Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The optional nature of men's lives

411 replies

cailindana · 24/01/2015 12:35

I was talking about this with DH recently and he agreed with much of what I said.

It strikes me that boys and men have very "optional" lives in comparison to girls and women and that this influences their whole approach to life. What I mean is, girls learn pretty early on that their choices will be restricted, that their options will be limited. From only being allowed to wear skirts and then told they mustn't show their knickers (thus removing the option to be active) to suddenly having to deal with periods and curtailing activities due to that, to then contending with the prospect of unwanted pregnancy and thus having restrictions on sexuality to then being told not to walk certain places not to do certain things for fear of being attacked and ultimately being told you "can't have it all" - ie choose work or children.

IMO, women (in general of course, not all) learn very quickly that there are consequences to things, that you can't always have what you want, that sometimes you just have to get on with it and face the fact that everything isn't perfect. I think that influences their approach to so many things in life from housework, to illness, to childrearing. Men on the other hand, always seem to have options open to them and I think that leads to a certain immaturity, a lack of acceptance that sometimes you can't have what you want. I think it has a bearing on how men approach things like fatherhood and the idea that now you don't have any choice but to knuckle down and accept your life is different - so many men seem to want to "opt out" and carry on as if nothing is different, thus leaving women to, as usual, take the hard road.

While I don't think it's right that women often end up carrying the burden I'm not sure it's necessarily a bad thing to have that maturity foisted on you. I think while women do lose out massively in the earlier years, especially when children are young, that maturity and that acceptance stands them in very good stead as they get older and ultimately they reap the rewards. I notice among older friends that women seem to come into their own in their 50s whereas men can't face that their options are now becoming limited and they no longer have the world open to them - hence mid-life crises etc. I think also because men expect options they tend to skirt on the edges of responsibility, never full accepting the hardship of, for example, parenthood, and thus ending up on the fringes as children get older and become true friends and companions. Thus women, who have been the stable guiding force in childhood, mucking in, organising, being the go-to person, reap the rewards of a close relationship with their adult children, whereas men, who focused on work, never really got their hands dirty with parenting, are now coming to retirement and the loss of that source of status but have not really jumped in with both feet in family life and so don't have that either. They are left with very little.

I am not saying the equality that exists is a good thing. What I'm saying I suppose is that while women look on enviously at men continuing their careers and never attending a parents' evening, they might do well to remember that the emotional toil and labour they put into their families is really and truly worth something. Jobs come and go, they give no love or longterm support. But children are for life, and being that person who always knows where the PE kit is is important, is special.

Men are missing out. They just don't realise that until it's too late.

OP posts:
FloraFox · 26/01/2015 23:55

"Is" not "or"

FloraFox · 26/01/2015 23:55

phaedra I don't deny your experience of your work but it is nothing like the experience of working on the City. Presenteeism has not gone out of favour and long hour are baked into the business model. The idea that working long hours would be perceived as a sign of failure or frankly laughable.

FloraFox · 26/01/2015 23:51

phaedra I have a little experience of firms in the central belt. They have not struck me as beacons of diversity.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 23:51

I would have said "presenteeism" was a feature of the Thatcherite days. When I started work offices closed for lunch. Literally closed the door between 1 and 2 and phones ( which all went through a central switchboard) weren't answered. How quaint that seems.

Presenteeism , as far as I can tell has really gone out of favour.

There will be occasions when late hours are required to meet a specific deadline but making a regular thing is saying either you're not coping or you're not delegating properly. Neither is going to win brownie points.

FloraFox · 26/01/2015 23:41

Flora It can be sorted out by not having a job which makes such demands. Not all jobs demand 24 hour / constant travel/ stress. Most don't.

All you're saying is that women cannot have access to jobs that have been designed to be inaccessible to women. And this is their responsibility and not affect by cultural or societal factors.

When I stared in my job, the hours and commitments required to make it to partnership were far less than they are today. There were far fewer women (or lower class types) in the running. It does seem that the spread of "meritocracy" has changed the ground rules for success which now requires excessive presenteeism.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 23:34

I actually meant consequences for their company's services being hired. If they tender for say local government work and that got back to someone on the procurement panel.

It might sound far fetched but rumour has it the least obvious site for the Holyrood parliament and which was eventually picked is down to 2 civil servants gossiping on a train about possible locations , a surveyor over hearing it and punting his client's site.

Flora do you have any experience of working in or dealing with law firms in the Central Belt?

YonicScrewdriver · 26/01/2015 23:25

They might rebound, but there's a good chance they won't.
Or at least that they'll never know they have (when Petula recommends that a protege of hers doesn't even bother to apply there, for example)

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 23:24

Flora It can be sorted out by not having a job which makes such demands. Not all jobs demand 24 hour / constant travel/ stress. Most don't.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 23:19

If two men are stupid enough to say that in a social situation the hiring consequences may well rebound on them.

It shows a lack of business savvy. They have no way of knowing who might get to hear of it or to whom they were speaking.

FloraFox · 26/01/2015 23:14

Your husband's job hours sound horrendous but that is for you and your husband to sort out.

That's rubbish. These are structural / cultural issues that cannot be devolved to individuals to "sort out".

I have worked in Scandinavian countries where men and women take responsibilities for child care which means in private enterprises, every day someone (male or female) stands up and says "I'm leaving to get the kids" at a reasonable hour. They have excellent daycare and very few people SAH or use nannies. We can't, as individual families, sort this our ourselves.

FloraFox · 26/01/2015 23:09

I don't need to look at the Law Society's website to see how many women partners there are because the eyes in my head can clearly see the paucity of women partners in the City. That isn't even the whole story because neither my eyes nor the Law Society will tell me how many of the women partners are income / de-equitised partners even though I know women are disproportionately income / de-equitised.

I do realise that in some other places the number of women may be higher than in the City but I wouldn't hold out Edinburgh as a model of diversity. Not by a long shot.

EBearhug · 26/01/2015 23:07

I also don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if two men have been stupid enough to say that out loud then it is likely to happen in hiring situations

Of course it does, regardless of whether you're actually likely to have children or not, but most employers aren't stupid enough to give it as a reason; they'll say you just weren't quite up to the standard of the other candidate, or something like that.

EBearhug · 26/01/2015 23:04

I agree women have to be a little more wary late at night and be aware of personal safety

Why? Statistically, men are more likely to be attacked. Is it really more dangerous if a woman on my own, goes down the back alley at 11pm to put the bins out, or if a man on his own does? The main dangers anyway are likely to be slipping on ice or not noticing the cat underfoot or someone else leaving a bin awkwardly placed so it's in the way and not seeing it because of the dark. There is a risk of being attacked, but it's not the only or most likely risk, whether male or female, unless it's an area where there is a known, current problem.

People should be a little more wary when it's dark, and aware of personal safety, but it's just as important for men as women.

PetulaGordino · 26/01/2015 22:55

Where have I dismissed it? Of course they can, but I wasn't in a hiring situation, so if I shold have taken it up with someone please do let me know how - I would genuinely welcome it.

I also don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if two men have been stupid enough to say that out loud then it is likely to happen in hiring situations

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 22:50

Ballroom Sorry. I didn't mean to be rude it came out more brusquely than intended.I didn't say it was an unfeminist choice. Your husband's job hours sound horrendous but that is for you and your husband to sort out. There's nothing really that all the equality legislation in the world will help there.

Your choices are limited as a result of your and your husband's personal situation. Other couples might choose that both worked but neither in such demanding nor high-flying jobs.

YonicScrewdriver · 26/01/2015 22:49

Phaedra, you are in a partnership. Everyone in that partnership and employed by it is accountable to each other for the reputations and fortunes of the firm.

Absolutely, one manager in a hierarchy at a limited company would also suffer consequences if other staff or shareholders heard about it.

When speaking to an owner manager of a firm socially, when they own 100% of the equity, surely you can see that's different?

puddymuddles · 26/01/2015 22:47

Girls no longer have to wear skirts at school as most primaries have a trousers option and not all women have problems with their periods (I don't). I agree women have to be a little more wary late at night and be aware of personal safety but a lot of the other stuff you say doesn't ring true with me at all. My DH is a great dad and very involved (in fact we have 2 girls and they seem to prefer him to me a lot of the time.....)!

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 22:44

The Law Societies of England and Wales will have stats as will the Scottish one.

I could I suppose count the number of female partners on the website of every firm but I'm not going to. They don't seem to be by any means a rare breed. My own firm is probably about 40% or more.

Petula your very dismissive of the fact that employers can find themselves in trouble over blatant discrimination. Do you have anything to support your last post beyond that is just what you think. After all anything I say gets dismissed as only applying to me but a generalisation like the one you have just made is fine?

BallroomWithNoBalls · 26/01/2015 22:42

Phaedra I find your post to me very rude and it for me sums up why my options are limited as per the OP.

You say I'm being a martyr and should pressure my DH to contribute more housework wise - how exactly, when he is out of the house from 8am til midnight at busy times and he is away for several nights abroad this week?

If I was working part time, chores still need to be done - berating him for not doing them is pointless.

My choices consist of do it all myself, or go back to work and pay for a cleaner and nanny and do the remainder myself, running myself ragged in the process?

Wouldn't that be martyrdom? Don't be so narrow minded, it's not an unfeminist choice to be a sahm, it's just a frustrating one when it's a million miles away from what your partner is doing and I'd rather things were shared more equally.

I guess in my situation, both me and DH are a bit trapped and at a loss. But it's the best we can make of the situation right now so there's not much point in complaining, you're right Hmm

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 26/01/2015 22:38

Ok, fine. After your reaction in the last post I assumed the same tone from that one (and its exclamation mark).

But has someone counted? I'd love to know if there is a divide.

YonicScrewdriver · 26/01/2015 22:37

"women are far, far better represented at senior level in the provinces. "

That's good.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 22:36

Oh for goodness sake that wasn't a serious remark - hence the exclamation mark.

PetulaGordino · 26/01/2015 22:35

Anyway, the attitude is there. Whether they are stupid enough to say it out loud or not doesn't mean other men in decision-making positions aren't thinking it and using it when it comes to hiring and promotions.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 26/01/2015 22:34

Yokels in the provinces. Oh give over. I have neither said nor implied anything against non London firms and in a decade of dealing with them I don't recall blue chip being used.

I would be interested in stats though. If it is so much better hasn't someone counted?

PetulaGordino · 26/01/2015 22:31

"If any of my male partners said that and it got back to the managing partner or the chairman they'd be faced with equality training. And get a bollocking for potentially landing us with a discrimination claim."

It was a social situation and they owned their companies - not a lot I can do about that