Working Women

[shiney]

Oh look a feminine dude? What does that really have to do with anything? Zilla doesn't say act more masculine as in having a macho demeanor, she said act more masculine as in fill the role traditionally held by the man (breadwinner, confident #1, whatever) and ignore the traits that make a woman a woman, instead of broadening that spectrum and bringing equality with it.

Least that's what I got out of it.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Seriously, if a guy was perhaps more feminine what would be your first reaction?

Probably something almost entirely based on years of social conditioning that has vanishingly little to do with meaningful reality. Which is basically the point.

[katiuska]

One of the guys at work (way back) said this about his family -- i.e., his wife actually saved more staying home (removing the cost of daycare, etc.) than she earned while she was working. I don't remember anything about her job, though, except that I do think it was part-time, and they were both pretty young. My parents worked full-time my whole upbringing, and I can't imagine anything my mom could have done to support my dad's job (which is engineering) that would have resulted in more money than she brought in by working. But I don't know.

I guess if you do assume one income has greater earning potential than two, you can argue from a practical standpoint that said income should be the husband's, given social inequalities that make it harder for women to be able to earn the same money a man could... but I don't see how we do anything to help that by continuing to preference the man's work just because that's how it is. I mean, you can also argue that men and women have different preferences/facilities/whatnot that cause men to gravitate toward the higher-paying jobs more often, but relative salaries of fields are also influenced by societal values, and you're always going to get counterexamples. I had a friend with a stay-at-home dad, and that dad has gotten a lot of flak, but his wife has a sought-after degree and he has none--early in the marriage, they decided that someone needed to stay with the kids, and since she was the one with real earning potential, it was him. It really depends on the couple.

Actually, I'd be interested data from couples without children to care/buy for. It's sort of taken for granted that kids will be involved, and they generally are, but frankly, the issues of people who have or want kids eventually aren't relevant to everyone.

[Jagos]

To put it more simply, feminism has allowed girls to act more like guys, while making "girly things" seem unimportant, rather than making boyish and girly things equal in their own right.

Probably something almost entirely based on years of social conditioning that has vanishingly little to do with meaningful reality. Your point?

I was going along the lines of social expectations. A "feminine" male is seen as weaker, and less likely to be a bread winner. But how we view them and what our expectations are will still be an unequal view.

While I'm more for traditional gender roles, I am mainly wondering what equates to equal for feminism. Equal work for equal pay? Okay, with that said I want to see more women do the same jobs as men. By that same token, more men in jobs that aren't necessarily to their strengths.

So we can have more women work in construction and more male secretaries.

If a woman is seen as more aggressive and career oriented, it's less likely that they'll hit the "maternal wall" that's within the article. So I have to believe that there's just some things, that women and men do better, respectively. Perhaps talking behind their husband might work to a particular woman's strength while the "Fiona" types are better at going it alone in a male dominated world.

[Kurosen]

What the Christ, man.

[Sithdarth]

Well I was typing up a post when firefox imploded on me. If I get time later I'll see about retyping it. The jist of it was that while there are in general differences between men and women both physically and mentally they are not insurmountable nor any greater than the difference between individuals.

I also was going to reference a study where scientists showed that despite the appearance of having different brain circuity male and female fruit flies actually had all the same brain circuits. Some that where active in one gender were not active in the other. For example, they could stimulate the male circuitry for a mating dance in the female and the female would do the male mating dance. Showing that a lot of the behavioral differences between males and females of any species could be nothing more than differences in active portions of the brain. With the right coaching anyone can learn to activate basically any portion of their brain so its not unreasonable to say you could condition a male to have female behavioral traits. Further reinforcing the ideal that the differences between genders are basically identical and indistinguishable, in a purely functional sense, from the differences between individuals.

[Nique]

While I'm more for traditional gender roles, I am mainly wondering what equates to equal for feminism. Equal work for equal pay? Okay, with that said I want to see more women do the same jobs as men. By that same token, more men in jobs that aren't necessarily to their strengths.

Ok maybe it's just that I'm tired and not reading this right but I have to ask; What is it exactly that you are trying to imply here in a vaguely offensive manner?

[Jagos]

I'm only inquiring on what is equal in a feminist's point of view. Nothing more, nothing less.

Edit: That sentence came off wrong. I'm not trying to be offensive. But if there's actually some things that make men and women unequal it is usually physical strength. Women usually have more leg strength for child birth and men are usually better in upper body building, hence the reference to construction.

[Krylo]

Man, fuck them bitches.

I've spent years in the work force, with shitty bosses, annoying customers, deadlines, coworkers that I want to kill but have to pretend to like so that things go smoothly, and spend most of my day in a place I don't like.

Before that I spent years cleaning house and generally taking care of shit. Listening to my own music or watching TV while vacuuming and doing dishes. Pausing my video games to go running to the basement for five minutes out of every hour to switch loads of clothes, etc.

The latter was about a million times better. Maternal wall? Hah!

I'm onto you, Megan Basham! I know your game! If anyone is staying home and getting their ass into the kitchen, it's me.

[Zilla]

Originally Posted by Jagos

I was going along the lines of social expectations. A "feminine" male is seen as weaker, and less likely to be a bread winner. But how we view them and what our expectations are will still be an unequal view.

Or, conversely, a feminine male is seen as more capable of understanding emotions, thus a more rational decision maker, and less headstrong and stubborn. The point I'm making is that feminine does not mean weaker unless you're measuring it on a masculine-based scale.

While I'm more for traditional gender roles

I'm actually advocating non-traditional gender roles. I'm advocating strength in the feminine as well as the masculine while either sex is free to behave as individuals not constrained by their genitals.

I am mainly wondering what equates to equal for feminism. Equal work for equal pay? Okay, with that said I want to see more women do the same jobs as men. By that same token, more men in jobs that aren't necessarily to their strengths.

I think this dodges the issue here. It really should amount to receiving the same wage for the same work, but to restructure the definition of success to include feminine success as well as masculine success. The shift to the service sector is seeing this happen anyway, but bizzarely, women are STILL making less than men even at jobs that are traditionally held by women.

So we can have more women work in construction and more male secretaries.

Entirely feasible but not necessarily the objective of the movement. If it just so happens more women are suited to secretarial jobs than men, so be it, but if it happens to be the other way, so be it as well. There's no reason the sphere of the feminine is impermeable to men, neither should there be a barrier on the sphere of the masculine for women.

If a woman is seen as more aggressive and career oriented, it's less likely that they'll hit the "maternal wall" that's within the article.

This is kind of the point I'm making, that in order to avoid said wall, a woman is forced to adopt a more masculine stance, which I believe is not right.

So I have to believe that there's just some things, that women and men do better, respectively. Perhaps talking behind their husband might work to a particular woman's strength while the "Fiona" types are better at going it alone in a male dominated world.

Again, this is treating individuals as members of their sex and implying inherent properties based on the sex that I don't believe exist outside of social conditioning. At the end, you mention the "male dominated world" which is what I'm getting at here too, that it shouldn't be a male dominated world, nor should females have to conform to the masculine behavior pattern to achieve success in the world.