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!

Not really, Fizzy, unless you lay the blame for 'life costs inflation' at the door of working men - which would be rather unfair, surely

Those working men could have given up work to raise the kids whilst their wife went out to work, thus keeping the single income household status quo no?

Why are the women who went out to work in any way more to blame that the men that didn't stay at home?

I'm not blaming the women who entered the job market, Fizzy; I'm just suggesting that there may be a correlation between the job market being flooded by women of the generation after the Second World War, and rising house prices/cost of living since then - and perhaps static wages (or at least not rising in line with other costs)?

I'm not sure why you suggest that men should leave the job market because women start entering it; I thought a level and 'equal' playing field was the whole point?!

And the whole SAHD thing is a very recent phenomenon; I don't think either men OR women in the 1950s and 60s wanted a straight swap of roles; women wanted to do what men had been doing up till then, because they were dissatisfied with their own 'role' - which is perfectly understandable. Doesn't mean it didn't have some less-than-great side-effects for society as a whole, even if it was great for women's liberation.

women wanted to do what men had been doing up till then, because they were dissatisfied with their own 'role'

Correct, and men certainly didn't want to do what women had been doing - which rather tells you something doesn't it?

I refuse to accept that me or my daughters have to accept some feminine fate of being the 'carers' while men get the power and the glory. Fuck. that. shit. I am not innately nicer, or sweeter or more empathetic than my DH and I do not want to be the one that has to do all the shit wiping and house cleaning.

Why do you think women flocked to the workplace? Because having skills that mean you can command economic independence in the labour market feels great.

So who, in your ideal society, would be doing the shit-wiping of your children? And is that all you consider parenting to be?

"We're working more to make up for the lack of appropriate wage rises. what we should be is earning more so we can work less. The labour in the work place was shared so surely the caring could have been shared
as a natural follow on. Instead we're now all working more, not being paid enough and no one is home to do the caring."

I totally agree, Missy, but now it seems that neither parent even wants to do the caring for their own children.

correlation between the job market being flooded by women of the generation after the Second World War, and rising house prices/cost of living since then - and perhaps static wages (or at least not rising in line with other costs)?

Not correct. House prices have risen because demand exceeds supply, because of wider access to finance and the creation of ASTs in the 90s.

Wages are kept low because of the increases globalisation of the labour market meaning that companies can export their workforce requirements to countries with cheaper cost of living (e.g. Indian call centres).

Well done doris. So depressing to read a woman on a feminist board trotting out the old tripe that selfish women wanting economic freedom are responsible for low wages and high house prices. No we bloody aren't! Drop the dishcloth & read up on economics.

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

I personally don't think that there is as big a biological difference between how men and women act. There are clearly some hormonal etc differences but I think most of what we would call 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits are socially defined (albeit over many generations).

In the quote above, I find it interesting that it is phrased as 'female success' measured against 'male benchmarks'. I think that a bigger issue is why, in a society that says it is seeking gender equality, success for any person is still defined against the same traditional male benchmarks? I don't think anyone would argue that statistically males are more likely than females to commit violent/sexual crimes. I see this as a direct result of the way that men are socialised and therefore the way that some take the 'normal' male attributes to unacceptable extremes. ie- 'success' means having power, being ruthless, getting what you want despite the disagreement of others. In the capitalist business world this is seen as positive, in personal relationships it is less acceptable but not uncommon. If we really want equality (including equality in personal relationships) I think that actually the benchmark for all people (regardless of gender) needs to change. Not necessarily to a traditionally female benchmark (putting yourself last, looking pretty, not being 'difficult/loud') but a more modern benchmark of self respect and respect for others, one where success includes whether your partner is happy and fulfilled and whether you both take an active role in looking after the children that you both (presumably) chose to have. This would mean a huge shift in the way businesses work and people think.

Sorry- just read that back and I didn't make it clear, the reference to male violence etc was intended to demonstrate that since this is clearly a problem with the way that men behave in society, if we are looking for a benchmark for behaviour why do we automatically choose the traditional male benchmark. Why not accept that it is not suitable and look for a new idea of success.

I wasn't suggesting a sudden and significant increase in available labour was the only cause in lower/stagnant wages and housing that now requires two wages attend than one; I was positing that it may have been a contributing factor - and I'd appreciate evidence to the contrary.

TheLuminaries - would you care to answer my question rather than just sling rude remarks?

"So who, in your ideal society, would be doing the shit-wiping of your children? And is that all you consider parenting to be?"

Completely agree Supermansmartersister. I'm increasingly realising that true equality is going to require a radical rethink of what we value as a society. Which may be obvious to the more seasoned thinkers but I'm pretty new to all this stuff!

Yes, me too tomatoandcheese2009. I'm rapidly coming to the realisation that I am not actually the liberal feminist that I thought I was. I heard so many times in my career that women have the same opportunities as men but they just choose not to take them- that I think I may at some point have started to believe it.

So who, in your ideal society, would be doing the shit-wiping of your children? And is that all you consider parenting to be?

Both of the parents and likely also someone employed to look after children as well (at nursery or a nanny or childminder) - are you suggesting that something about women makes them naturally more able to wipe bums?

And no, that's not all that parenting is, who on earth ever suggested that. I gave numerous examples myself of the other parts of parenting that are actually rewarding, rather than having to be spun as rewarding to trap women into staying home and doing them so the bloke doesn't have to.

I'm not sure why you suggest that men should leave the job market because women start entering it; I thought a level and 'equal' playing field was the whole point?!

You were trying to blame women wanting to work 'flooding the market' for rising house prices. I was pointing out, that the men who had already 'flooded the market' were as much to blame, and that there was a simple remedy.

I was positing that it may have been a contributing factor - and I'd appreciate evidence to the contrary.

I'm not going to be your personal google to disprove your crazy theories.

But remember that as well as "taking" jobs women entrepreneurs and business owners also create them.

I'd be interested to see statistics around the percentage of women who actually feel oppressed by being the caregiver. I think most women want equality and opportunity when they're in the workforce but that many are perfectly happy to leave it to embrace motherhood. If my colleagues are anything to go by, most revel in motherhood and love nothing more than sharing their baby photos etc and talking about their days out with the little ones etc.

Doesn't mean it didn't have some less-than-great side-effects for society as a whole, even if it was great for women's liberation.

I've just re-read this.

You know that women are part of society too right? Exactly what percentage of the population would it be OK to force into servitude to prevent those side-effects? Perhaps we could move to some kind of lottery? 50% of the population gets assigned to stay home, whether they like it or not, because they drew a an even lottery number, and 50% is allowed to work.

Does that sound ridiculous?

Yet basing this servitude on genitals (which I rarely use them for housework or childrearing) isn't?

Moose - I think that making the best choice out of those available could describe a lot of people.

If I were independently wealthy DP and I would both be home with the kids (and maybe even have more). Since we're not, and at least one of us has to work, we both work.

"are you suggesting that something about women makes them naturally more able to wipe bums?" No, Fizzy, I'm not suggesting any such thing.

"And no, that's not all that parenting is, who on earth ever suggested that."

May I point you towards TheLuminaries' charming post:

"I refuse to accept that me or my daughters have to accept some feminine fate of being the 'carers' while men get the power and the glory. Fuck. that. shit. I am not innately nicer, or sweeter or more empathetic than my DH and I do not want to be the one that has to do all the shit wiping and house cleaning."

I asked her to elaborate on what else (if anything) she thought parenting involved - no response as yet.

Fizzy -"servitude"? Seriously? I'm talking about looking after one's own babies, and you're describing it as domestic slavery?

This is what I mean - because something has been associated with women rather than men, now women are denigrating it as viciously as possible.

This is what I mean - because something has been associated with women rather than men, now women are denigrating it as viciously as possible.

This is bullshit logic - cotton mills and footbinding are "associated" with women and are denigrated, because things that USED TO be associated with women are usually shit - hence feminism!

Yes, I think a lot of people would say that bum wiping and housework are drudgery. Not all of parenting is fun and joyous.

What's your point - domestic slavery should be embraced, and because women have more empathy, they should be happy to take it on?

who, in your ideal society, would be doing the shit-wiping of your children? And is that all you consider parenting to be?

Happy to reply. Both parent's are responsible for ensuring shit is wiped. That stage of parenting only lasts a few years, so obviously there is more to it than that. And both parents are equally responsible for providing it. I'm not sure what you found so controversial about my comment. You seem curiously irked that I want more out of life for me and my daughters than to be confined to the domestic sphere and somehow judged against that standard. No thank you, perfectly happy to have a grubby front door step, not entering that competition to benchmark my femininity - I think I'll have to reassign my gender because I am certainly not feminine enough to please the OP

Fizzy -"servitude"? Seriously? I'm talking about looking after one's own babies, and you're describing it as domestic slavery?

No, I call being the only one expected to do that, and all the domestic duties, including those that solely benefit the man of the house, and having that sold to me as as rewarding as going out to work (and yet strangely not desired by men despite how wonderful it is to hoover and wash up every day) is domestic slavery.

This is what I mean - because something has been associated with women rather than men, now women are denigrating it as viciously as possible.

Sorry, clearly mopping the floor and picking up dirty socks is something you enjoy, you go ahead and enjoy it.

Personally, I, the men in my life, and every woman I know find it to be drudgery that is necessary to maintain a house, but not something we enjoy doing, and something we would delegate if we could.

I've got no children, but I feel like I'd much rather be a SAHD than perform my excruciatingly boring office job. And having four nieces/nephews I know it's not easy work!

But I guess I'd feel differently if not was expected of me.

if it was

But I guess I'd feel differently if not was expected of me.

I guess you might. And not everyone finds their jobs excruciatingly boring, many get satisfaction from their work and/or enjoy the rewards and/or the camaraderie of the workplace. Most of the white heat of child care takes place over a relatively short period if you have the average of two children - around 10- 15 years - whereas most people's working life is around 40 years, so it is as well not to spork it on the alter of domesticity, if you can avoid it.