we devalue women by allowing them to pretend to be men. Most (all?) women that I come accross in my working life are out of their depth and not very competent at the work that they pretend to do. Feminism will set women back. When TRUE equality (COMPETITION) arrives competitive competent men will trample women back to the dark ages because men are always on "home" ground and women are always playing "away""

Grin
Original poster
EldritchCleavage · 01/04/2011 11:18

Exactly, dittany.
If the playing field were level, women (of whatever class) and working class men could both have advanced in terms of access to opportunities. Of course, in this country it isn't, and men from certain social and educational backgrounds unfairly dominate.

It doesn't occur to people like David Willetts-or they won't admit-that for all people outside this narrow group to advance, the narrow group must give up its privileges and compete fairly. Instead, special interest groups are pitted against one another for the few opportunities available. This enables one to suggest that middle-class women deprive the working classes of opportunity, rather than upper class men.

Is that blindness, or Machiavellian cleverness? I can't decide.

OP posts:
dittany · 01/04/2011 10:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

gorionine · 01/04/2011 10:35

I am not sure do understand. Does he mean that because women are now getting bwetter education and better jobs it somehow "forces" men to take whatever is left. Does he really think that women are emplyed for the fact they are women rather than the fact they appear more competent for the job offered? Maybe men could take steps to "regain" competence without having to blame women for it?

Original poster
EldritchCleavage · 01/04/2011 10:30

Oh sorry, Universities minister David Willetts.

OP posts: