Has feminism blocked social mobility for men?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12970105

Feminism provided an obstacle to social mobility for working class men, Cabinet minister David Willetts has controversially argued. But is he right?
They were meant to welcome a new era of fairness and opportunity for all. Instead, a minister's remarks have prompted debate over the effect of women's entry into higher education and the professions.

Karen Mumford, professor of economics at the University of York, says it is "woolly-minded" to assume that the number of job opportunities has remained static.
In the days before feminism, she says, those working-class men who achieved upward social mobility tended to do so by moving through the ranks at their workplace.

As a result, Prof Mumford says, that there was never a pre-feminist golden age in which large numbers of working-class men attended universities.

I will admit to being biased in this matter..and I'm guessing that I will be in a minority.

I welcome equality whole heartedly its just a shame most the women I have met have wanted to be more equal than me lmao

It's all gone downhill for white heterosexual males in the last one hundred years.

They use to own and/or run everything - now they just own and/or run almost everything.

What's the world coming to?

[Sparkle]

I don't have a problem with feminism; the right for gender equality.
But until I see these so-called self proclaimed feminists shouting for legislative change because half of demenial jobs such as such as sweeping floors, manual work, garbage collecting, etc aren't held by women - then I refuse to believe they genuinely want equality, at all. Increasingly they seem to be expecting to have it all ways.

These women seem quite content to support changes to the law to ensure that 50% of city/engineering/professional/government positions are held by women.
All just a matter of time, in fact they'll use the argument that it will work the other way too (such as schools made to employ more men as teachers), but we all know who the real beneficiaries will be - hardly split down the middle.
As for who'll be doing the less desirable work, I don't think I'm being too presumptious to suppose that many if not most of these so-called "modern women" will be assuming "Well, that's what God made men for."
People should be employed based on their ability and what they bring to the company, regardless of gender/ethnicity, etc.

It would be great to have your cake, and eat it too, eh?
At least when they (women) have it all ways, and we men have no rights whatsoever such as the way it already often is during divorice proceedings - we can at least count on women to be chivalrous to us men the way we used to be, right?
Well, I certainly won't be holding my breath.

[joglynne]

I think this just illustrates that statistics can be interpreted in many ways and that they have to be taken in context to give a valid picture.

The work base of this country is so different from the early Feminist days and the traditional, predominately male, working class advancement routes within the manufacturing industries have disappeared to a great extent along with the industries themselves. Lower skilled, lower paid jobs still exist but I suspect that, if figures were available, you would still find that those jobs were filled by women to a large extent not because women are more qualified to do them rather that the men aren't, because of tradition maybe, willing to take them.

The "working class man" of the 70s had a far different employment outlook than he has to-day not because of women in the workplace but because of the workplace itself and now men are facing competition from women who are in a position to compete for jobs on a qualifications level.

So yes the Feminists have improved the lot of women in the workplace and women's expectations to be able to be paid equal wages to their male counterparts. They have empowered women to gain qualifications so that they can aim for a better grade of employment, but you can not blame them for the changes in the type of employment, available.

A lot of low paid service jobs are filled by women who are forced to work because the families finances need to be supplemented but they have to do part time work to fit in around the family.Also families have changed in make up these days.There are a lot of single parent families usually headed by women whom are vying for well paid jobs because their estranged partner isn't prepared to support their offspring.

So many working class women like me thought/think that getting the qualifications to get further through the workplace was/is a necessity because they don't want to be wholly dependent upon the men in their lives.
Having seen my mother who had no qualifications struggle after the death of my father to find and keep a job that wasn't poorly paid certainly galvanised me into working much harder to get the qualifications that would free me from a life of drudgery.At the time equality for women hadn't been enshrined in law and I was determined that I would be able to support myself all by myself.

It's an issue where i don't think there is a complete right or wrong really as with all things there are good and bad aspects to it for both men and women. Women always ran the home not just the domestic side of it but everything including the man in it ask any older generation woman they used their brains more to do more i know my nan always did.

There is also less respect given to women from men these days that i see everyday on the street outisde our house. I am an old fashioned person even though i am disabled i still hold doors open for women and the times i have had poisonous looks and even some comments baout not treating them as equals is unreal.

There should always be equality in work i absolutely support that and women should neither be treated or paid differently to any man doing the same job but sometimes i do think what women have gained from feminism isn't as good as some of the things they have lost.

Swings and rondabouts like i said i don't think there is a definitive answer to this it is very much dependent on the individual perspective and experience.

[tweetiepooh]

Discrimination is always bad. The job should go to the best person regardless of gender/race etc. (Allowing that some jobs do demand certain gender/race etc or would be better filled so).

Equality though doesn't mean sameness. People are different and there are differences between genders/race groups etc. That doesn't mean any group is better or worse that the others, just different. We should celebrate and utilise that difference.

Then there are issues that only affect certain groups. In gender it may be that small companies would struggle with maternity rules so may favour employing men or women unlikely to require that benefit.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

There are a lot of single parent families usually headed by women whom are vying for well paid jobs because their estranged partner isn't prepared to support their offspring.

There are a lot of single parent families headed by women whom are vying for well paid jobs because they're stranged partner refuses to pay to keep mother and child because the mother is illegally (and immorally) refusing access for him to see his children. Unfortunately the courts won't enforce court orders granting access because it might have a negative impact on the children, but yet they still chase the dads for every penny.
In the US its different, if she refuses the court's request they'll lock her up and put the kids into care. As it should be imo.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

There are a lot of single parent families headed by women whom are vying for well paid jobs because they're stranged partner refuses to pay to keep mother and child because the mother is illegally (and immorally) refusing access for him to see his children. Unfortunately the courts won't enforce court orders granting access because it might have a negative impact on the children, but yet they still chase the dads for every penny.
In the US its different, if she refuses the court's request they'll lock her up and put the kids into care. As it should be imo.

Possibly some women don't see why an errant partner should get to see their offspring if they won't pay up as it works both ways.

Although I will say that any parent who uses their children as a weapon are total barstewards and have no right to children what ever their gender.

However this is another topic and maybe you should start a thread about it.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Possibly some women don't see why an errant partner should get to see their offspring if they won't pay up as it works both ways.

Although I will say that any parent who uses their children as a weapon are total barstewards and have no right to children what ever their gender.

However this is another topic and maybe you should start a thread about it.

the CSA and the courts are there to make fathers pay if they can.

What about all the single parents mainly headed by women who happily spread their legs to get a council house?

Women never happy unless they got something to moan and whinge about

Originally Posted by Zing

the CSA and the courts are there to make fathers pay if they can.

What about all the single parents mainly headed by women who happily spread their legs to get a council house?

Women never happy unless they got something to moan and whinge about

Actually that should read PEOPLE are never happy unless they got something to whinge and moan about

Now can we get back to the topic please?