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

"Society still makes it very very hard for couples to choose what suits them - and still prefers to force women back into the home and men out to work. At least that was our experience."

That very much depends on the culture and jurisdiction you live in. In Germany I think what you say is very true, for example, whereas in France it seems to me quite the opposite. The radical feminist is the woman who decides not to work in preference to taking care of her family, even if she could work in a high-powered job.

Agree tethersend. Totally right.

But not forgetting that lots of women want to work outside the home and lots of men want to be at home with the kids.

It's about people and what works for them.

I asked DH to enquire at work about part-time. They told him to piss off

I think also that a lot of women buy the idea that their place is at home with the kids, especialy when they're small, and that they will be fulfilled at home. After all, when you are pg and knackered and working full time, a good bit of "time off" sounds rather appealing.

I know as i did it myself - I didn't go back to my old job, opting instead for something part time, nearer to home, more "worthy" and less well paid (that old chestnut).

Of course now after me 2nd child I wonder what happened to my shiny career and why i am earning less than DH when for years I earnt so much more than him...

personally I don't like tha alpha, beta stuff, that surely has overtones of one type of person being superior.

We need to get to a place where all sorts of work are valued and people can do what they enjoy and are good at, without being pigeonholed, labelled or slagged off.

The issue is surely that staying at home to look after children- a traditionally female role- is work, and needs to be recognised as such? It is my understanding that the goal of feminism was never to have all women working outside of the home, but to have the work inside the home recognised, rewarded and equalised in status to that of work outside the home.

We still talk of childcare/work in terms of 'taking time off' and even 'part time work'. It's very emotive and shows that perhaps we have not come as far as we should have.

Before we had DSs me and DW agreed I would become SAHD and have a flexible careerto fit round child care. Unfortunately, DW was treated badly and her career was terminated and I was forced back out to work full time. Eventually we decided to start a business at home together and share child care. I went part time and found I was openly criticised and treated in a quite sexist way because I asked for flexible working. In the end I gave up work completely and we now work together at home.

Society still makes it very very hard for couples to choose what suits them - and still prefers to force women back into the home and men out to work. At least that was our experience.

I know of a few women with "beta" men, I think it is gradually becoming more prevalent. Personally I don't understand why you would want to marry an old geezer with a bit of wonga when you could marry a fit young man and earn the money yourself. Working outside the home and earning decent money is a source of satisfaction and self-esteem that many women don't get from being at home with the kids.

Horses for courses and all that we should all be able to play to our strengths.

I earned more. My career therefore came first. Thus I earn what I do in my 40s. As long as women marry even unsexist men but those who are older, better, richer, who earn more then women's careers will come second. It's very simple but in practice most women don't choose the man who is beta male and earns less than they do and is less qualified and who is younger and thus earns less. They just don't for all kinds of biological and evolutionary reasons even if they aren't aware of them and thus women's beta position is maintained.

Totally agree with you there xenia.

Anything which is determined by the assumption that men are like this and women are like that is necessarily going to disadvantage huge number of people. Men and women are far more similar than different in my view.

I suspect that if men were given the opportunity to work more flexibly and take time out to raise children, and they were genuinely able to make the choice ie there were no repurcussions, then they would do it in droves. And that if there was no assumption in society about who stayed at home and curtailed their careers to look after the kids, loads of couples would choose to do it in the reverse to the current norm. We would have chosen that like a shot.

But not so different men can't change nappies, work part time and hire the nanny though....

Gender differences are fascinating. I like the book the female brain and women tend not to ask for more pay (never been my problem but I think I'm rare) and thus do worse or they accept sexism at home but on the whole we are more similar than different and large nmbers of women with babies want and do work full time and adore it so we don't all want to be tarred with the part time or no working brush, thank you vey much just as not all men want to be alpha males earning what I do.

ISNT - you're completely right. I work in technology/telecoms sector and it's fairly egalitarian in the UK/US but some of the European companies are still very stuck in the past. I think it's luck of the draw which is, of course, wrong.

On the other hand I was treated very badly by my large multinational, on matters of pay, pregnancy, mat leave, flexible working.

Some employers are still into the whole boys club stuff.

Bink, I think you're right. I worked for big US corporate for 10 years before I had DD. Worked for them while had maternity leave and afterwards. I then left to work for big UK corporate (admittedly formerly public owned) and in both places I was fully supported and given all the help I needed. I also wasn't treated any differently because I'd been on maternity leave or because I'm a woman.

I did leave the US company for the UK company because the UK organisation is much more family centric but I wasn't badly treated at my other company.

Bink I think it depends on which area you are in - I was in insurance and it was spectacularly old fashioned

The whole women having to pretend to be men to get ahead thing - I guess it was "if you can't beat em join em" and that if we wanted change we had to infiltrate the powerful places and effect change from the inside.

To expect every woman who was successful to be working with a feminist agenda though was wrong - women are people and some simply want money and respect and had no desire to get political - I think it was a shame that they were seen as "letting the side down" when all they were doing was behaving exactly as came naturally to them, and their behaviour happened to be behaviour that was more in common with male behaviour. But if we are going to say that women can be whoever they want, then we have to accept that we won't always like them

However look at how far we have come since the 80s - it really is a long way - and while there is a long way to go I am hopeful. And with forums like this bringing women together to talk about thsi stuff - it's a very powerful thing and I see exciting times ahead

Actually - I've had 15+ years in quite a tough private sector and I can tell you it has changed enormously - everything from the acceptability of trousers to people in big commercial meetings quite frankly saying without fear of comeback that could they please start the meeting at 10 because they've got the school run first.

I think the private sector may actually be a bit ahead of the public here?

I'm sure there have been women who've tried "if you can't beat them join them" variants of workplace behaviour, but that's never been something any sort of 'organised' feminism has pushed! (And remember how the big shoulder pads went with those icky pie-frill collar shirts and "pussy-cat" bows, plus mandatory make-up - some mix of messages there.)

The irony of how you describe your promotional assessments is that somebody has tried to design something that is as objective as possible, hence all the boxes and skills-lists. I don't think it comes out of sexism, I think it comes out of a hamfisted effort to not disadvantage anyone. Obviously it is hamfisted, and as hamfisted for a single person with caring responsibilities (eg a disabled parent) as it is for a parent.

I see what you mean Bumper. There is the comparison constantly to male colleagues, and this even carries over into Equal Pay, where in order to show discrimination, one needs a male comparator.

A few years ago we had a leaving party for a male colleague. He was a generally popular guy - good at his job. But I felt a bit sick when I saw all the most senior managers patting him on the back and saying how they'd miss having such a good chap in the company. Such an amazing team player, played rugby and cricket for the company. I started out feeling inadequate and then irritated because it seemed if the lack of a penis made me by default an inferior member of staff.

It is, surely, completely about having equal rights and being treated equally? Fairly straightforward, I think.