Why are society's restrictions on men's appearance never mentioned?

TeiTetua, farming work has traditionally been women's work in the Western world. Within the UK, land has often been owned by men, but when defining how much labour it would take to make profit from a piece of land, historically the hours were frequently calculated in terms of women's labour, because they were the people who actually worked the land. Women do not always show up in the paid work force because much land in the UK was subsistence farmed, with rent paid in produce.

Britain was at war for much of the relatively recent past, and much of the male population were not even present to farm land for much of the time. Even if not at war, men often had more opportunities to emigrate, either on a permanent or temporary basis.

People like to write the contribution of women out of working class history, because socialists find it harder to get people fired up about past injustices if the past injustices were done to a bunch of women.

I'm sorry Stewie, that sounded so unlikely that you drove me to look it up. In 1900, women made up about a third of the UK paid workforce; a large proportion of that was domestic servants. In a lot of jobs, married women simply weren't accepted until World War 2. That even applied to teaching.

As for farming, there are a lot of of African and (in some places) Asian women working subsistence farms, and maybe they make up "most of the world's farmers". But in the western world, farming has always been mostly men's work even if now it doesn't take many people to do it. In parts of America, there are these huge enormously productive farms, where lonely men can't find wives--the women all move away as there's nothing for them to do.

I was pointing out how employment trends changed in the UK post industrialism, (the rise in service industries particularly suited females) - I'm not interested in how many female pig farmers there are in Uganda. And sure, women in the UK have always worked, but not at the levels they do now and very few worked if they had pre-schoolers.

Carmina, women have always worked. Most farmers are women. Most food is produced by women. The world is built on the labour of women. To make out that women work because of shopping is utterly sexist and ridiculous.

thread here

article here

there have been a 1000 similar reports - the more cynical will say that the men in power 'gave' women feminism ( after the demise of our heavy industry and the birth of the consumer society women were more suited for the new job market - retail etc, coincidence maybe? no )

Also, we're not actually any happier than we were 50 years ago, in fact we're less happy. The 'very happies' have fallen from 52% in 1957 to 36% in 2005 - I dread to think what the 'happiness' figures are now...The rates of depression have also soared since the end of the war with women being particularly affected - The statistics support that.

That article was tosh. Feminisn is not holding back men, it is putting women back to where they should be. If the men actually need to work as hard as women to be on a par with them then that is only fair.

The 'faffing' was related to clothes and looks specifically. Nothing to do with childrearing. I thought that much was quite clear from my post.

"plus there was a report in the telegraph recently ( last week ? ) about how feminism is holding back working class men "

Ohh the telegraph. Must be true then

I have 3 children, only 2 of them have penises. I want all three of them to get a decent crack of the whip. If it means the boys have to work harder to do as well as the girl so be it.

I am only putting a negative spin on being female if you beleive 'being female' is defined by clothing and appearance . Strangely I don't. Some men do. The patriarchy does. Hence why men don't think it behoves me to worry about it.

Yes, women do generally pick their children up from school. That is not evidence that their fathers are out providing them.

Most poor people are women, so the idea that feminism is in opposition to social mobility is laughable. You cannot separate poverty from the situation of women. Poorer women are in a far better situation now than they were 50 years ago. If your man walks out on you now and you have no money, that is not going to be used as a reason to take your children into care.

No, maybe it's not the usual thing, but every playgroup I've ever visited ( over a 20 year period ) has been 99% female - when I go to pick my son up from school today the playground will consist mainly of women. I'm sure an awful lot of women work these days, but they still provide the majority of childcare and I can't see that ever changing significantly.

plus there was a report in the telegraph recently ( last week ? ) about how feminism is holding back working class men ( I'll try and dig it out ) as a mother of two sons I'm not overly happy when I read reports like this - I believe in equality for all - no one should benefit at the expense of another. Feminism, whilst being a social advancement for the middle-classes, has had a negative effect on working class males and the social mobility of the poorer classes - feminism is not a win win situation.

Carmina, I don't think men traditionally are providers and women homemakers. There was a bit of a thing for it in the mid twentieth century, but it isn't really the usual situation.

I do appreciate being female. I just don't feel a need to particularly embrace femininity, nor do I find masculinity at all appealing.

Men have to put their tops back on in the summer to go in a supermarket. Which I think is a shite rule, considering it's the only place I ever go on my own.

No Seth I haven't read it - but I will now.

The recent census asked me 3 key questions - my occupation, my religion, and if my partner was male or female - I don't think hobbies were mentioned ?

"Therefore females have developed a flair for design and creativity born out of our (traditional) role in life.."
I'm doomed then :)

One of dhs colleague was told to shave his beard off by the company they worked for. He did it as redundancys were looming. I still don't see why he should have had to though. surely having a beard is in fact the default state just as unshaved legs and unpolished nails are. It wasn't a H&S matter either.

Ormirian; You could put a negative spin on anything if you tried hard enough - what you say about women being unimportant so we're encouraged to 'Faff about' is nonsense. Females are traditionally the child carers and home makers - males provide. Therefore females have developed a flair for design and creativity born out of our (traditional) role in life. On a personal note - Our home is decorated entirely to my taste - my dc were/are dressed in the way I wanted them dressed - my dh was too busy providing for us. My clothing and personal appearance is an extension of my home - I take my creativity out onto the street - it's powerful - not 'faffing about' - I actually feel a little sorry that you are so negative about being female.

it's the difference between a description and a definition - 'She is a doctor' is a description, not a definition, IMO.

sorry Carmina, I'm still not finding that argument awfully convincing. It just doesn't mesh with what I know to be true from personal experience as well as what I have read.
Have you read South Riding (set in Yorkshire in the 1930s)? Huggins in that definitely takes his identity from being a lay preacher and Alderman Beddows from her public service not her being a mother of 4 or auctioneer's wife.

anyway it's a side issue....

But that is part of the way women are restricted. Men aren't allowed to break the rules of dress and appearance. Women are. Because women's primary purpose is to make a big deal out of her appearance - make an effort, try new things, look pretty/beautiful/sexy (delete as appropriate). Men are more serious beings, taken more seriously and seeing themselves more seriously so they must not* break the rules becuase by doing so they downgrade men's position and authority. Women are encouraged to faff about with their looks because they aren't important.

It's all part of the same old same old.

Must point out I don't decide what he can wear (but I would like him to wear something :) )

I think occupation is a peculiarly English (and possibly American) obsession - pretty sure I have read that somewhere. That we, as a nation, will almost aways ask 'what do you do?' (i.e. what's your job?) Before any other question, but not sure how far that is tied into class issues.

MillyR - pretty sure I got it from my mum! (and her excuse would be my dad spent most of his life in uniform and away so never had time! - which is pretty true)