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 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"

I agree that cleaning is repetitive and boring. I disagree that 'caring work' is mostly cleaning though.

If SAHPs were paid a wage to recognise their (significant and vital) contribution to society, they could then employ cleaners for the cleaning, which might allow them to enjoy the 'caring' bit more, and free up more time to pursue other interests.

You are assuming that women need to bend their biology to fit in with the workplaces and employment systems created by the patriarchy. Imagine if they were designed by women for women.

If SAHPs were paid a wage to recognise their (significant and vital) contribution to society, they could then employ cleaners for the cleaning, which might allow them to enjoy the 'caring' bit more, and free up more time to pursue other interests.

And how is this related to femininity and women again? If there was a living wage for staying at home, do you think more men would get involved? Now that there is an obvious cost to it, do you think it would get more equal? I think it would. I think that while it's free labour, men are very happy with the status quo of them having the money, and benefitting from that labour. I think that once the labour costs them money, it might force them to think more - it would certainly free women - suddenly it's not 'if you go out to work, we'll barely break even once you've paid for childcare' and now it's 'if you don't go out to work, then we'll be barely better off, so you may as well go to work if that's what you want, and have the opportunity for pay increases'

A living wage for SAHPs is relevant to women, Fizzy, because women make up 50% of the parents out there, and significantly more than 50% of the SAHPs out there.

"You are assuming that women need to bend their biology to fit in with the workplaces and employment systems created by the patriarchy. Imagine if they were designed by women for women."

I'm not assuming a need for any such thing, doris. Do you disagree that the average workplace is not particularly accommodating of female biology? *
*
I have argued elsewhere on this thread in favour of an overhaul of work-place norms and practises in favour of women, not the opposite.

Someone above argued it was the concept of masculinity that needs to change. Seems the guardian agrees: www.theguardian.com/money/2017/nov/21/the-masculine-mystique-why-men-cant-ditch-the-baggage-of-being-a-bloke

If there are certain industries that are discriminatory against women who take career breaks, women should be warned what those industries are, so they can make informed career breaks.

I think that on the whole in the UK the workplace has made some pretty good accommodations for female biology where that is needed. I just don't think it is needed for a very long period. My female biology has meant I have carried and birthed two children. I received time off for my antenatal appointments and prior to and after birth for that period of time when I was not able to work because I was too pregnant, birthing or recovering from birth. I then had the option to take longer leave if I had needed it in order to facilitate breastfeeding, or there were facilities to support expressing at work. In my particular circumstances I needed neither, but it was great to have the options. Provision for sick leave and healthcare support is pretty good too, except where that heads towards disability where the current government is making things incredible difficult. I don't think I've had any particularly female illnesses yet however.

While I think that society should support children I'd be incredibly wary of that defaulting to supporting women only to be carers. Already the longer maternity leave seems to encourage many men to opt out of active fathering, which is as far as I can see a loss for everyone.

‘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!‘

Nobody is saying mothers can’t work. It’s not feminism to claim that children have two parents in anything other than a biological sense.

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.

Absolutely it is problematic. The imbalance is a huge problem - men won't be in the domestic sphere and be around to raise their children, women won't be as represented in the professional world because they're stuck at home.

On an economic scale, SAH isn't worth very much - cleaners need no qualifications and nursery nurses just an NVQ, and it pays minimum wage. Staying at home literally IS worth less that my job, because I could pay someone else to do it for less than my salary.

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.

I wasn't talking about babies, but children (school age +). I'm not denying it's better for a parents to be with a newborn, and for that we have maternity leave/SPL for up to a year.

While I was at school, there would have been 0 benefit of my mum being there to pick me up and take me home, over me going to an after school club with arts, sports and my friends.

The answer to this problem would be state-run free nurseries. Or a carers allowance for SAHPs.

That's what I had growing up (and my mum got 3 years maternity leave).

Femininity should be defined by women, not the patriarchy. Do we even know what this looks like? I see many of women's roles as powerful and strong. Lifting and caring for an incontinent dementia sufferer is tough work. It nearly broke my Dad yet my Mum did this as her day job for many years. Giving birth is innately powerful. I have 2 children and see many women involved in their education, affective lives and so on. These women are classic feminine, classic masculine and everything thing in between (I live in a rural backwater). In this rural place, I have come to appreciate the role of womankind: care-givers, food providers, ordering the lives of the people around them (the elderly, the young, the men). Old fashioned kitchen gardening goes on and it is the healthy elderly that do this. When I look around the world outside industrialised nations, I see women doing all the low-value, low-paid work because someone has to: sustenance agriculture, heavy lifting, women will turn their hand to anything. In the west, women have more choice and, we are told, choose to stay at home or nurse etc. I think the wealth of the west has meant cultural norms, gender norms and stereotypes now dominate women's choices. Too often, talk about innate preferences or population-level trends between the sexes is used as instruments to justify the present situation. Be intelligent: we don't know what a truly free society even looks like for women. Those that wish to pour caution on women's roles are too often those who wish to thwart it. I'm thinking of that google exe memo. Why do people wish to put women in boxes? I see culture vs gene debate highly unsatisfactory: environmental differences that start before a child is even born become embedded in the brain and behaviour and is as powerful and difficult to escape as if they were genetic. What we can alter is the environment. Let's change that and see where we go.

Much of the debate over women's role in the modern workplace has come out of the postwar period and is defined (I believe) by hyperconsumerism. The capitalist:consumerist grip on the world is killing us all. I feel the debate about getting more women to participate in this ailing system is mightily missing the point. I'm sure this is where the schism between Marxist feminists/ women's lib and equality feminists originates.

I would appreciate any debate on the points I've raised: economics and feminism are not my specialisms.

I feel the debate about getting more women to participate in this ailing system is mightily missing the point

OK, so the point is that we shouldn't be capitalist at all you feel - what does this have to do with women, who are already the majority carers - already doing their daily tasks for the good of their family rather than monetary gain - isn't this then men that need to change?

Men need to change? Yes, of course. But what is the goal? More women in good work (as defined by the current system) and powerful positions to help other women access the same positions. More men in lower paid trad female roles. Is that possible?
Seems like those lower paid jobs will just be outsourced to women from other societies. In fact, that is exactly what is happening. Which leaves us to consider how can society change to value the carers role more than it currently does? I don't think it can, in the current paradigm. Carers don't generate wealth in the strict capitalist definition.

"how can society change to value the carers role more than it currently does? I don't think it can, in the current paradigm. Carers don't generate wealth in the strict capitalist definition."

I agree, FlyTipper. The economic framework seems to be the dominant paradigm, including within feminist discourse, as demonstrated by Yolo's comment:

"On an economic scale, SAH isn't worth very much - cleaners need no qualifications and nursery nurses just an NVQ, and it pays minimum wage. Staying at home literally IS worth less that my job, because I could pay someone else to do it for less than my salary."

I don't know whether it's easier to change the paradigm, or to give more economic value to child-rearing/caring/educating roles. If women don't value the latter very much, it's difficult to see how we'll convince the rest of society.

The value of the carers role will change when the majority of men are doing it. Any male dominated role has higher status and rewards than a female dominated role. Once teaching became more of a female profession it lost status - sad but true. So we need more women in the work place to finance their men to stay at home if we want to increase the status and value of staying at home. I am not sure the op and her femininity could cope with such a paradigm shift. But it is interesting how we will tie ourselves in knots, introduce wages for house work - anything, in fact, except getting men to do it.

I agree with Luminaries to the extent that if men found caring aspirational, wages would go up. I always come back to the thought that jobs aren't assessed and then paid according to worthiness or living standards. In a capitalist system, wages go up and down according to supply and demand. Jobs that can be done with little expertise and by most able-bodied people will never be paid much. I would like to see better carers looking after our elderly parents and friends, but the job just isn't aspirational. As it is, the care homes can barely recruit enough staff and are borderline bankrupt. These factors mean no money is left over to boost wages despite high staff turnover and variable quality. When men decide something is aspirational - i.e. computer programming - then barriers are put up to ring-fence the profession - specific qualifications from select colleges, membership of professional bodies etc. Or at least, this is what I see. I'd be interested to see if other posters agree. I find this area fascinating and I don't know enough about it.

When men decide something is aspirational - i.e. computer programming - then barriers are put up to ring-fence the profession - specific qualifications from select colleges, membership of professional bodies etc.

Yes, there's been a lot written on how women got pushed out of computing. Jobs get devalued because more women do them, nit because of the skills required.

Weird isn't it?

Low paid job = women. Economics change and job starts making lots of money => becomes aspirational for men => barriers erected/myths about inappropriateness of job for women promulgated.

High paid job = men. Economics change and job starts making less money => becomes less aspirational for men => barriers removed/myths about appropriateness of job for women promulgated.

And that is why the whole concept of 'femininity' is so pernicious - push women out of potentially lucrative and rewarding roles because their skills lie elsewhere - ie caring and empathy (conveniently these feminie skills do not provide access to any levers of power). Make caring seem intrinsically 'feminine' and anything with any reward masculine' - and then watch some women buy it!

James Joyce said 'When the soul of a man is born in this country there are nets flung at it to hold it back from flight. You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets.' I would suggest that femininity is a net flung at the souls of women born in this country. We must try to fly above it.

And that is why the whole concept of 'femininity' is so pernicious - push women out of potentially lucrative and rewarding roles because their skills lie elsewhere - ie caring and empathy (conveniently these feminie skills do not provide access to any levers of power). Make caring seem intrinsically 'feminine' and anything with any reward masculine' - and then watch some women buy it!

Exactly.

"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. "

Chester I think you speak much sense.

There are a lot of defensive comments directed to you- re house prices. It's naive to think women entering the workplace had no effect as couples have more buying power with two wages, so can pay more, driving up prices- women's fault? No!, no ones saying that, I blame the banks letting it get to this ridiculous state. I feel house prices should be capped, instead they spiralled out of control.

As for feminine- I personally embrace aspects of "feminity", even though I work in a male dominated career and consider myself well respected by male peers.
I read the most ridiculous things on this forum sometimes, like is it unfeminist to wear female clothing, wear make up, shave my legs, just find it ridiculous. No we should dress like men, burp and scratch our arses and then we'll be much happier?. I dont get this rejection of all things considered "feminine", what does the alternative look like?
I don't like this assertion that there's no difference between the sexes. This attempt to make out were all gender neutral, erasure of male and female- I find it insidious. It's dehumanising and an attack on a basic unit of identity.

I read the most ridiculous things on this forum sometimes, like is it unfeminist to wear female clothing, wear make up, shave my legs, just find it ridiculous. No we should dress like men, burp and scratch our arses and then we'll be much happier?

I have never read this on the feminist board or heard a feminist say this. What do you get out of making things up?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3025175-To-be-annoyed-at-this-feminist

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/1768424-Restrictive-Clothing

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/2347261-Is-pubic-hair-a-feminist-issue

Luminaries- here you go, a quick search and lots of comments about clothing, hair, even is it a feminist issue to shave my pubic hair...

It's naive to think women entering the workplace had no effect as couples have more buying power with two wages, so can pay more, driving up prices

No. It isn’t naive, it’s fact. The effect of women’s wages is negligible. The main reasons for house price increases are well documented and this is not included.

In fact there are more single person households now then there ever was.