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

Completely agree Supermansmartersister. I'm increasingly realising that true equality is going to require a radical rethink of what we value as a society. Which may be obvious to the more seasoned thinkers but I'm pretty new to all this stuff!

Sorry- just read that back and I didn't make it clear, the reference to male violence etc was intended to demonstrate that since this is clearly a problem with the way that men behave in society, if we are looking for a benchmark for behaviour why do we automatically choose the traditional male benchmark. Why not accept that it is not suitable and look for a new idea of success.

female success is now measured against traditionally male benchmarks (financial independence, professional success - though I would also add the 'equality' of her personal relationships)

I personally don't think that there is as big a biological difference between how men and women act. There are clearly some hormonal etc differences but I think most of what we would call 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits are socially defined (albeit over many generations).

In the quote above, I find it interesting that it is phrased as 'female success' measured against 'male benchmarks'. I think that a bigger issue is why, in a society that says it is seeking gender equality, success for any person is still defined against the same traditional male benchmarks? I don't think anyone would argue that statistically males are more likely than females to commit violent/sexual crimes. I see this as a direct result of the way that men are socialised and therefore the way that some take the 'normal' male attributes to unacceptable extremes. ie- 'success' means having power, being ruthless, getting what you want despite the disagreement of others. In the capitalist business world this is seen as positive, in personal relationships it is less acceptable but not uncommon. If we really want equality (including equality in personal relationships) I think that actually the benchmark for all people (regardless of gender) needs to change. Not necessarily to a traditionally female benchmark (putting yourself last, looking pretty, not being 'difficult/loud') but a more modern benchmark of self respect and respect for others, one where success includes whether your partner is happy and fulfilled and whether you both take an active role in looking after the children that you both (presumably) chose to have. This would mean a huge shift in the way businesses work and people think.

Well done doris. So depressing to read a woman on a feminist board trotting out the old tripe that selfish women wanting economic freedom are responsible for low wages and high house prices. No we bloody aren't! Drop the dishcloth & read up on economics.

correlation between the job market being flooded by women of the generation after the Second World War, and rising house prices/cost of living since then - and perhaps static wages (or at least not rising in line with other costs)?

Not correct. House prices have risen because demand exceeds supply, because of wider access to finance and the creation of ASTs in the 90s.

Wages are kept low because of the increases globalisation of the labour market meaning that companies can export their workforce requirements to countries with cheaper cost of living (e.g. Indian call centres).

women wanted to do what men had been doing up till then, because they were dissatisfied with their own 'role'

Correct, and men certainly didn't want to do what women had been doing - which rather tells you something doesn't it?

I refuse to accept that me or my daughters have to accept some feminine fate of being the 'carers' while men get the power and the glory. Fuck. that. shit. I am not innately nicer, or sweeter or more empathetic than my DH and I do not want to be the one that has to do all the shit wiping and house cleaning.

Why do you think women flocked to the workplace? Because having skills that mean you can command economic independence in the labour market feels great.

Not really, Fizzy, unless you lay the blame for 'life costs inflation' at the door of working men - which would be rather unfair, surely

Those working men could have given up work to raise the kids whilst their wife went out to work, thus keeping the single income household status quo no?

Why are the women who went out to work in any way more to blame that the men that didn't stay at home?

We're working more to make up for the lack of appropriate wage rises. what we should be is earning more so we can work less. The labour in the work place was shared so surely the caring could have been shared
as a natural follow on. Instead we're now all working more, not being paid enough and no one is home to do the caring.

"The housing slowdown means that the average home in Britain has increased just over £3,000 in value (or £16.79 a day) since the start of the year, according to analysis by Zoopla. The property website found the typical home was valued at £304,469 as of 30 June, £3,309 more than in January. By contrast, the average property value increased by £13,852 in the same period last year."

From an article in guardian this year, £16 per day raise in house prices, per day- in a "slow down". My wage isn't going up by that much so why are houses.

Every thing is out of line with wages, it's making us all relatively poorer. We're working more, getting less and having to pay others to do our childcare and look after our older relatives.

Yolo-
Yes banks are definitely partly responsible for this mess.
I mean even now house prices are still increasing, with super high inflation completely out of sync with wages. It's ridiculous and harmful.
If house prices weren't so high, men and women could work less hours- they'd be free to do child care and look after relatives. This would save local authority money. It makes sense but we're locked into a vicious cycle of just trying to keep up.

House prices increase depending on what banks are willing to lend.

If banks didn't lend out hundreds of thousands of pounds, house prices would very swiftly drop.

House prices just increased stupidly high, it should have never been allowed to get to this.

I think the reduced hour working week, or fewer days sounds great. When women entered job market, it should have made things easier- work place labour shared, then technically people should in theory have more free time to care for children and older relatives. If both men and women had more free time- it would be practical divide caring responsibility equally. I think caring is low paid because there is such a demand as people struggle to afford it- local authority can't afford to pay carers much. If people had more free time to look after their own children and relatives there would be less demand for carers and the wage therefore could be increased.
House prices should have been capped, to me the economy is not balanced fairly against income. It's like the price of everything is too far inflated against earnings. Working hours are not balanced practically against the need for time out of work.

There’s no correlation between two person working households and increasing house prices. That’s down to supply and demand. In fact the country has more single person households than ever before because of the aging demographic and the increase in single parent families.

A rather toxic side-effect of women's lib.

Or a rather toxic side-effect of men not stepping up to their caring duties.

I agree though that ideally the workplace would be restructured to allow two parents to work 3 day weeks - the couple I know who do that have the most balance family and life that I've ever seen.

Also, by having more women in senior positions/boardrooms (which you seem to be so against OP), things can improve which will enable more women to not have to "juggle it all"!

E.g. My mum's boss made a rule of "no meetings after 5pm".