Are/should male norms be the benchmark for female 'equality'? Should 'femininity' be prized too?

a women not shaving their legs is seen as less of a woman - repulsive even.

a man not shaving his facial hair is seen as a man with a beard.

I just think why are things seen as "feminine" put under the spotlight for critique when lots of women find pleasure in embracing aspects of feminine identity. It's not a flaw.
Why are women shaving their legs a topic of discussion, anymore than men shaving their facial hair?

Nooka- as I said quick search- here's another
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3028005-Giving-up-makeup

Doris- my point wasn't related to what caused the house price rise, more that we should be feeling the benefit of two wage income in division of labour and caring. We're not though, and as I said in a previous post I don't have the answers.

Missymoo I read back over the thread on restrictive clothing you linked to and could see no posts saying anything even close to it's unfeminst to wear women's clothing. Some discussion about dress codes, issues with footwear like impractical choices for children and heels for women and whether women feel pressured or not to wear uncomfortable clothes. I think you are reading what you want to read and not what people have actually said.

As I said, I don't know I'm not an expert, it seems logical -no harm was intended.

it wasn't an unreasonable assumption to link two wage households to house prices

Depends on how you define unreasonable. It is factually incorrect.

doris- I'm not desperate, as I said I don't blame women at all, i blame the housing industry, banks and goverment for letting house prices go crazy. I'm not by any means an expert, I was defending op by saying it wasn't an unreasonable assumption to link two wage households to house prices- she wasn't attacking women.

Luminaries- it's what I found in a very quick search, I just mean that some women do like to express themselves in a "feminine way".

No, it really really doesn’t. House prices are affected by the availability of credit (expanded massively since the 70s), increase in demand (population change including longer life expectancy, immigration and the rise in single person households; increase in residential property investment etc. etc.) and supply which has not kept up.

I don’t know why you are so desperate to link house prices and women’s participation in the workforce.

missymoo have you read the threads you linked to? It is far more nuanced than you stated. Indeed, in one it is a father forbidding make-up! In all cases it appears feminists have defended women's rights to look how they wish, whilst recognising the societal pressures behind so called 'fee choice'. Feminist are very pro-women - it is our USP

Doris -

Not saying it's the only reason, but I
Imagine it would have some effect. If there are two wages to contribute to a mortgage, people can afford to offer more, house prices will go up as a result. As I said it's not women's fault, it shouldn't have been allowed to spiral the way it did. Whether you agree or not, it's not an illogical assumption and no reason to get defensive with the OP

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a1073469-Is-it-non-feminist-to-wear-make-up

Here's one about makeup.... just to prove I'm not making stuff up.

It's naive to think women entering the workplace had no effect as couples have more buying power with two wages, so can pay more, driving up prices

No. It isn’t naive, it’s fact. The effect of women’s wages is negligible. The main reasons for house price increases are well documented and this is not included.

In fact there are more single person households now then there ever was.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3025175-To-be-annoyed-at-this-feminist

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1768424-Restrictive-Clothing

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2347261-Is-pubic-hair-a-feminist-issue

Luminaries- here you go, a quick search and lots of comments about clothing, hair, even is it a feminist issue to shave my pubic hair...

I read the most ridiculous things on this forum sometimes, like is it unfeminist to wear female clothing, wear make up, shave my legs, just find it ridiculous. No we should dress like men, burp and scratch our arses and then we'll be much happier?

I have never read this on the feminist board or heard a feminist say this. What do you get out of making things up?

"I don't think the answer to that is to try to deny women's biological reality, or deny the existence/validity/importance of the maternal imperative that many of them feel. As I started off saying in my OP, it feels reductive and insulting to women to behave as if everything female is an awful disadvantage in the Real, Important World of work, and they would be better off if they'd been born male. "

Chester I think you speak much sense.

There are a lot of defensive comments directed to you- re house prices. It's naive to think women entering the workplace had no effect as couples have more buying power with two wages, so can pay more, driving up prices- women's fault? No!, no ones saying that, I blame the banks letting it get to this ridiculous state. I feel house prices should be capped, instead they spiralled out of control.

As for feminine- I personally embrace aspects of "feminity", even though I work in a male dominated career and consider myself well respected by male peers.
I read the most ridiculous things on this forum sometimes, like is it unfeminist to wear female clothing, wear make up, shave my legs, just find it ridiculous. No we should dress like men, burp and scratch our arses and then we'll be much happier?. I dont get this rejection of all things considered "feminine", what does the alternative look like?
I don't like this assertion that there's no difference between the sexes. This attempt to make out were all gender neutral, erasure of male and female- I find it insidious. It's dehumanising and an attack on a basic unit of identity.

And that is why the whole concept of 'femininity' is so pernicious - push women out of potentially lucrative and rewarding roles because their skills lie elsewhere - ie caring and empathy (conveniently these feminie skills do not provide access to any levers of power). Make caring seem intrinsically 'feminine' and anything with any reward masculine' - and then watch some women buy it!

Exactly.

And that is why the whole concept of 'femininity' is so pernicious - push women out of potentially lucrative and rewarding roles because their skills lie elsewhere - ie caring and empathy (conveniently these feminie skills do not provide access to any levers of power). Make caring seem intrinsically 'feminine' and anything with any reward masculine' - and then watch some women buy it!

James Joyce said 'When the soul of a man is born in this country there are nets flung at it to hold it back from flight. You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets.' I would suggest that femininity is a net flung at the souls of women born in this country. We must try to fly above it.

Weird isn't it?

Low paid job = women. Economics change and job starts making lots of money => becomes aspirational for men => barriers erected/myths about inappropriateness of job for women promulgated.

High paid job = men. Economics change and job starts making less money => becomes less aspirational for men => barriers removed/myths about appropriateness of job for women promulgated.

When men decide something is aspirational - i.e. computer programming - then barriers are put up to ring-fence the profession - specific qualifications from select colleges, membership of professional bodies etc.

Yes, there's been a lot written on how women got pushed out of computing. Jobs get devalued because more women do them, nit because of the skills required.

I agree with Luminaries to the extent that if men found caring aspirational, wages would go up. I always come back to the thought that jobs aren't assessed and then paid according to worthiness or living standards. In a capitalist system, wages go up and down according to supply and demand. Jobs that can be done with little expertise and by most able-bodied people will never be paid much. I would like to see better carers looking after our elderly parents and friends, but the job just isn't aspirational. As it is, the care homes can barely recruit enough staff and are borderline bankrupt. These factors mean no money is left over to boost wages despite high staff turnover and variable quality. When men decide something is aspirational - i.e. computer programming - then barriers are put up to ring-fence the profession - specific qualifications from select colleges, membership of professional bodies etc. Or at least, this is what I see. I'd be interested to see if other posters agree. I find this area fascinating and I don't know enough about it.

The value of the carers role will change when the majority of men are doing it. Any male dominated role has higher status and rewards than a female dominated role. Once teaching became more of a female profession it lost status - sad but true. So we need more women in the work place to finance their men to stay at home if we want to increase the status and value of staying at home. I am not sure the op and her femininity could cope with such a paradigm shift. But it is interesting how we will tie ourselves in knots, introduce wages for house work - anything, in fact, except getting men to do it.

Men need to change? Yes, of course. But what is the goal? More women in good work (as defined by the current system) and powerful positions to help other women access the same positions. More men in lower paid trad female roles. Is that possible?
Seems like those lower paid jobs will just be outsourced to women from other societies. In fact, that is exactly what is happening. Which leaves us to consider how can society change to value the carers role more than it currently does? I don't think it can, in the current paradigm. Carers don't generate wealth in the strict capitalist definition.

I feel the debate about getting more women to participate in this ailing system is mightily missing the point

OK, so the point is that we shouldn't be capitalist at all you feel - what does this have to do with women, who are already the majority carers - already doing their daily tasks for the good of their family rather than monetary gain - isn't this then men that need to change?