Do you think that men are oppressed?

[poshsinglemum]

For example; the traditional male role is to go out and work so technically men are oppressed by capitalism. Aren't they? Mabe not as oppressed as us girls are though. Thoughts please.

I don't see wage disparities as gender oppression unless they are caused by gender eg you only ver minimum wage as you're a man and you get double that because you're female or vice versa. Nor do I have a problem with pay gaps as I'm not a socialist (unless they are caused by gender issues -there's an article in this month's Tatler where a father argues he will send his son to Eton and his daughter to a comp because the son will work and the girl will just marry, that's obviously unfair and discriminatory on gender grounds).

'I don't see wage disparities as gender oppression unless they are caused by gender eg you only ver minimum wage as you're a man and you get double that because you're female or vice versa'

How often does this happen though? I have worked with men nursery nurses and they get the same wage. Same as male cleaners, chambermaids, waiters, flyering jobs etc. I have never been paid less than a man to do any of those jobs. Everyone gets paid the same.

It happens a lot. I know many women who have found out that a man doing the same job as them gets paid more (cue Xenia talking about negotations etc). That's what the equal pay legislation is for, to allow women to take their employers to court if they have proof that they are being paid less. However until companies are made to publish either their wage breakdown or a calculation of the gender gap in their company, this is incredibly hard to do.

IME most bosses are still men, and it comes more naturally to them to start viewing younger men (little versions of them) as specialists/experts, and lead them to the benefits this involves. A woman may have to (and often does) actually go up and literally point out that since they are the one who handle 80% of task X work, it's unfair to highlight Steve as the "go-to man" for that task.

I agree with you Elephants. But my point is a little bit more than that - surely a man taking on "the fathers" would find it a little easier than a woman, because their sex would be in their favour. But they don't. Men don't campaign for flexible working conditions, paid parental leave or on-site nurseries. They just don't. Women have fought tooth and nail for legislative change, where have the men been? So while of course I have sympathy for the little men, I still stand by my statement. If men wanted to effect change so that they could spend time with their children, they would.

Well, I would agree, if it was phrased "If men wanted to try to effect change..."

Why don't they? Surely they are starting to now?

I think you are right that, although men in this position would have a problem with being laughed at for behaving against gender type", they probably would be listening to more than women are.

I used to work for a man who left early to watch his daughter play tennis nearly every week. If a woman was doing that it would be used against her in promotion decisions, I would bet on it. But in him it makes him a "great dad" and "balanced".

Feel like starting a "men can win whatever they do" thread in contrast to my other one...not sure I've got the energy for another ruck though.

I would like a sensible chat about why men don't campaign for flexible working though.

I have read that when negotiating wages men are more likely to ask for more whilst women are less likely.

Boston Globe, June 13: "Study: Men Negotiate Better Pay"
I had a long interview with writer Kimberly Blanton. She wrote:

?A new study found that men routinely ask for more money than do women in salary negotiations. More than that, the study by a researcher at the University of California, Irvine, found that they two sexes take radically different tacks as they bargain.

?Lisa Barron, professor of organizational behavior at the university?s Graduate School of Management, studied students nearing completion of their MBAs, 21 men and 17 women. In mock job interviews, each student was offered a $61,000 salary by a manager for a fictitious company, Indostar. Right after the interviews, Barron asked the students, most of whom were engaged in real job searches of their own, to report on the Indostar negotiations. The findings were striking, albeit troubling for women: Men, responding to the salary offer, asked for $68,556, on average, while women requested $67,000 for the same job.

Later in the story, Blanton wrote: "Barron?s study found yawning gaps between the way men and women described themselves in negotiations, a time when salary is determined. Men apparently felt more entitled to earn more money, her research found. One male graduate told Barron, ?I?m not a typical entry [employee],? and another said, ?I?m not a standard student and I don?t think that I should be categorized in that same range of capability and therefore salary.?

?Female students said very different things, such as ?I am very similar to my peers.? Another said, ?As long as I?m making the average, that?s all I really care about??

?Barron said women felt uncomfortable even incapable of valuing themselves in dollars, while men did not. She also said men tended to try to prove themselves in the interview by citing experience and proven capabilities and that women said they would prove themselves on the job.?

My research on how women and men negotiate their salaries differently resulted in many stories in newspapers, radio and TV stations and on websites in the United States and abroad in 2003. It fascinates me how reporters see things differently, even though I answered their questions essentially the same! Here's a sample:

CBS Radio News, June 13
Other reporters in the Boston area read the story and did interviews, including Mike Epstein of CBS. Here is a sample of what he asked and how I answered.
Q: If women are getting lower salaries during negotiations, are they doing it wrong and men doing it right?
A: No, they are doing it differently. The onus is on recruiters to understand these differences.
Q: What should women do differently?
A: They should get accurate information on salaries, explain the worth of their skills, and keep a running record of accomplishments, rather than waiting a week

I would be interested in research which sent men and women in to claim the same amount of money in negotiations, and compare how the employers reacted to the assertiveness shown by the applicants.

My suspicion would be that women would lose out to men on the grounds that while assertiveness in men is seen as positive, in women it is often seen an unnatural or unfeminine.

I'm a man, and I did press for flexible working to accomodate family commitments and I got it. From that instant it became clear that my career had stopped dead. I wasn't going to get promoted any further. I was also the only one out of my team who got made redundant a year or so later.

While that stung like hell at the time, in hindsight it wasn't an unreasonable business decision for the company I worked for. As a single parent I could no longer do the overtime I used to do or the weekend working. Having to schedule meetings to coincide with when I was in the office caused difficulties at times. Flexible working isn't without its problems.

I'm sure a lot of people on here know that, Snorbs! Sorry about what happened to you.

Why do you think men don't campaign for equal flexible working/paternity leave rights?

Snorbs, yes and I'm the opposite, 5 children city career etc no maternity leave and of course I did well. It's an easy equation that we all know whatever our gender and it's just a pity it's always the women wanting to be at home and rarely the men. My children's father was once told he couldn't have ap ay rise because of what I earned. Also female teachers could leave at all sorts of early hours but never him even though he was the prime carer after the nanny and had to get home by 6 to let the nanny go home but because he was male he was assumed not to have childacre responsibilities and that is even in a school.

I think women should avoid flexible working and if anyone has to sacrifice career let it be the man until we get closer to equality at work between men and women and anyway as most men know housework and childcare is pretty awful and most of us don't want to do many hours of it a day anyway.

Families Need Fathers actively campaigns for flexible working and paternity leave.

That being said, I think there is an element of men not wanting to rock the boat too much at work for fear of losing their jobs. If you're the major wage-earner for your family and your wife has just given birth to your child then you don't want to go home and say "Good news; my boss has agreed to give me lots of time off to help look after our baby. Bad news; that's because I've been sacked."

On the other hand, I know that for some men they see looking after children - and, especially, babies - as primarily a woman's role. I'm not saying I agree with that but I think you'll agree that viewpoint is out there. And, indeed, some women would agree with them, too. Look at the number of women on MN who say that a mother has a closer connection to her child than the father does.

ooh ooh over here Snorbs etc: Where are the men's campaign groups?

Dittany, just because you repeatedly say that FNF is an anti-woman organisation it doesn't make it true. FNF welcomes both men and women as members. FNF campaigns for equality.

I am not aware of any FNF campaign that calls for violent men to be allowed unsupervised access to children. Certainly, the document you link to says no such thing.

One big issue when discussing Domestic Violence is that different people/groups have different views of what DV consists of. Some regard it as physical violence, others view many (all?) abusive behaviours as DV. So someone accused of DV might in one person's eyes be someone accused of hitting, whereas in another person's eyes they could be someone who controls the family finances (Women's Aid, for instance, classes such behaviour as financial abuse which they in turn class as Domestic Violence).

Interesting dittany - do you know what chapter? I am faltering a bit with LD but want to get back into it.

Most men at the top:
oppress women in their lives and people with less money/

Some men at the top: rape / beat up women

Some men at the top: do their best to speak out against sexism where they see it, and try to make things better. They have considerable power to do this.

Most normal-income men: oppress women in everyday ways, sexist comments, acceptance of rape myths etc

Some normal income men: rape / beat up women

Some normal-income men: do their best to speak out against sexism where they see it, and try to make things better. They don't have that much power to do this.

All men benefit from male privilege - in that however bad circumstances are, at least they're not women. Women are always of lower status, especially women of the same or lower socio-economic group.

Snorbs that is pretty disingenuous. Financial abuse is not the same as "controlling the family finances" - you make that sound like WA are trying to make a grab for Mr Normal's hard-earned. More often it is the abusive partner taking out huge loans/credit card debts without the knowledge of the other partner, or using the other partner's income without their knowledge (often on nice things like hard drugs) - it is often women whose incomes are being taken away by their partners to spend on unnecessary stuff, while she and the children are left without a pot to piss in. Or a man who is the main earner preventing his wife from having access to the family money to buy the necessaries of life - food, clothes, cleaning stuff, bus tickets, school stuff.

It isn't a load of Carrie Bradshaws moaning about not being able to afford Manolos on sweetie's credit card FFS!

Men don't like uppity women. Does that summarise it?

thanks for ref btw :)

I did read the link, Dittany, which is why I said what I said. Please feel free to prove me wrong by quoting chapter and verse of where FNF says it thinks violent men should have contact with their children. Because I've looked through that document twice now and I still can't see it.

I do find it sad, though, that in a thread about possible oppression of men in certain areas that even the mention of a pro-fatherhood group is instantly denounced as anti-women and then followed up with the added implication of misogyny. They're called "Families Need Fathers", not "Families Don't Need Mothers".

Tell me, Dittany, are there any groups who campaign for more involvement by fathers in families that are not anti-women in your eyes?

ElephantsAndMiasmas, fair enough I didn't explain myself very well. The point I was trying (and failing) to make was that when talking about witholding child contact as a result of DV then the differing versions of what is classed as DV makes a big difference.

Say we've got a man who pushes and shoves his wife. They split up and he applies for contact. That's clearly DV. I'd say he should get no more than supervised contact of his children as someone who believes such behaviour to be acceptable shouldn't be left alone with children.

Say we've got a different man who used family funds to finance a gambling addiction that often left the family desperately short of cash for vital bills. He took out joint loans with her while promising to pay them back but then failed to do so. They split up and he applies for contact. That is, in my eyes and I suspect yours as well, clearly Financial Abuse. In some people's eyes that's Domestic Violence as well. Should such a man get supervised or unsupervised contact with his children?

That was the point I was trying to make and that is also the point that I think the FNF document makes. I wouldn't hesitate to support a mother's desire to prevent a violent ex from unsupervised contact. But a very broad-brush approach to what constitutes DV makes subsequent discussions about child contact in DV situations very complex and liable to misinterpretation.