Why should men support feminism?

I’ve re thought about this thread a lot.

Basically men should support the liberation of women because other wise they are supporting the oppression of women. If you can’t see that Scott you are part of the problem.

Many men find professionally successful and highly educated women intimidating

But this kind of echos back to the earlier point that women tend to marry ‘up’ or at least their equal. It’s not the qualifications, salary, or chosen professional career that some men find intimidating it is the fear of rejection if you approached such a women for a date as there was a good chance that she was looking for a fellow high flier to date.

In my early 20s I was still paying off student debts, living in a flea pit flatshare and generally counting the pennies while I got professionally qualified. I asked plenty of professional women out on dates only to be politely ‘let down’ in their refusal. Such is life. I did find it curious a few years later when I was now on decent money, owned my own home and had a career that was going places did some of those same women suddenly started to express an interest in me. As far as I was concerned my personality, looks and general character had not changed, just my prospects!

My sister who used to work in the city got some sneering judgements made by some of her social circle when she started to date an electrician. To them he was clearly a bit thick because he had not been to uni and therefore a bit rough which was astonishing levels of snobbery. The fact that he is a funny, caring thoughtful man who did in fact run his own company doing well for himself did not cut the mustard, he was still a tradesman!

My wife has earned more then me and at times I have earned more then her. I could not give a shit, it all goes in the same pot!

All being equal I'd like to see women able to experience the best of both worlds, but I'm currently at a loss as to how one can give full commitment to two conflicting things. My husband is a sahd. I have been very successful in my career as a result and have also been able to enjoy not only having children but also a domestic manager who ensures that our home is well run, children succeed at school and feel well loved, understood and nurtured and I get to spend my weekends and holidays enjoying them. This as an absolute dream to me. I have the best of all worlds. But it is my choice how well I treat him. He is completely financially dependent on me and after many years of having a primarily nurturing role he is also more emotionally dependent on me than I ever imagined he would be. I choose to treat him with respect and to honour the fact that he has sacrificed a great deal so that I could have it all. There is no need for this imbalance of course. We could encourage a society where both parents work part time.

Good in theory, but on average women are far less likely to date down relative to men. In other words a high flying, educated woman will prefer a man that at least matches if not exceeds her own socio-economic status and education level.

I know several highly successful women who've done just that - including one very successful female executive who lives in a very 1950s homemaker/breadwinner set-up, except that she's the breadwinner and the husband is a SAHD.

To the point, though: You could very easily also argue that men are less willing to "date up" the socioeconomic ladder. If I had a penny for every drunk confession from a man that he thought my female colleagues or I weren't marriage material on the grounds that no man wants a wife who out-smarts or, worse, out-earns him, I'd join the class of the independently wealthy and wouldn't need to out-earn anyone ever again.

Many men find professionally successful and highly educated women intimidating (and, in many cases, sexy - but not in the wife sense). A friend of mine was just recently left by her OH when pregnant. He'd assumed that she'd stay home for at least two years after the baby and that he'd finally get to be "the man in the house" (his exact words, according to her). She's not even THAT overwhelmingly successful or incredibly well paid - she's in her thirties and a middle manager in a reasonably large company.

Another friend of mine is in her 40s, stunningly gorgeous and a managing director at a multinational. She says Tinder got a lot easier ever since she's been telling men she works at a salon.

Isn’t not wanting to date someone less qualified or earning less just as unfeminist as men not wanting to date women who place emphasis on their careers?

Pumpkin - sounds like an unhappy situation. Hopefully you will consider all options (eg moving/downsizing house), any relatives that could help. I hope you can talk to your partner to see if he can share some of the sacrifices. On a govt level I suppose you could campaign for more flexible working or more childcare - but it might not be popular with those without kids. Universal income is an interesting option. Do bear in mind though that people employed to provide childcare in nurseries (which enable both parents to work) are usually women and not paid very much. Extending their hours would impact on their own childcare/family arrangements. Having a satisfying career is a luxury many people don’t have. Sounds like you are working hard to give your family the best you can despite the difficulties- be proud of yourself, I hope they appreciate it.

Good in theory, but on average women are far less likely to date down relative to men.

I have done that. Consciously, because I did not want to be trapped in the 'but you earn less so you stay home' conundrum. (My partner has a Masters Degree in STEM, I have a PhD.) Women have choices.

(And, genrally, women being economically equal implies the burden of being ‚the provider‘ will fall off men, which surely is a good thing for men, no?)

Good in theory, but on average women are far less likely to date down relative to men. In other words a high flying, educated woman will prefer a man that at least matches if not exceeds her own socio-economic status and education level.

This puts her and women like her at a disadvantage relative to a man who decides to settle down with a traditional sahm setup. Futhermore as I think the stats bear out when she does settle down with her equally high flying partner then she still carries more of the mental load and emotional labour.

I've known a fair few professional women who have bucked that trend and married down (strictly in terms of earning potential I mean), had the man do sahd duties and gone on to fly professionally.

Well,OP, I did not read all posts, so the point may already have been made, but as another thread on this Forum eloquently demonstrates, Feminism is dead opposed to the tradition of engagement rings (as it marks,property‘) and the expectation that the man should pay huge amounts of money for one.
(And, genrally, women being economically equal implies the burden of being ‚the provider‘ will fall off men, which surely is a good thing for men, no?)

Now if that isn‘t something every man can get behind, I don‘t know.

I can’t believe that scott works in a office with women doing the same job as them! My bil (who’s a field engineer) says that he loves working with his hands outside and can’t believe any man would have a different opinion! It’s the natural way of the world isn’t it?

There’s some good posts on here btw

Namenic, what do you think of educated middle class women trapped at home, not being able to afford childcare, or rather not being able to afford to work, having to resort to scavenging part time low skilled jobs after children go to school. There was that example of high flying woman working with Hollywood stars that ended up as a cleaner after maternity.

For me a career is a way to personal growth and self-fulfilment as well as providing for my family. Unfortunately I face barriers to achieving that due to childcare and career gap, while most men do not. It is not necessarily more fair to argue that men have to forgo their aspirations to enable women's careers.

Reengineering societal arrangements to enable women to pursue their career on the par with men, without a pay gap will enable broader pull of talent to contribute to society and enrich all of us.

Skullpointer you make a good point about affordability. But conversely with 2 children below 5 the financial balance is often in favour of 1 stay at home (depending on commuting distance of parents, medical appointments, breast feeding) or 2 part time.

For the upper middle class there is more choice than people think. Eg whether a larger house in a better area is worth more/less than stay at home parent. Whether sahp can also enhance child’s reading/tutor for 11+/help with homework (not going into whether this is good/bad just that many working parents may pay for tutors). Can sahp do diy instead of getting builders?

The vulnerable are low paid women. I guess we should help them think about picking a career based on earning potential? Maybe also encourage men who are partners of low paid women to help them enhance their earning/re-training. After all they would benefit sharing the tax burden and maybe children would have more contact/male role model?

The UK has consistently one of the highest gender pay gaps in developed economies throughout various categories of employment. Quite surprisingly UK has huge pay gap in hourly wages, which supposedly should not be affected by pay progression and maternity career breaks. It just reflects the bargaining power of women in those hourly jobs..

ILO found that for equal productivity, the company staffed with predominantly women pay $4000 less per year than companies with predominantly men.
www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/multimedia/video/institutional-videos/WCMS_651222/lang--en/index.htm

The Guardian headline is :
"Pakistan had one of the highest gender pay gaps at 34%, while in the Philippines, women earned on average 10.3% more than men.

Britain had one of the highest median gender pay gaps for hourly wages among the biggest economies in the world, ranking third-worst behind South Korea and Estonia with a 20.6% disparity. The ILO also found the UK had a low share of women among the top 1% of earners.

The report demonstrates that there is a huge 'unexplained' element to gender pay gap, which is systemic throughout various countries and types of employment, it tends to be highest in skilled well paid jobs and in countries with very patriarchal cultures.

The key 'explained' structural element of the pay gap is maternity. Women's pay tends to dip and stall at the child birth age and rarely recovers.

I’d think girls not going to school would be part of the structural reasons for pay gaps world wide.

Surprisingly, the ILO report concludes that education is a minor factor in the structural gap. Even in developing countries. It shows that when women are educated, they enjoy pay advantage over low skilled women, so indeed education is key avenue to prosperity for women. But, low skilled men earn much more than low skilled women, almost as much as 'educated women'. This probably demonstrates that the work that low skilled women do, what is perceived as 'women's' work' is undervalued, paid bare minimum, taken for granted, perhaps reflecting the patriarchal set up that women work is available for free.

The report also demonstrates that in advanced economies women are on average better educated than men, but they derive little pay advantage from this like for like vs men, i.e. women are underpaid for their qualifications.

The report also shows that educated men's pay advantage takes off at about 30, after the age when women start having children.

Some feminists, however, think there is a debate to be had about the impact that women's choices can have on other women- and the impact that the assumptions made about women's roles has on the perception of women in society. And this is often dismissed as "not being kind".

Yes, this! Along with the fact that few choices if any (and I would include men's choices in this) are truly made freely. So there's also a debate to be had about why people make their particular choices.

On a side note: the SAHM vs. CEO cliché annoys me endlessly. The truth is that corporate leadership roles are unattainable to most people. And that stay-at-home parenting is financially not an option for many either.

It takes volumes of raw talent, years of incredibly hard work and relentless networking to claw your way up the corporate ladder - even more so if you happen to get into the race without a double-barrelled name and a friend of your parents' on the board. Equally, simply being a SAHM beyond when kids go to school is not attainable to the overwhelming majority of women. Most families simply can't afford it.

I happen to be a corporate executive, so it goes with the territory that I know quite a few people who've either made it in the shark tank of a major corporation or have spouses whose income allows for the SAHM dream-life. But it is because of my own position that I recognise how exceedingly rare this is. Most of the people working for me will never ascend to my rank. I myself will most probably never be CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Most of my employees get paid very decently - it not enough to afford an upper-middle-class lifestyle on a single salary.

So I really don't get the SAHM vs. CEO thing, reality is a lot more along the lines of part-time at a shop during school hours vs. never making it past middle management if that for the overwhelming majority of people.

"It'll no doubt be denied but many women on here have pointed out that some feminists are not very kind to SAHM, carers, and women who don't want to prioritise a corporate leadership role."

Yes, some feminists are arseholes-hold the front page!

Some feminists, however, think there is a debate to be had about the impact that women's choices can have on other women- and the impact that the assumptions made about women's roles has on the perception of women in society. And this is often dismissed as "not being kind".

In terms of a short attempt at a very practical response to the OP that doesn't rely on people not being arseholes and capable of caring about the well-being of others:

Men should care because women are, literally, half the population. Any system in which women are kept down and oppressed has authoritarian characteristics - and while women's disenfranchisement affects primarily women it also serves as a powerful reminder to men that society and/or the state gets to decide which characteristics are worthy of respect and which ones aren't and reserves the right to subjugate and oppress people who are not like 'us'. So, if you put a foot wrong, men, you may be next.

There's also the fact that most ultra-patriarchal systems ultimately fail at putting forward well-reasoned arguments for why men are inherently superior/deserve better treatment. It all tends to boil down to a hierarchy of "us" vs. "them". And at this point, we're basically laying the ideological basis for fascism, with all that entails. Because, no, fascism doesn't necessarily need state/societal violence initially - it tends to breed it, though. So, again, men who are not quite the right type of man could be next.

TL;DR, men who just don't care enough about others should still support women because refusing to accept the subjugation of half the population is their best insurance policy against falling victim to the same brutal social structures in which misogyny thrives.

Most men, of course, simply aren't arse holes.

So if the survival of humans depends on mother giving birth and caring for them why isn’t this work valued?

Why isn’t this work included in GDP. Did you know for example that australian women’s breast milk each year is worth $2 billion. But men have developed and run the GDP figures so breastmilk production isn’t counted while raising home chickens is.

Why wouldn’t men put it in the GDP figures? Really have a think about what the reasoning would be given backyard chickens are counted.

Given educations contributions to job prospects I’d think girls not going to school would be part of the structural reasons for pay gaps world wide. The world bank esitimates that girls are missing up to 20% of a school year. Given girls start thier period at around 11 that’s a huge chunk of time.

Or, and here's a novel idea, they can have a vasectomy if they really really don't want to father a child. Why should it always be the woman's responsibility and/or fault? It does take two to tango....