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

[ChesterBelloc]

Inspired by an interesting comment on another thread:

"What I find interesting though is that in all the (justified) talk about equality the standard is set by a male, testosterony , capitalist set up. For a woman to be successful she must do what men have traditionally done. That’s great. But why does no one tell young men that they should aspire to do the roles that women have traditionally filled? Because caring is not valued as highly as producing. And that is a bit of a problem in my opinion."

Two contentions there:

1. female success is now measured against traditionally male benchmarks (financial independence, professional success - though I would also add the 'equality' of her personal relationships)

2. caring roles (traditionally associated more with women) are not valued as highly as 'producing' roles

I absolutely believe that every human life is of the same intrinsic value, and absolutely do not believe that men are 'better', or that what were commonly considered 'masculine' traits are more important/valuable than 'feminine' traits. They're not a binary, or a hierarchy: they're just different.

However, I do believe that the work that women have traditionally done (keeping house, raising children, caring for elderly family members etc) has been steadily de-valued, and is now considered 'drudge work' that can/should be done by (mostly) minimum-wage workers, freeing up women for the far more important, worthy task of competing with men for success in the capitalist labour market ignoring the fact that those who work in the 'caring' professions are overwhelmingly women, looking after other people's children/parents rather than their own. Why is caring work only considered a worthwhile use of one's time if it has a wage attached?

This could turn into an essay, so I'll stop there, and simply ask if you think that men and women should aim for identical life outcomes (clearly impossible in the face of the biological need for future generations), or if there is any mileage in the idea that the sexes are different, and that the more 'female-associated' traits should be considered just as much of a strength as the more 'male-associated'? For example, is female biology (including menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding) a hindrance that needs ever-more sophisticated work-arounds, or something we should prize as a society (for example, making considerable adjustments to accommodate it in the labour market)?**

I'm expecting lots of disagreement with most of the above, but I'd appreciate a civil discussion!

A CEO will always have more power than a home based carer for a relative. Therefore we should aim for 50/50 on boards.
But I do agree we also should aim for 50/50 caring after the first 9-12mo of nurturing a baby so we need to allow men more flexible working too. We should also stop taking about childcare as if it only applies to small babies. Dads should be nurturing and caring for children equally for years after the first maternal months.

So POWER is what we should be aiming for as women? Power over whom?

"Feminity" is the social programming used to keep women unequal to men.

The association of certain elements of the medical profession with femininity (the 'caring' roles) is an artificial separation. These roles have been perceived erroneously as being without authority and therefore compatible with feminine socialisation. A good doctor or surgeon, male or not, is certainly in a caring profession; A good nurse, female or not, definitely has authority.

Eliminating the socialisation that continues to hobble women by depleting their self respect and will-to-power will see the artificial imbalances fade and vanish. Trying to 'value femininity' is like trying to convince people to run a race with concrete shoes.

Yes. Equality of power over how society operates is what women should aim for.
Not women having power over men and not as individuals over other individuals. But women equal to men in deciding how it all works.

I prize caring roles, because societies that cooperate are the ones that thrive. Its a mark of civilisation. Cooperation is harder to achieve than competition.

""Feminity" is the social programming used to keep women unequal to men"

Meph - would you define 'femininity' please?

Do you concede that there are differences between women and men? If so, what are they?

"Equality of power over how society operates is what women should aim for. "

But is that not more a function of democracy, rather than a sex-war? Women and men can vote to decide how their society operates in theory, at least. (I concede that women's suffrage only came about because of a sex-war, but we are now in a very different time).

This could turn into an essay, so I'll stop there, and simply ask if you think that men and women should aim for identical life outcomes

No, but I don't think that men and women should be railroaded into different outcomes based on their sex either - 'to each, their own'

if there is any mileage in the idea that the sexes are different

You tell me? Beyond those directly related to child-bearing, what differences do you think there are between men and women? Personally I think that we are far more affected by society's expectations than by any innate differences at a population level, and at an individual level, we are all so different that grouping things into 'men' and 'women' is pointless (at least in my sample group of 11 children born to my generation so far, you couldn't reliably pick which were male or female based on character traits and interests)

and that the more 'female-associated' traits should be considered just as much of a strength as the more 'male-associated'?

The problem I have with this, is that it always seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to guilt women into staying home and wiping bums, that they should feel this is a worthwhile task equal to that of their menfolk out chasing glory. And, yes, whilst it is a worthwhile task, and one that absolutely needs doing, I don't see why men can't take a share of it, (since it's so damn worthy, they should be clamouring to do it no?) and I can't take a turn at the flashy stuff (which is of equal value to the bum-wiping, so surely it's fine for me to have a go at both).

I guess the issue is, no matter how much I tell you that your piece of stale bread is of equal deliciousness to the cake I'm eating, you're just not going to believe me if you've ever had a bite of cake.

Equality feminism puts priority on women becoming the same as men and it's flawed logic.
There are definitely differences between men and women- biological differences and behavioural, the two factors interconnected. One is no better than the other but they are different.
I would say there is a preference in careers men and women choose. I'd like to see women valued more in the roles they choose rather than being pushed into a board room just to make up equal representation. Equality of outcome is not something we should be aiming for.
What Id like to see is traditionally feminine rolls, like nursing paid more. In addition I'd like improved maternity care, better health screening, awareness- breast cancer, cervical cancer, maternity leave provision- USA hardly has any and it's outrageous.
These issues are not about "equality" they're about women. I don't get why the push for 50% board room representation and lack of emphasis on other women's concerns.

Could you define "femininity" please OP, as you meant it in the thread title?

.

Modern feminism only seems to strive to make women economic units. We have to climb the career ladder, we have to promote abortion which benefits the work place and the industry that makes money from it.
Don't hear many voices actually fighting for what in my eyes are worthwhile causes,
I.e. Women being exploited for egg harvesting when going for ivf, offered cut rate ivf for egg donation, ignoring the health risks to prop up surrogacy.
Honour based abuse

Contemporary feminism is an attempt of imitation of what men are doing instead of striving to help women reach their full potential in the way they choose.

I don't get the "women pushed into a board room" against their inner desires argument.

There really is no shortage of accounts from many many many many many many many many many very talented women who either got pushed out of the boardroom due to their sex, or got pushed out/derailed/held back/tripped up/undermined/totally fucked over/etc while on the way to the boardroom.

"I'd like to see women valued more in the roles they choose rather than being pushed into a board room just to make up equal representation."

But it's the people in the board room who decide what is valued in the company, and as long as those people are mainly men then what will be valued is what men value.

Well actually I do get it. It's clearly intended to reinforce strict gender roles by implying women are innately less likely to desire such roles with a delicious underlying layer of judgement (unnatural!) on those who do plus the usual altie accusation of unsisterliness, ooh how unfeminist. The darling little sillies should just accept their honourable and biologically determined rung on the ladder with good grace, then good girls will get treats from their betters like good maternity care (but not the choice about whether to actually stay pregnant, stupid bitches can't be trusted not to be exploited by the abortion providers after all).

TL:DR; BINGO!!

Women’s “preference” for caring roles is down to powerful socialisation from birth. Remember we are born with our brains partly formed so it’s impossible to separate nature and nurture.

Equality should mean equal opportunity for men to raise children full time - should they want to.

There’s nothing innately female about caring.

.

NDtennant-
Totally get your point about women representation at a level where they can yield influence.
I just feel that other women's concerns are pushed aside sometimes and board room representation at a certain figure.

We have to financially compensate people who do caring roles, regardless of whether they are male or female. It is profoundly unethical not to.

,Equality should mean equal opportunity for men to raise children full time - should they want to.’

Sorry - to the above quote, only if those men actually have children.

There’s nothing innately female about caring

How can we say that when it is literally written into our biology? I've been back and forth on this over the years.

how is caring written into biology? The ability to gestate and breast feed our young is on our biology - but the ability to care about them is no more innate to women than to men. How else would you explain broody men, and fertile women without a maternal bone in their body? Biological functions and emotions are not the same thing.

I think we are getting into semantics.

The ability to gestate and breast feed our young is on our biology - but the ability to care about them is no more innate to women than to men

The first part contradicts the second. Men cannot physically breastfeed which means that men cannot physically care for a newborn in a way that would keep it alive (at one point in time and still now in some places).

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.

Hand waving reproductive biology has always been odd to me. It's everything in this debate.