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

The roles allocated are part of the evolutionary process.

No: this is a profound misunderstanding of evolution. Evolution does not act towards a goal. It does not have an agenda. It truly is blind. Evolution uses as its raw material two things. The inherent variability in the population and the environmental factors present at that particular moment. A variation more suited to the present environment is more likely to persist to the next generation.

It’s no good using ‘because we evolved that way’ as an excuse for male behaviour. We lived in caves and hunted big game just an eyeblink ago, for a tiny proportion of our evolutionary history. Now we live in cubicles and click mice. Perhaps before that we were matriarchal troop structured primates? Who knows.

On average, men are physically stronger than women. So a role with greater strength need may in average be filled by a male. These roles are not the norm now - let’s take truck driver as an example. Twenty years ago trucks were hard to drive. You needed to be strong to turn the wheel. Now they all have power steering. And hence a good proportion of the mega trucks on the building sites near me are driven by young women.

I can’t think of many purely strength based roles - and ironically the ones I can think of are lower skill generally and lower paid. Perhaps deep sea diver - well paid, need to be able to lift about 120lb of kit.

Any job that relies on not pure strength or actively requiring a functional penis is as doable by women as men.

It’s a reaction to environmental factors which include social and cultural factors

It's not even that. It's not a reaction to anything.

The roles allocated are part of the evolutionary process.

Evolution isn’t some kind of benevolent higher power. It’s a reaction to environmental factors which include social and cultural factors. Systems, like the patriarchy, replicate themselves, become more intensified through the generations, unless they are disrupted.

Let’s get on and disrupt.

There are, however, roles women and men are each better suited to.

The only roles men are innately better suited to than women are

1. Sperm donor
2. Penis model

Everything else, absolutely every other difference, is down to culture and society.

Sadly, traditionally female roles are not valued by western society. The power/work/strength of a woman behind a successful male CEO isn’t generally acknowledged. That’s a pity because many woman do want to raise their families themselves but societal pressures put this as very low status (when in truth there is no more important job).

It’s absurd to suggest there are no biological differences but equally absurd to suggest there are very many things a woman cannot do. There are, however, roles women and men are each better suited to.

Femininity in various guises exists in virtually all societies. The roles allocated are part of the evolutionary process. Not because of any long term aim other than survival. Pregnant women and babies are vulnerable; men had to take on responsibility for protecting them from all manner of risks if their own gene pool was to continue. Those roles persist today.

my point is that some of these strengths occur innately more, at a population level, in women; not that an individual woman is necessarily better at something than an individual man. Skills can be learnt, but I wouldn't describe empathy as a skill.

I don't agree - it's mostly down to socialisation, and that includes learning to be empathetic.

It's thinking that something is more innate in one sex than the other that helps keep power structures the way they are.

some of these strengths occur innately more, at a population level, in women;

I’d want to see data before I believed that

Do women have higher empathy? Is that actually true? I’m not sure it is but willing to be proven wrong if you have data.

And self sacrifice... no again this is women being co opted to serve. You hear all this ‘oh we’ve lost so much in the West, our elderly in country x are all loved and cared for in the home.’ That sounds lovely. The reality is that it’s women doing all the caring, at the expense of everything else. The men do what they want and the women do what they must.

The starting premises of the argument are faulty, namely:

Women are more caring
Women have an innate femininity
Strength and power is masculine
For a women to become strong she must lose something

These are not innate properties of the female. They are socialised into us from the start.

I’m a scientist.

The evolutionary psychology movement is deeply misogynistic. Because you can justify almost any awful behaviour with ‘but we’ve evolved to..!’

But you can drive a bus through their arguments.

1. We haven’t ‘evolved to do’ anything. Evolution doesn’t have a goal. It reacts in the present time to present factors. That means that aggressive mae behaviour was adaptive at one point. And now it’s not. Neither time was ‘right’ - but we live in the present.

1. We have a degree of control over our actions. Testosterone made me do it is not a defence in court. You’re a sentient human being, controll yoirself.

Femininity? What IS that? It’s societal conditioning of what’s expected from women - to be nice, pretty, quiet and to service men. No thanks. I want to be me.

Femininity or lack of it is used to bash women when they step out of a role that men want them in. Look at the Brienne character in GoT for example. Or the feminazi crap that MRAs come out with. Or the kerfuffle over wonder woman’s thighs. Women are ‘supposed’ to be thin and passive and fragile. When they become strong, either physically, socially, financially then they need to be taken down because they are a threat. And thus the stereotype of the feminazi sitting in her lake of male tears, or the business woman with her cowed husband’s balls in her briefcase. It’s all bollocks, but it reinforces the idea that uppity women should know their place.

Caring roles? Should be open to all. It’s not a female preserve for any reason other than it’s traditionally been women who do the shitwork.

Here in Sweden, I see plenty of male kindergarten teachers. That’s great - it also means it’s seen as a good career and it’s paid ok.

I'm not saying that all these sacrifices should be made by women (though I personally believe that their skill-set makes them both more likely to take such roles on, and more likely to be better at them)

They're skills. They're learnt. If women can learn them, so can men. I've never learnt to look after people, other than first aid. And myself. There's no reason I'd be better at it than a man. In fact some men would probably be far better at than I. I'm not very good at things like small talk.

Looking after the elderly is hard work. No matter how vital it is, it’s not something to be just passed onto women with a hand-wave and be told is so important. It needs to be admitted just how tough it is

I'm not sure why you quoted me to make this point. My problem with the language is that it belittles the work carers do.

It does worry me to hearFizzytalk about staying at home to look after one's own children as 'stale bread' compared to the delicious 'cake' that is paid employment though

Not all females are maternal

I’m very maternal - I knew from a young age I wanted kids (didn’t get them until I was 30), I adore my kids, I find my kids themselves very rewarding. Which meant I tolerated the years of nappy changes, and I do spend the time with them doing homework, playing, teaching them to cook and dress, and be good kids. BUT that doesn’t make the continuous hamster wheel of washing, hoovering, cooking, cleaning and all the rest of it any more palatable, any more cake-like. Maternal does not mean destined to keep house!

In the police child protection, sexual offences departments have more female officers- they choose this role, not pushed into it.

Or could it possibly be that children find women less threatening, especially since it’s overwhelmingly likely that men will have committed the crimes against them, so the women volunteer (it must be an extremely taxing role for a person)

The language used here about caring is horrible by the way. "Wiping eldery arses", I mean fucking hell.

The elderly are just shoved in homes, a burden in need of their "asses wiping"- is terrible.

My MIL looked after her mother in her later years. When DP and I got serious, she pulled me aside (she has 3 sons and is very realistic about this) and told me that no matter what, I wasn’t to do that for her, that she would prefer to go into a care home than put that burden on me - it crushed her, wore her down, and she didn’t want to do that to anyone else. Looking after the elderly is hard work. No matter how vital it is, it’s not something to be just passed onto women with a hand-wave and be told is so important. It needs to be admitted just how tough it is.

Caring roles are looked down on, even though they were more important to society well being and survival than anything else

I don’t look down on caring roles. I look down on the idea that people with vaginas should be happy to do them because they’re so important to society.

So don't suppress your femininity and maximise your masculinity to win a race you don't want to be in. Let your feminine side speak, and then use the strengths traditionally perceived to be masculine to help you be successful.

No femininity being suppressed here. I want to be in some parts of the race (I won’t compromise my morals for example, I wouldn’t work for a porn site or weapons research, I won’t screw my employees or suppliers over at work), I will always make time for my children. Women are people, with characters and rich inner lives - just like men.

Of course we need power. It's how we can get things changed.

Take chilcare away from family units and make it like schools and hospitals

Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiment this is deeply problematic. I am not really thrilled at the power schools have over my kids and by extension me.

I don't know the answer by the way but I have a feeling that involves dismantling the economic system from the ground up. Everything else just feels like sticking plasters, trying to make something work that is inherently broken.

Totally agree Gin. My post was in answer to potato, just to clarify

Because a capitalist agenda and the working life-span is created with the male in mind, who physically at least, would never have to take a break from his career to gestate, breastfeed or otherwise. Then the caring duties get shunted onto the back of that.

We have to demand legislation that equalises the financial and practical sacrifices of parenting more effectively. At the moment a woman is at the mercy of her partner (if she has one) and his probably bigger salary giving him a louder voice in the relationship.

A woman should be able to have a child without a man's support. Take chilcare away from family units and make it like schools and hospitals.

Continuing the species shouldnt cost women more.

For example, is female biology (including menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding) a hindrance that needs ever-more sophisticated work-arounds, or something we should prize as a society (for example, making considerable adjustments to accommodate it in the labour market)?

Why should it be a hindrance to society? Women are the givers of life and as hard as nails... We deserve trophies for every time our biology has caused us pain and misery in some way we didn't ask for but helps the human race to continue.

Its feminism. Not womanism. I want a society where traditionally feminine tasks and skills are valued just as much as the traditionally masculine, whether those skills are performed by someone with a pens or a vagina. I want a world where children are brought up with far less idea of gender specific roles so that boys like my son who are incredibly caring and empathic can be as valued as much as girls like my daughter who has already decided she is going to be a weapons engineer and not have kids.

Biology does IMO have an effect on average populations, meaning that overall, women are better at collaborative working and feelings, and men are more aggressive. And patriarchy has meant that feminine skills have been undervalued. But that doesn't mean that any individual woman or man has to conform to gender norms.

Its feminism. Not womanism. I want a society where traditionally feminine tasks and skills are valued just as much as the traditionally masculine, whether those skills are performed by someone with a pens or a vagina. I want a world where children are brought up with far less idea of gender specific roles so that boys like my son who are incredibly caring and empathic can be as valued as much as girls like my daughter who has already decided she is going to be a weapons engineer and not have kids.

Biology does IMO have an effect on average populations, meaning that overall, women are better at collaborative working and feelings, and men are more aggressive. And patriarchy But that doesn't mean that

No doubt!

And I read earlier today in new scientist that the referral rates to female surgeons drop after they lose a patient but male surgeons aren't as affected by one off 'mistakes'. Not relevant to this thread though. That is a different issue.

Thanks Gin for clarifying. Yes, I remember reading an article where a female doctor, possibly a surgeon, expressed concerns that the increase in women in medical school would lead to the profession becoming devalued and lower paid.