Men in Power
Hey Urbanagora! My name is Rosie Powers, I’m a sophomore at U of I, and an aspiring journalist. I’m currently on staff with the Daily Illini, and I was linked into Urbanagora thanks to the deep intellectual insight of Billy Joe and Josh.
University of Chicago student starts “Men in Power” advocacy group
According to a recent Chicago Tribune story, University of Chicago student Steve Saltarelli recently founded a male advocacy group entitled “Men in Power”. The group was founded to celebrate male achievement while promoting entrance into the competitive workforce. The article also mentions how many members of the group see it as a necessity as a result of the job market shrinkage with the advent of more women reaching higher career positions. Saltarelli proposed the idea in a satirical column, but started the group after he received an overwhelmingly positive response. In this column, Saltarelli wrote, “Anyone with an interest in both studying and learning from men in powerful positions, as well as issues involved with reverse sexism, may become a member of MiP.”
While I believe that this group has the same right as any other gender or cultural group to assemble, its premise seems a bit blurry. It is true that in many male-dominated professions, women are now being offered more jobs in an effort to diversity the workplace, putting some men out of jobs. But “reverse sexism”? Really?
I am not at all advocating against merit. I don’t believe a woman should be hired instead a man merely because of her gender, paying no attention to his or her qualifications. But I find this group’s viewpoint a bit skewed. For example, Corporate America continues to be a male-dominated career field. According to CNN, only 15 of the current Fortune 500 company CEO’s are women. Certain fields, yes, are dominated by women. But similarly, many professions continue to be associated with men.
I support this group in that there are already many other advocacy groups which focus specifically on women or certain minority groups. Consequentially, yes, males have this same right to celebrate their role in society. However, I sometimes think that the presence of these groups (regardless of what race, ethnicity or gender that they focus on) can promote a feeling of segregation and isolation in society. American society has often been described as a sort of “melting pot” of cultures, in that various cultural backgrounds and beliefs coexist to mix together, culminating into a sort of multicultural national stew. Do we always have group ourselves with people exactly like ourselves? From the same socioeconomic backgrounds, with the same ideals, political leanings, ect.? Joining groups like this that promote these ideals can be positive and proactive. But I can’t help but be concerned as to how groups like this, especially with a name like “Men in power”, will promote single-mindedness.
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 29 May 2009 at 3:31 pm:
A bright, elite-college, ambitious student starts a group that seems almost transparently designed to provoke a reaction? Yawn. Enjoy your 15 minutes Steve Saltarelli.
Comment by Joshua on 29 May 2009 at 3:52 pm:
Rosie, Why are you writing articles about gender and corporate America? Don’t you have some vacuuming or laundry to do? All that talk of melting pots and stew made me hungry. How about you whip up a few sandwiches for Billy and I?
Just kidding about all that — Welcome to the blog!
As long as these guys are doing this in jest, I take no issue. But I want to pistol whip idiots who want to create a “white history month” as if the other 11 months aren’t “white history month” :)
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 29 May 2009 at 3:58 pm:
Hey Rosie! Welcome aboard. Thanks for an interesting first post. I had not heard about this story until I read your post. I have a feeling that Mr. Saltarelli will be a bit embarrassed when he gains a few more years of maturity and wisdom.
Keep on postin’ Rosie.
Comment by Tim on 29 May 2009 at 4:40 pm:
Hey Rosie. Glad to see you posting here.
There are a lot of reasons why women aren’t better represented in corporate America, and many of them are legitimate. I’m not much of a microeconomics guy, but if I was…it’s something certainly worthy of a thesis.
The real “solution” will involve research into what portion of their under representation is sexism and what comes from other life decisions that women make.
My mother has a BA, a BS, and a JD and still chose to stay home with us when we were children, and I’m sure a lot of other women (more than men) choose the same. That doesn’t imply that sexism is not a real phenomenon, though.
Comment by Rosie on 30 May 2009 at 9:04 am:
Thanks for the comments everyone! Except for Josh, of course… :)
Yes, I would agree that life choices can be another inhibitor of women’s success in career fields. But, in some cases, I believe that women have to make these “decisions” because they may not have many other choices. For example; having children is a huge physical/medical undertaking for some women. As a result, many have to take time away from their jobs to deal with this, thus, putting an involuntary hold on their career. While this example is temporary, it still demonstrates that not all of these “decisions” are made without some other external reasoning.
Comment by concerned observer on 30 May 2009 at 10:27 am:
Comparing the salaries of women without children with the salaries of men that work yields an astounding result–they are nearly equal! If you want kids, and take off a few years, that’s your problem.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 30 May 2009 at 11:24 pm:
Rosie…I think you should email your post to this kid and see if he has a response :)
Comment by Rosie on 31 May 2009 at 4:12 pm:
Haha yeah! :)