Women can rise up without dragging men down

There's a difference between individual men and men as a class.

If a mediocre man doesn't get a job that he might have expected to get previously, he could say he is disadvantaged. Although really it's just him losing his unfair advantage. But men as a class benefit from a more qualified person taking the role.

I found this today. I think it’s clear that for everyone else to get a piece of the pie, white men will have to take a hit.

It’s getting easier to draw a line between the patriarchy fighting back and an outbreak of men in dresses claiming female spaces. And not coincidentally, girls, who will never be boys, abandoning womanhood for ersatz manhood.

My DH is in a "working class job" and he earns not shabby.

Not as simple as that, then.

Also hello AyeRobot. Asimov... I'm sardine, think i met you a few years back :)

I read an interesting analysis claiming that, over the last 50 years, more middle class women have got professional jobs (doctor, accountant, lawyer etc) and less working class men have access to those jobs. Of course, the upper-middle class men are still doing fine and the working class women are still at the bottom.

But that implies that equality needs to consider both class and sex. Certainly, in my role, jobs are roughly 50:50 by sex but there are not many 'working class' people (or they are very good at hiding it).

Also agree with meagainagain and pps.

Its unpalatable but yes, some men will lose out. Whether you can "lose" something that you have taken by force and never had a right to take, is another matter.

Its like saying some people have lost out because they aren't allowed to have slaves anymore. I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but it's a pretty disturbing one.

On international women's day Australian pm Scott Morrison made a speech saying

“We want to see women rise. But we don’t want to see women rise only on the basis of others doing worse.

Yes that's right, the fucking prime minister of Australia made an IWD speech about how he is mainly concerned for men.

I do think that economically and increasing net happiness (for want of a better word) is best served by equality. And it's not about taking from individuals, but more about not meeting unwarranted expectations.

Actually, I do agree MeAgainAgain. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that asking nicely for a piece of the action isn't going to get us anywhere.

MeAgainAgain
Your analysis is bleak. I agree.

If there was a lot in it for men it would be done.
It hasn't been done.
Ergo - it does not benefit men.
Having control over women as domestic and sexual servants pays them better than any gains from losing masculinities that fuck them up.

When men get the opportunity, in general, they tend to make sure women esp young women are sexual and domestic servants.

See
Most societies in history
Many societies now
In fact most but some it's more subtle
War
Religious cults
etc etc

I think it goes subtler than this.

All men benefit from women's general deference to men.

Women and girls know or learn quick to be careful how they handle unwanted attention from men in the pub, on the street, that sort of thing.

Equality for me means that young women don't get randoms approaching them
And the randoms are treated with massive attention to not angering them or making them feel bad

There are a lot of things that all men benefit from, due to inequality, that they know subconsciously.

There are other similar examples.

Lots of men - powerful or otherwise - benefit from women as cowed sex class.
Of course they lose.

For those saying men win from a more egalitarian form of living.
How do you sell that in countries where men are given young brides, maybe more than one?

Power is about more than money and stuff.

Agree that lots of men fear what they lose.
What they lose is control over women.
Most men, consciously or subconsciously. know that.
Why would they like that?

When I had my second child, my first child wasn't set aside.

Women in leadership positions don't stop men taking up other leadership positions.

Treating women well doesn't mean treating men badly.

Ending Male Violence, benefits men and women.

Men don't lose out because of feminism. They really don't

AyeRobot, you have a point. I think it would benefit society hugely if certain things were much more heavily based on meritocratic ideas, because so many mediocre men are in position by virtue of having a penis and little else. I've met so many men in powerful positions that I've stopped and blinked in stunned surprise that they are actually employed, and so many talented women who are smashing the hell out of part time roles because they can't rise higher because of care commitments.

A lot of men have been (and still are) jammy bastards and have had promotions and pay rises warranted only by the fact that they have a penis. (I work in a male dominated industry and am no longer surprised at the utter dross I encounter. I am delighted when a woman pops up on a project because I know we'll finally get shit done.)

If blokes of their ilk don't rise to the top (or anywhere near it's) and merit is the benchmark, then we all benefit.

No, I don't think it will be a brake on women in leadership - this utter farce is not, as far as I can tell, being blamed on Theresa May's sex, but on her sheer incompetence as a leader in a situation that probably would have challenged the most skilful human leader in existence. In fact, I've seen just as much critique of Corbyn, and no one has suggested he's a crap leader because he's a bloke.

I mean, I genuinely get the arguments made here, but I don't think suggesting May is only leader right now because it's such a poisoned chalice no man would do it is right. If anything, as much as I think she's cocked up time and again, I do kind of admire her absolutely solid brass neck. I don't agree with a lot of what she stands for, I think she has presided over one of the worst governments in living memory, but I do have to give a little credit to a woman who seems to genuinely give so few fucks about being embarrassed. It's not a trait that is wholly good, but I think it's rare enough in a prominent woman to be noteworthy.

I'm tired of all the so called feminist little girls who try to beg and scrape and cater to men to "keep them in the movement". If you have to do that they weren't with you in the first place.

I had this exact same conversation yesterday with my SIL who told me I should be doing more as a feminist to fight for men's rights (her example's included claiming family court was biased towards women and false rape allegations are rife) because I would "catch more flies with honey" by showing I wasn't a "man hater". When I said that I had no interest in including men in my feminism, and that I'd care about those things when the horrendous inequalities for women were resolved, I was called "divisive", "horrible" and "sexist" by everyone at the table, men and women. 'Twas a good day.

I agree with those saying that there's only one pie and we shouldn't piss around pretending that giving us a bigger piece won't leave less for the men. If they truly give a shit about equality, they won't care. If they don't, then they aren't going to give it too you no matter what you do. Trying to convince feminists they should be fighting for men's right's before their own is the last desperate gasp of the patriarchy. It's like having £1000 and looking over at your mate with £20 and saying "hey, give me a tenner, I promise I'll give you my £500 if you do". Maybe they will, or maybe they'll end up with £1010 and I'll be left with £10 and a finally realise why they were richer than me to begin with. I'll hand over my tenner when they hand me over £500, but like fuck am I giving up an inch of ground until they do.

For example the fact that Theresa May is Prime Minister probably means that a man that otherwise would have held that position won't get the opportunity to be PM

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.

If Brexit ever has a half-sane resolution, watch the boys scramble for PM again - it won’t be a woman again for fifty years, “Yeah, no. We tried that, see how it worked out.”

My man is anything but weak and under the thumb. We're a team, we work together and are equal partners.

Why the fuck would anyone settle for less?

For men doing “their share” that includes internalised feelings of being “under the thumb” and too weak to be “head of the family” properly.

Well, that's kind of ironic ... too much under the thumb of stereotypes and too weak to do their share when they know it would be fair?

And in terms of childcare I’ve witnessed it being far harder for a man to leave work at 5 to get the kids than a woman

If men want it, they'd make it happen. My first boss used to leave on time to 'Bath the babies'. Later on, we had a great CEO who always left work on time to get home to the family. My current crop of male colleagues seem to do their share of pickups, taking their kids to the doctor etc. maybe a bit more prone than women to mention that's what they're doing.

I appreciate that the woman sharing it was almost trying to sell feminism to an audience that probably included a lot of men, but surely the premise is wrong?

I'm not sure that's true. The same structures which disadvantage women also disadvantage most men. The people who gain from keeping power in a few hands may be overwhelmingly white and male but they are certainly all rich.

A more meritocratic world will not harm most men, but better rulership from having the best people and less toxic dick waving might actually help.

Similarly I don't think men really have anything to lose from burning down the stereotypes that obviously hurt women. I think it'll be a better world for all when childcare is mostly 50-50 and no-body gets objectified.

The perception that one group is benefiting from another's disadvantage is always used to reinforce injustice, but when the injustice falls everyone's lot improves.

Study after study shows that men don't do their share of domestic work or childcare even when both parents work FT. The kind of equality you speak of is totally within the grasp of men today
I feel that’s like saying senior jobs are within the grasp of women today. It ignores societal pressures. For men doing “their share” that includes internalised feelings of being “under the thumb” and too weak to be “head of the family” properly. And in terms of childcare I’ve witnessed it being far harder for a man to leave work at 5 to get the kids than a woman.

I think it was unsurprising and not at all a coincidence that a woman got the job of PM responsible for implementing Brexit. It was clearly a shit career-ending lose-lose job.

It kind of begs the question though - why was a woman stupid enough to accept it?