Feminism is less about equality and more about celebrating gender difference? Discuss.

The argument seems to be that we should all want to be the doctor, rather than the nurse. Feminism equates to professional success as opposed to women (and men) being valued equally in whatever they choose to do.

I'm not saying that nurses and CEOs should earn the same. But that people should treat nursing as a valid career path, and one that is reasonably rewarded. On here the feminist argument is that women shouldn't be nurses at all, they should aspire to "higher" things.

But addressing the pay gap between nurses and CEOs isn't a feminist issue, unless you accept that nursing is a female role. And the law of supply and demand is always going to apply. I wish we lived in a socialist meritocracy. But we don't.

I never said they were. Not everyone CAN be a CEO, we still need refuse collectors and nurses, police, administrators, childminders etc etc. These are all important roles. A lot of the posts seem to imply that we are oppressed if we want to be a nurse as opposed to being a surgeon. What is WRONG with being a nurse? I couldn't be one. It involves skills I don't have. The problem to me is that nurses are underpaid, not that most nurses are women.

"The emphasis should be on increasing the relative value of the caring roles and professions so that all see them as just as valid as earning lots of dosh as CEO or corporate lawyer"

We are never going to acheive that fully though. In theory anyone can be a carer - those skills on a very basic level are innate - not everyone can be, or has the opportunity to be, a CEO or a top surgeon for example. Before anyone yells at me I am not saying that every one has it in them to be a fantastic parent or a perfect carer, or that either is easy. But supply and demand is always going to make it easier to find carers than CEOs.

Which is why it's important not to assume that caring skills are exclusively female skills.

It should be on merit surely. Making special allowances for women is surely a bad thing in the long run. Even some other (business)women now say they think twice about employing a woman of childbearing age because the extra rights already in place, from what I have read.

However I'd never want us to be so PC that we can't talk about real gender brain chemistry issues. There ought to be freedom to research and write about those issues.

In an MBA class all men on getting first jobs got higher pay than women. They looked into why. Each woman felt lucky to get a job at all. All the men thought they were brilliant and asked for more pay. Women need to realise their brilliance. I like to think I'm the best at what I do in the UK.

i agree - research should never be stifled - but stimulated - i have no problem with someone teling me 'on average, women are better at linguistic analysis, within these parameters' so long as no one distills that down to mean 'women talk more!'

I think confidence is a major difference, and possibly it may have some root in brain chemistry, but also, i think socialisation has a major role to play...

and as you say...that begins at home. But not so much with what their parents do..as much as the attitudes they transmit. I don't see the fact my Mum stayed at home as ever having made me think i could be less respected as a worker....as she was always re-inforcing a feminist position (one of many feminist positions!) (another poss area of study..)

I think a house where mummy stays at home, but encourages her daughters and sons equally according to their individual abilities and expects equal levels of behaviour from both genders may be more likely to inspire confidence in both than the one where both parents work, but both play down the female contribution to the house...

The trouble I have with all this is that "success" in life is being measured solely in terms of how much money you make and how successful a career you have. Now I agree these things are important, but surely they are not the ONLY things to strive for in a happy and successful life?

Evolution, I think, has a lot to do with traditional roles, rather than this "oppressive patriarchy" that people are talking about. Women carry the babies and are programmed to nuture a new born. Men are more programmed to go and provide for the family.

In primitive societies, men still hunt, and women share child care and work full time closer to home. Maybe there are women who would rather hunt, and men who would rather make bread, but generally speaking the set up makes the most efficient use of resources. Are the women in this scenario oppressed? Even the very non-feminist idea of polygamy originated from a practical perspective, rather than one of power and sex. Though these are biological forces do come into play.

Whilst I agree that feminism has gone a long way to ensure equal rights and opportunities for women - and legally at least, women have these now, I don't necessarily agree that we always strive in the right direction. The emphasis should be on increasing the relative value of the caring roles and professions so that all see them as just as valid as earning lots of dosh as CEO or corporate lawyer.

I don't believe we can have it all. If you want a career you have to give it your attention. Why is it fair to anyone that you can take 5 years off and come back on the same pay/level as someone who didn't. I wouldn't be happy as I've worked all that time - so my financial reward should reflect that. The other rewards of choosing to stay home are just as important, and I know I have given up something more intangible.

For a more level playing field, Parental leave should be equally available to both parents, and maybe leave should also be available to non-parents to use as they see fit. If employers have to offer the same by law to every employee......

To the OP:

"I didn't choice to be a woman, the main carer, the one who bears and breastfeeds the children"

Erm, you didn't choose to be a woman or the one who bears and breastfeeds, but you DID choose to be the main carer. There is nothing that says the woman has to be the main carer. And there are plenty of couples where the woman is not the main carer and the man is (And some of them even like it that way).

It's exactly that sort of generalisation that is the problem with "celebrating differences". The moment someone assumes that all women are the main carer, life becomes that bit harder for any woman who doesn't want to be in that role, or any man who does.

Agree totally with the last few posts.

Any generalisation about women in general, or men in general, is bound not to be true for certain women or certain men (unless it's solely about the difference between their genitals) and therefore is best avoided.

The similarities between men and women are far, far greater than the differences ever will be. And until those similarities have been fully recognised (which hasn't happened yet, by a long chalk) we should not start crowing too much about the differences - which as I say will not be true for some women/men anyway.

It is far too easy to slide from saying "women get pregnant, men don't" into saying "... and therefore women are designed for nurturing and comforting and men are designed for bringing home the bacon..." into saying "... really you, Woman X, are not suitable for this job because women don't have the killer instinct/physical strength/authority/career commitment [delete as appropriate] that is needed...".

Often those with a misogynist agenda do indeed exploit those gender differences. Eg there is no such thing as baby brain and if I can be back at work after 2 weeks off and not really notice any difference in my brain at all that's because I wan't at home for 6 months but continued in the swing of work. I am sure plenty of women take 3 - 6 months off that can afford it (I actually think and thought 25 years ago) that maternity rights keep women down to an extent and chose not to take them and anyway I'd much rather be at work for the day than minding a baby, although I adore the time I spent with them and would certainly have spent more time on work had I not had 5 babies as would most men and women.

However I'd never want us to be so PC that we can't talk about real gender brain chemistry issues. There ought to be freedom to research and write about those issues.

In an MBA class all men on getting first jobs got higher pay than women. They looked into why. Each woman felt lucky to get a job at all. All the men thought they were brilliant and asked for more pay. Women need to realise their brilliance. I like to think I'm the best at what I do in the UK.

But I do think more of the issue is at home than work. It's every time the woman goes part time or leaves at 5 when her hsuband never does or assumes she will collect children or arrange childcare just because he puts out the bins once a week. Women who accept sexism at home find it much harder to succeed in meaningful careers. Women who wouldn't for an instant stand for such sexism from the moment they give birth and have husbands who do as much as they do (as many many women do have) find it all a lot easier.

Agree totally re celebrating differences, "naturally" being better at different things and so on. Cobblers.

Is my main bugbear with all of this stuff.

I agree EAP, that's why I throw Simon Baron-Cohen books across the room with great force. First chapter (i think) of The Female Eunuch was a great clarifier for me, it points out that there are huge, fundamental similarities between men and women, boys and girls. The accepted "differences", in contrast, are usually both minimal, and variable. For example "men are taller than women" - on average that is true, but only by a couple of inches (small percentage), and not all men are taller than all women.

Maybe on average men have (slightly) better spatial awareness, so what? That means we all have roughly the same spatial awareness. It does not mean I can't read an f-ing map, thank you very much.

The differences we are supposed to joyfully "celebrate" rarely seem to be defined, probably for the reason that they barely exist in terms of actual proof. Girls do better than boys at school - does this prove that girls are cleverer? Oh NO! But when boys outdid girls (who mainly had little or no education) then it was "natural difference" - boys just WERE cleverer because duh here are the results. There is huge scope IMO for "differences" to be used to make assumptions about people based on their gender. This is called prejudice where I come from.

Eggy, I agree completely about the problems with 'celebrating difference'. In fact the only thing I would add is perhaps to replace 'motherhood' with 'parenting' . . .

dragging the discussion back o more theoretical and general background...

i think equality of opportunity is important, and there is a danger if you promote the 'celebrating difference' aspect of things, that with, e.g a statement such as 'women are great non-linear thinkers', that you promote a sexist idea such as 'women are illogical'. Individual men and women should be treated as such - on average men and women have slightly different measured capacities - but this should not affect how you treat an individual - an individual is not a statistic.

In a more specific vein - Perceptions of the value of Motherhood are also key - that it is not a spare time activity, it is not dull (or no more so than employment) and it does not necessarily mean you care about your paid work any less, or are suddenly mentally deficient in some way. getting this acros is taking time, and plenty legislation.

Also "you can take 2 weeks holiday to have a baby" - it says an awful lot about the way workplaces still treat women, if the only way to retain your status as a worker is by refusing statutory benefits like (at least some) maternity leave.

Thanks Xenia, I know you've a reputation as a superwoman around these parts, but had never heard of why til now! The girls I know are - as I said - pretty ambitious in their various careers and enjoy work. I think the fear is that they can't take a normal break to have a baby and recover physically (say 2-6 months average) and then go back to the work they love. Reasons for this I suppose are:

• the pervasive idea that you as a mother will be the one responsible for a tiny infant's wellbeing, whoever is looking after him/her. Thus travelling abroad etc will be difficult.

• the mere fact that the male DPs have not grown up with the idea of this responsibility, so will create careers for themselves that leave no space/leeway for sharing care of the child ( a big one this, and not talked about)

• low wages, even in prestigious careers e.g. academia. Worry about affording childcare

• employers looking on mothers as a separate breed who cannot be relied upon. Becoming a father, conversely, seems to boost men's status at work as he is now a grown-up paterfamilias.

Did you see that Women programme last week btw Xenia? There were two surgeons near the beginning who were fascinating, in that they had the exact same job, but she supervised the nanny and took emergency phone calls from her because he considered himself "too busy for social calls".

I would love to see more role-models of balanced families.

The best thing I can think of to do for myself is finding a DP who doesn't have a sexist bone in his body and finds the idea of leaving domestic work/parenting to me outrageous and bizarre. (so far at least)

Lots of women do have a problem with self-esteem though (not surprisingly), and end up with what they think they deserve, i.e. someone who will pay the rent and allow them to fall into poverty and isolation while raising their children.

"I mean I had no idea that having children would stuff my career like this until it happened. "

Well, not exactly 'career' as such - but certainly my mum made it clear to me that once you had a baby then as far as Union reps as well as employers were concerned you were a lesser being unless you kicked them hard enough to make them take notice.

And it was pretty obvious from the first 'real' job that I had that women with kids got a bad deal - to the extent that I knew I didn't want to have children being in a company run by someone else. That's despite the fact that my employers were relatively 'good' compared to many.

We need to tell them there are lots of womehn like me around, that if you choose as I did you can take 2 weeks holiday to have a baby and then return to full time work, that that can be an absolutely brilliant option on all kinds of levels from ensuring from week 1 the husband is as much a parent as the wife, to ensuring not loss of income whatsoever nor career to giving you that break at work from the hard dull work of babies. Yet I see no poster girls other than I for the return to week in 2 weeks brigade. Perhaps they're just having too much fun with their children and lovely careers and spending the money. It's a wonderful option.

Leaving that aside, this point about women marrying up... 4 in 5 earn less than their man. They may not consciously go in for the richer men but they usually want them. Men in dating ads will refer to wanting someone slim and pretty and women someone in effect successful.

Also why don't they look to the future? Are all these women rather thick? If I at 22 when I had my first baby could think right we'll both pay 50% of our salary to pay a nanny's salary because in 25 years time in my 40s we want to earn X and that's an investment not just in our careers but in the children who yes now some of them in their 20s are graduating without student debt and with a mother who can take them on nice holidays and because she is in charge of herself and work decides when and where she works and I think earns something an hour like 40 hours at the minimum wage or do these women think I'm not very good. I'll never get beyond the Tesco till even if I keep at this until I'm 60 so let's find the man on the £30k wage and just live off him.

Interesting. It never occured to me that having children would impact on my career. I never really thought about it in any depth before it was imminent. It has been a very nasty shock!

Sorry I should have been clearer, i really meant all that stuff about: "education, interests, world view, background. People often meet at work as well. Thus they often have a similar earning potential" . Rather than basing choosing a boyfriend/girlfriend on how much they earn!

Maybe they don't, I don't know. I've always been an old hag at heart, and since discovering MN (through work initially) I have obviously read a lot on here about it. I obviously don't choose my DP because I think he's rich/big earner (he certainly isn't ), but I think most people in committed relationships give more than a passing thought to having children together in the future. I have female friends of the same age (mid-twenties) who also don't have children yet, and I've had chats with several of them where they expressed their frustration that they have approximately 5-10 more years to "make" their careers before having to stop to have children. There is definitely a perception that having children brings about a career apocalypse and you better get ahead now, because your progress stops and is "fixed" at the point you were when you went on maternity leave, or indeed that you won't be able to get back into the same kind of work at all. There is a feeling that we have 5-10 more years to fulfil our ambitions, whereas men have the next 40 or so to fulfil theirs. It's pretty scary. It's the most ambitious of my friends who worry about this, unsurprisingly.

You see I'm not sure about that.

I think most people pair up with people who are similar to them in terms of education, interests, world view, background. People often meet at work as well. Thus they often have a similar earning potential - the fact that couples often earn similar amounts wheh they start out is a consequence of this selection process. And then the fact that the man is usually a year or 5 further down the line means he is earning that little bit more.

I don't think most people even think about what will happen when they go on mat leave and stuff do they, when deciding who to date? i don't think many people look further than - have they got a steady job, is it fairly reasonable

I mean I had no idea that having children would stuff my career like this until it happened. I had no idea about maternity leave and pay and stuff like that until the point where I was thinking about having a baby. Do people really think that far ahead? I'm not sure they do, on the whole.

Sorry Xenia, that "dressing up" ref wasn't directed at you! Was referring to comments regarding 80s shoulder-pads etc upthread.

It's an interesting theory. But I disagree that most women target men who earn more deliberately, IME most tend to go for someone of a similar wage-bracket to themselves. And in fact I know a lot more women who are supporting unemployed men than vice versa, in childless couples.

I think there is a key difference in how men and women view the earnings of their partner, however. Men don't generally consider: "oh, well if I get made redundant how will we survive on Ellie's wages?/it will be ok because Ellie earns so much", mainly because redundancy is (usually) fairly unlikely. Whereas most women will go into a long-term partnership aware that at some point, their earnings will be severely impaired or eradicated by pregnancy and childcare. Even if women only take a small amount of maternity leave, that still involves a big pay cut for most women at a time when money has never been needed more, could involve falling behind on mortgage payments etc. Plus there are any number of complications for both mother and baby that could involve more time needed to recover, and for the mother to be able to return to work. That's assuming that all is well and the woman is able to resume her career without long-lasting damage to her career and earning prospects. As so many women know, this is very unlikely to happen.

Yes.

eg my friend who was v brainy straight As, trained in a professional role at top firm as graduate recruit.

Married man much older, in a much less well paid profession. But because she was just starting out, and he had been doing the job for 15 years, he obviously earnt more.

Then kids come, who gives up? She does, as she earns less now. People rarely seem to think about long term earning potential.

So people need to either think more long term, or start marrying younger men

Having encountered discrimination in the workpace myself, I know it exists. i think how bad it is varies between industries. But this age money relationship balance thing is definitely a factor,. and will continue to be unless people start to think differently.