Do you think men and women are 'of equal value but different' or actually 'the same'?

Regarding toys, my mum tried for a while to get me interested in dolls and dresses, but it didn't really work. I had a few dolls that I was attached to, but I used to insist on wearing trousers, and would also pedal my brother's tractor around the front of the house while he followed me, pushing his teddy bear in my pram. We both liked trains and lego.

Sarah Palin and Margaret Thather are individuals.

A group of women, mixed in with a group of men, will (probably, usually?) provide in general a more balanced outlook than a single-gender group. Putting one person in a position and thinking they'll represent their gender (half the population's) generalities seems to be missing the existence of individual difference.

And even without taking into account specific personalities and just going on categories, Thatcher and Palin are still white middle class and conservative, which a lot of women aren't. A black liberal one-legged working class man might have more in common, be more representative of, and have more similarity of perspective and operating method to a black working class liberal one-legged woman than Palin ever could, for example.

Ha well there you go BB - it doesn't always work does it. And now look at you, on MN when you were probably raised to be playing whist in the village hall .

I didn't TBH mean the truck thing literally, although the various experiences are certainly interesting! More that people are often IMO looking for "biological" differences to account for aptitudes, when there are sometimes quite obvious separate "training" systems for boys and girls that account for them. If the truck driver kid did turn out to be good at truck driving, trying to account for it genetically would be IMO a bit of a fool's errand. It's just that the "training" that kids get has been (until v recently) been largely ignored.

My Dad's hobby is driving steam engines so I spend a lot of my childhood around railways. Some idiots used to sympathise with him for having girls when we were bloody well stood there! My Dad just shrugged it off - he didn't miss out on sharing his hobby at all, he did everything with us he'd have done with a son.

Funny thing is though with the grandchildren it's a clear m/f split - the two eldest (boys) are really into trains, the two youngest (girls) really aren't interested. Maybe that will change when the 3yo is a bit older, I dunno.

Now my dad wanted a boy I think, so I had a toy fort, toy garage, soldiers, cars, scaletrix etc as a child. Hot Wheels was my fave! Maybe that did encourage me to think out of the box, or maybe it made no difference whatsoever. I am not particularly girly, but dd certainly is. She loves all things pink and sparkly.

ElephantsAndMiasmas - perhaps I am an interesting experiment on what you said way back up the thread about " if you are trained to be a truck driver from birth, presented with pictures of trucks, toy trucks, games to improve co-ordination etc, it's no surprise that your brain develops in a way favourable to truck driving".

From a very young age I had typical male toys, trucks, cars, etc. From age 6 I also drove tractors and other vehicles on my Dads farm. However, I hate driving. I am useles at it and have not done so for about 20 years and dont intend to ever again.

I think that what happened in the financial sector is an example of group think. A lack of diversity can be very self reinforcing to orthodox views where people only recruit other people who are very similar to them and where diversity of opinion gets sidelined or dismissed. I don't think this is particularly specific to gender, there is plenty of research that suggests ethnic diversity is a factor in better decision making too.

I hope to goodness that the States never has Sarah Palin as President, but if they do it will be more about the very powerful girl/boy next door narrative that they have playing there.

Ah! I get you Elephants. You're talking about the way in which we have al been 'brain-washed' by society; so even we automatically approach our choices with a skewed 'male', capitalist pov.

I certainly am very guilty of doing just that, I am working hard at not judging other people based on what they 'do'.

Mmm...

individual differences,nature/nurture make us all very unique. the plethora of women venus,pink brain,blah blah books are broad brush generalisations

if men and women were a certain prescribed way predictable and categorised life would be easier and dull

of course men and women aren't homogeneous and cannot be reduced by gender

which makes life much more interesting

I'm with Territorial. We are all individuals. You can't predict anything much about someone from knowing their stated gender - you can't even predict what chromosones they (given some people who appear male or female may actually have an extra chromosone).

The groups 'male' or 'female' are so huge you can't really make any conclusions about similarity or differences between any two members of that group.

ChocolateMoose - I've just started reading Pink Brain Blue Brain.

I'm interested to see what ideas I can get to help me bring up DS to see the sexes as equal and to attempt to diminish the effect of gender stereotyping.

(I am planning to mow the lawn for the first time - mainly because other wise what is to stop DS thinkning that this is just a "male" job.)

BeenBeta - loving your comments - especially Any system that contains onlly men or only women is less strong than a balanced equal sex system." Have you read The spirit Level? I've not read it yet but I think that it is arguing exactly what you said - and presumably also includes racial equality etc.

Do you find many of your fellow males in finance share your views wrt to the impact of the lack of women on the "credit crunch".

Well yeah MBJ .

I did say it was bollocks. But for me that's the underlying factor behind the "feeling" that being a female CEO is more feminist than being a SAHM. I meant "instinctual" in that it's the feeling I get before another cleverer part of my brain comes in and points out that it is stupid.

Porto

ISWYM Elephants nut surely that is just buying into the current patriarchal system of power and trying to beat men at their own game. Rather than valuing ALL contributions as equal. I agree with Porto though, that even if 50% of MPs/CEOs etc were female I only think that true equality will exist when men (in general) see nursing/SAHP etc as a valid and EQUAL choice.

But people communicate differently, surely? You only have to read a MIL thread on here . I am pretty damn sure that I have well communicated to DH that we are going to a BBQ on Saturday pm, but his head is full of football and it totally seems to have passed him by.....

I liked the book Pink Brain, Blue Brain which I bought because someone on here recommended it. It's good on flexibility of the brain and the formation of gender identity in childhood.

One interesting bit of myth-breaking I heard on the radio the other day about the 'men and women communicate differently' thing, which has been generally debunked elsewhere - a lot of women say x, they mean y, men say a, they mean b is based on heterosexual relationships. Apparently researchers who decided to research same-sex relationships found exactly the same patterns of miscommunication.

So actually, to me, the measure of equality is when men see being SAHD, or nurse, or carer or PA as being a valid choice, rather than all women striving for greatness. At the end of the day, male or female, only so many get to be in charge, and not everyone, of either sex, aspires to that.

Then I have this thought at the back of my mind that men, on the whole, don't WANT to be nurses, for example. I know some men do. And there was that big thing in Meet the Fockers etc. WHY don't men want to be nurses? Is it the status, the pay, or some biological, empathic, cultural thing? I honestly have no clue!

Good point, Porto, about valuing the CEO route more highly from a feminist perspective. I agree to a certain extent about the money involvement, but on a personal level I think that instinctual feeling of it being "more feminist" to become a CEO or whatever, springs from a desire to see more women in positions of power full stop. I mean, until the revolution arrives I wish that more MPs and leaders in every field were women, at least 50% in fact. And I feel that if I want to see that happening, it's my job to try to be part of that. Does that make sense? And being a SAHM (although powerful in some senses) is so private, so confined in terms of your interaction with others, that it seems to be less "helpful" in terms of impact.

I know it's bollocks really, a female CEO could do a lot of bad things for women, and a female SAHP could do a lot of good things. But a female CEO could have the ear of the the government and have more power to push forward women-friendly policies etc.

It's a power thing, basically.

Men and women can and should make equal contributions to society, family, the economy, business, politics, etc.

However, they are dfferent. Not just physically but also different in strengths and weaknesses across a broad spectrum of attributes. That diversity of strengths and weaknesses when employed in a balanced way is a very powerful thing. Any system that contains onlly men or only women is less strong than a balanced equal sex system.

I strongly beleive that in my own industry (finance) the lack of women in key decision making areas contributed hugely to the recent financial crisis. The intellectual and emotional responses to the build up to the crisis were hugley imbalanced and 'male' in their outlook as has been the response afterwards.

It may sound weird and even slightly off topic but there is a real possibility that the USA will vote in Sarah Palin as the next President precisely because she will present a stark 'female' response to the deep financial and social crisis the US faces.

Margaret Thatcher got into power for the same reason.

I suppose I would class myself as a Marxist-Feminist (or is that Feminist-Marxist - I really should read more!) but I agree entirely. As far as I'm concerned a nurse adds more value to the world than a banker (for example) but it is the banker (who is usually assumed to be male) who has more status than the nurse (who is usually assumed to be female)

To me THAT is the challenge. Everything is about money! I agree that there should be equal pay - for those with equal experience/time served/qualifications. But a big issue is that women are over represented in the "caring" roles which are generally undervalued. They shouldn't be.

Porto you're right. It is the way in which caring roles are 'feminised' and devalued. Our cultural hierarchy is also based on capitalism so: high income = high status. And no income = no status...

MummyBerryJuice, but that could be said for anyone? We all have choices. If you are a Mum OR a Dad, and you choose to focus on your children vs your career for a few years that is fine.

The problem I have is the way "success" measured from feminist standpoint. Being a SAHM is a valid option if that is what you want, as is being a SAHD. It is also a valid choice to strive to be CEO. Both choices involve sacrifice - I don't believe we can have it all - but the latter is often seen as being "better" than the former. Why?

Oops. That should be sAf

It's ok. Call me a pedant.

Well said saF. All science (and particularly neuroscience/psychology) is terribly biased by the starting hypothesis.

That said I think a large part of my personal frustration comes from the realisation that I have to choose what I want from life. And choosing one thing means not-choosing another. And what does it mean if I want to choose the stereotypical mummy role?