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!

caring roles (traditionally associated more with women)

Why do you think these undervalued, unpaid roles are traditionally associated with women?

Because women prefer them? Or because historically the transition into capitalism stripped women (and men) of land and forced women from paid labour into unpaid reproduction of labour. Medieval craft guilds/trades would generally not allow women members (unless they were low paid), women were forced out of midwifery/obstetrics and other professions they were traditionally centred in. Systematically stripped of the means to support themselves in order that they were dependent on men.

What happened after World War I to all those women farmers, engineers, drivers? Were they allowed to continue in their roles? Or were they fired and shamed for taking jobs men needed?

We have no counterfactual situation to assess what women would be doing in our society if they had been socialised the same as men and had the same opportunities that men have had for centuries.

So no, I don't buy into feminine traits and feminine careers.

a lot of men are very caring and a lot of women aren't at all.

but I do keep pondering how pre contraception I'd probably have a lot more children and have been breastfeeding them all as formula wasn't as good or even used much. Presumably that was most women's existence for most of history. I think before contraception was wildly available the worldwide birth rate per women was around 5 children

my nan was one of 15, my mum one of 6 and I was one of 2. Its not long for the whole world to change in. My nan was still a big influence on me.

we have to promote abortion which benefits the work place

Jesus Christ - no, Abortion benefits women. It benefits women who get pregnant by accident, and don't have the means or desire to support a baby. It benefits women who's health is dangerously impacted by a pregnancy and who would otherwise die. It benefits the poor, poor women who's child cannot survive, and have to make the heartbreaking decision to end a pregnancy early.

Businesses are the last people that abortion benefits. Much like the pill.

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.

I choose to be in the boardroom then. I looked after my kids while they were babies, now I have a nanny so I can get back on it - yet funnily enough, boardroom positions (which really don't require a great deal of presenteeism when it suits those board members), aren't as available to me as they are to my DP.

Sorry, but again - as much as you can say that as a woman I'm programmed to care (and I really do) - I still don't see why that means I have to be the one at home cleaning toilets and cooking dinner when DP can do it or I can employ someone to do it. I don't see what about 'femininity' means that I'm better placed to be performing that role than him.

DistaffSide

Christ, we have been so fucked over at every turn.

I remember reading a quote years ago about the dawn of the welfare state and about how the whole thing relied on a supply of abed bodied adults with unlimited flexible time (women).

I think that anyone, make it femane, who measures their own success against the accomplishments of others is a bit of an idiot. Success isn't about our competing others. It's about reaching the height of your potential and leading a fulfilling life.

its a bit silly to compare a CEO with a cleaner to be honest. There are plenty of low grade 'male' jobs and low grade 'female' jobs and it would make more sense to compare those and see which is paid more has more status.

I don’t even know what a board does.

Working out of the home, away from the family/tribe, away from caring for young has only become widespread in the last few thousand years, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.

Once the patriarchy got hold it replicated itself over and over again, and had a death grip on most societies worldwide.

Doesn’t mean we can’t dismantle it

‘I don't see what about 'femininity' means that I'm better placed to be performing that role than him.‘

Because you made a decision to be pregnant for nine months and go through childbirth. He didn’t. So, in the absence of further information, you have demonstrated a commitment to your kids, while he is far more likely to not give a fuck about his kids. It doesn’t mean that you have to fill that role, but those two positions are the starting point of gender relations.

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

Amen, Mephistopheles.

Christ, we have been so fucked over at every turn

Yes. And quite deliberately. I was reading the other day how in a periods of unrest in the late 15th Century, France largely decriminalised rape. Unpunished, gang raping of women was carried out by groups of young men, they were venting their anger on their poverty and difficulties on women rather than rioting and causing trouble for the authorities. As I get older I think in contemporary times sexual harassment has been employed by men, perhaps even unconsciously, to reinforce their 'territory' which is participation in public society.

DorisLessing I blame farming.

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

But the 'caring role' as handed out to women is a hell of a lot more than pregnancy and breast feeding and lasts longer than the 18 months of doing that. As someone has said - child care is not babies, it's all the way up until they are old enough to look after themselves. Just because you breastfed them 7 years ago, doesn't mean you are innately better positioned or biologically determined to care for them better now.

And wiping elderly arses - another big part of the 'caring' role foisted upon women, has got sod all to do with biology.

The maternity bits of 'caring' is why we have maternity leave. Anything beyond that should be equal opportunities. Breast feeding is innate to womanhood. Looking after people you are responsible for and love should be innate to humanity. Men choose not to do it - but it's not because they are biologically ill equipped to do so.

If you have a choice about something it isn’t innate.

Many people really don’t love others very much and don’t want to care for them.

Evolutionary speaking female reproductive success depends on being choosier with mate selection, i.e. quality males and caring for young to ensure they survived.
Male reproductive success is about number of females they can mate with, increases number of progeny and improves reproductive success.
Males are dependant on finding a willing female, therefore monogamy was a trade off- male has access to female, female secures support of male for assistance in raising family.
There were different selection pressures on male and female, leading to different behaviours.
It's widespread across the animal kingdom
Not saying women shouldn't achieve whatever they want to do- boardroom or whatever that may be. Not all females are maternal. But caring has ensured the very survival of the species.
We may not like it but there are differences. That's biology.

advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1500983.full

I don’t buy into the whole biology “look at the animal kingdom” bullshit. Not least because we’re thinking, visioning, creative beings who can imagine different futures and choose how we live our lives.

The other huge difference is that in the animal kingdom (oh the irony of calling it a kingdom ) females are not disadvantaged to such a massive extent because of “biology” in comparison to human societies.

Oh, and scientific research is not immune to patriarchal influences either, so I don’t believe scientific evidence is completely without societal and cultural bias.

Finally (for now) humans are unusual in that their young have a massively extended juvenile phase when they are unable to live independently. The human brain keeps developing up until your mid 20s. A bit different from producing foals/calves/cubs every year or two and pushing them out into the world in a matter of months.

Dependent offspring are perfect for keeping women subjected.

Biology isn't bullshit though. You can't discredit a whole branch of scientific thought because it doesn't agree with your ideology.
Unless your a transgender activist... but I digress.

Yes humans now have choice but the root of difference in preferences on the most part to me is rooted in biology and our evolutionary past.

So you don’t think the fact that science has been dominated by men brought up and educated in a patriarchy has any influence on the results of their research?

What about the white scientists of the past who concluded black people were less intelligent or more criminal? Society matters.

But surely the whole point of feminism is that we are more than our biology, and that we shouldn't be defined by it? I'm sick of hearing that real women are innately caring and maternal, that women who aren't consumed by an overwhelming desire to devote their lives to reproduction and childcare are unnatural freaks, and that feminism that doesn't want to rearrange the world around motherhood is just pandering to the patriarchy. That doesn't reflect my life, and frankly, I expect feminism and feminists to respect and champion my choices as well.

No I don't think evolutionary theory has anything to do with patriarchy.
To me the difference is obvious, males are physically different, they have higher sex drives, more aggressive tendencies. Of course they on the most part have learnt to control this, although we see cases of males displaying this behaviour still today. I can't see how we can deny it has anything to do with hormones and evolutionary sex roles. If females didn't look after their offspring there would be no human race.

‘Real women’ aren’t caring and maternal, but women who choose motherhood pretty much are. Of course the world should be arranged around motherhood because otherwise mothers get treated like absolute crap.

If you have a choice about something it isn’t innate.

The choice to ignore something that must be done is a choice made from a position of power, though. There is no reason that a wife is better equipped to look after her elderly mil, than a son to look after his mother - but you still see that happening, all over. There is no biological drive in the wife telling her to help this other woman - she is doing it because she has to, because not all choices come down to biological necessity. Lack of money or societal expectation are very powerful factors in forcing women into caring roles. Men's decision to not bother is because they are the ones that hold the power in society - they will face very little shame for not 'caring' for either their parents or their children. But that still doesn't mean women are biologically better equipped to do the caring work (considering how much heavy lifting caring for older disabled children or the elderly involves - surely men are better equipped to do that?)

Yes, who looks after elderly and disabled family members is massively variable and down to social norms and culture.