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.

There is a lot more to power in relationships than just earning power, however. There was a short but very interesting article in last weekend's Figaro Magazine about the growing importance in all walks of life of influence, and how power in the modern age is derived from influence rather than from force...

ShriekingHarpy, we agree on this: "If more flexible working practices became more readily accessible to men, then perhaps gender equality would become more of a reality for all." Having read some of your anti-feminist sentiments before I find it sad that you don't realise that it is feminists who are campaigning hard for such practices. People slag off Harriet Harman so much and god knows I'm no new labourite, but she is trying to change things in this direction. As for feminists not campaigning for women to become sewage workers, join the army etc. Actually there have always been campaigns for employers in every field to open their doors to female workers, where they have historically refused to. Just because you don't know about them, doesn't mean these battles haven't been happening. In fact, every time you see a woman in a particular job (other than the "women's work" ones mentioned above) you can bet that either she or women before her had to fight and fight to win the right to do that job.

I was agreeing with you BTW Porto, regarding "revaluing" traditionally female jobs.

Bonsoir - "mothers (or potential mothers) are attracted to jobs that can be done part-time" I think "attracted" is too mild a word here. "only able to take on" would be better. But if more women could return from a period looking after children to earn something like what they earned previously, they would be able to afford the childcare etc they needed. It's the "choice" between working full time for shit wages and having to fork out for lots of childcare, or working part-time for shit wages and saving that money - that seems to me like the real trap.

Good analogy Xenia WRT "good schools" encouraging kids to become accountants, lawyers etc. It's the grooming of girls to take on the lower paid roles that gets me. In some way I think there is a historical overhang from when who you married determined your station in life. So "what will you do when you grow up?" still translates into "who will you marry?" at some level. Do you ever hear a parent saying to a teenage son "Oh Lucy's studying medicine is she? Best hold on to that one!"

Ah, but I don't agree that it is an either/or situation. Many mothers may only be able to take on part-time work, but just as many are attracted to part-time work. Lots of mothers want to see more of their families than full-time work permits.

But plenty don't. Lots prefer to get home after the children have eaten to save the hassle of making dinner for them. We don't all want X number of hours a day with the family although most that I know male and female want to be there at bed time when they can, although the occasional night getting home after bed time can be a nice change.

I think it's very important women and men do challenge sexism just like I try never to let racism pass by without some comment from me. If someone says something which in effect means - girl pretty only fit for marriage/ babies and snaring a man, boy clever challenge that. If someone has boy going to good school, girl just at state or school for the not so bright ask why it's that way round. I am sure my daughters are as they are becauseo f me and not just me, but because my mother worked for a good long while and her mother had to work (widowed) and her mother worked. On the other side of the family we had women working in the 1920s too and presumably earlier because women jhave always worked. This myth that pre 1960 women were always house wives is just not true. Plenty of course were very very cross when men came back from the War in 1945 and they were kicked out of their jobs to make space for men.

I am a Conservative but I do support what HH is doing and I was very much behind those women in the NE on very low pay who got eventually equal pay awards even if it means lower pay for male dustmen up there.

We can all do out bit- someone announces a baby is expected and then don't assume the woman will be home with it.

Well I have never ever like the power behind the throne idea. It just institutionalises sexism. We want the women in power not giving sex and looking pretty to get the ear of the powerful man to influence him that way even if that way is more influential than other ways.

But it's all pretty hopeful. We're in an upwards line on the graph of equality issues. We just have to stick with it and ensure all those little girls aren't told they need to spend £50k on a wedding and marry a footballer to have eternal happiness, need to let them see role models who aren't just where they are on looks or sex grounds and don't under estimate your own example. If you're happy working full time and done rather well at it and have a nice family let people know that working women all over the planet have children and are happy.

Great post Xenia, I agree WRT women always working, my family tree shows women and girls in work since 1860 (at least), let alone 1960. It's a pernicious lie often touted that women were at home until 1950s when they got uppity and upset the order of society, resulting in every bad thing that exists in the world today.

Hate that power behind the throne idea too - when you get some smug male historian or journo saying "but women have always had the biggest power of all, the power to control men!". Oh yeah? That's why these men could and often did have these women locked up or killed is it? It just means that women could ask favours in return for blowjobs. Newsflash - that is not what power is, power is the right to change the world for themselves, not wheedle some bloke into doing it so they have to feel grateful ever after.

Plenty of feminists lobby to get more rights for men. I want men post divorce to have a 50/50 chance of having their children and I would like more equalised paternity and maternity rights which actualyl we're getting and is a very good thing. Many many men want to be involved in the lives of their young children so everything is pretty hopeful. And plenty of feminists fight to let women drive trains on London Underground as indeed plenty of women now do or to become pilots and we need to work to remove the restriction on women in active combat in the forces as plenty of them already are because of shortage of resources anyway even if not officially.

If we wanted to be radical we could say only men and no women could request part time and flexitime work for the next 10 years. that would shake things up a bit and good fun but I expect would not be very popular with mumsnetters.

Again, Shrieking, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. A quick google revealed this article about female sewage workers who are suing their employers for years of sexual harassment at work, claiming that "the few other women in the agency were driven out by constant harassment." They allege as well as years of insults and threats, they had to put up a lack of toilets and changing facilities and even places to wash (pretty important after working in the sewers).

If this kind of workplace environment is commonplace, it's hardly surprising that few women are working in it. You can bet that the people campaigning to make workplaces like that equal and bearable for female workers, thus increasing the number of women working there, are women, probably feminists.

I'm glad that you're well aware of equal opportunities legislation. Are you aware that it was feminists who succeeded in their campaign to bring in that legislation, from which you presumably benefit? Damn right the theory and the practice isn't the same, but to blame this on feminists for not trying to force women down the sewers, rather than employers who consistently refuse to obey the law, would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Hmm, another interesting finding from my google about women sewage workers - at least half of the results were from websites like our old pal antimisandry.com. Coincidence eh Shrieking?

To be petty for a moment, I don't see you, or antimisandry dot sodding com campaigning for more male hotel cleaners ("chambermaids" in fact) - changing sheets covered in the semen and skidmarks of strangers not your cup of tea? Can I then assume that it's a male conspiracy keeping that job pretty much female only? Or would that be as weird as you complaining about feminists' ulterior motives in not campaigning for more female sewage workers?

Women who are in favour of more gender equality often lobby on behalf of men. I'd like to see both parents getting children 50% of the time after divorce. I am very against women who deny fathers contact for example. There are hugely sexist assumptions in family law which are often against men which I think many women who want gender equality lobby against.

But on a personal basis get daughters to avoid jobs girls usually do and then you can ensure your pay stays high and avoid careers which are becoming feminised like being a doctor. This is just a transitional period. In a few decades with more progress none of these issues will matter because women will have continued their good progress.

I am a feminist and I relish my femininity. I love fashion, cooking, babies, chatting, sex and the city and baking cookies.
I am not into cars or football.

I do love to go on the occasional adventure and climb mountains.Some ''macho'' activities thrill me too. I thank God that at least we have a choice.