Feminism is less about equality and more about celebrating gender difference? Discuss.

[Bumperlicious]

Oh, I am glad there is now a feminism topic (well done MNHQ - or was it that so many people wanted a topic they could hide?). Anyway, I have been meaning to pose this question for a while, but have been in Wales with no wireless and didn't want to bore everyone with another feminism thread.

So, I keep thinking about feminism and equality, and it doesn't quite sit right for me, probably especially because I am pregnant right now. What I mean is I don't want to do everything men do, I don't want to have to match them in strength and stamina. I am happy that DH puts the rubbish out, sorts the cars and my bike out, and I crochet and bake and cook. I don't think that is anti feminist, we both make the choice and play to our strengths. Yes he tries to cook sometimes, and yes, when I lived on my own, I could sort my own car out, put up flat pack furniture etc. but he likes to do it and I don't so I'm not going to try and make a point.

And yes, now I am pregnant I do kind of expect special allowances. I am growing a life inside me, and it is making me feel vile. And when my DC is born I want to have nearly a year off then work part time, I don't want to have to go back to work after two weeks and work full time competing with the men for promotion. But I would like to be considered for promotion on my merits and abilities, not based on how much 'evidence' I have managed to gather in my part time hours compared to people working full time.

I'm not sure if I am articulating my point very well here but the way I see it is that maternity laws, flexible working laws etc. exist not to make us equal to men but to allow for the differences between us. Yes, I choice to have kids, but I didn't choice to be a woman, the main carer, the one who bears and breastfeeds the children, so allowances (i.e. laws) should exist to allow for the fact that these are the differences between us.

At work we have a 'Gender Difference Network' and while obviously some of the differences in lifestyle and character go across the sexes, much of what they look at is the differences between the sexes and how to support that, which seems a sensible attitude for me. Being a feminist isn't about acting like a man, it is about acting like a woman and still having the same opportunities.

I hate to post and run but a friend has just text me about a free easter craft event (God, I hope that means chocolate!) but I have been itching to pose this question to see if I am really missing the point.

[Bink]

The answer to your issue is that feminism isn't an orthodoxy - there has been debate, indeed, about whether it should be called "feminisms " - ie a range of theories which have to do with investigating gender-based issues. The point is to challenge and consider and develop, not to prescribe. Your concerns about gender difference have a place in feminism just as someone else's concerns about strict pay equality. And someone else's about the extreme burden third-world women carry.

I know it doesn't come across like that in the media, but the media is not known for promoting subtlety!

[AMumInScotland]

I think the thing for me is that "equal" doesn't always mean "the same". If you have a child who loves football and a child who loves ballet, then taking them to a football match is treating them the same but not fairly.

Equality amongst people doesn't mean pretending they are all the same in every way, it is about treating each one as an individual and respecting them as that, whether or not they match up to a stereotype doesn't matter, the important thing is treating tem as an individual not the stereotype.

[ImSoNotTelling]

The thing for me is that yes people are different and have different interests and strengths and so on, and absolutely they should be able to do the things that they want.

It's not about all women having to learn to do spot welding. It's about women being allowed and able to do spot welding if they desire, and not being prevented from doing so by friends famiy or employers assuming they are competent at it.

The whole women returning to work full time 2 weeks after giving birth - (let's face it there aren't very many of them) - that is their choice and it's good they are able to make that choice. Not so long ago women had to give up work on getting married, and definitely on having children. My great-aunt had this problme, she was a doctor. Can you imagine? Not being allowed to work as you have married.

it's all about choice, within the framework of accepting that there is a fundamental difference between men and women - childbearing.

Again, for me feminism has nothing to do with wanting to stand up on the tube when you're pregnant and feeling like shit. Why would it? It has to do with not being treated less favourably at work because you are pregnant, or fired because of it, things like that.

As for the leave - personally I believe it should be made so that men and women can share it as they see fit. Past the actual chidbearing and BF part, really there's no reason that the women should be the one who stays at home unless that is the choice of the people involved. So in your relationship you would choose to have a year off. For DH and I we would probably have like to do 6 months each. Others might prefer to go back v quickly and have their partner take the leave.

It's all about freedom, and choice, and not being treated badly or differently because of your sex. So if you choose to be a SAHM and bake and knit and have a DH who does manual labour and has a couple of pints after work and comes home to dinner on the table. Well that's fine if that's what you want.

Feminism isn't to do with removing choices from anyone, but giving everyone more and fairer choices. And it's not to do with telling people how they have to live or be.

[ImSoNotTelling]

"It's about women being allowed and able to do spot welding if they desire, and not being prevented from doing so by friends famiy or employers assuming they are competent at it."

I mean that employers should not disciminate against women doing spot welding, if they can do the job well.

[AMumInScotland]

I was thinking about this a bit more (while peeling the potatoes ) and I think there's 3 ways of looking at it, and only one of them seems right to me...

Take something like being a firefighter -

If women and men were completely the same in all ways, then you wouldn't be able to say that we had equality until fire departments had an equal number of women firefighters. But that doesn't seem to have any connection to real life.

OTOH if men and women are "equal but different" then it would be fair to say that women don't generally have the skills/attitiude to be firefighters and therefore they should not be able to join. But that we should value "women's work" just as much as "men's work" because though we are different we need each other. But that just feels very patronising.

To me the only option that works is to say that, on averege, more men than women tend to have the skills and attitude for firefighting. But that there are many women who still do have those skills etc. And therefore, if a woman can show that she has the necessary skills (the genuinely necessary ones, not some arbitrary ones set up to ensure no woman can pass) then she should be just as able to join and move up through the ranks and be treated as the equal of the men she works with.

At my work they have stopped talking as much about "equality" and started talking about "respecting diversity" and I think that is a good thing. As a manager, I am meant to make sure that I treat all my staff fairly, but that means I have to take into account things like gender, race, religion, disability, work/life balance etc - so I am to find a balance between all their different sets of needs and wishes when allocating work, arranging meetings, cnsidering leave requests etc. eg I should not arrange meetings at a time that is difficult for some people's preferred work patterns (we have flexi-time), or at least not to regularly inconvenience the same person! Particularly if their work patterns are not just because they prefer them, but to fit in with childcare, elderly relatives, religious requirements etc.

[AMumInScotland]

I just meant it as an example of something that used to be men-only. I agree it's not that simple....

[Bumperlicious]

I agree with what you are saying Amum, I think my point, badly articulated, is that in my limited experience, 'feminism' of the 80s/90s was about being like men, acting like men, and that is not what I want my feminism to be about. Look at Maggie T, our first female leader, behind all the skirt suits she was labelled the Iron Lady and attributed with traditionally male characteristics.

Can you be a female Prime Minister without having to act like a man?

I think I am muddying my point by talking about male/female characteristics. Though, while I absolutely understand about diversity and that some men and some women will have characteristics traditionally associated with opposite sex, isn't is naive to think that there aren't biological/chemical/whatever differences between men and woman, and isn't it about accepting those differences and making allowances.

Hmm, I'm not very articulate on this subject yet, but I am furiously squirreling away all the book recommendations for when I can face more heavy reading than Catherine Alliot (that'll be in about 2 years time then!). Am loving this topic by the way. I'm a complete born-again feminist!

[OrmRenewed]

Ok. That is well and good. But feminism isn't just about choice, it is also about responsibility isn't it? So you can do the traditional motherhood role if it is what you want but also if it is right for your circumstances - it's no good getting angry and upset if it isn't possible for eg to stay at home until the child starts school if there isn't the money. Being a feminist means taking an equal share of the responsibility for the family whatever form that might take.

"Can you be a female Prime Minister without having to act like a man? " How is that exactly? Isn't that sort of generalisation one of the things we don't want?

[OrmRenewed]

I never want my DD to feel that she is limited or forced into anything because she is female. Her biology must not be allowed to define her.

[ilovemydogandmrobama]

Exactly Orm. The best description I've heard of feminism is, 'biology shouldn't be destiny...'

I think that works on several levels.

[BelleDameSansMerci]

It is, surely, completely about having equal rights and being treated equally? Fairly straightforward, I think.

[Bumperlicious]

Ok, here's a better example of what I am trying to get at:

At work the promotions process is very 'tick in the box' (well, it's the civil service - it would be!). You have to have the right 'skills' (and by skills I'm talking about certain milestones and passing tests - it's so bureaucratic you wouldn't believe) and also having enough 'evidence'. But because I work part time in order to care for my daughter I have less time in which to gain the milestones and accrue the evidence required. And it's not even as simple as saying 'well, if I don't have the skills for the job then I shouldn't be promoted' because the management role that I would progress into has little resemblance to the job I currently do. Also because I had nearly a year off work the skills I did have decayed and things moved on so much that I almost had to start from scratch.

It feels a little bit like I am discriminated against for going on maternity leave and working part time. I know the PT thing is not an exclusively female issue (especially in my job, there are many men who take advantage of flexible working), but the maternity leave certainly is. I didn't have a choice about taking maternity leave, well, obviously I did, it was take it or put DD into childcare, not take it or DH takes though, so if one of us were to stay at home with her it had to be me.

Should allowances be made for this fact in considering my career progression, or at least supporting it in a way that I am not so disadvantaged? Or is this a case of 'you can't have it all, you have to make your choice'? Or should I have to be directly compared to my colleagues who haven't been on maternity leave as I undoubtably will in my forthcoming appraisal (it'll probably be 'overlooked' that I work part time when being compared against my peers, not deliberately, but I expect it will anyway).

[OrmRenewed]

A few years ago we had a leaving party for a male colleague. He was a generally popular guy - good at his job. But I felt a bit sick when I saw all the most senior managers patting him on the back and saying how they'd miss having such a good chap in the company. Such an amazing team player, played rugby and cricket for the company. I started out feeling inadequate and then irritated because it seemed if the lack of a penis made me by default an inferior member of staff.

[ilovemydogandmrobama]

I see what you mean Bumper. There is the comparison constantly to male colleagues, and this even carries over into Equal Pay, where in order to show discrimination, one needs a male comparator.

[Bumperlicious]

Well, not to get started on a rant about sexism in the work place but in my last team two of the blokes got very upset if I dared mentioned the phrase 'breast-feeding' yet we were allowed to talk about sex, and shitting through a straw and a joke about rape . One of the 'girls' even said 'yeah I found it disturbing too' - and that was in response to my reference to breast-feeding and not the rape joke .

When I informally complained to my boss he said 'well, I always thought you were able to hold your own in these conversations'.

Ok, so another example, though not really really making my point (which it appears I have missed quite spectacularly , what about women (and men) who complain about maternity leave and say that they should have paid leave equivalent even if they decide not to have children?

[Bumperlicious]

Ok, I am revising my OP, feminism isn't 'less about women's rights', but wasn't part of it at one point 'trying to be like men' especially in the work place, big shoulder pads (to compete with make broad shoulders), short 'masculine' hair cuts.

My point is that I don't want to have to be like a man to be equal to a man. Maybe feminism was never about that, but it feels like that is sometimes how it is viewed. I want feminine virtues (whether exhibited by a male or female) to be valued as equally as male virtues.

[Bumperlicious]

Ok, here's another:

'So Bumper, what are you going to do on your day off?'

Um, it's not a day off, it is a day where I do my other job of looking after my daughter and you seem to forget that I DON'T GET PAID FOR IT!



And this is the public sector, in a flexible organisation. They just seem to have forgotten to tell the staff. You either have the young hungry grads who are being promoted above me and look down on me for not being ambitious enough, and the old dinosaur men (often ex Navy etc.) who were never around when their wives had their kids and have absolutely no idea what life with young children was like. And I never want to rock the boat because it is tough enough trying to manage to carve out a career while having children without being seen as a 'trouble maker' thrown into the mess.

I'd be eaten alive in the private sector

[Bink]

I'm sure there have been women who've tried "if you can't beat them join them" variants of workplace behaviour, but that's never been something any sort of 'organised' feminism has pushed! (And remember how the big shoulder pads went with those icky pie-frill collar shirts and "pussy-cat" bows, plus mandatory make-up - some mix of messages there.)

The irony of how you describe your promotional assessments is that somebody has tried to design something that is as objective as possible, hence all the boxes and skills-lists. I don't think it comes out of sexism, I think it comes out of a hamfisted effort to not disadvantage anyone. Obviously it is hamfisted, and as hamfisted for a single person with caring responsibilities (eg a disabled parent) as it is for a parent.

[Bink]

Actually - I've had 15+ years in quite a tough private sector and I can tell you it has changed enormously - everything from the acceptability of trousers to people in big commercial meetings quite frankly saying without fear of comeback that could they please start the meeting at 10 because they've got the school run first.

I think the private sector may actually be a bit ahead of the public here?

[Bumperlicious]

Actually, I do have to be fair to my place, it is extremely accommodating, and scheduling meetings around school runs isn't out of the ordinary. It's is just a few people who need their attitudes sorting out. In fact the main thing keeping me there is the flexible working policy. So I wouldn't say the public sector as an employer is behind, more that the public sector is more likely to be full of dead wood and dinosaurs!

[ImSoNotTelling]

Bink I think it depends on which area you are in - I was in insurance and it was spectacularly old fashioned

The whole women having to pretend to be men to get ahead thing - I guess it was "if you can't beat em join em" and that if we wanted change we had to infiltrate the powerful places and effect change from the inside.

To expect every woman who was successful to be working with a feminist agenda though was wrong - women are people and some simply want money and respect and had no desire to get political - I think it was a shame that they were seen as "letting the side down" when all they were doing was behaving exactly as came naturally to them, and their behaviour happened to be behaviour that was more in common with male behaviour. But if we are going to say that women can be whoever they want, then we have to accept that we won't always like them

However look at how far we have come since the 80s - it really is a long way - and while there is a long way to go I am hopeful. And with forums like this bringing women together to talk about thsi stuff - it's a very powerful thing and I see exciting times ahead