Women can rise up without dragging men down

I perhaps take too rosy a view but I see the fruits of feminism being of benefit to all decent men as well as women. If the pay gap disappeared, for every man seething because he didn't get a place on the board there'd be dozens of men only too pleased to be a SAHF or mix childcare with a part time job. This, in its turn, opens doors to mothers who'd be free to pursue a career.

I feel strongly about this because I was married to a house husband. I ran my own business and he looked after the kids. My career had always been very important to me, he loved hanging out with the kids, and the arrangement met both our emotional and practical needs. And yet it would have been extremely rare only decades before. Flexibility has the potential to liberate both sexes.

I shudder to think how I would have coped in the times when you had no choice but to be a housewife. I'd have ended up on Valium.

Most people are not struggling to become political or business leaders. Our aims are smaller and less competitive than that, and in my experience men and women are far more alike than we are different. Women's liberation means that women will gain and men will lose - but only in some senses. The loss of the heavy weight of toxic masculinity would make it worthwhile to many men.

If you create more MP positions so that women can have increased representation without directly taking over from men then this obviously dilutes the influence of the pre-existing MPs and thus the male MPs would have less power and influence.
It would also dilute their work-load. And a better life-balance for everyone seems like a good idea to me. And hopefully the job would get done better.
Simplistic I know.

I don't think anyone's sorry.
I'm not > she knew what she was getting into and is a fool if she didn't.

My point is that the way it's all being framed by the media is really interesting.

I'm an optimist who believes that giving everyone the freedom to do what they're capable of makes the world expand, and the result is more opportunities for everybody, including men if they'd actually think about it. I really don't think letting women enter any profession reduced the chances for men there.

If anyone's sorry for Theresa May presiding over a disaster, spare some tears for David Cameron, who never thought it would happen. Who's worse off? And actually, she may not be the greatest leader, but she's seeing the job through and maintaining what dignity she can, as in the best British tradition. Maybe it's like the charge of the Light Brigade, dutiful pursuit of mistaken goals! A lesser person would have quit long ago.

To me it’s a really stereotypically masculine view to have winners and losers. I don’t see it that if women get a bigger slice men will lose as ideally we all rise to an extent and create a bigger pot as has been pointed out above. However, I feel this rising is a byproduct of women being liberated and neither an integral part of liberation or something that women even need to consider as they try and rise up. We would do better to support other women than worry about men, they did fine as a class for 1000s of years.

Maybe if women are liberated success and power would look different so the willy measuring stuff could stay with the blokes and women could wield a different type of power. Who knows? It would be nice to find out

Would a man give up his freedom, his capacity to earn money, his agency, his name for the sake of his wife and children? Nah mate.

I do agree with this. But I don’t believe that for women to have freedom, earn money, control their lives and keep their names men have to loose all that. It just doesn’t follow.

The things you say WisdomOfCrowds and GoldenWonderwall resonate with me but I'm still mulling over how to frame those things for myself.
What I do know is that I still thank my DH for washing up, cleaning, cooking, etc then kick myself for it. Not that I shouldn't appreciate things he does but he doesn't thank me for those particular tasks. (we are both nearly pensioners so it's been ingrained a long time - well actually getting him to do them took longer...).

Theresa May is only PM because Brexit is such a debacle, it’s pretty much a given that whoever has the role during the process will lose their career and their reputation. All the men backed away rapidly because it’s untenable - let the woman have it because it’s a poison chalice. It’s the glass cliff.

Simply not true - there were three male candidates and two female candidates for the first round. For the second round, there were two female candidates and one male.
Gove and Fox were big names too, either could have got it. They didn't back away.

This is a very interesting thread

My personal experience is that society at many different levels and for many different reasons has sought to make my life harder because I am female. If me and my male equivalent are wading through shit, there’s someone also throwing rocks at me. Whether the rock thrower is male or female is immaterial, they throw rocks at me because I am female and for no other reason. Just because some women are very strong and can manage many rocks being chucked at them and some women are lucky and can dodge many rocks doesn’t negate the rocks being thrown in the first place.

If men wanted to, they could have stopped the rock throwing a hundred years ago, a thousand years ago even but they did not because they gained from it. Women to own and control. We only got the rights we have now because we were needed in positions where we had agency and education. Hopefully this was not a small snapshot in history, but I can see even good, kind men who do the washing up and don’t go to lap dancing clubs turning on us if push came to shove. Would a man give up his freedom, his capacity to earn money, his agency, his name for the sake of his wife and children? Nah mate.

Dervel
I think what I am getting at is that men did not and do not need women's consent to make the world the way it is. This is not true in reverse, women can only get on if men agree there should be laws to protect them and are willing to prosecute men who break those laws etc.

Women cannot control men, what kind of power over them can we really hope to achieve ?

I hope that makes sense even if it sounds rather depressing.

DancelikeEmmaGoldman -- hold on, that poster must include a lot of people not eligible for those positions, surely? I mean, about 15-20% of the population will be under 20, and probably a similar % will be over retirement age.

I see what you mean OP, but I think you are coming at it from the view that what women are "taking" is men's by right in the first place. I often try and correct my thinking with a probability narrative.

Picking one professional group as an example, let's say, in a group of 100 accountants, 50% get to "Middle" position and 20% get to "Senior " level during their career. (for later, let's also split that 20% into the 10 who are "good" at the Senior role, and a "mediocre" half: the lower 10 in Senior role)

At one point, 100% of the 20 Seniors would be men, because all accountants were men. Men accountants had a 50% chance of being Middle and a 20% chance of being Senior.

Once women were allowed to be accountants, a few women with real apt for numbers pushed through the education system and became accountants, but the majority were still men. So say there are still 100 entry positions, there are now 20 women and 80 men. This means 20 men who (assuming meritocracy) were less qualified than the other 80 men lose out on entry to Junior role.

However, when it comes to advancing up the career ladder, the systematic discrimination against women still meant that those 20 excellent women were unable to advance (due to pregnancy, maternity leaves, and lack of childcare options that support a demanding job). Therefore, they are stuck at Junior level.

This means that the other 80 men now have a 1 in 4 (rather than 1 in 5) shot to reach Senior level.

(At the minute in most industries, I think we are somewhere between this ^ position and the one to follow)

Once we slowly start dismantling the barriers to women's progress, then the 20 talented women (remember they are more capable on average than the men, as they had to overcome hurdles to get there) start to take 20 of the 50 "Middle" positions that men would have got previously. The 20 displaced mediocre men are stuck at Junior level and feel this is unfair.

Eventually, the 20 Middle role women then aim for the Senior roles too.

Instead of the 20 people doing the Senior role being 10 good men and 10 mediocre men, they are now 10 good men and 10 good women.

The displaced 10 mediocre men feel this is unfair.

However, on a microeconomic level, this is good news, because there are now more talented people doing the Middle and Senior jobs and the company's output and performance improves, because mediocre men aren't dragging it down.

On a macro level, it pays more tax, is more productive, GDP increases and the economy grows.

For a company, instead of having to pick the 20 Seniors from a resource pool of 100 men, where only 10 are competent and 10 are mediocre, you now have access to another resource pool, where you can find another 10 people who are as talented as your top 10 men.

Now that the talent pool has doubled, this means the men (and women) who don't make the cut can go and use their skills where they are better suited.

If I had used doctors rather than accountants, then this scenario would be even better because we'd have more doctors in the top level of capability which means more of the brightest minds working on advances in medicine, which would benefit everyone in society. Alas, I picked finance.

Sorry, a few paragraph's would probably have helped there!

And I think some, and I do mean some not all, women who achieve a position of power, still use that position to maintain the patriarchy.

I agree, because we're all soaked in misogyny from the day we're born and it's so hard to even recognise it let alone challenge it. I didn't realise until I became a mother how deeply entrenched a lot of these beliefs were to me. It was like someone had said the trigger word to put me into a hypnotic state - every silent unacknowledged belief I'd ever held about the role of women in the home, the role of the mother, putting motherhood before career, putting the father at the head of the family etc suddenly swamped me and I was too exhausted to challenge it. It was so much easier to just let go and let the current sweep me out to sea. By the time I started to emerge from my hypnotic state and look around at the 1950s nightmare I was living I'd already lost so much ground that I didn't know where to start. My career was dead, my earning power was dead, and my place in the family as domestic servant was thoroughly established. I'd gone from being a medical student at the top of my class to a university drop-out whose only purpose was to clean up baby vomit. Rediscovering feminism (which I'd always supported in the abstract but never really felt applied to me personally) was like being given a boat and a paddle and a cheering squad to row myself back to shore. Fortunately my partner recognised all these inequalities once I pointed them out to him and has worked with me on every point to make things equal again, but I'll never forget. I'll never forget that the first chance he had to establish and exploit a power imbalance between us, he took it. I'm not saying it was done maliciously - I expect he was just going with the current as much as I was - but I'll never forget that he was willing to just "never really think about it" as long as it was working to his advantage. And I'll never fully trust him again. I believe that no matter what they say, a lot of men, maybe even the majority of men, even the ones who love and care for us, do not have our interests at heart. They'll give lip service to supporting us but once we start to get near true equality, and their grip on power is genuinely under threat, then we'll see the mask slip. So no, I will not put them and their needs at the centre of our revolution. I will not waste time stopping to check that the things which liberate us don't do so at any detriment to them? If they can't be bothered to stop and look at the current system and think about why it's unfair to us and how they can change it, then I'm damned if I'm going to bother doing that for them with any proposed solutions!

@WhenWillitAllEnd I cannot accept that women only have power at men’s say so. That would make any female power, agency and liberty a complete illusion.

And I think some, and I do mean some not all, women who achieve a position of power, still use that position to maintain the patriarchy. I've seen the, 'I made it because I'm really determined, tough, clever..' or whatever stance that implies other women aren't and so shouldn't. And the 'well I have this job so clearly there's no inequality' stance. And the 'I'll shove whoever I need to under a bus to keep this job' stance. Not only men put personal power first.

It strikes me that in many cases women can only rise up, can only have power, if men let them and enable them.

Was struck watching a documentary about a rapist who was being interviewed by a female and a male officer that the suspect was utterly dismissive and mocking towards the female officer. If the male officer wasn't there I'm sure he was the sort of man who would "teach her to have some respect". It's depressing but I don't see how women can ever really have true power over some men, they just have no respect for us.

I really don’t think you need actually worry about us men at all. We’ll be fine, have been for millennium. Just speak your truths, stand in your power and claim your space in the world.

I think it’s true that we will ALL benefit if the most competent people occupy the most significant positions, but I think that all starts with the individual competing to get there.

Re: May vs Corbyn I was disheartened that May (who won) was painted as losing yet Corbyn (who lost) was painted as having achieved a victory. Don’t forget no woman has ever lost a general election in this country women are currently 100% on that metric.

The notion of acheiving equality by getting women into positions of power, privilege and prestige typically held by men is pretty bog standard liberal feminism. It doesn't work.

I agree with this. Having a women prime minister, having many more women mps or having half the top companies led by women, won't do anything for the liberation of women unless they make fundamental changes to how government and companies are run.

It’s surely obvious that it will disadvantage men. If they hog 95% of the top jobs, and then women rise to take 50% of top jobs, all those men will have lost positions of power.
If housework and chores get equalised, men will have to do a bloody sight more of the donkey work. Of course they’ll see that as disadvantaging themselves.
But as women, that’s not our problem!
Did the US slaves fret about their poor masters having nobody to harvest the sugar cane after they were freed?!
Feminists should stay focused on fair treatment for women, and not give a shiny shit about whether this inconveniences our oppressors.

"when all you've known is privilege, equality feels like oppression"

THIS.

Plus the fact that if you’re concerned about limited opportunities then supporting women’s participation including their economic participation grows economies and opportunities.

Thing is, if women get more power, it doesn’t reduce OPPORTUNITY for men. It just means they have more competition.