Why should men support feminism?

[ScottCheggJnr]

Although I personally support equality in the workplace etc, when I think about it objectively it's not a straightforward situation.

Although we often hear that feminism is about equality, the overwhelming consensus seems to be that it's solely about achieving equality for women and focusing on their problems (this is certainly evident in practice).

So the question is....if feminists are focusing on the issues affecting them negatively (workplace etc) but ignoring the areas where men fare worst (suicide/murder/assault/etc) then why shouldn't us men just be focusing on the areas where we fare worse and celebrating the areas where we experience benefit?

Many elements of the patriarchy arguably exist because of the past rather than contemporary issues/men, so as long as I'm not actively fighting equality, why should I support a cause which doesn't support the issues faced by my own gender?

This is a genuine question.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

(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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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!

That's an interesting point, Pan.

I was going to respond to the comment above "But, low skilled men earn much more than low skilled women, almost as much as 'educated women'." by asking what definition of 'low skilled' we are employing.

For example, what about guys that drive car transporters who are on £60k? They make more than most middle managers but are not professionals and would likely be looked down by the type of people you mention.

Even less specialised driving roles like thw guys I used to work with who drive arctics for the big supermarkets can easily pull £45k which is a decent office salary outside of London - I know several Marketing Managers and IT Managers who earn in the £30k's and whose jobs would be seen as more desirable by many.

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.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realise it's not something I've really given much consideration to.

The focus often seems to be on the corporate world, perhaps because it is the biggest overlapping area between the sexes (as opposed to technical areas which are largely male dominated). However, when I spent a few years as a truck driver (before resuming my old role but in my new sector - proposal management for a large logistics provider) my eyes were truly opened to how many men make decent money in non-corporate roles.

For instance, the bog standard mechanics at Jaguar Land Rover who spend all day changing door panels etc make around £35k and many are only in their early 20s - some of the the production managers were on much more. As above, I've also worked with many rough-edged drivers who make more than most middle managers. Outside of the corporate world I don't know many women who make more than £40k, so maybe the above is a big contributor to the earnings gap (or maybe I'm just naive to other areas of industry).

I may not have phrased my question optimally - or at least not reflected what I was really asking.

What I meant was "why should men support feminists in their struggles if feminists aren't interested in supporting men with theirs."

Was responding to ICJump.

It also seems a good point at which to mention that I don't believe that the 84 men who kill themselves every week are from the same demographic as those who are dominating corporate stardom. Hence, I don't believe the latter cancels out the former.

An extremely small percentage of men who dominate an even smaller percentage of women at the very top of the ladder doesn't cancel out those drowning in the mud who never made it onto the first rung.

"why should men support feminists in their struggles if feminists aren't interested in supporting men with theirs"

The same answer applies. Irrespective of whether your accusation is even true. And you really really don't comprehend the need for feminism if you genuinely think that women need to support men with their struggles.

Scott the thing is you are ignoring all the work women have already done to make life better for men already.

It’s good you have realised that you haven’t really thought about it. Now why don’t you pick up a couple of books about feminism and educate yourself rather than making women do it for you.

Oh and can I suggest you have a think about capitalism and patriarchy. It’s important not to throw the two in together.

The same answer applies. Irrespective of whether your accusation is even true. And you really really don't comprehend the need for feminism if you genuinely think that women need to support men with their struggles.

Well, if you consider the fact that many men supposedly kill themselves after feeling that they've failed in life and business, the obvious question is why being financially successful is so important and a matter so integral to many men's sense of self worth?

Some would say 'toxic masculinity' which I don't wholly disagree with, but these things don't happen in a vacuum.

As several posters have mentioned above, women are much less likely to 'marry down' and statistics show that men who abandon the traditional breadwinner role and become SAHDs are significantly more likely to be divorced by their spouse.

This considered, one could reasonably argue that women help in reinforcing the notion that men must be successful to be of worth.

I have worked in many places where men have to deal with significantly higher expectations and without the same degree of support that female colleagues got. In such places men tend to be quite pro feminism, though by the nature of the circumstances the route to equality would only ever be by worsening conditions for the female members of staff...

Women are the root of all evils, is that what you're getting at, Scott? Sounds familiar.

BTW, I don't believe it's primarily feminists who are responsible for the above views - if anything they seem to be the most resistant. However, if we are going to view things through the lens of class analysis/responsibility (as we often do with men) surely women as a class hold at least some of the responsibility for challenging the idea that a rich, powerful man is the inherently worthier mate.

surely women as a class hold at least some of the responsibility for challenging the idea that a rich, powerful man is the inherently worthier mate. been doing this for fucking years mate. Years and bloody years. If you can’t be bothered to see it that’s fine but stop blaming women for your failure to engage in the work they’ve been doing. Get your bloody house in order first. We are not here for your benefit. If you are unhappy with the world and how it treats men go and do something about it.