"Feminism trumped egalitarianism,” David Willetts told journalists during a briefing on the government’s new social mobility strategy. He’s supposed to be a bright chap. How has he got this so wrong?
Apparently, when the strategy is published next week, it will reveal that movement between the classes in Britain is worse than ever. Willetts blames the rise of feminism for this, adding that he isn’t “against” feminism, but it’s “probably the single biggest factor” in our lack of social mobility.
Where to start on deconstructing this obviously fallacious argument? So much choice...
Firstly, we don't have positive gender discrimination in this country. There are no circumstances under which a man and woman with similar qualifications will go for the same job and the employer will be forced to choose the woman purely because of her gender. If there are now more women in full-time employment (and there are – last month there were nearly a million men out of work compared with fewer than half the number of women) it’s because more qualified female candidates are applying for jobs.
And yes, feminism is responsible for that. Without the Suffragettes and the countless other women who have campaigned for equal rights, women wouldn’t have the access that they do to education and employment. But rather than restricting social mobility, this trend has enhanced it. Half the population was previously excluded from any involvement in the economy. Now they aren’t, and have the potential to just as socially mobile in their own right, rather than having to rely on the movement of their husbands or fathers to move over class boundaries.
Secondly, it’s entirely true that, as Willetts says, “women who would otherwise have been housewives had taken university places and well-paid jobs that could have gone to ambitious working-class men”. It’s entirely false to assume that these women were less deserving of these opportunities than any potential male applicants, and that their gender had any negative impact on social mobility.
Thirdly, feminism actually has very little to do with social mobility. It’s just one reason why a sector of society that previously weren’t able to better themselves now can – there are many other reasons why people do or don’t fulfil their potential in life.
If we’ve got a problem with too few people lacking skills, education and employment, then that’s something we need to address through the training and funding available to them, rather than by making counterproductive comments like this. Girls and boys alike need a culture of positive reinforcement in schools, a wide range of academic and vocational opportunities available once they leave school, and support for when they come to apply for jobs or want to set up their own business.
Treating men and women equally is the first step to greater social mobility, not a barrier to it. The supposedly-brainy David Willetts has really got this one wrong.
Comments
Aliki / April 01 2011 1:28pm
"He’s supposed to be a bright chap. How has he got this so wrong?"
Because to get it right he'd have to admit what really has damaged social mobility; deregulation, the crippling of the unions, and the exporting of jobs to other countries to the detriment of everything but large corporations.
Dani Quinn / April 01 2011 2:04pm
The idea that women are 'taking up' places really reveals a sense of male entitlement and suggests a belief that the places are wasted on women.
Also, looking at the numbers of people who work part-time, or have the lowest pay, women are suffering much more now, both in terms of cut pay, lost work, and increased job insecurity. Obviously it's not about a tit-for-tat "Who is worse off?" but it shows, again, his narrow view of what constitutes 'work' and who does it.
Nigel Fletcher / April 01 2011 2:41pm
This is, if I may say, a rather lazy criticism of David Willetts' point. He is certainly not saying feminism is a bad thing, or that "women were less deserving". He is simply observing - as someone who has studied and written widely on social trends - that the liberation of women had a negative effect on social mobility for working class men. That is what the statistical evidence clearly shows, and it is pointless to ignore it. It doesn't mean he thinks feminism should be reversed - but that there is a particular issue with working-class men that has to be taken into account when devising policy responses. I recommend reading his book "The Pinch" which charts these social trends in more depth.
Caroline Crampton / April 01 2011 2:59pm
I have to disagree with you Nigel, as you would imagine! I don't think Willetts was saying that feminism is a bad thing (he explictly said the opposite). I rather feel that his association of the two concepts is a false one. George at the NS has done a rather good job of crunching the numbers on this http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/04/social-mobility-highest-levels
And I will be reading the book, don't worry. I'll review it on the site, even. Yes.
John / April 01 2011 3:39pm
There might not be positive discrimination in this country, but a number of big recruiters have schemes open specifically to promote female access to industries that have been traditionally male dominated, and my experience shows that given equal candidates, the woman is generally taken over the man.
Whether this has hindered social mobility or not is another question, indeed I believe it hasn't really. The lack of social mobilty that we are currently seeing surely stems from the lack of flexibilty in the school system.
MarinaS / April 01 2011 3:44pm
"last month there were nearly a million men out of work compared with fewer than half the number of women"
Is that people who are out of the workforce, or jobseekers? Because let's not forget that women retire earlier and are often out of paid employment because they are carers, come from traditional communities etc. I'd want to look more closely at his numbers before conceding the "truth" that men have it worse in the worforce than women.
Victoria / April 01 2011 4:47pm
This whole speech made me so annoyed that I have spun it out to our women's group in our male dominated office to get them annoyed too.
I agree with Dani on the point that male entitlement comes across very strongly here - it almost seems to be that he is jealous of the success of the feminist movement in promoting so successfully the equality of women in the work place.
More irritating for me was the implication of the idea that by choosing successful partners, women compound the divisions - does he mean by this that men do not, and so the opportunity remains for women to be socially mobile by marrying well?!
Wendy Smith / April 01 2011 6:03pm
Does Willetts want us to go back to the 50's when because you were white and male it was automatically though you were more intelligent than others. Just remember women were clever enough to do mens jobs and keep the country going during the last war after which they were shoved back in the kitchen. Now because of the financial situation and jobs disappearing it seems Willetts wants jobs for the boys again. He should not be allowed to get away with this prejudice.
nicholas finney / April 01 2011 7:02pm
I'm inclined to agree with Caroline Crampton . I do not really understand the point of David Willetts' somewhat eccentric juxtaposition of feminism denying working class males greater social mobility . Even if it were vaguely true that the success of women in the work place has made it harder for Working class males to move up the earnings ladder - note please that i am referring to earnings not middle class aspirational careers ;so what ? She is quite right in saying that women have just as much right to equal opportunities for advancement in their working careers . Perhaps the difficulties facing working class males is that they have been denied for years the opportunities to be trained and educated in technical skills because of the absurd middle class occupation with academic and university education . When we abandoned our Technical colleges , that is where the real damage was done to many young skilled males who had a natural affinity with the types of jobs offered as electricians , plumbers and much more . David is off down a dead end with this conclusion .
Paradigm / April 01 2011 8:49pm
I know where David Willetts is coming from though I would have expressed it differently - women have for purely financial and snobbish reasons abrogated their natural responsibility to bring up, by their role and example, their own children. The natural role of the man has been eroded and the values of a good home and healthy partnership is reflected in the social chaos that has ensued. It is wrong to assume that women have the right to abandon those they have brought into this world. I wouldn't deny any woman her right to education and fulfilment but not at the expense of her 'second-hand' children.
Dani / April 02 2011 1:39pm
Additional thought...It was pointed out to me that one could only reach the conclusion that 'feminism has trumped egalitarianism' if one doesn't count women as people. Oh dear.
Caz - for your amusement you might want to see http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100082141/why-david-willetts-is-wrong-about-feminism/ Make a little extra time for the inevitable face-palm.