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

Miffed-
I agree with your above post.
Raising children is seen as a blip, a hobby, something unimportant.
The elderly are just shoved in homes, a burden in need of their "asses wiping"- is terrible.

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

It’s all about societal conditioning. Boys are brought up to believe they have to be strong, and to compete, and to be physical. They are taught, explicitly or implicitly , that they have to push or cajole or trick sex out of women. This happens from birth because of the society they are raised in. It’s all pervasive.

Funny how sexual predators in the workplace manage to control their urges towards their female bosses and only pick on their female underlings.

Funny how men manage not to harass women at church or around the dinner table but then can’t control themselves in a nightclub after several beers.

Anything beyond that should be equal opportunities.Anything beyond that should be equal opportunities.

But it's not because that maternity "bit" isn't a "bit". It's massive and acting like it's simply a blip that can be hand waved is naive and doesn't do anybody any favours.

Icantreachthepretzels

I know all that but you that doesn't change what I said. Caring for the very young is innately female.

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

I expected that reply, however I do think it's about sex as well. I think it's a combination of sex and power. But again even if it is about power it's still a manifestation of male aggression which is at least in part down to biology.
Society, and environment plays a role in controlling primitive behaviours but they're still there under the surface.
women have free choice to specialise in careers like nursing, it requires training and skill- they aren't pushed into it they find caring rewarding.
In the police child protection, sexual offences departments have more female officers- they choose this role, not pushed into it.

You can’t really separate the two. It removes the whole reason why men attempt to control women in the first place.

It’s about both.

Sexual harassment isn’t about sex. It’s about power. That’s feminism 101.

Doris-
I do genuinely think males have a higher sex drive- we acknowledge on this forum how women are sexually harassed by men. Women don't sexually harass men. Sexual crime, violence by men. Yet we say there is no difference? I think these crimes are deviant manifestations of male sexual drive.

Or maybe they don’t want sex because men aren’t very good in bed.

Males don’t have higher sex drives. That’s a myth right there.

If women don’t want sex as much it’s probably because they spent years being told it was shameful to want sex, that men prized virginity and demureness. That unwanted pregnancies were disastrous socially and economically.

And even if they broke free from all of that they’re too knackered from all the childcare, cooking, cleaning and wifework to want sex

Of course I agree we're more than our biology. I'm not suggesting women should not strive to achieve whatever they want to do. We can over ride our biology. However I feel that we should at least acknowledge differences occurred due to evolutionary past.
Once there was no capitalism, no boardroom.... and caring about others, altruistic behaviours ensured the species survival.

Yes, who looks after elderly and disabled family members is massively variable and down to social norms and culture.

If you have a choice about something it isn’t innate.

The choice to ignore something that must be done is a choice made from a position of power, though. There is no reason that a wife is better equipped to look after her elderly mil, than a son to look after his mother - but you still see that happening, all over. There is no biological drive in the wife telling her to help this other woman - she is doing it because she has to, because not all choices come down to biological necessity. Lack of money or societal expectation are very powerful factors in forcing women into caring roles. Men's decision to not bother is because they are the ones that hold the power in society - they will face very little shame for not 'caring' for either their parents or their children. But that still doesn't mean women are biologically better equipped to do the caring work (considering how much heavy lifting caring for older disabled children or the elderly involves - surely men are better equipped to do that?)

‘Real women’ aren’t caring and maternal, but women who choose motherhood pretty much are. Of course the world should be arranged around motherhood because otherwise mothers get treated like absolute crap.

No I don't think evolutionary theory has anything to do with patriarchy.
To me the difference is obvious, males are physically different, they have higher sex drives, more aggressive tendencies. Of course they on the most part have learnt to control this, although we see cases of males displaying this behaviour still today. I can't see how we can deny it has anything to do with hormones and evolutionary sex roles. If females didn't look after their offspring there would be no human race.

But surely the whole point of feminism is that we are more than our biology, and that we shouldn't be defined by it? I'm sick of hearing that real women are innately caring and maternal, that women who aren't consumed by an overwhelming desire to devote their lives to reproduction and childcare are unnatural freaks, and that feminism that doesn't want to rearrange the world around motherhood is just pandering to the patriarchy. That doesn't reflect my life, and frankly, I expect feminism and feminists to respect and champion my choices as well.

So you don’t think the fact that science has been dominated by men brought up and educated in a patriarchy has any influence on the results of their research?

What about the white scientists of the past who concluded black people were less intelligent or more criminal? Society matters.

Yes humans now have choice but the root of difference in preferences on the most part to me is rooted in biology and our evolutionary past.

Biology isn't bullshit though. You can't discredit a whole branch of scientific thought because it doesn't agree with your ideology.
Unless your a transgender activist... but I digress.

Finally (for now) humans are unusual in that their young have a massively extended juvenile phase when they are unable to live independently. The human brain keeps developing up until your mid 20s. A bit different from producing foals/calves/cubs every year or two and pushing them out into the world in a matter of months.

Dependent offspring are perfect for keeping women subjected.

Oh, and scientific research is not immune to patriarchal influences either, so I don’t believe scientific evidence is completely without societal and cultural bias.

I don’t buy into the whole biology “look at the animal kingdom” bullshit. Not least because we’re thinking, visioning, creative beings who can imagine different futures and choose how we live our lives.

The other huge difference is that in the animal kingdom (oh the irony of calling it a kingdom ) females are not disadvantaged to such a massive extent because of “biology” in comparison to human societies.

Evolutionary speaking female reproductive success depends on being choosier with mate selection, i.e. quality males and caring for young to ensure they survived.
Male reproductive success is about number of females they can mate with, increases number of progeny and improves reproductive success.
Males are dependant on finding a willing female, therefore monogamy was a trade off- male has access to female, female secures support of male for assistance in raising family.
There were different selection pressures on male and female, leading to different behaviours.
It's widespread across the animal kingdom
Not saying women shouldn't achieve whatever they want to do- boardroom or whatever that may be. Not all females are maternal. But caring has ensured the very survival of the species.
We may not like it but there are differences. That's biology.

advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1500983.full

If you have a choice about something it isn’t innate.

Many people really don’t love others very much and don’t want to care for them.

I didn't say that men couldn't care and women always do. I am saying at least one physical act of caring is innately female

But the 'caring role' as handed out to women is a hell of a lot more than pregnancy and breast feeding and lasts longer than the 18 months of doing that. As someone has said - child care is not babies, it's all the way up until they are old enough to look after themselves. Just because you breastfed them 7 years ago, doesn't mean you are innately better positioned or biologically determined to care for them better now.

And wiping elderly arses - another big part of the 'caring' role foisted upon women, has got sod all to do with biology.

The maternity bits of 'caring' is why we have maternity leave. Anything beyond that should be equal opportunities. Breast feeding is innate to womanhood. Looking after people you are responsible for and love should be innate to humanity. Men choose not to do it - but it's not because they are biologically ill equipped to do so.