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.

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

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?

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

MeAgainAgain
Your analysis is bleak. I agree.

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.

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.

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 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).

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 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.

@Ali1cedowntherabbithole
When I had my second child, my first child wasn't set aside
Of course not, but for most families with limited resources the arrival of another child may well mean the first child has to accept that they will have less money, time, energy etc devoted to them than otherwise would have been the case if they were an only child. Comes back to the concept of there being only one pie and when you start splitting it more ways in greater proportions then the slices will get smaller.

Women in leadership positions don't stop men taking up other leadership positions
No, but that doesn't negate the fact that if women occupied half of all leadership roles then this would mean that men would occupy a hell of lot less of these positions than they do today. The best men may well not be impacted and rise up anyway, however it's logical that there will be a good proportion of men that will achieve less under a truly equalised society than they would now/historically.

Treating women well doesn't mean treating men badly
I agree, but treating people equally may mean that some privileged groups (I e. White middle aged men) lose their privilege and they can easily perceive this as being treated "badly".

Men don't lose out because of feminism. They really don't
I don't agree with this. Men will lose their privilege and in lots of areas will lose the control, influence and power they have become accustomed to.

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.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVro
I think men as a class benefit from upholding the patriarchy more than they would benefit from having more qualified people in positions of power.

In so many men's day to day lives their privilege will allow them to shirk household/childcare responsibilities, forge a career unfettered by discrimination, use medicine and products that have been designed specifically for them etc etc. The list of advantages is extensive! I believe lots of men will find their lives at home and at work get harder if true equality was achieved.

Even if I think of a field like medicine, yes you could argue that having more competent doctors/surgeons would benefit men BUT currently it's pretty well documented that women's health issues are not taken seriously by the medical profession. If these conditions were properly acknowledged and treated then this would place more strain on the limited resources of the NHS, increase waitiling lists and thus adversely affect men who are currently already taken more seriously when they present at the doctors.

Thing is, if women get more power, it doesn’t reduce OPPORTUNITY for men. It just means they have more competition.

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

THIS.

Plus the fact that if you’re concerned about limited opportunities then supporting women’s participation including their economic participation grows economies and opportunities.

It’s surely obvious that it will disadvantage men. If they hog 95% of the top jobs, and then women rise to take 50% of top jobs, all those men will have lost positions of power.
If housework and chores get equalised, men will have to do a bloody sight more of the donkey work. Of course they’ll see that as disadvantaging themselves.
But as women, that’s not our problem!
Did the US slaves fret about their poor masters having nobody to harvest the sugar cane after they were freed?!
Feminists should stay focused on fair treatment for women, and not give a shiny shit about whether this inconveniences our oppressors.

@Babdoc
I agree. I think my concerns about the insistence that men won't be detrimented are:

1. It's kind of irrelevant. If equal rights is a fair and just aim then it's a distraction to focus on the fact that the overly privileged will lose their advantage.
2. It's disingenuous. Many men will know that equality threatens their privileged position and actually would rather keep the status quo. They will see right through any claims that feminism is good for them and it will just help to embed distrust and fear.
3. It is in danger of becoming a success measure and consequently a barrier to progress for feminism. If we set out our stall on the basis that feminism will leave men in a neutral/better position then any initiatives or changes that do worsen the position of men could be curtailed.

The notion of acheiving equality by getting women into positions of power, privilege and prestige typically held by men is pretty bog standard liberal feminism. It doesn't work.

I agree with this. Having a women prime minister, having many more women mps or having half the top companies led by women, won't do anything for the liberation of women unless they make fundamental changes to how government and companies are run.

I really don’t think you need actually worry about us men at all. We’ll be fine, have been for millennium. Just speak your truths, stand in your power and claim your space in the world.

I think it’s true that we will ALL benefit if the most competent people occupy the most significant positions, but I think that all starts with the individual competing to get there.

Re: May vs Corbyn I was disheartened that May (who won) was painted as losing yet Corbyn (who lost) was painted as having achieved a victory. Don’t forget no woman has ever lost a general election in this country women are currently 100% on that metric.

It strikes me that in many cases women can only rise up, can only have power, if men let them and enable them.

Was struck watching a documentary about a rapist who was being interviewed by a female and a male officer that the suspect was utterly dismissive and mocking towards the female officer. If the male officer wasn't there I'm sure he was the sort of man who would "teach her to have some respect". It's depressing but I don't see how women can ever really have true power over some men, they just have no respect for us.

And I think some, and I do mean some not all, women who achieve a position of power, still use that position to maintain the patriarchy. I've seen the, 'I made it because I'm really determined, tough, clever..' or whatever stance that implies other women aren't and so shouldn't. And the 'well I have this job so clearly there's no inequality' stance. And the 'I'll shove whoever I need to under a bus to keep this job' stance. Not only men put personal power first.

@WhenWillitAllEnd I cannot accept that women only have power at men’s say so. That would make any female power, agency and liberty a complete illusion.

And I think some, and I do mean some not all, women who achieve a position of power, still use that position to maintain the patriarchy.

I agree, because we're all soaked in misogyny from the day we're born and it's so hard to even recognise it let alone challenge it. I didn't realise until I became a mother how deeply entrenched a lot of these beliefs were to me. It was like someone had said the trigger word to put me into a hypnotic state - every silent unacknowledged belief I'd ever held about the role of women in the home, the role of the mother, putting motherhood before career, putting the father at the head of the family etc suddenly swamped me and I was too exhausted to challenge it. It was so much easier to just let go and let the current sweep me out to sea. By the time I started to emerge from my hypnotic state and look around at the 1950s nightmare I was living I'd already lost so much ground that I didn't know where to start. My career was dead, my earning power was dead, and my place in the family as domestic servant was thoroughly established. I'd gone from being a medical student at the top of my class to a university drop-out whose only purpose was to clean up baby vomit. Rediscovering feminism (which I'd always supported in the abstract but never really felt applied to me personally) was like being given a boat and a paddle and a cheering squad to row myself back to shore. Fortunately my partner recognised all these inequalities once I pointed them out to him and has worked with me on every point to make things equal again, but I'll never forget. I'll never forget that the first chance he had to establish and exploit a power imbalance between us, he took it. I'm not saying it was done maliciously - I expect he was just going with the current as much as I was - but I'll never forget that he was willing to just "never really think about it" as long as it was working to his advantage. And I'll never fully trust him again. I believe that no matter what they say, a lot of men, maybe even the majority of men, even the ones who love and care for us, do not have our interests at heart. They'll give lip service to supporting us but once we start to get near true equality, and their grip on power is genuinely under threat, then we'll see the mask slip. So no, I will not put them and their needs at the centre of our revolution. I will not waste time stopping to check that the things which liberate us don't do so at any detriment to them? If they can't be bothered to stop and look at the current system and think about why it's unfair to us and how they can change it, then I'm damned if I'm going to bother doing that for them with any proposed solutions!

Sorry, a few paragraph's would probably have helped there!