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!

Of course I agree we're more than our biology. I'm not suggesting women should not strive to achieve whatever they want to do. We can over ride our biology. However I feel that we should at least acknowledge differences occurred due to evolutionary past.
Once there was no capitalism, no boardroom.... and caring about others, altruistic behaviours ensured the species survival.

Males don’t have higher sex drives. That’s a myth right there.

If women don’t want sex as much it’s probably because they spent years being told it was shameful to want sex, that men prized virginity and demureness. That unwanted pregnancies were disastrous socially and economically.

And even if they broke free from all of that they’re too knackered from all the childcare, cooking, cleaning and wifework to want sex

Or maybe they don’t want sex because men aren’t very good in bed.

Doris-
I do genuinely think males have a higher sex drive- we acknowledge on this forum how women are sexually harassed by men. Women don't sexually harass men. Sexual crime, violence by men. Yet we say there is no difference? I think these crimes are deviant manifestations of male sexual drive.

Sexual harassment isn’t about sex. It’s about power. That’s feminism 101.

It’s about both.

You can’t really separate the two. It removes the whole reason why men attempt to control women in the first place.

I expected that reply, however I do think it's about sex as well. I think it's a combination of sex and power. But again even if it is about power it's still a manifestation of male aggression which is at least in part down to biology.
Society, and environment plays a role in controlling primitive behaviours but they're still there under the surface.
women have free choice to specialise in careers like nursing, it requires training and skill- they aren't pushed into it they find caring rewarding.
In the police child protection, sexual offences departments have more female officers- they choose this role, not pushed into it.

Anything beyond that should be equal opportunities.Anything beyond that should be equal opportunities.

But it's not because that maternity "bit" isn't a "bit". It's massive and acting like it's simply a blip that can be hand waved is naive and doesn't do anybody any favours.

Icantreachthepretzels

I know all that but you that doesn't change what I said. Caring for the very young is innately female.

The language used here about caring is horrible by the way. "Wiping eldery arses", I mean fucking hell.

It’s all about societal conditioning. Boys are brought up to believe they have to be strong, and to compete, and to be physical. They are taught, explicitly or implicitly , that they have to push or cajole or trick sex out of women. This happens from birth because of the society they are raised in. It’s all pervasive.

Funny how sexual predators in the workplace manage to control their urges towards their female bosses and only pick on their female underlings.

Funny how men manage not to harass women at church or around the dinner table but then can’t control themselves in a nightclub after several beers.

Miffed-
I agree with your above post.
Raising children is seen as a blip, a hobby, something unimportant.
The elderly are just shoved in homes, a burden in need of their "asses wiping"- is terrible.

Caring roles are looked down on, even though they were more important to society well being and survival than anything else

It’s in almost every society, not the one they happened to be raised in.

Why is it funny? People are calculating in getting their desires met.

Men are as much victims of toxic masculinity as women. Men who aren’t aggressive or physical or sexually promiscuous are called wimps or faggots. Men who have an equal, faithful relationship with their spouse are called pussywhipped. Men who want caring roles are viewed with suspicion (must be a paedo if he wants to be a nursery nurse). Men who put their careers on hold to spend time with their young children lack ambition. Men who cry or express emotion over anything other than their team crashing out of the cup are frankly just weird.

women have free choice to specialise in careers like nursing, it requires training and skill- they aren't pushed into it they find caring rewarding.
In the police child protection, sexual offences departments have more female officers- they choose this role, not pushed into it.

You can’t be what you can’t see. And the fact that nursing is such an undervalued and underpaid role is directly related to the fact that it’s female dominated. And the reason why men are not attracted to it in the same way. Men do and can find caring rewarding, they are just conditioned to think that because they are men they are better at other things.

They’re really, really not as much victims.

Doris-
I do think it's more than conditioning. In our evolutionary past men did have to be aggressive, it had a roll to play. For example fending off other males.
If anything society conditions men out of there aggressions into civility. They drink beer and you sometimes see the primitive behaviour come back- aggressive to other males, harassing females. It's very apparent on a night out. Some men act like idiots.
They aren't conditioned to behave this way, their inebriation allows the primitively side to the forefront.

@SylviaPoe yes you are probably right.

You’re over reaching missy. Everything that can think sometimes needs to call upon aggression. We don’t need to make up evolutionary reasons. The facts remain the same now. Men cannot reproduce unless they convince someone else to be pregnant with their kid for nine months. It is a very different psychological starting point with a high chance of not suceeding.

But men know that society won’t judge them as harshly as women. Boys getting into a fight on a night out is “boys will be boys”, “I hope you have as good as you got” etc. They’ve seen the men in their society do the same while they were growing up. It’s a rite of passage.

Women getting drunk and lairy? Tabloid headlines screaming about the breakdown of society’s moral fabric.

No wonder you see higher levels of violence amongst men.

Thinking historically and evolutionarily makes some of the differences between men and women more evident, I think. As PPs have pointed out, it was only after the industrial revolution, and spread of automated machinery, that women were suddenly able to perform many of the jobs that previously it had only been possible for men to do, because they required greater physical strength. I'm not for a moment saying they were not as mentally capable, but physical strength played a major role in how human societies operated for thousands of years. The current era is a mere blip in comparison.

I find Camille Paglia fascinating on this topic though I'm aware she's persona non grata on here. She basically says that, if only women had been around, the great civilisations of Rome and Carthage and Constantinople etc would never have been built - and I find it hard to argue with that! The urges to conquer the unknown, fight to expand and defend one's territory, compete to better what has already been achieved, I would definitely associate with masculinity and testosterone.

To answer someone's question, yes I do think that men and women are innately different, and I believe there have been many studies that attest to this, on brain function for example, that show women's brains more 'switched on' by people, and men's brains more switched on by things. I believe it's also true that women are innately more empathetic than men.

It's futile to argue the precise degree to which these traits have developed through an evolutionary imperative that no longer exists; I agree that there is probably some complex combination of nature plus cultural and social norms.

It does worry me to hear Fizzy talk about staying at home to look after one's own children as 'stale bread' compared to the delicious 'cake' that is paid employment though. I agree with another poster who said caring roles (within one's own family unit) should be financially compensated, but that would be less tax-efficient for the government, which much prefers parents both working and paying taxes, AND employing third party(s) to care for their children/elderly parents, who also pay tax (and reduce unemployment stats).

And just in brackets -
"Businesses are the last people that abortion benefits. Much like the pill." Providing abortions, and contraception, is a HUGE business in and of itself.

Caring roles should be paid for by the state, not the family unit.

They are paid for currently by the state, but we need to do more to secure pensions and housing for those carers, and not become more like the USA.

on brain function for example, that show women's brains more 'switched on' by people, and men's brains more switched on by things. I believe it's also true that women are innately more empathetic than men.

But the human brain spends 9 months developing in the womb and 25 years developing in society. It’s impossible to say that “female” traits are innate when women grow up with a weight of societal conditioning and expectations on them.

They look around at “successful” women and copy them to best ensure their own success.

‘ As PPs have pointed out, it was only after the industrial revolution, and spread of automated machinery, that women were suddenly able to perform many of the jobs that previously it had only been possible for men to do, because they required greater physical strength. ‘

Like what?

Chester-
I think Camille paglia is great, she speaks so much sense!
I think saying that the aspects of masculinity like aggression are because of social conditioning is only a half picture if we ignore/refute the biological basis of human behaviours.
As the article I posted shows, it's common across the animal kingdom for parental caring bias to fall on females- it ensured survival of the species, it was vitally important.
We don't have to accept biology as fate, I merely suggest it should be acknowledged.