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.

Women have not been represented in positions of influence and have not been at the table historically to shape society as we know it. There is an absence, a void that echoes back through generations. Socially, economically, legally and politically women were excluded deliberately by men.

Given that we are therefore in a position of almost incalculable deficit, then even if equal representation started right now today, it would take decades and thousands of women stepping up in all fields to properly redress the balance.

A mighty debt is owing. As most women simply want a clean slate and a fair split, it does make me wonder what sort of man would complain they are somehow now losing out.

It will be interesting to see whether David Cameron gets back into politics after his memoirs are published, and how the fate of TM plays out by contrast.

OP it seems to me the saying you discuss assumes that only jobs like prime minister are of value, rather than jobs like parent. Which of course is the patriarchy all over.

If women were more equal in all aspects, that would mean more families would share the 'women's work' of child raising / caring and actually I think a lot of men would like that. There would be better work / life balance for all. People in exciting jobs might be different, but most people in the work force would rather spend more time with their families, rather than more hours working.

In general, in being a parent, I think both DH and I would have been better off if we could have both worked part-time and both looked after the kids part-time but things just aren't set up that way (they're getting a bit better with shared parental leave which wasn't around for DD1 but still a long way to go). I do know a few families who manage this and they seem to me much happier than most but they are families who had the foresight / luck to go into well-paid professions where part-time work is possible.

I know DH feels quite fed up at times when he feels he's missing out on the kids growing up.

True equality would also mean employers recognising that the army of women (and men) doing unpaid 'women's work' of child rearing and caring actually contribute a lot to a well-functioning society (which IMO we really don't have).

YY TM as PM to deliver the impossible is classic glass cliff have been banging on to DH about it for ages.

What's really interesting is the framing of it in the press, its never the govt deal, or the brexit group deal, or whatever, all of a sudden, its teresa may deal, all on her and her alone. Really really fascinating.

@sheepsheep
It isn't pandering to men to shift their focus from any potential losses to all the potential gains
It's one thing to focus on some of the positives that feminism can offer men as a class, but it's quite another to pretend that on balance men as a class don't have the advantage and that true equality would see them lose that privilege.

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
I agree, but I think as a whole the vast majority of men benefit more from the patriarchy than the equivalent woman. Even men that don't benefit from an increase in power or influence will still statistically be less likely to be a single parent that doesn't receive any maintenance from the other parent etc etc. True equality would right the wrongs that permeate all levels of our society.

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
Why is it nonsense? In the not so distant past a woman simply wouldn't have had the opportunity to run for PM and be default every PM would have been a man. The progression we have made so far has allowed Theresa May to become PM, though I accept it is probably due to the difficult circumstances that she did get appointed in the first place. Either way, if women hadn't made any enrodes then a man who was willing to do the role would have been appointed so one less man has occupied the PM role than otherwise would have been the case. A more equal society would see more women being appointed to senior roles and less men as there are only so many roles that have such influence and power

If men are losing something, it is only something that shouldn't have been exclusively theirs to begin with
This I agree with 100%

yes this ''viewpoint'' is total obfuscation.

How does wanting equal responsibility, equal credit, equal pay, not to be objectified ''drag men down''.

Only the stupidest stupidest men really believe this. The merely stupid men who believe this know on one level that what equality doesn't drag men down but they don't LIKE it so they obfuscate and say it is anti-men.

PS I agree wrt Theresa May. She is a scapegoat. The damage was done by Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage by the time she got the job. (apologies if I've got the perps' names wrong, I'm living in Ireland so I had only half an eye on brexit before the no was passed)

OP - that is the standard Third Wave/lib fem feminist mantra, meant to try to calm men down about feminism and assuage their fears and kiss their arses and try to make them not get angry at us for standing up for our rights. It slowly morphed from that to making feminism all about the men, and the trans.

I don't bother with those caveats anymore. Statements about women's liberation shouldn't include men and how good things will be for men at all. It isn't about them. Everything doesn't have to be about them. I' 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.

On balance though most men in my life would rather a world where they can share parenting and be themselves without hyper-asculine stereotypes.
The fact they have to compete for jobs against more than just 50% of the population is a small price to pay.

Why I should care about this and more specifically why feminists should even discuss it. True equality would mean advancement based on merit, why would I be worried about men not achieving the potential that only priviledge made available to them.

18 of the world's 20 wealthiest individuals are men, that's a phenomenol amount of power and influence, only 2 are women, I don't think men will be troubled with real equality anytime soon.

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

I so agree with this statement.

On balance though most men in my life would rather a world where they can share parenting and be themselves without hyper-masculine stereotypes.
Absolutely. Yes some power and privilege is shared evenly instead of just granted to men, but then other things, expectations etc are also shared with women.

I agree with you, OP. Don't let's pretend that feminism is all about being nice and fluffy for everyone. More female MPs means fewer male MPs. More female judges and CEOs means fewer male judges and CEOs. Men have to give up some of their power.

@JessicaWakefieldSVH and @museumum
I am not convinced that this is true for most men. 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 also think men so take for granted the structural advantages that they gain from the patriarchy that very few can actually imagine what it would be like to live in a world where equality truly existed. Where standard medicines and safety devices weren't designed for men, where women had equal influence over political decisions, where men were expected to have their commitment to work questioned once kids arrived on the scene etc etc.

Way back in my Ladies Against Feminism days, I recall it being a common argument that feminism was responsible for lowering living standards because men could no longer earn enough to support their families. Looking back I think it was a good example of other forces in play that found feminist ideas a very useful whipping girl, and was one of my first inklings of women being blamed for bad things if they dared to step out of line.

I've only been reading earlier today of women in that mindset who talk in glowing terms of 'the household vote' which was what happened before women got the vote. Their answer to the pernicious effect of women being able to vote now was to really big up this idea that every one in the house voted the same way as the husband/father. That probably sounds really far fetched to you, but I assure you it's a thing because in the early days of my marriage, that's what we did here.

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?

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 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.

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.

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?

@museumum
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
I think these two scenarios are completely different. Women face so many external barriers when trying to compete with men for senior jobs from good old discrimation from employers to their partners not stepping up to share childcare and domestic burdens. It is often not in the woman's power to overcome these issues alone whilst a man can work on himself to overcome his own psychological barriers that prevent him from pulling his weight at home.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.