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!

SylviaPoe

Like what?

I would be interested in this too, my impression was prior to industrialisation labour was divided fairly in the home between everybody, children included. It's not my area though and I may have it wrong.

Obviously I am talking about what is now the working class.

‘ 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'd say it was the other way round. Take non-mechanized agriculture (working in the field) for example. This was in many cultures the work of women. Women planted, tended and harvested whilst carrying their young on their backs. Then mechanization happened and it was no longer compatible with childcare - too dangerous for children to be around heavy machinery and the work was handed over to men.

Women were far more involved in the production of goods prior to industrialization. A bakery for example would consist of a baker, his wife, apprentices and children who all worked in the business.

The industrial revolution lead to a separation of the home and work which changed women's lives forever. Men became the breadwinners and women the home-keepers.

It's just people look back on history and infer. They tend to believe that things were as they were now.

OP, I agree with your sentiment that femininity and domesticity need to be valued more, but we do need women in places of political and economic power. We can't leave it to the men because then you get situations like Harvey Weinstein.

A more recent example. When MIT launched computer science courses in the 70s and 80s the graduates were predominantly women as CS was a low status degree in comparison to engineering and business. It was only when jobs such as programming and systems analysts became so well paid and prestigious did men start to flock to the course. Now women are a minority.

Yes that is the problem. Anything perceived to be feminine is less valued. A driver is paid more than a carer. So unskilled workers who gravitate towards what tends to suit them are are going to be rewarded to penalised for being stereotypical of their sex.

‘OP, I agree with your sentiment that femininity and domesticity need to be valued more, but we do need women in places of political and economic power. We can't leave it to the men because then you get situations like Harvey Weinstein.‘

Yes. Exactly. Imagine if all the doctors were men.

Dorislessingscat wasn't there a similar situation before your example, they male typists and clerks were paid more than women?

Missymoo unless I missed it, you referenced one form of mating/reproductive choice. There are many different models between species. The model you describe is more appropriate to herd animals with a single male in charge. In species with low sexual dimorphism that produce few offspring (like humans), mate pairing, with both parents investing substantial time in caring and providing for the offspring, supports passing on of genes. So evolutionarily, we should expect to see men sticking around and providing for their children.

HR is another example of something that used to be predominantly female until they introduced the need for qualifications and then it was paid well and then men came in to it.

So basically, it is the fact that women are naturally inclined towards a skill that then makes that skill be less valued.

So we do need to fight our corner whilst still valuing our femininity because if we don't, who will. I disagree that valuing femininity is just a way to make women embrace low paid work. why is the work low paid is the infuriating injustice.

Or is it paid well because men were coming into it? I know in a company that I worked for, when a man started a family he was taken more seriously and would most likely get a pay rise (well, he had those extra expenses to meet). Women were treated somewhat differently.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. When a job is perceived to be a female choice it's badly paid. But a man choosing it lends it gravitas or something. If men begin to choose that job in significant numbers it becomes better paid. Partly because men just won't work for lower wages, men demand more and get more. women can try to demand more and are often told ''you're worth what somebody is prepared to pay you'' (I was once told that, in an industry where the men at the next desks were definitely paid more).

So don't suppress your femininity and maximise your masculinity to win a race you don't want to be in. Let your feminine side speak, and then use the strengths traditionally perceived to be masculine to help you be successful.

This is what I understand anyway having read James Hollis, Maureen Murdock and Sharon Blackie.

I was a bit confused about this very question for a while OP. Not claiming to have it all figured out but hopefully I will create a life for myself that is one I actually want.

Thanks Gin for clarifying. Yes, I remember reading an article where a female doctor, possibly a surgeon, expressed concerns that the increase in women in medical school would lead to the profession becoming devalued and lower paid.

No doubt!

And I read earlier today in new scientist that the referral rates to female surgeons drop after they lose a patient but male surgeons aren't as affected by one off 'mistakes'. Not relevant to this thread though. That is a different issue.

Its feminism. Not womanism. I want a society where traditionally feminine tasks and skills are valued just as much as the traditionally masculine, whether those skills are performed by someone with a pens or a vagina. I want a world where children are brought up with far less idea of gender specific roles so that boys like my son who are incredibly caring and empathic can be as valued as much as girls like my daughter who has already decided she is going to be a weapons engineer and not have kids.

Biology does IMO have an effect on average populations, meaning that overall, women are better at collaborative working and feelings, and men are more aggressive. And patriarchy But that doesn't mean that

Its feminism. Not womanism. I want a society where traditionally feminine tasks and skills are valued just as much as the traditionally masculine, whether those skills are performed by someone with a pens or a vagina. I want a world where children are brought up with far less idea of gender specific roles so that boys like my son who are incredibly caring and empathic can be as valued as much as girls like my daughter who has already decided she is going to be a weapons engineer and not have kids.

Biology does IMO have an effect on average populations, meaning that overall, women are better at collaborative working and feelings, and men are more aggressive. And patriarchy has meant that feminine skills have been undervalued. But that doesn't mean that any individual woman or man has to conform to gender norms.

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)?

Why should it be a hindrance to society? Women are the givers of life and as hard as nails... We deserve trophies for every time our biology has caused us pain and misery in some way we didn't ask for but helps the human race to continue.

We have to demand legislation that equalises the financial and practical sacrifices of parenting more effectively. At the moment a woman is at the mercy of her partner (if she has one) and his probably bigger salary giving him a louder voice in the relationship.

A woman should be able to have a child without a man's support. Take chilcare away from family units and make it like schools and hospitals.

Continuing the species shouldnt cost women more.

Because a capitalist agenda and the working life-span is created with the male in mind, who physically at least, would never have to take a break from his career to gestate, breastfeed or otherwise. Then the caring duties get shunted onto the back of that.

Totally agree Gin. My post was in answer to potato, just to clarify

Take chilcare away from family units and make it like schools and hospitals

Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiment this is deeply problematic. I am not really thrilled at the power schools have over my kids and by extension me.

I don't know the answer by the way but I have a feeling that involves dismantling the economic system from the ground up. Everything else just feels like sticking plasters, trying to make something work that is inherently broken.

Of course we need power. It's how we can get things changed.

It does worry me to hearFizzytalk about staying at home to look after one's own children as 'stale bread' compared to the delicious 'cake' that is paid employment though

Not all females are maternal

I’m very maternal - I knew from a young age I wanted kids (didn’t get them until I was 30), I adore my kids, I find my kids themselves very rewarding. Which meant I tolerated the years of nappy changes, and I do spend the time with them doing homework, playing, teaching them to cook and dress, and be good kids. BUT that doesn’t make the continuous hamster wheel of washing, hoovering, cooking, cleaning and all the rest of it any more palatable, any more cake-like. Maternal does not mean destined to keep house!

In the police child protection, sexual offences departments have more female officers- they choose this role, not pushed into it.

Or could it possibly be that children find women less threatening, especially since it’s overwhelmingly likely that men will have committed the crimes against them, so the women volunteer (it must be an extremely taxing role for a person)

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

The elderly are just shoved in homes, a burden in need of their "asses wiping"- is terrible.

My MIL looked after her mother in her later years. When DP and I got serious, she pulled me aside (she has 3 sons and is very realistic about this) and told me that no matter what, I wasn’t to do that for her, that she would prefer to go into a care home than put that burden on me - it crushed her, wore her down, and she didn’t want to do that to anyone else. Looking after the elderly is hard work. No matter how vital it is, it’s not something to be just passed onto women with a hand-wave and be told is so important. It needs to be admitted just how tough it is.

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

I don’t look down on caring roles. I look down on the idea that people with vaginas should be happy to do them because they’re so important to society.

So don't suppress your femininity and maximise your masculinity to win a race you don't want to be in. Let your feminine side speak, and then use the strengths traditionally perceived to be masculine to help you be successful.

No femininity being suppressed here. I want to be in some parts of the race (I won’t compromise my morals for example, I wouldn’t work for a porn site or weapons research, I won’t screw my employees or suppliers over at work), I will always make time for my children. Women are people, with characters and rich inner lives - just like men.

Potato, I wasn't saying that female biology was^^ a hindrance to society; I was asking whether women viewed it as a disadvantage to them personally, rather than something that overall enriched them.

The idea that 'childcare' should be done by the state rather the family, I find horrifying, frankly. Why not just have state-run children's homes, where the children can live permanently, and parents can come and visit after work until bedtime, and take them away on the weekends, and family holidays for one or two weeks a year. Think of all the time that would be saved, the efficiency...

...then think about what is already happening in our hospitals, (chronically underfunded, unfit for purpose), the epidemic of abuse that is being visited on the elderly in old-people's homes, the thousands of experienced teachers leaving the profession in droves, because schools are now expected to do half the 'work' that was once done within the family unit.

I'm not saying that caring roles are always as much 'fun' as the next job, but what happened to the idea of altruism, of self-sacrifice in order to give the best to those we love? I'm not saying that all these sacrifices should be made by women (though I personally believe that their skill-set makes them both more likely to take such roles on, and more likely to be better at them), but neither do I believe that the state can or should be trusted with such important things. Children need to be cared for with love, not just professionalism, wherever possible.

Looking after the elderly is hard work. No matter how vital it is, it’s not something to be just passed onto women with a hand-wave and be told is so important. It needs to be admitted just how tough it is

I'm not sure why you quoted me to make this point. My problem with the language is that it belittles the work carers do.

I'm not saying that all these sacrifices should be made by women (though I personally believe that their skill-set makes them both more likely to take such roles on, and more likely to be better at them)

They're skills. They're learnt. If women can learn them, so can men. I've never learnt to look after people, other than first aid. And myself. There's no reason I'd be better at it than a man. In fact some men would probably be far better at than I. I'm not very good at things like small talk.