Patriarchy and the Personal

[IseeGraceAhead]

I rarely use the word "patriarchal" in real life: I say "Male-dominated" or "male-directed" kind of thing.

As a personal project, I'm assessing my own beliefs about what it means To Be A Woman. I'm startled at how much of my self-perception - and perception of women in general - is patriarchal in origin. I don't mind if nobody joins in, but thought it could be interesting if some do :)

Yes, and decisions are made in the men's loo. Which is why some corporations introduced mixed loos, in case you were wondering! Women still can't join the Freemasons. That's a very serious block to women trying to climb: there are women's freemasonries, but they're not 'proper' and, in any case, limit your genuine opportunities to those offered by other women.

Gah.

"I don't believe the media is as influential as people say - I think most people have the sense to realise what it is up to. "

You're wrong on that one. If the media/marketing/advertising didn't influence people, why would corporations spend so many millions of dollars on it? They know it affects people's decision making, and assuming that the majority of the population are as savvy as you wrt to the media is naive IMO.

I'm going back to where Sunny said "I dont think that many wmen want to be a ceo so that is often why there is a disparity." Whichever angle I take on this, I see it as a problem which has infected my life and millions of others.

Out of 100 top CEOs, 4 are women. These people determine the shape of our economy, the job market, the price of things, what facilities are available - they're powerful. They influence politics. Not many of anybody wants to be a top ceo: it's hard work and there's a lot of people trying to stop you. Are women afraid of hard work & fighting for what they believe in? I think not. So how come there are 25 times as many men in these positions of power?

It's not education. Women have the same educational opportunities as men. It's not experience. Women have been doing grown-up jobs in business for ages. It's not even that woolly thing, perception, as there's been a positive drive to get more women into the top jobs for several years.

So are women holding themselves back? Thinking about some of the dynamite business women I know, that's hard to believe. It is certainly not that women don't go for the jobs: but maybe too few do, due to lack of confidence / impostor syndrome? It would be interesting to know whether the ratio of male-female candidates for executive board directorships actually is 25-1. And how the boards decided whom to consider.

It seems to me that either there is a Patriarchal Conspiracy, actively blocking women from power, or there is some subtler [patriarchal] force making women block themselves?

IseeGraceAhead - Many women once they have children are just not intrested in work in the same way they were before. You can push it as much as you want with affirmative action, equal opps and whatever but if a group dont want to do something then they wont.

Have you personally met any woman that wants to be a CEO? When it comes to politics there are women involved (not many but some). They arent good looking or pretty eg Harriet Harman, Ann Widdecombe, Maggie Thatcher, Mo mowlam etc. They still do it though so it cant all go on looks.

It wouldnt matter if you said I could have 10 million a year, all the trimmings of being rich etc why would I want the stress, no time to myself, not see my children etc. It doesnt sound like that much of a good deal to me. I would rather be at grassroots level helping people so would most women I know personally. Most women dont even want to have to work full time when they have kids, some dont want to work at all. Why do they campaign for flexible working, part time positions if they wish to be CEO?

Its because most dont. Look how many threads on sites like this they are about wating to do less hours, quit work, strike a home/life balance etc that isnt something you would be campaigning for if you wished to be CEO.

'Not many of anybody wants to be a top ceo: it's hard work and there's a lot of people trying to stop you. Are women afraid of hard work & fighting for what they believe in?'

I believe in helping my community, helping disadvantaged children (through my job), volunteering to help others, looking after my family, bringing up my kids etc. Do you not think these are valuable? You can help the vulnerable by actually going in and helping them.I am more useful to the kids I work with by being there, helping them, teaching tehm things and listening to them than some big wig person in an office making policies. I am working hard and fighting for what I believe in. I find that statement quite insulting to be fair.

it's babies, isnt it? that stuffs womens careers? it stuffed mine and i know i'm not alone.

i think that it isn't that "not many women want to be ceo" or top bod or powerful and successful etc

but most women have children, in most relationships the man earns more (usually because he is older) and so when the couple do the sums it's the woman who takes the break, goes part time, drops to a more local job so she can do the school run etc etc. even where women take shorter mat leaves and then go back full time, they usually seem to be the ones "on call" and their commitment is questioned. of course some women manage it, of course it can be done. But overall this effect takes an awful lot of talent out of the pool, or knocks women back down a few rungs, never to recover...

that's my take on it anyway.

re media influence I would be a bit miserable if the women of MN demograpic who were looking at the feminist section felt / were being manipulated hugely by the media!

I do think it is a problem more for much younger girls and women - and has the potential to do a lot of damage to them. An old gimmer like me knows it's all bollocks. My 13yo self wasn't so sure of herself.

AlsoIseeGrace - You said you work in Marketing. DO you think that job because you get to dress up, work in city, office etc is more important than a carer, someone who works at a charity, someone that helps the disadvantaged? These jobs dont have status but they usually make a bigger difference to someone who works in marketing or business. They are the people who are with the people every day eg visiting an old lady and bringing her dinner, being there for a child who has had a chaotic homelife, caring for the learning disabled etc.

Is it more important to you for everyone to 'prove their hard work and prove themselves' by going and working 70 hours a week and rushing around with a mobile phone selling people stuff they dont really need? I know which I would rather do and the people I admire most. You have been misled by the corporate world to think that by pursuing a career and being a wage slave then you are empowered in some way and others arent trying hard enough. Its a real shame you think that way.

ISNT - So yes you took a 'lesser' job as such but arent you glad you had the time with your kids. Would you honestly have rather been at work working towards being a CEO, tied to your mobile, always stressed, for something that on your deathbed probably means fuck all anyway to buy stuff you dont need and to keep up with people you dont really give a stuff about?

If you would thats fair enough but I know its not something the women in my life aspire to.

sunny you have misquoted grace there really badly. what she actaually said was

"Not many of anybody wants to be a top ceo: it's hard work and there's a lot of people trying to stop you. Are women afraid of hard work & fighting for what they believe in? I think not. "

so there's no need to be terribly offended.

No sunny I am fucked off that I had to jack in my well paid career job and go and do admin for half the money locally, and that having stepped off the ladder I'll struggle to get back on.

I am irritated that i thought I was doing the right thing, as it's what women do when they start their families, but it was a bad choice which has made me very unhappy.

I am further aggravated that although we now know that the right course of action would have been for me to continue full time in good job and DH to go part time and look after the kids which he is brilliant at and would love to do... his job won't allow it.

As for the other little tirade, charities have CEOs too, you know, and organisations involved in looking after people and helping the community, public services have very well paid top jobs. The idea that all well paid work is by defintion meaningless is an odd one. The idea also that everyone who is successful is stressed to the max and about to die of a heart attack and never sees their kids is an odd one too. In the industries that I have worked in people have done an average 9-5 week, the higher up people were contactable but no-one did 70 hour weeks. If you want to look for 70 hour weeks and a lot of stress you're just as well to look in low paid useful jobs. High earners do not have a monopoly on long hours and stress, and it is by no means the case that all high earners have long hours and lots of stress.

Well isnt he could of quit his job and you could of coped on less money if it meant that much to you. My husband and I were on a combined income of £34k. We decided we wanted kids and both of us left military and now earn 21k between us and between us we are doing 15 less hours. Do I regret it? Hell no.

If its only 9 - 5 and not much stress why did you quit your job? My daughter is in nursery nearly that many hours and I am on £6 an hour. If you could get way more for practically the same hours and no stress why didnt you stay?

'I am irritated that i thought I was doing the right thing, as it's what women do when they start their families'

It isnt what everyone does here. I dont know anyone that can afford to quit work so women just have to get on with it. I have worked 25 hours a week at my actual job and then on top of that done cleaning, waitressing, all the crappy jobs temping on top of it and had to get on with it. I dont mind because I do it for my family but its not like you didnt have the choice to keep working. You cant just take years off and then expect it to be the same, you wouldnt be able to if you were a man either. If my husband went for 5 years around the world I doubt he would make it as a CEO.

If you stopped that was entirely your choice. You are in the position to have been able to afford childcare, maybe even something like a nanny or a cleaner. Its you that stopped work not anyone that made you. I know you might be upset about it now but the grass is always greener. I think you made the choice, it wasnt as if the patriachy forced you to quit work.

Got to post very quickly, will be back later & read properly. Thanks for putting my misquote straight, ISNT!

I didn't have a job, I had a career. Yes, the dressing up was part of the requirement but, as I've posted, expectations changed as time went on (much to my relief) so I didn't have to do as much extra stuff to 'look the part'. Most of my women had babies. They are now in high-level positions.

I've NEVER suggested one life path is better than another, Sunny! Neither have I implied one path is more 'natural' for women, which you seem to be doing. I don't look down on "helping" jobs, indeed I do them myself. In a "helping" job, you can make a difference to a few hndred people throughout your life. In a top-level executive one, you make a difference to everybody's life every day.

Just to dive in, and I haven't read the whole thread, but living in Scandinavia has made me reassess the whole patriarchy thing.

I actually now think it's a BIGGER issue in the UK than I did when I lived there.

Here, society is set up to allow families to function without the need to worry about who looks after the kids. Equality between the sexes is MUCH more real. Look at the numbers of women in higher positions in companies and in the government and it's clear that it's partly because they are encouraged to get on with it (I've never worked in such a supportive environment) and fulfil their potential and partly because the infrastructure to allow that to happen has been set up (i.e. subsidised high quality care for children and elderlyt people, solid parental leave rights, high minimum wage, well educated population, good conditions for business to prosper).

It's easy to say that having children means that women aren't as career focused etc etc, but IME that simply isn't true, where the necessary support structures are put in place then women do finally start to live up to their potential.

My male colleagues would argue that they also benefit by being able to bond with their kids and share the caring responsibilities as well as being able to enjoy a much more work - life balanced lifestyle.

I think my point is though, that at some point society made that choice and it has really benefitted both women and men to dismantle the traditional patriarchy.

Just to dive in, and I haven't read the whole thread, but living in Scandinavia has made me reassess the whole patriarchy thing.

I actually now think it's a BIGGER issue in the UK than I did when I lived there.

Here, society is set up to allow families to function without the need to worry about who looks after the kids. Equality between the sexes is MUCH more real. Look at the numbers of women in higher positions in companies and in the government and it's clear that it's partly because they are encouraged to get on with it (I've never worked in such a supportive environment) and fulfil their potential and partly because the infrastructure to allow that to happen has been set up (i.e. subsidised high quality care for children and elderlyt people, solid parental leave rights, high minimum wage, well educated population, good conditions for business to prosper).

It's easy to say that having children means that women aren't as career focused etc etc, but IME that simply isn't true, where the necessary support structures are put in place then women do finally start to live up to their potential.

My male colleagues would argue that they also benefit by being able to bond with their kids and share the caring responsibilities as well as being able to enjoy a much more work - life balanced lifestyle.

I think my point is though, that at some point society made that choice and it has really benefitted both women and men to dismantle the traditional patriarchy.

I agree with GC. It is working in Nordic countries that has lifted a veil from eyes about the sexism in the UK. And I think that sexism makes life unhappier for women, men and children.

Well I still say the reason that most arent ceos are because a lot take time of to have babies. I dont think you should be ceo if you take years out because it isnt fair. I also think that women have the choice but at the time they dont want to but when the kids are older they then change their mins.

Whether you like it or not it is 'natural' for most women to want to be with their children be that part time or totally. Even the ones that do full time dont want the overtime and all that when the kids are young. This is endemic over all classes and levels so I would say it was largely instinctual, the mother/baby bond. This is and always will be the main reason why women arent CEOs you cant change nature.

It is a pity if you are making a decision because "that's what women do".

I did decide not to go back full time after having the children,but I was earning more than DH.I wasn't happy at work,he (mostly!)was,and we were lucky that we could afford for us to do that.
When DD was little I was with a group of friends in a conversation where someone said
"of course,you are all staying at home because your DHs earn more" and there was a chorus of"no,actually..."s.

I am glad I had the time with the DCs,which was what I always wanted to do - I am not at all ambitious.But I think women who are should be free to do what they want,without being held back by the impossibility of combining working with looking after children,or by society's restrictions on what they can do,and it is important to have women as well as men at the top,because however "worthwhile" you think business is,the people at the top do have power over how society runs,and how people are able to live.

While a poorly performing economy such as Belgium?s was able to create 8% new jobs between 1981 and 2003, Sweden and Finland were unable to create any jobs at all in over two decades. Denmark did a little better because it ?activated? its labour market by making it more ?flexible.? It became easier for employers to fire people. For workers in the construction industry the term of notice was reduced to five days. Unemployment benefits were restricted in time, while those who had been unemployed for a long time, and young people could lose benefits if they refuse to accept jobs, including low-productivity jobs below their level of training or education. The result is that productivity growth in Denmark is lower than in Sweden and Finland.

These draconian measures reduced the unemployment rate, but did not eliminate the cause of unemployment, namely the total lack of motivation on the part of employees and employers resulting from the extremely high taxation level. Despite the painful measures, the growth of Danish productivity and prosperity has been substandard. Disappointment in Danish politicians is one of the reasons for the rise of the far right.

Why are the Scandinavian countries doing such a bad job, despite their Protestant work ethic and devotion to duty? The main cause is the essence of the nanny state: its very high tax level. Between 1990 and 2005 the average overall tax burden was 55% in Finland, 58% in Denmark and 61% in Sweden. This is almost one and a half times the OECD average.

Glacierchick, I very love your post (in fact, I loved reading it twice :) )
What you're describing is the kind of setup I believed I was fighting for back then. As you say, families benefit.

I'd never say the Sunnies of this world shouldn't get the chance to make their choices. I am saying it's not the only choice, not especially natural, and it TERRIFIES me that all the Sunnies think it's better for them. Meanwhile, all the decisions that affect what Sunny & I do; how we look, how we act, what we earn; what we can look forward to ... are made by men.

That is an extract from an article. There are many drawbacks to that system.

Andy Hornby became CEO of HBOS at 32, then destroyed it and was STILL made CEO of Boots. So as it only takes a decade at work to become a CEO, if it was just down to having children, a SAHM of 40 with grown up children could go out and become a CEO by the age of 50.

A lot of my Mum's generation did do things like this. My mum trained for a profession that used to be male only, after her children had grown up. A lot of doors were opened for women became the sixties and the nineties. I suggest our generation should keep on pushing a bit further. I was on a thread a a few weeks ago and I found the stats on how most of the pay gap is not accounted for by child rearing. In fact the pay gap is already in place between 18 year old men and women in the UK!