Feminism is less about equality and more about celebrating gender difference? Discuss.

[Bumperlicious]

Oh, I am glad there is now a feminism topic (well done MNHQ - or was it that so many people wanted a topic they could hide?). Anyway, I have been meaning to pose this question for a while, but have been in Wales with no wireless and didn't want to bore everyone with another feminism thread.

So, I keep thinking about feminism and equality, and it doesn't quite sit right for me, probably especially because I am pregnant right now. What I mean is I don't want to do everything men do, I don't want to have to match them in strength and stamina. I am happy that DH puts the rubbish out, sorts the cars and my bike out, and I crochet and bake and cook. I don't think that is anti feminist, we both make the choice and play to our strengths. Yes he tries to cook sometimes, and yes, when I lived on my own, I could sort my own car out, put up flat pack furniture etc. but he likes to do it and I don't so I'm not going to try and make a point.

And yes, now I am pregnant I do kind of expect special allowances. I am growing a life inside me, and it is making me feel vile. And when my DC is born I want to have nearly a year off then work part time, I don't want to have to go back to work after two weeks and work full time competing with the men for promotion. But I would like to be considered for promotion on my merits and abilities, not based on how much 'evidence' I have managed to gather in my part time hours compared to people working full time.

I'm not sure if I am articulating my point very well here but the way I see it is that maternity laws, flexible working laws etc. exist not to make us equal to men but to allow for the differences between us. Yes, I choice to have kids, but I didn't choice to be a woman, the main carer, the one who bears and breastfeeds the children, so allowances (i.e. laws) should exist to allow for the fact that these are the differences between us.

At work we have a 'Gender Difference Network' and while obviously some of the differences in lifestyle and character go across the sexes, much of what they look at is the differences between the sexes and how to support that, which seems a sensible attitude for me. Being a feminist isn't about acting like a man, it is about acting like a woman and still having the same opportunities.

I hate to post and run but a friend has just text me about a free easter craft event (God, I hope that means chocolate!) but I have been itching to pose this question to see if I am really missing the point.

Xenia, that is an argument you have had with many people on many threads. You know as well as I do that Shell only needs one chairperson. What of the millions of other women?

I think it is a shame you don't challenge the status of nursing (for example) and just accept the hierarchy of highly paid jobs.

I'm not socialist. But I think it's a pity that the second sex always end up in the low paid areas married to men who outearn them. That's a personal and political choice to come second both in terms of teenage girls going into careers which pay less and being less ambitious and choosing husbands they look up to and earn more. Male doctors are happy to marry nurses. Very few female surgeons are content to marry a male nurse on the wards. Hence much of our inequality today in relationships.

And it applies lower down the scale too - the girl on £13k minimum wage who looks up to Mr Rich who is on £20k working at the local garage although you get bulges and differences at certain levels. There are many more men and women both earning about £20k average wage so a lot of them marry. If you get up to say £50k earnings then the male 50 k - er is likely to be happy to seek a wife on £20k. He might be put off by one on £100k. NHS consultant female on £100k may not want nurse on wards but might be happy with a 50k male earner.

But surely a lot of that is because women struggle to be financially independent if they have children?

You raise good points, but I don't think the solution is for all women to choose the careers which are currently highly-paid (and male dominated, through cause or effect). Society would collapse overnight.

Interesting - because I would come at it almost exactly the other way around.

My reading would be - because of historic and entrenched inequality, (many) men are accustomed to considering themselves the superior of women. Therefore, marrying a woman who perhaps has a lower level of education and a worse paid job for some men 'fits' with their whole world view.

In contrast, women (in general and on the whole) are not brought up with this - perhaps subconcious - belief in their intrinsic superiority. Therefore, they follow the more general rule that people seek out those of similar status to marry. Hence your female surgeon who marries an investment banker or whatever.

If we didn't have the ongoing and entrenched inequality, you might find that male & female surgeons were equally likely to marry male or female nurses.

Of course, it could also be that there aren't so many male nurses available?

Takver, you are quite right, though Belgium has one of the lowest gaps 9% vs 21% in the UK. Actually I was quite surprised to find that only about 40% of women work in Belgium, given the high availability of childcare, especially from 2.5 years.

EU Gender Pay website makes interesting reading.

There are plenty of male street sweepers though and they don't tempt me. When I married I was still a student so may be it wasn't so clear I was departing from the norm of marrying up (he's a teacher).

I would hope things will change but I suspect there's something inside women which means they dont' want the Lady Chatterley Mellors dynamic. I'm divorced. I don't seek the good looking gardener/pool boy thing even though I could easily get and keep one, whereas plenty of men in my economic situation pick the 20 something pretty thing they can keep even if she's not very bright as long as her chest is big enough. Not all men by any means of course.

So you're a mid 20s woman and you're looking around for a man. Why do 4 in 5 end up with men who earn more which is how most of these inequalities occur today? They don't go out there thinking he is likely to be the caring sort who will stay home with our babies for 5 years whilst I further my career. That's just not intrinsic to most women. Some differ of course.

The next question is it because of our different brain chemistry as in books like The Female Brain or just conditioning.

Bonsoir, if you are still around, your divine presence is required here

It's simply down to age isn't it?

People tend to marry people from similar backrounds (and IME most doctors are married to other doctors, and the nurses I know are married to other nurses) but as the women is usually younger she has had less chance to proceed. As you have pointed out.

So yes the trick is to marry a man younger than you. I have no problem with the idea that DGH earns not so much compared to the DHs of my friends. He is after all 10 years younger than most of them, and 20 years younger than some.

The average gap is 5 years i think? What on earth is that all about? I guess it started in a time when men had a few years "sowing their wild oats" and women had to be married off whie they were still virginal. And younger women were more fertile and less likey to die in childbirth maybe? Not sure about that one. And there is an aspect of the man being the "master" in his home, so has to be more experienced and dominant than the younger wife. There was also an aspect maybe that when people married very young the thing about girls maturing earlier than boys comes into play. I don't know. I'm sure someone will know exactly where it stems from.

But it seems to me that people of both sexes are playing the field for a lot longer, not meeting the people they settle down with until they are in their mid 20s or 30s. So why does this idea that it is "natural" for the man to be older persist?

God my typing's terrible.

Proceed in their careers. As xenia has pointed out.

DH earns not so much.

Xenia, could you clarify what you mean by this?

"Why do 4 in 5 end up with men who earn more which is how most of these inequalities occur today? "

Are you implying that women cause gender pay inequality by marrying men who are richer than they are? Surely the more likely implication is that women mainly marry men who are richer than they are, because most men are richer than they are? I.e. it's a result of inequality, not a cause. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

In answer to original question, I don't think many feminists would favour an illusion of greater equality that necessitates women "dressing up" as men in order to be taken seriously. That's actually just sexism again.

No, women under 25 earn more than men but those women of taht age choose older men and usually men who will or do earn more. I genuinely don't believe there is that much inequality in the work place. Something like 60% of new entrants to law and medicine are female because girls do better in A levels and degrees. But most of them marry men who earn more so they drop out and they don't become the accountant partner in London on £1m a year because their husband is,. Instead they dabble on £20k a year for pin money and the man's career comes first. If they married men who were younger and earning £20k then they would persist and nor would their man who earned much less than they did would not expect them to rush home for the sick child or be the one who has to leave at 5.30pm on the dot every day to pick up the children.

I don't dress up as a man when I pursue my career. You can as much be a successful female surgeon as a male one. You aren't becoming a man to perform surgery but being a woman when you do what nurses do.

Yes.

eg my friend who was v brainy straight As, trained in a professional role at top firm as graduate recruit.

Married man much older, in a much less well paid profession. But because she was just starting out, and he had been doing the job for 15 years, he obviously earnt more.

Then kids come, who gives up? She does, as she earns less now. People rarely seem to think about long term earning potential.

So people need to either think more long term, or start marrying younger men

Having encountered discrimination in the workpace myself, I know it exists. i think how bad it is varies between industries. But this age money relationship balance thing is definitely a factor,. and will continue to be unless people start to think differently.

Sorry Xenia, that "dressing up" ref wasn't directed at you! Was referring to comments regarding 80s shoulder-pads etc upthread.

It's an interesting theory. But I disagree that most women target men who earn more deliberately, IME most tend to go for someone of a similar wage-bracket to themselves. And in fact I know a lot more women who are supporting unemployed men than vice versa, in childless couples.

I think there is a key difference in how men and women view the earnings of their partner, however. Men don't generally consider: "oh, well if I get made redundant how will we survive on Ellie's wages?/it will be ok because Ellie earns so much", mainly because redundancy is (usually) fairly unlikely. Whereas most women will go into a long-term partnership aware that at some point, their earnings will be severely impaired or eradicated by pregnancy and childcare. Even if women only take a small amount of maternity leave, that still involves a big pay cut for most women at a time when money has never been needed more, could involve falling behind on mortgage payments etc. Plus there are any number of complications for both mother and baby that could involve more time needed to recover, and for the mother to be able to return to work. That's assuming that all is well and the woman is able to resume her career without long-lasting damage to her career and earning prospects. As so many women know, this is very unlikely to happen.

You see I'm not sure about that.

I think most people pair up with people who are similar to them in terms of education, interests, world view, background. People often meet at work as well. Thus they often have a similar earning potential - the fact that couples often earn similar amounts wheh they start out is a consequence of this selection process. And then the fact that the man is usually a year or 5 further down the line means he is earning that little bit more.

I don't think most people even think about what will happen when they go on mat leave and stuff do they, when deciding who to date? i don't think many people look further than - have they got a steady job, is it fairly reasonable

I mean I had no idea that having children would stuff my career like this until it happened. I had no idea about maternity leave and pay and stuff like that until the point where I was thinking about having a baby. Do people really think that far ahead? I'm not sure they do, on the whole.

Sorry I should have been clearer, i really meant all that stuff about: "education, interests, world view, background. People often meet at work as well. Thus they often have a similar earning potential" . Rather than basing choosing a boyfriend/girlfriend on how much they earn!

Maybe they don't, I don't know. I've always been an old hag at heart, and since discovering MN (through work initially) I have obviously read a lot on here about it. I obviously don't choose my DP because I think he's rich/big earner (he certainly isn't ), but I think most people in committed relationships give more than a passing thought to having children together in the future. I have female friends of the same age (mid-twenties) who also don't have children yet, and I've had chats with several of them where they expressed their frustration that they have approximately 5-10 more years to "make" their careers before having to stop to have children. There is definitely a perception that having children brings about a career apocalypse and you better get ahead now, because your progress stops and is "fixed" at the point you were when you went on maternity leave, or indeed that you won't be able to get back into the same kind of work at all. There is a feeling that we have 5-10 more years to fulfil our ambitions, whereas men have the next 40 or so to fulfil theirs. It's pretty scary. It's the most ambitious of my friends who worry about this, unsurprisingly.

Interesting. It never occured to me that having children would impact on my career. I never really thought about it in any depth before it was imminent. It has been a very nasty shock!

We need to tell them there are lots of womehn like me around, that if you choose as I did you can take 2 weeks holiday to have a baby and then return to full time work, that that can be an absolutely brilliant option on all kinds of levels from ensuring from week 1 the husband is as much a parent as the wife, to ensuring not loss of income whatsoever nor career to giving you that break at work from the hard dull work of babies. Yet I see no poster girls other than I for the return to week in 2 weeks brigade. Perhaps they're just having too much fun with their children and lovely careers and spending the money. It's a wonderful option.

Leaving that aside, this point about women marrying up... 4 in 5 earn less than their man. They may not consciously go in for the richer men but they usually want them. Men in dating ads will refer to wanting someone slim and pretty and women someone in effect successful.

Also why don't they look to the future? Are all these women rather thick? If I at 22 when I had my first baby could think right we'll both pay 50% of our salary to pay a nanny's salary because in 25 years time in my 40s we want to earn X and that's an investment not just in our careers but in the children who yes now some of them in their 20s are graduating without student debt and with a mother who can take them on nice holidays and because she is in charge of herself and work decides when and where she works and I think earns something an hour like 40 hours at the minimum wage or do these women think I'm not very good. I'll never get beyond the Tesco till even if I keep at this until I'm 60 so let's find the man on the £30k wage and just live off him.

"I mean I had no idea that having children would stuff my career like this until it happened. "

Well, not exactly 'career' as such - but certainly my mum made it clear to me that once you had a baby then as far as Union reps as well as employers were concerned you were a lesser being unless you kicked them hard enough to make them take notice.

And it was pretty obvious from the first 'real' job that I had that women with kids got a bad deal - to the extent that I knew I didn't want to have children being in a company run by someone else. That's despite the fact that my employers were relatively 'good' compared to many.

Thanks Xenia, I know you've a reputation as a superwoman around these parts, but had never heard of why til now! The girls I know are - as I said - pretty ambitious in their various careers and enjoy work. I think the fear is that they can't take a normal break to have a baby and recover physically (say 2-6 months average) and then go back to the work they love. Reasons for this I suppose are:

• the pervasive idea that you as a mother will be the one responsible for a tiny infant's wellbeing, whoever is looking after him/her. Thus travelling abroad etc will be difficult.

• the mere fact that the male DPs have not grown up with the idea of this responsibility, so will create careers for themselves that leave no space/leeway for sharing care of the child ( a big one this, and not talked about)

• low wages, even in prestigious careers e.g. academia. Worry about affording childcare

• employers looking on mothers as a separate breed who cannot be relied upon. Becoming a father, conversely, seems to boost men's status at work as he is now a grown-up paterfamilias.

Did you see that Women programme last week btw Xenia? There were two surgeons near the beginning who were fascinating, in that they had the exact same job, but she supervised the nanny and took emergency phone calls from her because he considered himself "too busy for social calls".

I would love to see more role-models of balanced families.

The best thing I can think of to do for myself is finding a DP who doesn't have a sexist bone in his body and finds the idea of leaving domestic work/parenting to me outrageous and bizarre. (so far at least)

Lots of women do have a problem with self-esteem though (not surprisingly), and end up with what they think they deserve, i.e. someone who will pay the rent and allow them to fall into poverty and isolation while raising their children.

Also "you can take 2 weeks holiday to have a baby" - it says an awful lot about the way workplaces still treat women, if the only way to retain your status as a worker is by refusing statutory benefits like (at least some) maternity leave.

dragging the discussion back o more theoretical and general background...

i think equality of opportunity is important, and there is a danger if you promote the 'celebrating difference' aspect of things, that with, e.g a statement such as 'women are great non-linear thinkers', that you promote a sexist idea such as 'women are illogical'. Individual men and women should be treated as such - on average men and women have slightly different measured capacities - but this should not affect how you treat an individual - an individual is not a statistic.

In a more specific vein - Perceptions of the value of Motherhood are also key - that it is not a spare time activity, it is not dull (or no more so than employment) and it does not necessarily mean you care about your paid work any less, or are suddenly mentally deficient in some way. getting this acros is taking time, and plenty legislation.

Eggy, I agree completely about the problems with 'celebrating difference'. In fact the only thing I would add is perhaps to replace 'motherhood' with 'parenting' . . .

I agree EAP, that's why I throw Simon Baron-Cohen books across the room with great force. First chapter (i think) of The Female Eunuch was a great clarifier for me, it points out that there are huge, fundamental similarities between men and women, boys and girls. The accepted "differences", in contrast, are usually both minimal, and variable. For example "men are taller than women" - on average that is true, but only by a couple of inches (small percentage), and not all men are taller than all women.

Maybe on average men have (slightly) better spatial awareness, so what? That means we all have roughly the same spatial awareness. It does not mean I can't read an f-ing map, thank you very much.

The differences we are supposed to joyfully "celebrate" rarely seem to be defined, probably for the reason that they barely exist in terms of actual proof. Girls do better than boys at school - does this prove that girls are cleverer? Oh NO! But when boys outdid girls (who mainly had little or no education) then it was "natural difference" - boys just WERE cleverer because duh here are the results. There is huge scope IMO for "differences" to be used to make assumptions about people based on their gender. This is called prejudice where I come from.

Agree totally re celebrating differences, "naturally" being better at different things and so on. Cobblers.

Is my main bugbear with all of this stuff.