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!

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.

Or, if as discussed in the other thread, once you'd started, you looked up a few years later and realised you were pretty much trapped, and couldn't even get that boring office job any more.

There's a thread in parenting asking if anyone regrets having kids. Lots on there saying they love their kids to bits but have hated the day to day business of parenting (www.mumsnet.com/Talk/parenting/3087833-Does-anybody-regret-becoming-a-parent)

So I think it is fair to say that being forced into doing that full time is oppressive, especially if your partner escapes from the social pressure to take the lion's share of the burden

"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."

Or you could look at it the other way around: the most crucial part of childhood only lasts (in an average family) for 5-8 years, compared to a 40-year working life, so maybe it's not too much to expect one's children to take first place for that relatively short period of time..?

And Fizzy, you know full well I was referring to parenting, not house-keeping. It's getting quite wearing, trying to have a civil, interesting discussion with people so intent on mis-representing my posts, and putting idiotic ideas and words into my mouth.

Yes but if you're out of a job for 5-8 years, good luck getting back in.

You don't have to totally give up your career to be there for your kids. You and your partner could both work 3-4 days a week, putting your kid in nursery 1-3 days a week, then both go back to full-time once they're in school.

It’s not that hard to get back into a job after being a SAHM.

It’s not that hard to get back into a job after being a SAHM.

I think that’s very industry dependent. A job maybe - many careers are much harder.

But why is it always the woman that has to take the risk and the hit to her career? Children have 2 parents. This is basic feminism, I cannot believe we still have to defend women's rights to be parents and work in 2017!

I'd add that, even when both parents work full time, it is still more often the woman who ends up doing the majority of the additional work of running the home, organising childcare etc etc. So it's not as simple as women just going out to work. We need men to expect to do as much of the unpaid caring and domestic labour. I think (and hope) that this is gradually changing but it seems to be slow, slow progress. Society's expectations still have a huge role to play in creating this dynamic and a lot of us have unconsciously internalised it even when we set out to make a more equal partnership. Then fighting our own expectations on top of society's becomes exhausting and it is often easier to just give in and play the caring role, regardless of whether it comes naturally or not

"But why is it always the woman that has to take the risk and the hit to her career? Children have 2 parents. This is basic feminism, I cannot believe we still have to defend women's rights to be parents and work in 2017!"

Oh yeah and definitely this!

You're at it again, Luminaries. When I have said that it should always be women's careers that take the hit?

There will always be some risk attached to pregnancy and childbirth, but that's biology's 'fault', not mine.

" I cannot believe we still have to defend women's rights to be parents and work in 2017!"

Again...nowhere have I disputed women's right to be working parents. I have simply pointed out that having two parents working full-time is a less than optimum scenario for the child.

I agree that if both parents work full-time, it's only fair that the domestic burden (which is considerable) then be divided up equally (by 'weight' if not necessarily by 'type', IYSWIM).

"But why is it always the woman that has to take the risk and the hit to her career? Children have 2 parents. This is basic feminism, I cannot believe we still have to defend women's rights to be parents and work in 2017!"

She doesn't, and exactly.

Me and my partner have planned that when we have kids, after mat leave/SPL we can both go 4 days a week. I never for a second assumed it would automatically be me - why? We have the same job in the same company, why does me having a vagina mean that I have to step down? No way. The kid is a responsibility of both parents.

And Fizzy, you know full well I was referring to parenting, not house-keeping.

You tell me how many full time parents aren't also the full time housekeeper then?

Have you been over to relationships? How many posts have you seen that first make it clear that they are only a SAHM, they have a 50/50 split of all other tasks, and how many do you see where they are a SAHM responsible for keeping the house as well? Now who's misrepresenting things?

So what is your point, OP? What has 'femininity' - whatever the hell that is - got to do with anything? Surely 2 people need to pull their weight & at the moment it appears to be men who are coasting. I rather think perceived notions of 'masculity' are a bigger problem.

Again...nowhere have I disputed women's right to be working parents. I have simply pointed out that having two parents working full-time is a less than optimum scenario for the child.

For someone who's not doing that, you do seem to be arguing it strangely - blaming women wanting to work for rising house prices, telling me that I'm denigrating women's work when I'm actually denigrating the shit work of running a house (literally in some cases), being disparaging of the idea that some women perhaps want to work rather than stay home with their kids, and completely disbelieving the idea that a reasonable alternative is for men to stay at home.

*I have simply pointed out that having two parents working full-time is a less than optimum scenario for the child.

For someone who's not doing that, you do seem to be arguing it strangely - blaming women wanting to work for rising house prices, telling me that I'm denigrating women's work when I'm actually denigrating the shit work of running a house (literally in some cases), being disparaging of the idea that some women perhaps want to work rather than stay home with their kids, and completely disbelieving the idea that a reasonable alternative is for men to stay at home.*

@Fizzy, exactly.

Also, since when is working full-time not optimum?

If my parents hadn't worked full-time, they wouldn't be extremely successful now. I wouldn't have had a lot of the opportunities I did, like travelling. I would be paying off a shit-ton of student debt right now, instead of having none. I wouldn't have had them both to look up to as having extremely successful careers and being amazing hardworking driven people. If either of my parents had been forced to stay at home doing housework and school pick-ups, they probably would have been miserable, and that certainly would have had a negative effect.

Who on earth are you to judge what is or isn't optimum for different families?

And also OP, you do seem to be saying that if one partner were to do the dreary domestic stuff and work less, it should be the woman because they are more "naturally inclined" to spot the dust on the windowsill or something...

I'm not trying to make a point! If you read my OP, I was asking questions and raising issues that I found thought-provoking. I'm not out to enforce my view on everybody else, or make out that anyone who disagrees with me is a reactionary sexist woman-hater.

Fizzy, I've already said that where both parents/partners work, then the domestic burden should be halved. If one parent/partner (male OR female) is SAH, then I think it's reasonable that they also assume more of the domestic burden.

The fact that more women than men are found to be SAH is not problematic, in itself. Unless you think that the role of SAHP is worth intrinsically less than a paid wage - which is clearly exactly what several posters on this thread believe.

The fact that more women than men are found to be SAH is not problematic, in itself.

TBH I think it is problematic because child rearing and domestic duties are overwhelming female then how do men know there is a place for them there? Where are their role models? Young childhood is over feminised in the UK. Most nursery care and preschools are female dominated. Primary carers are mothers. Where are the men in tiny children's lives? What about the fathers who would love to be SAHPs but social and cultural norms make it difficult.

because if*

Yolo, if you're maintaining that it is at least as beneficial for a baby to spend most of its waking hours in some kind of professional childcare setting, as it would be for said child to spend most of its waking hours with one of its parents, then we will just have to agree to differ.

The fact that more women than men are found to be SAH is not problematic, in itself I think it is highly problematic. Men at work expect to have their lives facilitated by women (see another thread on this very subject) and never have to engage their precious masculine brains with the minutiae of domestic life. This does not make for an equal or fair society and means any woman of ambition is not playing on a remotely level field.

doris, I totally agree that it's very important for young children to have male figures and role models in their lives, particularly their fathers.

Luminaries, correlation does not = causation. Entitled lazy men are not caused by their wives/partners choosing to stay at home for a period of time with their babies/children.

"any woman of ambition is not playing on a remotely level field."

Until the biotech industry finds a way to gestate future generations in artificial wombs, women will never be on the same footing in the workplace as men, will they? It's not even about the playing-field; if the primary framework is the world of work, women are, by their biological reality, 'handicapped'.

I don't think the answer to that is to try to deny women's biological reality, or deny the existence/validity/importance of the maternal imperative that many of them feel. As I started off saying in my OP, it feels reductive and insulting to women to behave as if everything female is an awful disadvantage in the Real, Important World of work, and they would be better off if they'd been born male.

I would prefer to see much more value placed on the uniquely female, not less.

Fizzy, I've already said that where both parents/partners work, then the domestic burden should be halved. If one parent/partner (male OR female) is SAH, then I think it's reasonable that they also assume more of the domestic burden.

Right, so if you're the stay at home parent, it is reasonable you also do the domestic drudgery.

The fact that more women than men are found to be SAH is not problematic, in itself. Unless you think that the role of SAHP is worth intrinsically less than a paid wage - which is clearly exactly what several posters on this thread believe.

So it's not problematic that more women are expected to do the domestic drudgery (given your first statement)

We also don't think it's worth less than a paid wage (I for example, know exactly what it costs to get various household tasks done, as I pay people to do them).

Where we have the disconnect, is that I don't think that the work aside from parenting that a SAHP is expected to do, and even some aspects of parenting, are rewarding. I don't think that telling me that it's rewarding to be the SAHP, and therefore be the one doing the housework (as you say is reasonable), is enough payment to make me be the one to want to do all that housework, and tellingly, neither do men, or they would be clamouring to stay at home, in the same way that women fought to be allowed to work.

I think that 'caring work' - which isn't all parenting, and in actual fact is largely cleaning again, is devalued because no-one wants to do it, because a large proportion of it is unpleasant, repetitive, and boring and that's why it's not prized, and women, who are at the bottom of the power hierarchy, are expected to do it for free, and I'm just not going to participate in that oppression by encouraging or glorifying it.

correlation does not = causation. Entitled lazy men are not caused by their wives/partners choosing to stay at home for a period of time with their babies/children.

As discussed in the other thread, men do not even realise they are lazy and entitled because they have never had to give the tiniest iota of thought to raising a child & the associated admin tasks. So yes, there is a massive link between men having a wife and home doing it all and their complete ignorance of how much is actually being done.

Women would be on a far more level playing field in the work place if men also had to deal with all the associated parenting and domestic tasks as well as work. I think we need to hold men's feet to the fire and make them step up.