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.

I see what you mean OP, but I think you are coming at it from the view that what women are "taking" is men's by right in the first place. I often try and correct my thinking with a probability narrative.

Picking one professional group as an example, let's say, in a group of 100 accountants, 50% get to "Middle" position and 20% get to "Senior " level during their career. (for later, let's also split that 20% into the 10 who are "good" at the Senior role, and a "mediocre" half: the lower 10 in Senior role)

At one point, 100% of the 20 Seniors would be men, because all accountants were men. Men accountants had a 50% chance of being Middle and a 20% chance of being Senior.

Once women were allowed to be accountants, a few women with real apt for numbers pushed through the education system and became accountants, but the majority were still men. So say there are still 100 entry positions, there are now 20 women and 80 men. This means 20 men who (assuming meritocracy) were less qualified than the other 80 men lose out on entry to Junior role.

However, when it comes to advancing up the career ladder, the systematic discrimination against women still meant that those 20 excellent women were unable to advance (due to pregnancy, maternity leaves, and lack of childcare options that support a demanding job). Therefore, they are stuck at Junior level.

This means that the other 80 men now have a 1 in 4 (rather than 1 in 5) shot to reach Senior level.

(At the minute in most industries, I think we are somewhere between this ^ position and the one to follow)

Once we slowly start dismantling the barriers to women's progress, then the 20 talented women (remember they are more capable on average than the men, as they had to overcome hurdles to get there) start to take 20 of the 50 "Middle" positions that men would have got previously. The 20 displaced mediocre men are stuck at Junior level and feel this is unfair.

Eventually, the 20 Middle role women then aim for the Senior roles too.

Instead of the 20 people doing the Senior role being 10 good men and 10 mediocre men, they are now 10 good men and 10 good women.

The displaced 10 mediocre men feel this is unfair.

However, on a microeconomic level, this is good news, because there are now more talented people doing the Middle and Senior jobs and the company's output and performance improves, because mediocre men aren't dragging it down.

On a macro level, it pays more tax, is more productive, GDP increases and the economy grows.

For a company, instead of having to pick the 20 Seniors from a resource pool of 100 men, where only 10 are competent and 10 are mediocre, you now have access to another resource pool, where you can find another 10 people who are as talented as your top 10 men.

Now that the talent pool has doubled, this means the men (and women) who don't make the cut can go and use their skills where they are better suited.

If I had used doctors rather than accountants, then this scenario would be even better because we'd have more doctors in the top level of capability which means more of the brightest minds working on advances in medicine, which would benefit everyone in society. Alas, I picked finance.

DancelikeEmmaGoldman -- hold on, that poster must include a lot of people not eligible for those positions, surely? I mean, about 15-20% of the population will be under 20, and probably a similar % will be over retirement age.

Dervel
I think what I am getting at is that men did not and do not need women's consent to make the world the way it is. This is not true in reverse, women can only get on if men agree there should be laws to protect them and are willing to prosecute men who break those laws etc.

Women cannot control men, what kind of power over them can we really hope to achieve ?

I hope that makes sense even if it sounds rather depressing.

This is a very interesting thread

My personal experience is that society at many different levels and for many different reasons has sought to make my life harder because I am female. If me and my male equivalent are wading through shit, there’s someone also throwing rocks at me. Whether the rock thrower is male or female is immaterial, they throw rocks at me because I am female and for no other reason. Just because some women are very strong and can manage many rocks being chucked at them and some women are lucky and can dodge many rocks doesn’t negate the rocks being thrown in the first place.

If men wanted to, they could have stopped the rock throwing a hundred years ago, a thousand years ago even but they did not because they gained from it. Women to own and control. We only got the rights we have now because we were needed in positions where we had agency and education. Hopefully this was not a small snapshot in history, but I can see even good, kind men who do the washing up and don’t go to lap dancing clubs turning on us if push came to shove. Would a man give up his freedom, his capacity to earn money, his agency, his name for the sake of his wife and children? Nah mate.

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.

Simply not true - there were three male candidates and two female candidates for the first round. For the second round, there were two female candidates and one male.
Gove and Fox were big names too, either could have got it. They didn't back away.

The things you say WisdomOfCrowds and GoldenWonderwall resonate with me but I'm still mulling over how to frame those things for myself.
What I do know is that I still thank my DH for washing up, cleaning, cooking, etc then kick myself for it. Not that I shouldn't appreciate things he does but he doesn't thank me for those particular tasks. (we are both nearly pensioners so it's been ingrained a long time - well actually getting him to do them took longer...).

Would a man give up his freedom, his capacity to earn money, his agency, his name for the sake of his wife and children? Nah mate.

I do agree with this. But I don’t believe that for women to have freedom, earn money, control their lives and keep their names men have to loose all that. It just doesn’t follow.

To me it’s a really stereotypically masculine view to have winners and losers. I don’t see it that if women get a bigger slice men will lose as ideally we all rise to an extent and create a bigger pot as has been pointed out above. However, I feel this rising is a byproduct of women being liberated and neither an integral part of liberation or something that women even need to consider as they try and rise up. We would do better to support other women than worry about men, they did fine as a class for 1000s of years.

Maybe if women are liberated success and power would look different so the willy measuring stuff could stay with the blokes and women could wield a different type of power. Who knows? It would be nice to find out

@SonicVersusGynaephobia
I broadly agree with your analysis but when you write

Now that the talent pool has doubled, this means the men (and women) who don't make the cut can go and use their skills where they are better suited
I think maybe what you gloss over is that those men that don't make the cut under the newly equalised system will either be stuck lower down the organisation with less power, influence and pay or potentially have to change careers probably to something with less pay and status. There won't just be a tiny percentage of men impacted, but potentially an extremely sizable minority that will find their individual circumstance reduced as a direct result of equality. They may well benefit somewhat from working in a more profitable company or living in a society with a healthier economy, however I think it's unlikely that they will really believe this adequately compensates them for what they have "lost".

For those saying that men were never entitled to these things in the first place, of course I agree! I think though when anything changes radically then people will compare themselves to generations gone by and assume that they should be at least as successful as their equivalent. I guess we are all programmed to assume we are making "progress"and things are getting better, so I imagine men might feel similarly to how young people feel about house prices where they know that just a generation ago things would have been different and potentially a lot easier for them to get on the property ladder. They look at what their parents, grandparents etc did under similar circumstances to themselves and feel short changed. I would be really shocked if men too didn't feel the loss of privilege acutely when they realised how much better off they personally could have been under the old system.

I'm an optimist who believes that giving everyone the freedom to do what they're capable of makes the world expand, and the result is more opportunities for everybody, including men if they'd actually think about it. I really don't think letting women enter any profession reduced the chances for men there.

If anyone's sorry for Theresa May presiding over a disaster, spare some tears for David Cameron, who never thought it would happen. Who's worse off? And actually, she may not be the greatest leader, but she's seeing the job through and maintaining what dignity she can, as in the best British tradition. Maybe it's like the charge of the Light Brigade, dutiful pursuit of mistaken goals! A lesser person would have quit long ago.

@GoldenWonderwall
I don’t see it that if women get a bigger slice men will lose as ideally we all rise to an extent and create a bigger pot as has been pointed out above.
But some things are finite so it isn't possible to create a bigger pot. For example in politics there is only so much influence and power available. If more women become MPs then it stands to reason that less men will hold these positions. If you create more MP positions so that women can have increased representation without directly taking over from men then this obviously dilutes the influence of the pre-existing MPs and thus the male MPs would have less power and influence.

I don't think anyone's sorry.
I'm not > she knew what she was getting into and is a fool if she didn't.

My point is that the way it's all being framed by the media is really interesting.

If you create more MP positions so that women can have increased representation without directly taking over from men then this obviously dilutes the influence of the pre-existing MPs and thus the male MPs would have less power and influence.
It would also dilute their work-load. And a better life-balance for everyone seems like a good idea to me. And hopefully the job would get done better.
Simplistic I know.

I perhaps take too rosy a view but I see the fruits of feminism being of benefit to all decent men as well as women. If the pay gap disappeared, for every man seething because he didn't get a place on the board there'd be dozens of men only too pleased to be a SAHF or mix childcare with a part time job. This, in its turn, opens doors to mothers who'd be free to pursue a career.

I feel strongly about this because I was married to a house husband. I ran my own business and he looked after the kids. My career had always been very important to me, he loved hanging out with the kids, and the arrangement met both our emotional and practical needs. And yet it would have been extremely rare only decades before. Flexibility has the potential to liberate both sexes.

I shudder to think how I would have coped in the times when you had no choice but to be a housewife. I'd have ended up on Valium.

Most people are not struggling to become political or business leaders. Our aims are smaller and less competitive than that, and in my experience men and women are far more alike than we are different. Women's liberation means that women will gain and men will lose - but only in some senses. The loss of the heavy weight of toxic masculinity would make it worthwhile to many men.

It's not just about work / money though,

Men benefit in a myriad of ways

eg all men benefit from the violent few, as it means most women/girls are polite and careful when rejecting them rather than saying what they want, which quite often, is fuck off.

There's a host of stuff.

If it was good for men we would have it.

On PP

I am pessimistic.

I wonder if the freedom & etc allowed to women in what is a small part of the western world

Is a blip

There have been other blips in other parts of the world

Men are bigger and stronger than us and because of pregnancy etc we are vulberable.

Womens rights are being rolled back as fast as gained when you look at the world.

Pics of Iran in the 60s are always sobering, or Afghanistan before the Taleban got hold.

I would like to think that most men would "do the right thing" given the choice but I have a horrible suspicion they would not.

Porn is 60% of the internet and most of it is vile. There is a market, which OK drives itself to more extreme things, but bottom line is, most men are pretty comfy with their position, relative to women in the same group.

bumpity is it though? Is it finite? We all know companies and political parties that create jobs for the boys/cronies, we see it happen all the time. Why couldn’t we have jobs for the girls that have power and influence in a different way? However earning the most money/making the most widgets/ being the most powerful person is destroying our societies and our planet - more of that is not the answer imho.

I hope we can go Star Trek instead of 1984 or nuclear apocalypse but we’ll have to see. I have a dd so would very much like her to grow up into a world where she’s not treated like a 2nd class citizen because she can bear children and is on average a bit smaller and weaker. We usually call bigger people who pick on smaller people shitty bullies and as society in general we call that behaviour out. But the list of excuses of when men do it to women is so long and vast and ingrained it’s like we don’t see it anymore for what it is.

Ah but you forget

Latest news is there is no difference between men and women in terms of size strength etc

We start to make gains
Golaposts get moved

So many advances of women have been reversed / spoiled by men. They turn everyhting to their advantage. As a group. Because they can.

That’s it though isn’t it - misogyny in action. We don’t want women to have anything but we don’t want to look sexist, so we’ll redefine woman to mean something else then we can have all the bits we’ve decided we like and destroy everything we do not like and we can do it in plain sight whilst getting a pat on the back. Women who have not been redefined can get back in the kitchen/ brothel/ nursery depending on what the men have decided they’re good for.

I'm sorry but I really don't see a lot of men throwing up their hands in glee at the thought of having their salaries cut, on the grounds that it now frees them up to wash dishes, change nappies, care for elderly relatives, and take orders from women. When women say they want a better work life balance, what they tend to mean is that they're trying to fit 48 hours worth of paid and unpaid work into a 24 hour day, and reducing time in paid work lets them spend more time on drudge. When men say they want a better work-life balance, what they generally mean is that they want to come home early and sit on their pampered arses all evening being bought dinner and drinks, without having to take a pay cut. The fact is that it isn't enough for more women to be doctors - we also need more men to be nurses. We need more women to be CEOs, but we also need more men to be secretaries. More and more women are choosing to WATH, and most men are OK with that - as long as it doesn't increase the work they have to do around the house. Men are OK with women stepping up but they will not step down lightly. We'll see men campaigning to have two CEOs in every work place before we see men gladly taking jobs as secretaries to the CEO. "Sure you can be the boss, as long as I can be the boss too and all the crap low paid work is still done by women."

Yeh it's like a bad joke isn't it GoldenWonderwall. How do we get women into 50% of the positions of power without giving up any of our power - easy, half of us can just claim to be female. BAM, instant equality and not a drop of actual power shed. You've got to hand it to them, it's fucking genius.

@GoldenWonderwall
is it though? Is it finite? We all know companies and political parties that create jobs for the boys/cronies, we see it happen all the time. Why couldn’t we have jobs for the girls that have power and influence in a different way?
I do think that real power and influence is finite yes. I know what you mean about men manipulating the current system, but the jobs created for cronies tend to either be non-jobs that lack meaningful influence or are jobs that dilute or remove an existing roles power and influence.

Power ultimately requires control, women cannot control men, if they could none of this would be an issue.

I often think all female organisations would be the answer, but they would no doubt come unstuck because of the very rules designed to help women in the first place.

I have definitely seen a serious proper study done on this (disclaimer: skimmed the article about it in a magazine), and the conclusion was that mediocre men are the losers when women advance in the workplace. The absolutely top-notch women get the spots the mediocre men would have sauntered into previously. Top-notch men still earn their positions, low performers didn't get anywhere at all usually anyway, mediocre men who were disproportionately favoured lose out.

I think if women were liberated power might look different- I think if we’d not been held back so much, power structures might be less like they are. But who knows what’s genuinely how women would be and what’s a response to years of being artificially held down?

I’d like more mediocre women getting top jobs too Saying that, the women I know generally have more rounded skill sets and more intelligence than men - maybe a mediocre woman is more valuable in the workplace than a top notch man!

I think it’s obvious that lots of men would not step down the ladder as it is and let women rise up whilst they wash the dishes. If it were they would do it tomorrow, there’s nothing real stopping them. As my dh commented - going pt to look after our dc would harm his career. No shit Sherlock. The fact I’d been pt for a few years at this point and my career was fucked (it was fucked when I had dc) seemed to have slipped his mind. And he’s not a full on arsehole and does loads outside of work for the family, but had fallen into sexist views about women/mothers/me in the workplace without even noticing.