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:
SardineQueen · 26/01/2015 18:38

Oh I had an interesting experience recently. Been thinking a lot about "boys club" stuff and unconscious bias and that sort of thing. Some colleagues and I had client meetings and to cut a long story short there were meetings with all male clients and meetings with all female clients and I noticed in myself a difference in comfort level, that my colleagues seemed to have different comfort levels, and that the "hello how are you let's bond a bit" conversations were quite different.

I've always been someone who has lots of male friends and doesn't see the whole gender divide thing but as i get older actually I see the divides more. I mean everyone got on well and we had good meetings but it was just interesting you know? Also observing at work meetings where there is 1 man and then 4 women, 1 of whom is big boss, and the man often seems not as relaxed as when there are more men there. And I think, this is how it is for a lot of women in work esp in certain industries and at higher levels a lot isn't it? We're often the sole woman in a roomful of men, which is fine, we're used to it. But, we're the "odd one out". Not that that affects anything, but you know, it's interesting, the dynamic.

Just thinking out loud here really. I want to get on at work at the mo and that combined with being a feminist Grin combined with Diversity talks at work combined with keeping my eyes peeled at work is just very interesting at the moment Smile

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 26/01/2015 18:35

I would agree more people should ask. We both did pt for a while. But it remains the case that in many organisations pt employees lose out. Which is a separate but related issue, as per my earlier post.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 18:31

Well, you operate under the same employment law as me, dear - put in the request, if that's what you truly want

Indeed. There's nothing to stop a man asking for part time work and an employer can't dismiss it out of hand. Complaining about it on here won't do any good.

You may argue " cultural norms" are conditioned against this- well if you don't ask those norms are never going to be challenged.

SardineQueen · 26/01/2015 18:31

Which is your field Phaeadra? It sounds interesting and quite different from mine, there are big differences between industries so it is always good to find out more about ones you are not familiar with!

You say that the default is that women return to work and that there is as much representation of women as men throughout. But then women aren't represented in the same numbers as men at senior levels - or are they? I'd be interested in learning more.

In my industry it is all very good and equal until about mid 30s when the numbers of women fall off a cliff. Full-time women with children are fairly rare. My company is based in Europe and quite "right-on" (well for a traditional industry) and they are actively working to increase diversity at higher level positions, and to my eye it seems to be more than lip-service.

Drops in numbers are due to pat-time and the commute I guess. Women over a certain age are a bit sparse compared to other groups in the location I work.

Chunderella · 26/01/2015 18:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 26/01/2015 18:23

So essentially the answer is no then?

Hard to respond to comments about your industry since I don't know what it is.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 18:21

In the professions I have experience of I think there is a strong case for arguing that women who don't achieve senior positions are those who are either not interested or don't merit it.

I do think some women use "barriers" as a means of avoiding saying that they really aren't that interested.

In my own field the days of promotions being handed to men just because they are men are long gone. Anyone seeking promotion needs to justify why they should get it.

creambun2014 · 26/01/2015 18:18

I believe women are held back by cultural barriers more than structural ones. Some women aren't constrained by culture in the same way as they dont buy in to the social construct that a woman stays at home, runs the house, cooks and looks after men. I hope one day more women think in this way.

YonicScrewdriver · 26/01/2015 18:18

Various men have said to me they wish they could have the set up DH and I do.

Well, you operate under the same employment law as me, dear - put in the request, if that's what you truly want.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 26/01/2015 18:01

Useful excuse. Very rarely i would say. Most such women are very open about their ambitions.

Out of interest, do you believe women in Britain experience any institutional or structural barriers that are not either of their own making or could not be overcome by just trying harder?

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 26/01/2015 17:58

I didn't say it was 'automatically' a barrier though did I? Nevertheless, it is common.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 17:57

Several of my partners are female and are part time. I don't agree it's automatically a barrier to promotion if that's what a woman wants. It may be a useful excuse to avoid saying that actually she's not particularly interested.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 17:51

But most big companies like DH's wouldn't consider letting a man work 4 days. Well he could I suppose but not command the same salary at all

Has he asked? My understanding is that it is contrary to equality legislation if a man is refused part time work if the employer regularly allows women to. Discrimination works both ways.

We have a part time father (in a senior post) in my small department and I'm aware there are other part time male workers at various levels in the firm.

And of course they have to take a salary cut. No one could expect 5 days salary for 4 days work.

PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom · 26/01/2015 17:08

"But most big companies like DH's wouldn't consider letting a man work 4 days. Well he could I suppose but not command the same salary at all. "

People say things like this all the time and I just don't get it. Companies are required by law to be just as accommodating to men as women, and I've never seen any real evidence (used to be an employment lawyer so read a lot around these issues) that companies are that much less accommodating of men. It seems a man making a flexible working request is as likely to succeed as a woman, broadly speaking.

So we really seem to be naming it as the wrong issue. Surely what the real issue is is "Most big companies see part time workers as less committed and less ripe for promotion". And men aren't as willing to make that career sacrifice as women (and this thread has explored a lot of the complex reasons that might be the case). It isn't that man get a harder deal than women on this, it's that men aren't as willing to accept the only deal going.

Or have others seen other evidence? It's something that really interests me.

Dervel · 26/01/2015 16:59

That would necessitate a complete reworking of how society operates, although don't misunderstand me I happy to agree with you. I'm just unclear on how we get there, either in terms of a one off big shock and change scenario (like a revolution), or even how we begin to make incremental changes towards that end.

The most I have been able to work through in my own head is a deconstruction of what we value. Money used to represent a raw valuable material (ie the gold standard), and psychologically we still kind of approach it from that perspective. We value things and not necessarily the time required to achieve them.

It is I am sure no accident that we reward traditionally male dominated roles materially more than what women have been traditionally left with. However when you start to look at the wide gamut of human achievement and look by time spent as opposed to material acquired it all starts to look very different.

We (as a society not on here obviously), demonise stay at home mothers (particularly single ones on benefits) as somehow not producing anything of value. When in truth they are producing and nurturing the next generation of society, and well they do (which really should read we), will have a far greater impact on the future of society than how much our gdp is any given year.

Yet somehow the considerable time spent in growing, nurturing and teaching a new life is not even actually considered of value, because somehow we got to the point where unless you are generating wealth you are worth nothing. Bizarrely as well the people who tend to be the wealthiest rarely are the ones actually producing anything they are just adept at essentialy moving money around, and when it moves anywhere they take their "cut".

I wouldn't blame any woman who takes a gander at the status quo and says "screw the grunt work I'm doing something high status and lucrative" after all that's what men have been doing for generations. Although I haven't the foggiest how restructure everything, but I think the more feminists push the boundaries it will force the issue sooner or later and we'll all have to collectively fix it.

Totally agree with the spirit of this thread, although women are a lot more autonomous than before, every choice a woman makes is second guessed, deconstructed, and criticised. Doesn't matter what the choice is it will be put under the microscope. Men are by and large free from this.

BallroomWithNoBalls · 26/01/2015 16:49

Yes the ideal for my family (and I suspect most) would not be the current set up where I am ft sahm and DH is ft at work, but a mix of the two - if DH could work 4 days and I could work 1 or something. I'm happy that we only use childcare when we have to, but then because I'd rather not (no judgement on those who do, it's just my preference) then it's me who feels guilty as it's my choice to work. DH isn't affected either way, he's supportive of me working but it just doesn't make sense for me to atm.

But most big companies like DH's wouldn't consider letting a man work 4 days. Well he could I suppose but not command the same salary at all.

I wish there was more part time good work around - it would free up everyone, male and female. The bits and pieces of work I have managed to do have not been as highly paid or as high status as the ft work I did before kids appeared.

TheFriar · 26/01/2015 15:38

cailain I don't think the husband of a woman president would have much more freedom. Because a lot of the barriers are coming from the position itself rather than being a man/woman.

I really do think though that as long as we will carry on asking to have the same than men, ie respect re job, ability to work (which is linked with the men taking on more responsibility at home as otherwise it's just unfeasible) then we are missing the point because we are asking to have the same than men.
What we should be asking (and in IMO need as a society) is to see childrearing as a role as important as earning money.
This would solve a lot of issue re one partner having the possibility to 'have some authority' and 'more rights' than the other partner.
It would allow women to go back to work, men to be SAHD, both parents being involved in their children lives.
Whereas if we concentrate in what we don't have, we put ourselves in the position of the weak one. We tell men that actually childrearing isn't that important (as we tell them earning money us more important) and we leave men squarely into their box, which will stop any movement for proper equality.

TheFriar · 26/01/2015 15:27

The status thing and having more freedom clearly applies to people who can live on one income (or with the woman being part time).
But that's surely the situation for all SAHM so maybe not such an unusual situation ???

cailindana · 26/01/2015 14:48

I don't agree that SAHMs gain status in their own right from what their husbands do.
It seems to me that we value women in reference to men. Hence the title of "First Lady" which is an actual job bestowed on a woman simply for being married to a president. What would the first female president's husband be called I wonder? What would his role be? Would he have a job that exists purely in reference to his wife, or would he be allowed to conduct his own life?
That sort of "status" is the same "status" as we give children - it is not the status of an adult but of someone who is due respect simply by association.

OP posts:
BallroomWithNoBalls · 26/01/2015 12:55

That is true chunderella.

When I think about the things I am happy with in my life - the fact that I can choose to be a sahm, my for-the-most-part-nice house, the fact that we can afford takeaways and the occasional night out, that I can have a lie in at the weekend or spend a few hours on my reasonably pricy hobby - these are all down to the man I married.

I made some pretty reckless decisions in my youth with my career and money - my younger brother recently said he sees me as a role model for that mistakes when you're younger don't matter and that it's possible to turn out well anyway. I felt like a bit of a fraud when he said that as my 'nice, sorted' life feels down to my DH and not me. I have a degree and good professional standing, but right now it's DH that has the far bigger impact on the quality of our lives.

I still think that's a huge pressure on him though. We are all relying on him to maintain our lifestyle. (We aren't rolling in it btw, just enough that we can afford for me to sah and we can cover all the basics and some treats too.)

Chunderella · 26/01/2015 12:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BreakingDad77 · 26/01/2015 10:49

I think there is a mix of things going on, as we transition from the old traditional roles.

The whole range from some women wishing to hold on to being in charge of the 'house' with the man going out to work (baby crying "I've been working all day/working I need my rest").

To the women feeling she is expected to do all the house/kids and then start to realise shes' getting a crap deal, that her husband who is happy to sit back ("just nipping to my shed/insert hobby")

To couples where still woman does all the chores but the husband exasperates "I took them to after school club"

To couples who are trying to divvy the tasks up as best as possible. Though the man gets lauded "wow your so involved" but are just doing their fair share.

BallroomWithNoBalls · 26/01/2015 10:41

Sorry, reading back my post is very waffly!

I guess my point is that my DH would say that I have more choices than he does - he's boxed into his long hours, high pressure job - he can't stop, he can't choose to spend more time with kids or with me or in the house or on hobbies because it's his duty to provide for family.

Whereas I have been dipping in and out of paid work, using a variety of childcare, and I do have an element of freedom in that I can decide how I spend the day, play dates, trips out or whatever.

I think the problem is a dichotomy between our roles that seems to have developed and expanded, trapping us both into our stereotypical roles.

DadWasHere · 26/01/2015 00:18

YY society doesn't value SAHM.

It values SAHDs even less IMO.

PhaedraIsMyName · 26/01/2015 00:02

I suppose people feel sorry for me because I haven't managed to marry a man rich enough, so that I have to work full time

Has anyone ever said that to you? Or suggested it? Why do you assume that and is it men or other women?