Do you think men and women are 'of equal value but different' or actually 'the same'?

[TrillianAstra]

Just curious.

I'd go for option a.

Not very different, and on any one axis of difference the differences are small and the range is large, but I think there are average differences.

e.g. men are taller than women but if I took the next 10 men and then next 10 women who walked down the street the odds are that some of the women would be taller than some of the men

I don't think I agree with either option. People come in an incredible variety, ever one of them unique, so "the same" seems meaningless to me.

Likewise I don't think that people are inherently equal. In theory people should be valued equally, but I'm not sure in practice that works at all. When I think of my team at work I value those that work hard more than those that slack off. I value loyal friends more than flaky ones. Family more than strangers etc etc

Ok, I'm starting to come round to this idea of us not being different just because we're a different gender - so we're different, but just because none of us is the same person as someone else.

I think I haven't been able to protect my girls enough from being socialised to see girls and boys as different . I have certainly managed to do it to a certain extent - DD1 says she likes climbing trees; football etc. and is as happy to be doing those things as she is to be playing with my little poneis. But she defines at as 'wanting to do boy things'

LackingInspiration You're fighting against a force that is far bigger than you, the impact you have had alone is commendable considering your daughter's friends, the media, everyone else who reinforces the gender stereotypes - you are only one person. This couple went to an extreme to prevent their child being stereotyped by others, this kind of effort makes the paper.

TM - I'm not

Apparently tht guy ad-libbed, and got promoted from non-speaking extra to person-with-a-line

i did not know that was an ad-lib! you learn something every day...

interestingly, the only people i know who are consciously (and sometimes desperately) keen to fit a binary mould self-identify as trans. i've had fascinating conversations with an mtf who is frantically trying to get 'female' right, to fit into society. i find that really sad, but do understand the motive.

saf - i adore brain plasticity. thankfully dc3 is now able to walk and talk, despite neither looking particularly likely in the neonatal period. now, just to get rid of some of the retained reflexes...

Well said saF. All science (and particularly neuroscience/psychology) is terribly biased by the starting hypothesis.

That said I think a large part of my personal frustration comes from the realisation that I have to choose what I want from life. And choosing one thing means not-choosing another. And what does it mean if I want to choose the stereotypical mummy role?

Oops. That should be sAf

It's ok. Call me a pedant.

MummyBerryJuice, but that could be said for anyone? We all have choices. If you are a Mum OR a Dad, and you choose to focus on your children vs your career for a few years that is fine.

The problem I have is the way "success" measured from feminist standpoint. Being a SAHM is a valid option if that is what you want, as is being a SAHD. It is also a valid choice to strive to be CEO. Both choices involve sacrifice - I don't believe we can have it all - but the latter is often seen as being "better" than the former. Why?

Porto you're right. It is the way in which caring roles are 'feminised' and devalued. Our cultural hierarchy is also based on capitalism so: high income = high status. And no income = no status...

To me THAT is the challenge. Everything is about money! I agree that there should be equal pay - for those with equal experience/time served/qualifications. But a big issue is that women are over represented in the "caring" roles which are generally undervalued. They shouldn't be.

I suppose I would class myself as a Marxist-Feminist (or is that Feminist-Marxist - I really should read more!) but I agree entirely. As far as I'm concerned a nurse adds more value to the world than a banker (for example) but it is the banker (who is usually assumed to be male) who has more status than the nurse (who is usually assumed to be female)

Men and women can and should make equal contributions to society, family, the economy, business, politics, etc.

However, they are dfferent. Not just physically but also different in strengths and weaknesses across a broad spectrum of attributes. That diversity of strengths and weaknesses when employed in a balanced way is a very powerful thing. Any system that contains onlly men or only women is less strong than a balanced equal sex system.

I strongly beleive that in my own industry (finance) the lack of women in key decision making areas contributed hugely to the recent financial crisis. The intellectual and emotional responses to the build up to the crisis were hugley imbalanced and 'male' in their outlook as has been the response afterwards.

It may sound weird and even slightly off topic but there is a real possibility that the USA will vote in Sarah Palin as the next President precisely because she will present a stark 'female' response to the deep financial and social crisis the US faces.

Margaret Thatcher got into power for the same reason.

Good point, Porto, about valuing the CEO route more highly from a feminist perspective. I agree to a certain extent about the money involvement, but on a personal level I think that instinctual feeling of it being "more feminist" to become a CEO or whatever, springs from a desire to see more women in positions of power full stop. I mean, until the revolution arrives I wish that more MPs and leaders in every field were women, at least 50% in fact. And I feel that if I want to see that happening, it's my job to try to be part of that. Does that make sense? And being a SAHM (although powerful in some senses) is so private, so confined in terms of your interaction with others, that it seems to be less "helpful" in terms of impact.

I know it's bollocks really, a female CEO could do a lot of bad things for women, and a female SAHP could do a lot of good things. But a female CEO could have the ear of the the government and have more power to push forward women-friendly policies etc.

It's a power thing, basically.

So actually, to me, the measure of equality is when men see being SAHD, or nurse, or carer or PA as being a valid choice, rather than all women striving for greatness. At the end of the day, male or female, only so many get to be in charge, and not everyone, of either sex, aspires to that.

Then I have this thought at the back of my mind that men, on the whole, don't WANT to be nurses, for example. I know some men do. And there was that big thing in Meet the Fockers etc. WHY don't men want to be nurses? Is it the status, the pay, or some biological, empathic, cultural thing? I honestly have no clue!

I liked the book Pink Brain, Blue Brain which I bought because someone on here recommended it. It's good on flexibility of the brain and the formation of gender identity in childhood.

One interesting bit of myth-breaking I heard on the radio the other day about the 'men and women communicate differently' thing, which has been generally debunked elsewhere - a lot of women say x, they mean y, men say a, they mean b is based on heterosexual relationships. Apparently researchers who decided to research same-sex relationships found exactly the same patterns of miscommunication.

But people communicate differently, surely? You only have to read a MIL thread on here . I am pretty damn sure that I have well communicated to DH that we are going to a BBQ on Saturday pm, but his head is full of football and it totally seems to have passed him by.....

Porto

ISWYM Elephants nut surely that is just buying into the current patriarchal system of power and trying to beat men at their own game. Rather than valuing ALL contributions as equal. I agree with Porto though, that even if 50% of MPs/CEOs etc were female I only think that true equality will exist when men (in general) see nursing/SAHP etc as a valid and EQUAL choice.

Well yeah MBJ .

I did say it was bollocks. But for me that's the underlying factor behind the "feeling" that being a female CEO is more feminist than being a SAHM. I meant "instinctual" in that it's the feeling I get before another cleverer part of my brain comes in and points out that it is stupid.

ChocolateMoose - I've just started reading Pink Brain Blue Brain.

I'm interested to see what ideas I can get to help me bring up DS to see the sexes as equal and to attempt to diminish the effect of gender stereotyping.

(I am planning to mow the lawn for the first time - mainly because other wise what is to stop DS thinkning that this is just a "male" job.)

BeenBeta - loving your comments - especially Any system that contains onlly men or only women is less strong than a balanced equal sex system." Have you read The spirit Level? I've not read it yet but I think that it is arguing exactly what you said - and presumably also includes racial equality etc.

Do you find many of your fellow males in finance share your views wrt to the impact of the lack of women on the "credit crunch".

I'm with Territorial. We are all individuals. You can't predict anything much about someone from knowing their stated gender - you can't even predict what chromosones they (given some people who appear male or female may actually have an extra chromosone).

The groups 'male' or 'female' are so huge you can't really make any conclusions about similarity or differences between any two members of that group.