Women can rise up without dragging men down

[Bumpitybumper]

During International Women's Day my Instagram feed was flooded with various feminist quotes and mantras, but one which really stuck with me was about how women gaining power, influence and status doesn't mean that men are automatically worse off. 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? By default women taking up positions of power and gaining more influence will reduce the position of men (as a class) who are used to pretty much having the monopoly on it all.

Sorry if the wording of the thread title isn't the exact quote as i couldn't find the original post.

The thinking that a woman achieving something is depriving a man of that thing is part of the problem.

But sometimes it does though? 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. Sometimes there is a limited number of opportunities or amount of influence available and women stepping up does mean that men must step down.

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

Nobody is dragging men down, and as Grimbles says, that kind of thinking is part of the problem.

Nobody gave a shit when it was women being deprived of opportunities because we're women. But now all of a sudden men are being "dragged down" because women want equality? No, that's not the case at all.

Generally if women gain,men as a class gain because toxic masculinity isn't good for men either. Getting rid of gender stereotypes would benefit children of both sexes, who could grow up to be themselves. Those with entrenched power based on misogyny might be less thrilled and want to prevent it of course.

Sometimes there is a limited number of opportunities or amount of influence available and women stepping up does mean that men must step down.

That's just buying into the assumption that men are 'entitled' to that position in the first place.

Again, Grimbles has it.

I also agree that diminishing toxic masculinity benefits everyone, not all masculinity is toxic BUT toxic masculinity is beyond damaging.

Just to be clear, as a feminist myself I obviously support women getting more influence but I just worry that it's disingenuous to suggest that this won't be at any cost to men.

That's why I much prefer "when all you've known is privilege, equality feels like oppression" @10IAR as I think it's more honest. Things are currently unfairly unequal and when we hopefully level things out there will be winners and losers. Men may well see some benefits regarding a decline of toxic masculinity, but as a class their power and influence will diminish.

No, I get what you're saying. It is basically true that if feminism 'succeeds' men will have to lose privilege, status and power.

I understand why people want to make feminism seem palatable and non-threatening to men, and I truly do believe that the liberation of women will benefit men in some ways, but it's quite obvious that male supremacy benefits males.

I feel that equality will only target toxic masculinity though, because that's the problem isn't it?

Men automatically being dominant, being powerful, being the decision makers and high flyers.

In an equal world, the decent men won't miss out. That's kind of the point I think.

Men and women being equal, surely the only people who would disagree with that principle are the ones who would lose out and therefore benefit from inequality.

@Grimbles
That's just buying into the assumption that men are 'entitled' to that position in the first place
I certainly don't feel that way, but I do think that for a long long time men have had the luxury of getting these positions without much real challenge from women. I still think men as a class expect to get the vast majority of these roles and I think they will find it hard to accept that true equality means losing that privilege.

It's also very male-centric in it's view of power and 'status' - as I understand it, feminism is not about women just getting ahead in the rat race better.

From my perspective, feminism is about liberating women from a system that is stacked against them, so that we see through the scorn that 'women's work' garners. It's the very fact that men would consider it 'dragging them down' to be doing 'women's work' that is part of the problem. The fact that no value whatsoever is placed on so much of women's labour is the heart of patriarchy's crushing boot on us.

It's a vicious cycle. The jobs that tend to fall to women have low status, and therefore women are deemed to have low status, and those jobs are deemed appropriate for those with low status. So men, conditioned to pursue 'high status', eschew those jobs as 'women's work' and round and round we go on the gender merrygoround.

I agree with you. I think men would benefit in many ways from a more equal society, but yes they will 'lose out' on some fronts where they are currently overrepresented.

@10IAR
Decent men could miss out though by the fact that their potential to achieve and gain positions of influence will be more limited if women truly gained equality. Of course you (and I) would argue that the original perceived potential was overstated and built on suppressing women but I think the patriarchy and lack of equality benefits lots of men and not just those that display toxic masculinity.

Yes, many men realise that equality means losing their inherent privilege - why do you think so many of them hate feminism?

Bumpitybumper asking the oppressed to have sympathy for the oppressors is a stretch too far for me I'm afraid.

Equality is necessary, those who have benefitted from oppression will obviously be unhappy. But then I've spent my entire life being conditioned to think of them first, and now I refuse to.

@CaptainMarvelBunting
Completely agree with you about women's work and perceived value, although I would suggest that a hierarchy of perceived value will allows exist around roles and occupations. So by promoting women's work to have a higher status aren't you by default demoting "men's work"?

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

This ^

I don't think that men would lose out if, for example parliament was made up of equal number of women as men.

Competent women would replace the incompetent men, making parliament as a whole better.

Men as well as women would benefit from a better standard of government.

No one would lose out, the men displaced would find jobs that they are capable of doing well.

@10IAR
I don't have sympathy either. I just think it's disingenuous to pander to men and pretend feminism isn't about taking some of their power and influence. We shouldn't be afraid to say that we want a bigger slice of the pie and that there is only one pie...

'The jobs that tend to fall to women have low status, and therefore women are deemed to have low status, and those jobs are deemed appropriate for those with low status'

Chicken and egg though.

It's been observed that the status of things is low if its women that do it.
The roles if done mainly by men would be high status.

Is not about the tasks /roles/ jobs at all. It's about who dies them.

Eg pay and respect deteriorated in roles that have moved from mainly men to women doing them. Usual examples are medicine, teaching. Or to look at different countries eg medicine in Russia apparently has always been fairly poorly paid as it was seen as woman's job, different to other countries

I completely agree its chicken and egg, yes. And yes, I think the things we would understand as 'male spheres' are ripe for a re-evaluation as to their relative worth.

This is me living up to the alternate meaning of 'radical' in 'Radical feminist' - the misunderstanding that thinks it means 'extreme'. I am calling for a revolution. I'm not about tinkering with the oppressive bollocks we currently labour under and trying to help women succeed in systems that were only ever designed with men in mind.

I'm suggesting something new and actually brave - looking at society as a whole, women as well as men, and rethinking the whole stupid edifice.

@CaptainMarvelBunting
Amen

It isn't pandering to men to shift their focus from any potential losses to all the potential gains.

Men suffer from the inequality of the patriarchy too. The men in power less so, so they have an interest in keeping the status quo, and they peddle the myth that by women becoming equal men as a class will have to lose.

It just isn't true. Your Theresa May example is a nonsense tbh and only reinforces the idea that a man is entitled to that role.

If men are losing something, it is only something that shouldn't have been exclusively theirs to begin with.

I bet there's an awful lot of men glad a woman has the job of PM right now. Unless TM pulls off some kind of miracle she's going to be the woman scapegoat.
Yes some men will be worse off if women get more power and influence. I think that society as a whole will benefit but I can see why men, who have the advantage and want to keep it, would disagree.

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.