fWell, a couple of weeks ago I received a very strange message from a friend of my ex-boyfriend's, who remains a friend despite the fact that our disagreements on certain political issues sometimes make me want t to strangle him. Now, I never actually did meet the sender of this message whilst I was with my ex, but we knew of each other. Now I found his message a little strange, but I decided to reply anyway in the hopes of educating him a little about something so important to me. The discussion is currently ongoing, and to be honest I don't feel like he has listened to what I've said. Anyway, I thought I'd repost here to see what other readers thought of it, as well as seeing if anyone had any advice or encouragement about how to best present a viewpoint to someone who is approaching it as an antagonist. I heard once that evidence can only be accepted once someone has undergone a "paradigm shift" - in this case, I think the paradigm shift is a challenging gender essentialism that doesn't seem to have got through to him yet.
Anyway, I've edited any personal details out of the messages to preserve anonymity, as well as some friendly but unrelated discussion. This might make them seem more abrupt than they do on Facebook - I think the discourse has been civilised (up to the point where he told me I wasn't "thinking things through properly" but oh well).
He's in orange, I'm in blue.
Hey X it's Y, Z's friend from school. He was round earlier and said that you'd had some ongoing discussion about feminism. Anyway he said that you'd kind of fallen out over it even though he thought you'd made some good points but there are some things i just don't get so I wanted to ask you some questions now that he's gone lol
1. I don't get how feminists can say women don't earn as much as men in the workplace, everyone at my work gets paid the same...
2. I don't get how feminists can argue that a man has it better because he 'can' work and have a kid but a woman 'can't'. To be honest I think people are much more judgemental towards a man that has kids and no job than a woman who has kids and does...
3. I don't get why feminists want to be a man, there are pros and cons to both sexes. I could argue until I'm blue in the face about how it is easier to be a woman than a man...
Anyway, I don't really know if you want to pick up this discussion with me so I'll leave it there and won't drone on. But obviously will drone on at length if you're interested in hearing what I have to say!
Take care!
1. I don't get how feminists can say women don't earn as much as men in the workplace, everyone at my work gets paid the same...
2. I don't get how feminists can argue that a man has it better because he 'can' work and have a kid but a woman 'can't'. To be honest I think people are much more judgemental towards a man that has kids and no job than a woman who has kids and does...
3. I don't get why feminists want to be a man, there are pros and cons to both sexes. I could argue until I'm blue in the face about how it is easier to be a woman than a man...
Anyway, I don't really know if you want to pick up this discussion with me so I'll leave it there and won't drone on. But obviously will drone on at length if you're interested in hearing what I have to say!
Take care!
Hello
That was an unexpected message! I'll do my best to answer your questions though.
1. Women on average do earn less than men for the same job. You must understand that citing statistics from your workplace doesn't negate that general truth. Here are some websites to substantiate my claims...
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=321
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167
When I first heard about the gender pay gap, I assumed it was because of incidental factors like women working fewer hours; in fact, the pay gap refers to men and women in identical roles. It currently stands at an average of 22%. To be honest, there's a lot of information on it if you just google "gender pay gap".
2. I agree to some extent. I think the ideal situation would be one where each couple decided for themselves based on their own personalities and situations who would take care of the majority of childcare, and who would be the main wage-earner (or if they would divide it equally). Society does judge a jobless man more harshly than a jobless woman, but then again I think it judges a negligent mother far more harshly than a negligent father. If your point is that traditional gender roles affect both men and women, then that's something feminists have always argued.
3. Feminists don't want to be men... I'm not sure why you think that, because I've never heard a feminist express that view. Why do you think it's easier to be a woman rather than a man? I think that would depend on what you wanted in life, but in general it's a shame that gender roles continue to influence people's life choices, whether they are men or women.
I'd love to discuss these things with you and can definitely drone on as well if you're interested in the subject. Bear in mind that I'm not the only feminist with access to the Internet, and there's tonnes you can read online if you want to familiarise yourself with certain feminist arguments.
That was an unexpected message! I'll do my best to answer your questions though.
1. Women on average do earn less than men for the same job. You must understand that citing statistics from your workplace doesn't negate that general truth. Here are some websites to substantiate my claims...
http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=321
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=167
When I first heard about the gender pay gap, I assumed it was because of incidental factors like women working fewer hours; in fact, the pay gap refers to men and women in identical roles. It currently stands at an average of 22%. To be honest, there's a lot of information on it if you just google "gender pay gap".
2. I agree to some extent. I think the ideal situation would be one where each couple decided for themselves based on their own personalities and situations who would take care of the majority of childcare, and who would be the main wage-earner (or if they would divide it equally). Society does judge a jobless man more harshly than a jobless woman, but then again I think it judges a negligent mother far more harshly than a negligent father. If your point is that traditional gender roles affect both men and women, then that's something feminists have always argued.
3. Feminists don't want to be men... I'm not sure why you think that, because I've never heard a feminist express that view. Why do you think it's easier to be a woman rather than a man? I think that would depend on what you wanted in life, but in general it's a shame that gender roles continue to influence people's life choices, whether they are men or women.
I'd love to discuss these things with you and can definitely drone on as well if you're interested in the subject. Bear in mind that I'm not the only feminist with access to the Internet, and there's tonnes you can read online if you want to familiarise yourself with certain feminist arguments.
[Ex] has been talking about feminism the last few times I have met him and it the whole thing really is against what I believe in... I'm a individualist and believe that people make their own futures based on their ability and drive. I feel that things like feminism are just a way for people to blame failure on outside factors combined with jealousy... Obviously this is not the case with you as you don't seem to have any times when you have failed or seem to have any reason why you would turn to something like feminism... That's kind of why I was interested in why you are into it...
I mean he has shown me loads of links with 'if a woman does this then a man thinks this', 'if a man does this, it's ok'... I guess my real question is: 'Why does it matter? Who cares what these theoretical people think?' It seems like women making excuses for not doing stuff based on what a minority of chauvinist men and women think. I actually think women are more bitchy about what other women do than men are. If you actually looked into it, most men don't actually care...
As for earning less, I think that it's negligible and I'm surprised by your justification for that belief, for example you said "When I first heard about the gender pay gap, I assumed it was because of incidental factors like women working fewer hours; in fact, the pay gap refers to men and women in identical roles" then the link you said says "Although median hourly pay provides a useful comparison between the earnings of men and women, it does not necessarily indicate differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs. Pay medians are affected by the different work patterns of men and women, such as the proportions in different occupations, their length of time in jobs and whether they work full-time or part-time." I don't know how much you know about statistics but even without knowing anything, one can easily see that this disclaimer completely says that this data does only show the data without incidental factors stripped out...
I’m not “trained in statistics” but I fully appreciate that the quote supplied at the bottom of that webpage seemed to negate the general hypothesis of the gender pay gap. I think this is because it was more focused on presenting than interpreting the results – this particular study did not “strip out incidental factors”, but there are plenty that have. I will quote the Fawcett report which considers overt discrimination to be one factor amongst many amongst womens’ lesser pay than men.
“Some researchers estimate that straightforward discrimination accounts for up to 40% of the pay gap.
Secondly, work traditionally done by women is still paid less. For instance, a nurse is paid less than a police officer. Thirdly, the UK has one of the longest working hours’ cultures in the EU, and as long as women shoulder the majority of parenting and caring responsibilities, women are unable to compete in the UK workplace”.
Statistics aside, I guess I'm a feminist because I'm politically interested and a liberal, and issues concerning sexism form part of lots of issues I'm interested in regarding equality. I guess the important thing to remember is that whilst only a minority of people are actively sexist, I still think that sexist attitudes exist in our society, and that full gender equality hasn’t yet been reached. So in your question as to “ Who cares what these theoretical people think?' I’m more concerned with challenging sexist attitudes than actual sexist people, who I agree are in a minority.
Your view that "people make their own futures based on their ability and drive" is basically true, but also needs to be qualified with the vast range of factors that affect one's ability to succeed in life. I will use a lot of examples from politics, because it's something I'm interested in, but I imagine these could be applied to many different sectors. Look at our current Cabinet; dominated by white, privately-educated, straight men. Unless you believe white, rich, straight men are inherently superior in terms of drive and intellect, you must admit that certain societal factors have given them an advantage in terms of climbing the career ladder. My belief is that a woman wishing to succeed in politics (me, in case you hadn't guessed!) will encounter certain disadvantages from their gender. While there are obvious factors such as taking time out to care for children, there are more subtle ones at play – when a workplace is dominated by one kind of people (ie. males) then that group will influence the expected behaviour of the group, and women have to make an effort to appropriate behaviours that will come (generally) less naturally to them. It also interests me that successful career women are sometimes stereotyped as “bossy”, “shrill” or even “ball-breakers” (ugh) – to me, this implies that being ambitious is somehow unfeminine, and that having a female boss somehow emasculates men. This syndrome was in full-force during Hillary Clinton’s election campaign; a blog I read did a section called “Hillary Clinton sexism watch” which had over a hundred entries (and the sexism was really apparent).
This video illustrates it perfectly, although I appreciate it’s more of an American issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U
There are also questions of sexual harrassment. I quote fromwww.aboutequalopportunities.com which says “Some statistics estimate that about 72% of women workers have experienced sexist bullying at work, while 85% of women workers believe that there is a bias towards males in their workplaces.”
My basic premise is that I think anyone who deviates from what one expects of a person in a certain role has to work harder to “prove themselves” of being capable of that role – which goes for anyone basically non-white, non-male and/or disabled in a prestigious profession.
As an example of when it happens the other way, when a man enters a traditionally female profession (such as teaching or nursing), he will be unusual, but it will rarely be assumed or even implied that he’s somehow less capable. I don’t think the same is true for women entering traditionally male-dominated fields. So much of making a success of your career depends on being able to bond with your colleagues, gain respect from your superiors and learning how to act in a way appropriate in the workplace – things that will come more naturally to men in a male-dominated workplace, leading to a vicious circle. Furthermore, there is still an expectation that men should dominate in the public sphere and women in the domestic – think of the fact that the words “career woman” and “family man” exist; their opposites would be considered tautologies!
Like I said, none of these issues are the decisive factor in someone’s career, but they do impact on the lives of women and go some way towards explaining why we have so few female MPs, CEOs, heads of companies etc.
Again, your statement that feminism is "a way for people to blame failure on outside factors" needs qualification; one can notice that certain factors affect one's relative success or failure in life without blaming one's failure on them entirely. The tiny minority of women at the higher echelons of any career path you care to mention demonstrates the continuing relevance of gender, and the advantages enjoyed by men whilst climbing the career ladder. I too am an individualist, and believe that people should "create their own futures based on their ability and drive”. I’m also a feminist because I realise that gender (along with many other things) is still a factor in the kind of future people can create for themselves, and I don’t think it should be.
I don't know to what extent gender is inherent, but my guess would be that it's to a large extent socially constructed. It fascinates me to notice the way in which children are socialized into a certain gender at a young age - boys given action toys and complimented on their bravery and courage, girls being given dolls, dressed in pink and generally complimented on being pretty and sweet. Obviously this is all very general and there are exceptions, but these things must impact on peoples' later view of themselves, and how they should act. We absorb so much at that age without being able to analyse any of it that it becomes extremely difficult to sort out what correct from what is learned when get older.
I think the important thing to realise is that being sexist and embodying sexist attitudes are two different things. For example, [Ex]. He told me once that he would vote for a male candidate over a female one, and would prefer a male to a female boss. Do I think he is sexist? No. But do I think his views demonstrate a sexist attitude that regards men as more "naturally" suited to occupying high positions in society. I think his view is widespread and I think it's a contributing factor to the continuing male dominance in the highest echelons of the workplace. It’s not simply merit but perception of merit that contributes to getting hired or promoted. Another interesting study I read said the following:
“One study[3] found that customers who viewed videos featuring a black male, a white female, or a white male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19% more satisfied with the white male employee's performance and also were more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance. This despite that all three actors performed identically, read the same script, and were in the exact same location with identical camera angles and lighting. Moreover, 45 percent of the customers were women and 41 percent were non-white, indicating that even women and minority customers prefer white men. In a second study, they found that white male doctors were rated as more approachable and competent than equally-well performing women or minority doctors. They interpret their findings to suggest that employers are willing to pay more for white male employees because employers are customer driven and customers are happier with white male employees. “
References: http://journals.aomonline.org/inpress/main.asp?action=preview&art_id=610&p_id=1&p_short=AMJ
As the sexist tone in the media reaches a fever pitch, the Women's Media Center created this video to illustrate the problem and send a message to the media: Sexism might sell, but we're not buying it! Sign our petition here:http://www.womensmediacenter.com/sexism_sells.html
ShareWell, I don't really know what else to write because there are hundreds of things that interest me about feminism, and I don't know how much you want to know. However, you did ask a general question as to why I've "turned to it" (it's not a religion lol) so I guess a quick overview might be useful. In no particular order, here are some issues I care about.
1. The lack of female role models in films and television. Have you heard of the Bechdel Test? It's a test which asks of a film whether it contains two female characters who converse about any subject not regarding a man. It is amazing the number of films which don't pass this test. In action films, men are more often shown in a variety of nuanced and active roles, whereas women tend to be primarily in roles somehow specific to their gender - typically extremely attractive love interests.
2. The way childcare is still primarily assumed to be a womens' task, with men "helping", rather than taking equal responsibility. It’s assumed that women have equal rights and capabilities as men in regards to the world of work, yet it often seems as if a movement highlighting mens equal rights and capabilities in the home has not yet emerged, leaving women with full-time careers a double responsibility.
3. Sexual objectification of women – beautiful semi-naked women used constantly in advertising. This annoys me because 1) it caters exclusively towards straight males 2) it reinforces the idea that the most prominent women featured in various media are those who are prized for their appearances rather their achievements 3) it leads to low self-esteem and even eating disorders amongst women and girls who feel they cannot live up to an impossible standard of beauty and 4) it equates women with objects. It’s not the existence of these pictures so much as their ubiquity that grates a little. Linked to this idea is the relentless focus on womens’ appearances in contexts when it is not really relevant, which the front page of any tabloid newspaper will give you prime examples of.
So I hope I answered your original questions and explained coherently why I think feminism is still important. I hope it answered your question as to why these things "matter" - firstly anything that I thought negatively impacted on being a woman would matter to me, no matter how small, and secondly because I find it a fascinating (if sometimes infuriating) area of thought.
Finally, the comment about female bitchiness. I totally agree that the sisterhood isn’t everything it should be, but your comment was interesting for the use of the word “bitchy”. I don’t like it because it’s so gendered, as if making horrible comments about other people is somehow a uniquely female activity. Along with words like nag and scold, it’s associated only with women; implying that certain kinds of (unpleasant) behaviour are uniquely female. I also think it’s diminishing; men attacking other men are generally thought of as “criticising”. I guess it’s one of many examples of a double standard in language, along with the ubiquitous use of words like slut and whore which are uniquely for women (despite such neologisms as man-whore, which has nowhere near such negative overtones). I think the way in which language can reflect sexist values is fascinating. Does Hungarian have genders? In French, the male version of the word is what is listed first, with the female afterwards as if it were a deviation from the (male) norm.
You probably think this is trivial, and I’m not saying it’s the number-one issue facing the world today (far from it), but it’s hard to notice these things and not see it as part of a wider picture.
Well, this is far longer than I meant it to be, and I hope you found it interesting. Unfortunately I feel that my discussions with Tom became unproductive because he took everything I was saying as a personal attack on himself as a man when it never was, so hopefully you won’t do the same!
Yours
PS – There are a couple of illustrations that I feel have summed up feminism far better than I can. I guess you have to have an understanding/empathy with the ideas for them to make sense to you, but this cartoon summed up exactly how I feel – I’d be interested to know what you think of it.http://xkcd.com/385/
1. The lack of female role models in films and television. Have you heard of the Bechdel Test? It's a test which asks of a film whether it contains two female characters who converse about any subject not regarding a man. It is amazing the number of films which don't pass this test. In action films, men are more often shown in a variety of nuanced and active roles, whereas women tend to be primarily in roles somehow specific to their gender - typically extremely attractive love interests.
2. The way childcare is still primarily assumed to be a womens' task, with men "helping", rather than taking equal responsibility. It’s assumed that women have equal rights and capabilities as men in regards to the world of work, yet it often seems as if a movement highlighting mens equal rights and capabilities in the home has not yet emerged, leaving women with full-time careers a double responsibility.
3. Sexual objectification of women – beautiful semi-naked women used constantly in advertising. This annoys me because 1) it caters exclusively towards straight males 2) it reinforces the idea that the most prominent women featured in various media are those who are prized for their appearances rather their achievements 3) it leads to low self-esteem and even eating disorders amongst women and girls who feel they cannot live up to an impossible standard of beauty and 4) it equates women with objects. It’s not the existence of these pictures so much as their ubiquity that grates a little. Linked to this idea is the relentless focus on womens’ appearances in contexts when it is not really relevant, which the front page of any tabloid newspaper will give you prime examples of.
So I hope I answered your original questions and explained coherently why I think feminism is still important. I hope it answered your question as to why these things "matter" - firstly anything that I thought negatively impacted on being a woman would matter to me, no matter how small, and secondly because I find it a fascinating (if sometimes infuriating) area of thought.
Finally, the comment about female bitchiness. I totally agree that the sisterhood isn’t everything it should be, but your comment was interesting for the use of the word “bitchy”. I don’t like it because it’s so gendered, as if making horrible comments about other people is somehow a uniquely female activity. Along with words like nag and scold, it’s associated only with women; implying that certain kinds of (unpleasant) behaviour are uniquely female. I also think it’s diminishing; men attacking other men are generally thought of as “criticising”. I guess it’s one of many examples of a double standard in language, along with the ubiquitous use of words like slut and whore which are uniquely for women (despite such neologisms as man-whore, which has nowhere near such negative overtones). I think the way in which language can reflect sexist values is fascinating. Does Hungarian have genders? In French, the male version of the word is what is listed first, with the female afterwards as if it were a deviation from the (male) norm.
You probably think this is trivial, and I’m not saying it’s the number-one issue facing the world today (far from it), but it’s hard to notice these things and not see it as part of a wider picture.
Well, this is far longer than I meant it to be, and I hope you found it interesting. Unfortunately I feel that my discussions with Tom became unproductive because he took everything I was saying as a personal attack on himself as a man when it never was, so hopefully you won’t do the same!
Yours
PS – There are a couple of illustrations that I feel have summed up feminism far better than I can. I guess you have to have an understanding/empathy with the ideas for them to make sense to you, but this cartoon summed up exactly how I feel – I’d be interested to know what you think of it.http://xkcd.com/385/
Well ... I agree with all your points... I also agree that I feel the way that you think that society feels about women. I personally do think that women are better suited to childcare and that they should have the majority of the responsibility for looking after children...
I could justify everything at length, but I am too lazy to fully and fairly articulate all my points so that they are inoffensive and balanced. I will be brief and hopefully you can forgive the lack of sugarcoating... (I think you probably can)
I work in a pretty demanding job, (which I am slowly becoming tired of) that means that I have to basically structure my entire life around it. Not just 9-5 blah blah but literally everything is taken from me. I have to move abroad to wherever I am sent until the job is completed, I'm never anywhere for more than 6 months/a year/couple of years at once and I can only refuse to go to locations at the risk of making a career limiting move. Also there are constant deadlines that I have to work around so I can't take more that two weeks or so off at once (woman would have problem with maternity leave).
The problem is there is no way I could do my job as a woman who wants to have children (and I guess most women do), without making a career limiting move (unless I had kids really early). The upshot of this is that I get paid a lot so I can support a family and so if I had a wife and kids my wife wouldn't need to work.
I guess this leads me to be attracted to a certain (stereo)type of woman and value certain (stereotyped) traits.
Lots of my ambitious friends have ex-gf's that are ambitious (note the ex). The problem is that in this globalised world most tier 1 jobs require you to be geographically mobile, which is a massive pain if both partners want this... Most relationships work best when one partner (stereotypically the woman) gives up high ambition (look at the Clinton's they had to take turns). Anyway, point is, work is really hard if you want to get to the top and really competitive so people do anything to get ahead and the maternity leave stereotype is a good one to play if you're up against a woman (unfortunately)... I'll end this here...
One further point - think carefully about your career and why you want to do it. Don't just do it to prove a point because it's not worth sacrificing your life over (as I am starting to realise).
Anyway I'm sorry, this was a lazy reply and I should've put more thought etc into it, but I've just got back and I'm slightly ill :( :(. I guess I need a nice caring, nurturing woman to take care of me/Nurse me back to health ;) (Ignore that unless you find the stupidity funny)
Hmm thinking through Hungarian - think it's actually gender neutral, we say they and people, and no gender specific jobs, i.e. no policeman/policewoman all officer etc no masculine or feminine words... You'd love the language! Though I don't think it's rubbed off on people's beliefs...
Take care
I could justify everything at length, but I am too lazy to fully and fairly articulate all my points so that they are inoffensive and balanced. I will be brief and hopefully you can forgive the lack of sugarcoating... (I think you probably can)
I work in a pretty demanding job, (which I am slowly becoming tired of) that means that I have to basically structure my entire life around it. Not just 9-5 blah blah but literally everything is taken from me. I have to move abroad to wherever I am sent until the job is completed, I'm never anywhere for more than 6 months/a year/couple of years at once and I can only refuse to go to locations at the risk of making a career limiting move. Also there are constant deadlines that I have to work around so I can't take more that two weeks or so off at once (woman would have problem with maternity leave).
The problem is there is no way I could do my job as a woman who wants to have children (and I guess most women do), without making a career limiting move (unless I had kids really early). The upshot of this is that I get paid a lot so I can support a family and so if I had a wife and kids my wife wouldn't need to work.
I guess this leads me to be attracted to a certain (stereo)type of woman and value certain (stereotyped) traits.
Lots of my ambitious friends have ex-gf's that are ambitious (note the ex). The problem is that in this globalised world most tier 1 jobs require you to be geographically mobile, which is a massive pain if both partners want this... Most relationships work best when one partner (stereotypically the woman) gives up high ambition (look at the Clinton's they had to take turns). Anyway, point is, work is really hard if you want to get to the top and really competitive so people do anything to get ahead and the maternity leave stereotype is a good one to play if you're up against a woman (unfortunately)... I'll end this here...
One further point - think carefully about your career and why you want to do it. Don't just do it to prove a point because it's not worth sacrificing your life over (as I am starting to realise).
Anyway I'm sorry, this was a lazy reply and I should've put more thought etc into it, but I've just got back and I'm slightly ill :( :(. I guess I need a nice caring, nurturing woman to take care of me/Nurse me back to health ;) (Ignore that unless you find the stupidity funny)
Hmm thinking through Hungarian - think it's actually gender neutral, we say they and people, and no gender specific jobs, i.e. no policeman/policewoman all officer etc no masculine or feminine words... You'd love the language! Though I don't think it's rubbed off on people's beliefs...
Take care
Oh, if you're interested and haven't already, then you should read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, it's my favourite book. I think you'd probably like it, but be warned it's as long, if not longer, than War and Peace...
Hmm, Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged seems like a very influential book, so it's on my to-read list. I think you should check out "The Shock Doctrine".
To be honest, I'm not sure what to say to your message. I felt like I tried to give good reasons as to why I thought men and women are socialised to act in certain ways, but you have just told me you agree with the mainstream of societal thought without justifying it - just by saying it's "natural". My entire message was trying to get across the point that gender differences are more socially constructed than natural, and so if you don't agree with that premise, it's hard to see to see how we agree on things at all.
Whether or not a relationship works better when only one partner gets to prioritise their career is debatable, but even if that were the case, I see no reason why it should be the woman rather than the man whose career is assumed to be of lesser importance. I can’t work out why you think that unless you think it’s “natural” – something I’m not going to agree with re: everything I wrote in the previous message.
I also thought your "note the ex" comment was mean, really, and ironic considering that your job seems to be the stereotypical example of a career that isn’t very conducive to family life. If it was a general comment about high ambition being hard to reconcile with putting someone else first, then that’s fair enough, but by making it a gender issue, you seemed to suggest that it is the responsibility of women to give up their career ambitions in order to have good relationships. What about all the ambitious ex-boyfriends who didn’t have the time to make their relationships work? Furthermore, if it’s ambition in and of itself that is supposedly causing these relationships to end, that is a problem with male insecurity and not female ambition. What kind of a relationship is one in which you give up your own ambitions to please someone else?
Most of the women I know don’t see a career as some kind of alternative option to being supported by a man. I don’t want a career that leaves me with no time to enjoy anything else, but suggesting that I want one in order to “prove a point” seemed a little patronising – doing a job you care about is one of the most rewarding things you can do, and obviously an income is necessary to fund the lifestyle you want. I’m a naturally ambitious person who wants to achieve something because what else would I do with my time? I’d also naively assume that having done something with my life might make me more interesting. Also, what point would I be trying to prove? What I got from your remark was a suggestion that I am trying to “prove” that I can have a career as a woman, which is the sort of thing most people stopped thinking about 50 years ago…
If men shouldn't have to choose between a family life and a career then neither should women. And I'm not saying it's possible to be a full-time parent and have a full-time job, because it isn't, but rather than the necessary sacrifices should be shared equally between each parent depending not on their gender, but their personal situations and aptitude/interest in childcare. I guess that’s because I’m an individualist who thinks people should make their own futures based on their abilities and drives… not arbitrary gender stereotypes :-)
Furthermore, maternity leave isn't like an extended holiday; it is when someone else is trained to do your job for a period of months. Unless your job is ridiculously specialised I don't see why it would be impossible to take time off to have a child – even our Prime Minister is taking paternity leave at the moment. Parenthood isn't some kind of special consideration; it something the vast majority of people choose to do at some point in their lives.
Also, if you really have no ethics about "getting to the top" then go ahead and play on someone's sexist assumptions about women in order to gain an advantage over a woman you were competing with. But it's easy for you to accept that as a natural dog-eat-dog sort of thing in the workplace; for me it's more personal and I can hardly be expected to be as complacent about that unfairness as you seem to be.
It just seems like you've told me about your personal preference in women (which is fine), but then felt the need to extrapolate from that to say your ideal model is the best one for every other couple. I hope you do find a nice, caring woman to look after you, but realise that being a nice and caring person is intrinsic to neither sex… I wouldn’t mind a nice, caring man to mop my brow when I’m feeling ill either...
Yours
To be honest, I'm not sure what to say to your message. I felt like I tried to give good reasons as to why I thought men and women are socialised to act in certain ways, but you have just told me you agree with the mainstream of societal thought without justifying it - just by saying it's "natural". My entire message was trying to get across the point that gender differences are more socially constructed than natural, and so if you don't agree with that premise, it's hard to see to see how we agree on things at all.
Whether or not a relationship works better when only one partner gets to prioritise their career is debatable, but even if that were the case, I see no reason why it should be the woman rather than the man whose career is assumed to be of lesser importance. I can’t work out why you think that unless you think it’s “natural” – something I’m not going to agree with re: everything I wrote in the previous message.
I also thought your "note the ex" comment was mean, really, and ironic considering that your job seems to be the stereotypical example of a career that isn’t very conducive to family life. If it was a general comment about high ambition being hard to reconcile with putting someone else first, then that’s fair enough, but by making it a gender issue, you seemed to suggest that it is the responsibility of women to give up their career ambitions in order to have good relationships. What about all the ambitious ex-boyfriends who didn’t have the time to make their relationships work? Furthermore, if it’s ambition in and of itself that is supposedly causing these relationships to end, that is a problem with male insecurity and not female ambition. What kind of a relationship is one in which you give up your own ambitions to please someone else?
Most of the women I know don’t see a career as some kind of alternative option to being supported by a man. I don’t want a career that leaves me with no time to enjoy anything else, but suggesting that I want one in order to “prove a point” seemed a little patronising – doing a job you care about is one of the most rewarding things you can do, and obviously an income is necessary to fund the lifestyle you want. I’m a naturally ambitious person who wants to achieve something because what else would I do with my time? I’d also naively assume that having done something with my life might make me more interesting. Also, what point would I be trying to prove? What I got from your remark was a suggestion that I am trying to “prove” that I can have a career as a woman, which is the sort of thing most people stopped thinking about 50 years ago…
If men shouldn't have to choose between a family life and a career then neither should women. And I'm not saying it's possible to be a full-time parent and have a full-time job, because it isn't, but rather than the necessary sacrifices should be shared equally between each parent depending not on their gender, but their personal situations and aptitude/interest in childcare. I guess that’s because I’m an individualist who thinks people should make their own futures based on their abilities and drives… not arbitrary gender stereotypes :-)
Furthermore, maternity leave isn't like an extended holiday; it is when someone else is trained to do your job for a period of months. Unless your job is ridiculously specialised I don't see why it would be impossible to take time off to have a child – even our Prime Minister is taking paternity leave at the moment. Parenthood isn't some kind of special consideration; it something the vast majority of people choose to do at some point in their lives.
Also, if you really have no ethics about "getting to the top" then go ahead and play on someone's sexist assumptions about women in order to gain an advantage over a woman you were competing with. But it's easy for you to accept that as a natural dog-eat-dog sort of thing in the workplace; for me it's more personal and I can hardly be expected to be as complacent about that unfairness as you seem to be.
It just seems like you've told me about your personal preference in women (which is fine), but then felt the need to extrapolate from that to say your ideal model is the best one for every other couple. I hope you do find a nice, caring woman to look after you, but realise that being a nice and caring person is intrinsic to neither sex… I wouldn’t mind a nice, caring man to mop my brow when I’m feeling ill either...
Yours
I with all due respect; you haven't had an intense high powered job, so all your ideal world scenarios don't apply as simply as you think they do... Who trains the replacement? Where do the come from? Where do they go when you come back? Don't you think the prime minister planned to have a child when parliament was out of session? What high powered job isn't specialised? Did you see Tony Hayward during the GOM crises? He took one day off in 3 months and it was considered a gaff that was bad enough for him to resign... You can't have an equal share (man or woman), I'm sorry I just don't believe it based on experience. All people I know where both people work in high intensity jobs have nannies, which I think is terrible... I'd love to hear your views in 5 years, when you're working 12h a day to compete with all the other people who also want to get to the top...
I do think it's more natural for a woman to raise children than a man. She gives birth, she breastfeeds and has a connection to the child that a father, no matter how conscientious, can't have. In all the mammal animal kingdom it's this way. I can't see how you can argue that it's not natural...
It's not unfair! You're put up against a man you say why you're better than him, you get put up against a woman you say why you're better than her, if you're equal then you win if she wants kids but doesn't have them. Simply from a cost impact standpoint...
The ex wasn't mean, could happen either way on has to take the hit. I think it's natural for it to be the woman...
Anyway I think we should fb chat or something because writing essays like this is not my style... It's too slow and depends too much on how much you're willing to write and elaborate rather than how valid your point is...
I've again been short, but see above I prefer real time exchange...
Best regards
I do think it's more natural for a woman to raise children than a man. She gives birth, she breastfeeds and has a connection to the child that a father, no matter how conscientious, can't have. In all the mammal animal kingdom it's this way. I can't see how you can argue that it's not natural...
It's not unfair! You're put up against a man you say why you're better than him, you get put up against a woman you say why you're better than her, if you're equal then you win if she wants kids but doesn't have them. Simply from a cost impact standpoint...
The ex wasn't mean, could happen either way on has to take the hit. I think it's natural for it to be the woman...
Anyway I think we should fb chat or something because writing essays like this is not my style... It's too slow and depends too much on how much you're willing to write and elaborate rather than how valid your point is...
I've again been short, but see above I prefer real time exchange...
Best regards
Oh and another book that you should read if you haven't already, the communist manifesto, it's like what you are saying; the perfect solution in an imperfect world and hence doesn't work... Sorry I don't mean to be patronising but you have to be more cynical of your views, you have to think: why if this is obviously the perfect solution doesn't it happen? You seem really intelligent but aren't thinking through what you are saying fully. The only thing that is wrong with what you say is that you assume that the world is perfect and that men and women want the same things...
Also you may think 'I am ambitious because otherwise what would I do with my time'. Other women may think, my time is better spent looking after my children and making sure they are happy and grow up to be the best they can be. This is where they get their sense of achievement from.
Also 'I don't want a career that doesn't let me enjoy anything else'. That unfortunately is a choice you have to make... It's fine if you don't want to get past the middle, not if you want to get to the top.
And the prove a point thing, was not about being a woman, it's about proving to yourself that you can do it. I.e be the best, man or woman. I wasn't talking about getting a job, obviously anyone can do that. I also wasn't talking about proving it to the world. I meant you need to think carefully about whether you are only ambitious because you want to prove something to yourself or whether you actually love what you are doing.
Also you may think 'I am ambitious because otherwise what would I do with my time'. Other women may think, my time is better spent looking after my children and making sure they are happy and grow up to be the best they can be. This is where they get their sense of achievement from.
Also 'I don't want a career that doesn't let me enjoy anything else'. That unfortunately is a choice you have to make... It's fine if you don't want to get past the middle, not if you want to get to the top.
And the prove a point thing, was not about being a woman, it's about proving to yourself that you can do it. I.e be the best, man or woman. I wasn't talking about getting a job, obviously anyone can do that. I also wasn't talking about proving it to the world. I meant you need to think carefully about whether you are only ambitious because you want to prove something to yourself or whether you actually love what you are doing.
I think this might be a question of semantics. You are using the word "natural" when you should be using the word "typical". It certainly is more typical for a man to prioritise his career; however, I would not slide from description, which is neutral, to prescription, because it is a value judgement. I am happy to be thought of as atypical, but not "unnatural".
I don't think the world is perfect – in fact, I think it’s far from perfect. I think our society has some way to go before best maximising the wellbeing of all its inhabitants, and I have a few ideas as to how it could better achieve that goal. The fact that something hasn’t yet been achieved isn’t an argument against its moral rightness – surely you can see there are plenty of societies that fail in even the most rudimentary kinds of fairness, and so saying “why if this is obviously the perfect solution doesn't it happen” is to suggest that any attempt at progress is futile. You can’t just point to the mores of our current society to back up your own opinion.
I am completely aware that some people derive more satisfaction from raising a family than from their jobs. I don't feel the need to attribute priorities to people based on their gender, or describe as “unnatural” people who deviate from the man=ambitious, woman=babies model.
Men and women want different things - I prefer to think of it as different people wanting different things, and feminism being the key to helping them achieve that because it is about freedom from gender stereotypes, and equality.
I also don’t think that the fact women take the majority of parental leave is a good enough reason to explain the gender inequality in the highest tiers of all careers (and also, the fact that women do the majority of childcare has more to do with internalised notions of their appropriate roles than some “natural” aptitude for childcare that men don’t have).
Finally, I hope you understand that writing all this has taken a considerable amount of time and energy, and if you really aren’t interested in learning any more about it, please let me know and I’ll stop writing. Feminism is about a lot more than what I’ve written about in this message, so can I assume that if you haven’t mentioned something you agreed with what I said, or that you didn’t want to type out your objections?
Yours
PS - If you are still interested, we can talk on Facebook chat if you like. Fair enough if you aren't into reading "essays" but I do feel like I have a lot to say!
PPS – I have a question for you. What kind of messages do you think you’ve received about what it means to be a man? Do you agree with all/most of them?
I have another question... How much of the pay gap is down to the fact that the bulk of men do hard physical labour for money?
What messages I've received about a man? Pretty simple... Go and make as much money as possible, to provide for your family.
When I said natural, I meant natural not typical... Also, I don't really agree with the vast majority of studies in this field as I'm sure I would think there were problems with how they are conducted etc etc. I think men and women are equal and not the same. Your arguments seem to suggest you think that men and women are the same. I think this is what leads to the majority of disagreement...
Do you think your arguments are valid for all tiers of society? I think society would be a lot better, especially at the lower end, if men and women obeyed their social stereotypes...
Actually, I take that last comment back
No comments:
Post a Comment