Home Politics & Debate
Ongoing maintenance - the boards are undergoing some ongoing, intermittent maintenance. Pages might load slightly slower than usual and there may be very short periods where the boards are offline.

Feminism has held back working class men

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Link

According to the Universities Minister, allowing women to work and go to university has made life harder for working class men, as well as being partly to blame for the divide between the most wealthy and the poor.

Thoughts?
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That it shows a complete lack of understand about the implications of the economic policies of this country since the 80s
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well of course it's feminism.

    With those cunts it was always either going to be those pesky wimmin or those pesky Poles.

    Life was much better when you stayed in the kitchen making me pie.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The vast majority of jobs traditionally done by working-class men are still dominated by men. Manufacturing is still a mainly male workplace, it's just that for reasons far more complicated than feminism, these jobs have declined, and service-based jobs have increased, where men have found they have a more competition with women.

    It just seems to show a basic lack of economic understanding, and is the same bullshit you hear about immigrants. More women are working, which means families have more disposable income, which means more jobs are created. Women don't "take the jobs" of men, they create a situation in which more jobs are created as the national wealth increases. All those shoe shops won't staff themselves. As for widening the gap, tell it to Scandinavia or The Netherlands, where I believe women tend to work. Working class men's jobs have been taken by other countries or have disappeared as a result of technology making their jobs obsolete. And university places absolutely rocketed under the last government, so I hardly think he can seriously claim that there are fewer opportunities for men in that respect.

    Of all of the things that could possibly affect job opportunities for men, feminism is literally the last thing I would consider.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That said, if you read more of what he said, some of it makes sense.

    Intelligent successful men marry intelligent successful women, meaning that that household has two successful, intelligent, and presumably wealthy individuals. Men who are less so marry women who are less so, and presumably they will be poorer. The gaps, on a household basis, become more magnified because there are two breadwinners, not one.

    However far more pertinent is the way that the rich have been allowed to remove their income and assets from taxation, with that burden passed on to the poorest people instead. And it isn't just income tax, the 'stealth' taxes like VAT and fuel duty impact on the poor far more than on the rich because they spend proportionally more on the essentials that attract these taxes. As we move away from income tax to taxes on goods and services, the poor will end up footing more and more of the bill because they can't avoid it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The guardian ran pretty much the same story.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/03/barbara-ellen-david-willetts?INTCMP=SRCH

    I don't see why feminism should be blamed for male underachievement. No one is stopping these men from applying for university or aiming for a good job.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    deja vu
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    People apportion blame onto others to mistakenly detract from their own failures.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do you include feminists who blame men for holding them back in that assesment?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's about a power dynamic. Men have traditionally had all the power, and indeed continue to do so now. Look how many women sit on the boards of FTSE250 companies if you don't believe me.

    You can blame the person with power for removing your power. Women do not have the socio-economic power of men.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was expecting a response like that - and I'm not saying I disagree with it.

    But it indicates that a flippant remark such as "People apportion blame onto others to mistakenly detract from their own failures. " aren't always applicable and it's easy to hide behind that sort of remark rather than confront it head-on.

    I'm not saying women aren't held back by men - it's pretty clear that this happens. However re: your comment about the FTSE250...how many women want to be head of companies on it?

    Before the lazy-thinking activists shoot me down for being 'mysoginistic' or whatever this week's favourite cause is, I'm not saying the low representation is due to women not choosing that field as their vocation.

    But to assume it's purely because of the City-based glass ceiling is lazy-thinking and bloody-minded.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ###
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    Perhaps. But it's equally lazy and bloody-minded to assume that people's lack of success must be down to their own choices, rather than obstacles they've faced. It's the ultimate in lazy thinking, because then we can absolve ourselves of all responsibility - there's nothing wrong with our practices, institutions, etc. It's just that women don't want to be powerful and earn lots of money.

    I assume you missed the part where I said I don't perceive that to be the case?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ###
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It means I'm saying I think there's more this than just "It's because men are holding women back". I've only had 3 jobs in a working life that spans more than 20 years and over those 2 decades I've not seen any evidence of women being held back, in fact only one of those companies had a man at the top.

    Obviously that's not going to be classed as adequate enough research to change anyone's mind but from my own experience I think there is more to it than being so black-and-white.

    Just because I'm not offering an alternative doesn't mean there isn't one. The point I tried to make is it is very easy to say "it's all mens' fault" and leave it at that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's a mixture of things. There is little doubt that it is harder for women to reach the top in business, but there is also the reality of a different drive in ambition and the impact of having the genetic role of birth which creates a break in careers which has a impact on the longer term prospects (amongst other things).

    It simply isn't black and white that any reason is the sole cause of the effect we are seeing.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thanks! That's the point I'm trying to make.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ###
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I couldn't agree more, which is why I didn't mention childbirth being a choice but rather a genetics issue. We can never change that aspect and, unless the women returns to work pretty quickly, then it will always impact on their career.

    We also have an issue about some men (and women) still seeing "Motherhood" as a reason not to promote or advance an employees career and that is something which we *can* change.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    Of course. I doubt anybody would claim that there is one sole cause for any complex social phenomenon.

    Excellent! I knew you'd get there in the end ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ~
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calm down dear, just let me know what you consider to be posting requirements and in future I'll make sure I stick to them!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    Well, cutting out the condescension and the not so subtle sexism might be a good place to start.

    Lol ok I can agree to that if you try your hardest to cultivate a sense of humour :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ~
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    jamelia wrote: »
    Anyway, let's not derail this thread any more with you patronizing the little lady

    Indeed.

    Besides, it's distracting her from cooking dinner :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You shouldn't refer to yourself as the "little lady", you're really letting the side down with that one ;)

    I'm more offended by your constant use of American spellings seeing as this is a UK website but yes as you say, together we've dragged this off topic too much now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I couldn't agree more, which is why I didn't mention childbirth being a choice but rather a genetics issue. We can never change that aspect and, unless the women returns to work pretty quickly, then it will always impact on their career.

    Maybe, but some countries are clearly much better than others at allowing women to continue working in important positions and raise a family at the same time if they want to. This capacity has arguably decreased in recent decades, with extended families able to easily take care of children becoming less common. I believe that certain countries are also much more willing to have people in important positions only working part-time, and obviously certain countries have a shorter working week generally, which is more favourable to parents.

    A completely equal society would probably still have a pay gap between the genders, because a statistically significant proportion of women are going to have priorities outside of work more than men. However, the important question then becomes whether there is a difference in pay for equivalent jobs, which I believe there is. And even then, this isn't the end of the story. A study of Harvard (I think) graduates showed that male graduates were offered more money for the same positions as female graduates. You look at that and think it's obvious sexism, until you find out that massively more male graduates were willing to ask for more money in the recruitment process. I also heard of another statistic from America the other day that suggested that single, childless, middle-aged women earned more than the equivalent male workers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    With the whole women with children issue you'll never please everyone. A lot of people say the current situation is unfair on women but if we structure careers so that time off to have and take care of children does not impact career progression then its unfair to men and women who don't have children.

    I'm probably biased as I have a collegue in my work group with kids who is being a complete nightmare. She has this attitude that because she has kids and none of the other team members do that we should all fit our schedules around her. I mean people without kids have lives too.

    Rant over.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    IWS, people don't really have an issue with a pay gap if the reason for that pay gap is that the person earning less works fewer hours or has a less "important" job role. However that isn't what's meant by the pay gap, what is meant is that women will earn less than men in equivalent jobs working equivalent hours. This has been proven with the recent local authority pay re-grades, with people in traditionally female roles earning less than people in traditionally male roles, even though the roles were supposedly at the same level of importance and difficulty.

    The culture of presenteeism in this country counts very much against people who have commitments outside of work, or who take time off to have children or through ill-health. There is no reason why most people working ridiculous working weeks need to do that- the bank deal will still be there on Monday morning, folks- but the culture is that you work those hours so anyone who doesn't work those hours is seen as "lazy". This isn't an issue for women alone, either, with many fathers being pressurised into working instead of seeing their children grow up. There's no reason why fathers can't also adjust their working hours to suit childcare and take time off when children are poorly, except that they will be seen as weak and lazy and will lose out on promotions.

    JanePerson, how is it "unfair" to structure career paths so that taking time out does not sink any hope of promotion? The best jobs should be undertaken by the most able person, not the person who has the best attendance record. Taking time out doesn't just affect parents either- lose six months of work because your car crashed and you'll also find yourself out of contention for any career progression.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    IWS, people don't really have an issue with a pay gap if the reason for that pay gap is that the person earning less works fewer hours or has a less "important" job role. However that isn't what's meant by the pay gap, what is meant is that women will earn less than men in equivalent jobs working equivalent hours. This has been proven with the recent local authority pay re-grades, with people in traditionally female roles earning less than people in traditionally male roles, even though the roles were supposedly at the same level of importance and difficulty.

    The culture of presenteeism in this country counts very much against people who have commitments outside of work, or who take time off to have children or through ill-health. There is no reason why most people working ridiculous working weeks need to do that- the bank deal will still be there on Monday morning, folks- but the culture is that you work those hours so anyone who doesn't work those hours is seen as "lazy". This isn't an issue for women alone, either, with many fathers being pressurised into working instead of seeing their children grow up. There's no reason why fathers can't also adjust their working hours to suit childcare and take time off when children are poorly, except that they will be seen as weak and lazy and will lose out on promotions.

    JanePerson, how is it "unfair" to structure career paths so that taking time out does not sink any hope of promotion? The best jobs should be undertaken by the most able person, not the person who has the best attendance record. Taking time out doesn't just affect parents either- lose six months of work because your car crashed and you'll also find yourself out of contention for any career progression.
    :heart:
Sign In or Register to comment.