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.

Often those with a misogynist agenda do indeed exploit those gender differences. Eg there is no such thing as baby brain and if I can be back at work after 2 weeks off and not really notice any difference in my brain at all that's because I wan't at home for 6 months but continued in the swing of work. I am sure plenty of women take 3 - 6 months off that can afford it (I actually think and thought 25 years ago) that maternity rights keep women down to an extent and chose not to take them and anyway I'd much rather be at work for the day than minding a baby, although I adore the time I spent with them and would certainly have spent more time on work had I not had 5 babies as would most men and women.

However I'd never want us to be so PC that we can't talk about real gender brain chemistry issues. There ought to be freedom to research and write about those issues.

In an MBA class all men on getting first jobs got higher pay than women. They looked into why. Each woman felt lucky to get a job at all. All the men thought they were brilliant and asked for more pay. Women need to realise their brilliance. I like to think I'm the best at what I do in the UK.

But I do think more of the issue is at home than work. It's every time the woman goes part time or leaves at 5 when her hsuband never does or assumes she will collect children or arrange childcare just because he puts out the bins once a week. Women who accept sexism at home find it much harder to succeed in meaningful careers. Women who wouldn't for an instant stand for such sexism from the moment they give birth and have husbands who do as much as they do (as many many women do have) find it all a lot easier.

Agree totally with the last few posts.

Any generalisation about women in general, or men in general, is bound not to be true for certain women or certain men (unless it's solely about the difference between their genitals) and therefore is best avoided.

The similarities between men and women are far, far greater than the differences ever will be. And until those similarities have been fully recognised (which hasn't happened yet, by a long chalk) we should not start crowing too much about the differences - which as I say will not be true for some women/men anyway.

It is far too easy to slide from saying "women get pregnant, men don't" into saying "... and therefore women are designed for nurturing and comforting and men are designed for bringing home the bacon..." into saying "... really you, Woman X, are not suitable for this job because women don't have the killer instinct/physical strength/authority/career commitment [delete as appropriate] that is needed...".

To the OP:

"I didn't choice to be a woman, the main carer, the one who bears and breastfeeds the children"

Erm, you didn't choose to be a woman or the one who bears and breastfeeds, but you DID choose to be the main carer. There is nothing that says the woman has to be the main carer. And there are plenty of couples where the woman is not the main carer and the man is (And some of them even like it that way).

It's exactly that sort of generalisation that is the problem with "celebrating differences". The moment someone assumes that all women are the main carer, life becomes that bit harder for any woman who doesn't want to be in that role, or any man who does.

The trouble I have with all this is that "success" in life is being measured solely in terms of how much money you make and how successful a career you have. Now I agree these things are important, but surely they are not the ONLY things to strive for in a happy and successful life?

Evolution, I think, has a lot to do with traditional roles, rather than this "oppressive patriarchy" that people are talking about. Women carry the babies and are programmed to nuture a new born. Men are more programmed to go and provide for the family.

In primitive societies, men still hunt, and women share child care and work full time closer to home. Maybe there are women who would rather hunt, and men who would rather make bread, but generally speaking the set up makes the most efficient use of resources. Are the women in this scenario oppressed? Even the very non-feminist idea of polygamy originated from a practical perspective, rather than one of power and sex. Though these are biological forces do come into play.

Whilst I agree that feminism has gone a long way to ensure equal rights and opportunities for women - and legally at least, women have these now, I don't necessarily agree that we always strive in the right direction. The emphasis should be on increasing the relative value of the caring roles and professions so that all see them as just as valid as earning lots of dosh as CEO or corporate lawyer.

I don't believe we can have it all. If you want a career you have to give it your attention. Why is it fair to anyone that you can take 5 years off and come back on the same pay/level as someone who didn't. I wouldn't be happy as I've worked all that time - so my financial reward should reflect that. The other rewards of choosing to stay home are just as important, and I know I have given up something more intangible.

For a more level playing field, Parental leave should be equally available to both parents, and maybe leave should also be available to non-parents to use as they see fit. If employers have to offer the same by law to every employee......

I know this thread has moved on but I just want to clarify what I meant in the OP (well, my thoughts have evolved).

The major difference between women and men is obviously woman have babies, and take the majority of the maternity leave. When it comes to promotion or similar should each be considered just one their merits or should allowances be made for the fact the woman, by dint of her biology, has been the one to go and have a baby and be on maternity leave. That is really the crux of it. The difference in personality stuff is all a red herring really, I didn't really mean that. But I would like to know what the answer to the above question should be.

However I'd never want us to be so PC that we can't talk about real gender brain chemistry issues. There ought to be freedom to research and write about those issues.

In an MBA class all men on getting first jobs got higher pay than women. They looked into why. Each woman felt lucky to get a job at all. All the men thought they were brilliant and asked for more pay. Women need to realise their brilliance. I like to think I'm the best at what I do in the UK.

i agree - research should never be stifled - but stimulated - i have no problem with someone teling me 'on average, women are better at linguistic analysis, within these parameters' so long as no one distills that down to mean 'women talk more!'

I think confidence is a major difference, and possibly it may have some root in brain chemistry, but also, i think socialisation has a major role to play...

and as you say...that begins at home. But not so much with what their parents do..as much as the attitudes they transmit. I don't see the fact my Mum stayed at home as ever having made me think i could be less respected as a worker....as she was always re-inforcing a feminist position (one of many feminist positions!) (another poss area of study..)

I think a house where mummy stays at home, but encourages her daughters and sons equally according to their individual abilities and expects equal levels of behaviour from both genders may be more likely to inspire confidence in both than the one where both parents work, but both play down the female contribution to the house...

It should be on merit surely. Making special allowances for women is surely a bad thing in the long run. Even some other (business)women now say they think twice about employing a woman of childbearing age because the extra rights already in place, from what I have read.

"The emphasis should be on increasing the relative value of the caring roles and professions so that all see them as just as valid as earning lots of dosh as CEO or corporate lawyer"

We are never going to acheive that fully though. In theory anyone can be a carer - those skills on a very basic level are innate - not everyone can be, or has the opportunity to be, a CEO or a top surgeon for example. Before anyone yells at me I am not saying that every one has it in them to be a fantastic parent or a perfect carer, or that either is easy. But supply and demand is always going to make it easier to find carers than CEOs.

Which is why it's important not to assume that caring skills are exclusively female skills.

I never said they were. Not everyone CAN be a CEO, we still need refuse collectors and nurses, police, administrators, childminders etc etc. These are all important roles. A lot of the posts seem to imply that we are oppressed if we want to be a nurse as opposed to being a surgeon. What is WRONG with being a nurse? I couldn't be one. It involves skills I don't have. The problem to me is that nurses are underpaid, not that most nurses are women.

But addressing the pay gap between nurses and CEOs isn't a feminist issue, unless you accept that nursing is a female role. And the law of supply and demand is always going to apply. I wish we lived in a socialist meritocracy. But we don't.

I'm not saying that nurses and CEOs should earn the same. But that people should treat nursing as a valid career path, and one that is reasonably rewarded. On here the feminist argument is that women shouldn't be nurses at all, they should aspire to "higher" things.

The argument seems to be that we should all want to be the doctor, rather than the nurse. Feminism equates to professional success as opposed to women (and men) being valued equally in whatever they choose to do.

Yes I see that. I don't know what nurses earn TBH. Not enough I suspect. And it's a perfectly valid career path. For both sexes.

Who's saying that women shouldn't be nurses at all, Porto? I haven't seen anything along these lines, so it's hardly fair to say that is "the feminist argument".

What people might be saying is that women shouldn't be "innately" seen as more suitable to do certain jobs than men are, and pushed towards these roles (children assuming nurses are female etc). And what a coincidence the "innately" female jobs are the ones with shite pay.

It's the whole tedious round of it that pisses people off I think: "You are a woman. Women are nurturing. Nurses are nurturing. Be a nurse. Oh look, now you're fulfilling your innate womanly talents, we'll pay you a whopping £16k a year. There's no pay gap, women just choose lower paid work." Ta da!

It's the hard work of feminists that has broken down the idea of some jobs being for men and others for women. One effect of this has been that men have been able to enter professions that have been traditionally female, like nursing, as well as traffic the other way with women becoming doctors. But it's the legacy of it being a "woman's job" that is the root cause of it's low-paid status, IMO. People talk a lot about how men have all the "dirty" jobs and get rightfully remunerated - nurses have to cope with violence, drunks, drug addicts, blood, shit, rage, dangerous drugs, etc etc etc.

Traditional female jobs: mother (unpaid), housewife (unpaid), domestic help/cleaning (minimum wage), nursing (low pay, starts at 16k when qualified), caring for the elderly (unpaid/minimum wage), cooking - e.g. schoolmeals(minimum wage), shopwork (minimum wage).

Traditional male roles: doctor (highly paid), lawyer (astronomically highly paid), fireman (starts at 27k), policeman (starts at 23k), binman (average 25-30k)

See a pattern?

Hence my earlier point that there should be more efforts made in raising the value of these jobs, as opposed to focusing on everyone getting the "top jobs".

My employer today has confirmed that parental leave is now available up to the age of 12 as opposed to 6. This is available to both parents. I am very happy as I haven't been able to afford to take it so far. These are the kind of policies needed in the UK.

I don't get where women are "forced" to do certain jobs. As I said before, if nursing or cleaning is underpaid, then that needs to be addressed. This is not a matter purely for feminism though - we should be pushing for an increase in the minimum wage, and insisting on sensible investment in public services. Wages in these areas have not increased over time at the same rate as say managerial roles. To me THIS is where the disparity is.

I don't think women are forced to do certain jobs that are low-paid. I think mothers (or potential mothers) are attracted to jobs that can be done part-time, and by definition most of those jobs have few responsibilities attached, and are therefore low-paid.

I know that this has moved on a bit, but I wanted to come back to your point, Orm:
"addressing the pay gap between nurses and CEOs isn't a feminist issue, unless you accept that nursing is a female role. And the law of supply and demand is always going to apply. I wish we lived in a socialist meritocracy. But we don't."

For me, that is why we need to work for a more equal society for all, as well as for women. I truly believe that in our current capitalist system, someone has to be oppressed - and at the moment that includes women.

From the discussions on here it does seem as though things are in many ways better economically for women in France & Belgium - and I think it must be linked to their more social-democratic systems.

Regardless, I still don't want to live in a society where men and women are truly equal but the richest earn 1000x more than the poorest.

I am not being mealy mouthed, I just want to get rid of capitalism as well . . .

I would like to see in the UK:

Equal parental leave for both parents
Subsidised childcare for lower paid workers
Wrap round care for school age children
Affordable holiday clubs
Increase to minimum wage
Complete overhaul of tax bands/tax credits

A lot can be solved by sorting out the basics - and these are not necessarily gender specific at all.

And Dittany - please elaborate on this oppression that keeps women on the bottom of the pile, because I have NEVER experienced this and don't think I know anyone who considers themselves to be oppressed by a patriarchal system. Capitalism and greed yes....

I have no problems with different wages for different jobs but I have a problem with women being conditioned to accept the lower paid jobs. Women often say well if the woman chose to stay home that's fine, a femininst choice. But is it? Is very much a choice anyway? Aren't people influenced by the structures they see around them ? If you moved the discussion to class and chidlren in bad comprehrensives you'd see how children pick plumbing or hair dressing and in the better schools medicine or accountancy etc because those are the jobs presented to them and they see around them. If mummy stays home and keeps house and daddy earns and if your parents go on about your big wedding and how pretty ou are and praise your brother for his marks at school it's much harder to break the mould.

If in additino you also have a husband who is sexist which I think is often the tipping point for many women then it's much harder even if you work full time to prioritise your own career over his. finally you do indeed have some natural differences between the sexes but nothing like the Victorians though - that women's brains meant they couldn't be doctors etc. That was all a load of rubbish.

As for let's change society and exalt cleaners over doctors they tried that in communist China. Of course it failed. We aren't built like that.

Women need tob e more ambitious and perhaps not marry richer men so they are regarded as powerful in the relationship.