Feminist end game

[MIdgebabe]

Inspired by various threads, not expecting consensus but trying to understand what we think the world would look like if feminsit equality was reached. A world where physical differences were respected and understood but did not lead to assumptions on cognitive capability.

So some specific questions>
Would we still have boys names and girls names?

Would sex differences remain in clothing and make up?
Would hormones ( testosterone and pregnancy hormones) mean that men ( on average) still tended towards hazardous roles and women towards caring roles?
Would period pain be a thing of the past?
Would senior management still be dominated by aggressive risk takers?
What changes ensure that women don’t lose careers if they lose a couple of months having babies?

Thanks, especially for the book suggestions. I have read some books that tried to have an equal society, but were glossing over the hard questions.

Midgebabe but you’re not envisaging a feminist world at all here. You’re assuming for instance that all the business and leadership structures would still be in place. That’s not what radical feminists envisage. Those structures were created by men for men so of course men will continue doing them.

I see a feminist society as involving much more collective responsibility for caregiving and with carers given a much higher social status than they currently had. Workplaces would have to adapt to that and offer flexibility. They would be geared to someone who had caregiving responsibility rather than someone who did not (as is the case today).

Boys and girls names are not really high on my list of priorities. Sex differences exist of course but theorising about personality types is unhelpful because so much of that is socialisation.

Just to pick up on one point:

Would senior management still be dominated by aggressive risk takers?

What you're assuming here is:
a) senior management is at the moment dominated by 'aggressive risk takers'
b) this might well be because it's the most effective personality type to have in senior management.

a) is not necessarily true. Some sectors it is; some sectors it isn't. There has if anything been a move away from filtering for that kind of personality in senior leadership positions, because...
b) it often isn't the most effective personality type you need. This is not radical feminism saying this, it's standard management studies. There has been a general move away from the idea of one firebrand pioneer who marches the organisation towards success, and towards the acknowledgement of more collaborative models of how organisations actually work. What you have now is a lot of different 'leadership models' outlining different approaches to leadership in organisations, with 'yell at people and take huge risks all off your own bat' not being considered a hugely successful one.

Again: not radical feminism. Boring management studies stuff.

If you're assuming that senior leaders must be aggressive risk-takers, and aggressive risk-takers will almost always be men (because of 'pregnancy hormones' ?!), you're missing the point. Feminism isn't about superficially rearranging the world we have to get a few more women into CEO roles. It's about challenging those deeper assumptions, and challenging what a world built around them looks like.

I breastfed round the feckin clock for my babies until they were 2 years old.
My third degree tear damaged me irrevocably.
And my PPH had repercussions that remain years later.
But tell me again about the two months thing?

If you're genuinely interested in whether men possess innate characteristics that uniquely make them better leaders, or whether we train them to believe this of themselves and of other men, then Prof Gina Rippon has a new book out that would interest you.

The 2months thing. If you stick with a capitalist structure ( thanks to the people who helped crystalise that for me ) then being out of the workplace even for a couple of months, means that child bearing women will lose out. I am not saying it is reasonable or possible to expect women to got straight back to work, but some women may want to go back to work and not do childcare and even then with a minimal break they will be disadvantaged. For woman on average having children will always financially disadvantage them even if they focus totally on career, without some pretty major structural changes. Maybe it’s obvious to you, but getting shirty at people to whom it is less obvious is not helpful. My first reaction was oh well if that’s feminists, I’ll not bother about trying to be part of it, not bother trying to make the world a little better for others

Capatalism also leads to the type of society that destroys the planet we live on . It’s interesting to me to see a link between these things

And in the current structure the biology that gives you a deeper voice and a daring attitude in the face of risk is rewarded. And just saying women are as good as men and women’s brains are as good as men’s and all observed differences are just socialisation is a simplification. In today’s society, yes the difference are dominated by socialisation. But almost certainly there is an underlying biological reason why those sterotypes developed. Some of those reasons are not valid since we left the Stone Age. I suspect Howver that you can socialise women to be bigger risk takers,*, but unless you remove the competitive combative structure of society chances are there will be underlying hormone driven differences that will be visible.

*Friends commented that I became risk adverse after childbirth, a character change. Hormones are a lot of bother.

Evidence is emerging that big risk takers are not conducive to stability, which companies need, or necessarily the best thing for the company, industry or society.

Eg, banking - big risk taking was common, and while individual banks and bankers did very well out of it at the time, but then look what happened. And even before the crash when things were going well, the individual successes had a huge cost elsewhere in society.

So, maybe, even in a feminist-and-yet-capitalist world, we'd realise (in the words of Jeanette Winterson) we'd realise that there is a much better way than "winner takes all", and to hell with everyone else.

Collaboration would be better. Everyone getting ahead, not 95% getting left behind so a few can sweep up all the benefits themselves.

then being out of the workplace even for a couple of months, means that child bearing women will lose out.

Why? I work with mostly men and many of them have, at one time or another, had a few months out of work (some to go travelling, some for have heart surgery, or orthopedic operations, one for paternity leave) and this hasn't impacted their career at all.

In a career spanning 45 years, what's a few months?