Posts tagged gender stereotyping

Gender according to teens

3

I was going through boxes of memorabilia from my childhood at my parents’ home recently and came across a clutch of papers from a class I took in high school. I believe it was my freshman or sophomore year and I even vaguely remember participating in the exercise described. Reading the answers my peers and I had been conditioned to give (and believe) saddened me greatly. Here’s what it said:

ANSWERS (FEMALES)

Traits of Femininity

kind
caring
considerate
weak (at heart)
strong
loving
emotional
little
compromise
lady-like
proper
sweet
nice
clean
pretty
obedient
stays home
advisor
maternal
charming
sensitive
soft
calm
outspoken
moody
instinctual
cry
compassionate
frail
tenderness
delicate

Traits of masculinity

brave
big
tall
dirty
mean
angry
strong
shows little emotion
forgetful
goes out and works
handsome
gruff
responsible
insensitive
impatient
authoritative
sweaty
unreasonable
loud
outspoken
don’t cry
friend
advisor
bold
leader
paternal
protector
decision maker
hard worker
pride
strong will

Advantages of being female

live longer
can cry and be emotional
can spend lots of time in the bathroom
just better
guys will get you whatever you want
known as being patient and caring
can get more things done in a quicker amount of time
have an outlook of the future that is reasonable
don’t have to pay on dates all the time
people are easier on girls
can have children
can wear girls and guys clothes

Disadvantages of being a female

monthly cycle
have to carry the baby
PMS
expected to be proper and ladylike all the time
males are given more authority
has to sit down to pee and can’t pee outside
parents won’t allow girls to do as much as boys get to do
bras
being thought of as weak and dumb

Advantages of being a male

makes decisions based on logic
no PMS
no childbirth
don’t have to worry about weight
no monthly cycle
don’t have to squat to pee outside
given authority
can get point across better (is heard more)
don’t have to worry about hair
better at sports
can hold more liquor
know stuff about cars
not expected to look your best all the time

Disadvantages of being a male

expected to be strong
not allowed to cry
people are harder on males

ANSWERS (MALE)

Traits of femininity

independence
outspoken
emotional
mannered
laid back
picky
childbirth
petite
small
high pitched voice
soft
elegant
unconditional love

Traits of masculinity

brave
strong
stud
stubborn
charmer
slob
protective
action
courteous
muscular
large
deep voice
rough

Advantages of being a female

can wear anything
have the upper hand in dating

Disadvantages of being female

worry about weight

Advantages of being male

more persuasive
gets ready in a hurry

Disadvantages of being male

none

That last bit just says it all, doesn’t it?

Another class did the same exercise and their answers were given to us for comparison. They are listed below:

ANSWERS (FEMALE)

Traits of femininity

emotional
boobs
mean at ‘that time of the month’
make-up
jealous
body size
loving
clothing
jewelry
soft skin
sensitive
more socially aware (better manners)
produce babies
gentle
sneaky
romantic
affectionate
smell nice
friendly
smiling
petite
vagina
less body hair
PMS
hips
giggles
pastel colors
nurturing
grace
beauty

Traits of masculinity

macho
personality
tough
cars/trucks
emotionless
facial hair
drinking
cursing
rough skin
lots of body hair
no boobs
no kids
hard to understand
unaffectionate
liars
heartless
sporty
hard-headed
broad shoulders
deep voice
eat a lot
penis
dirt
unreliable
laid back
easier to talk with

Advantages to being female

have children
get what we want
don’t have to be afraid to cry
lower insurance
do better at things
don’t have to ask guys out
have breasts

Disadvantages to being female

have to sit to pee
monthly period
childbirth
bras
reputation
discrimination
not much freedom
not much respect
paid less
sexually harassed
gets hurt easier
parents are more strict on females
emotional
show hurt feelings more
not respected
smaller body
people don’t take you seriously

Advantages of being a male

more jobs
can’t have babies
can get away with being stupid
no bras
no period
more freedom
no worry about reputation
can’t get pregnant
stronger
don’t get harassed
parents not as strict
can hold in feelings
don’t have to worry about looks
don’t have to style hair
can pee standing up

Disadvantages of being male

can’t have children
get blamed for more
they have to hold more things inside
they have to ask girls out or make the first move
aren’t beautiful

ANSWERS (MALE)

Traits of femininity

loving
kind
clothes
face
soft
gentle
smooth skin
good heart
shiny hair
compatible
open minded
boobs
butt
sensitive
small hands
short
tearful
moody
crosses legs

Traits of masculinity

short hair
large hands
deep voice
facial hair
likes cars
macho
not emotional
nasty minded
strong
sportsman
tough
mean
competitive

Advantages of being female

gets more things
look better
smell better
all the attention for looking good
can blame everything on PMS
can whine to get their way
none

Disadvantages of being female

we make more money
parents are looser on guys
being a female in a male-dominated society
can almost always be forced to do something against their will
hooters
not as tough
changing name when married
PMS

Advantages of being male

make more money
can hold his own in any physical confrontation
being a male in a male-dominated society
can’t have kids
pee standing up
can’t have PMS

Disadvantages of being male

none
affirmative action works against males
more responsibility
having the pressure of keeping the household afloat
not being able to show emotion like females

So there we have it, folks. These were the opinions of probably 50-60 teenagers, over 15 years ago. Do you think much has changed?

Photo credit

Sex for sale: the dark side of the Super Bowl

1

What happens when you get many thousands of men together for a major sporting event?

Along with the hot dogs and beer, women and girls go on sale.

The NFL Super Bowl is apparently one of the biggest human trafficking events in the United States, with tens of thousands of women and girls brought in to provide sex for the fans at last year’s game in Miami. Many of them were forced into prostitution and some were underage. State agencies rescued 24 children who had been sold into sexual slavery at that event alone. This year, officials in Texas (where the Super Bowl will be held) are cracking down on traffickers and warning ‘customers’ that if they buy sex in the days leading up to the big game, they must know they are likely complicit in trafficking, human enslavement and/or prostitution crimes against a woman or child.

In Europe, major football (soccer) matches like the European Championships and the World Cup prompt a similar influx of ‘sex workers’. If the area is not already rife with women willingly (though I use that term loosely) selling themselves, more are bused in. At this summer’s World Cup in South Africa, up to 40,000 prostitutes are estimated to have been in the country to meet demand. Other large sporting events in other countries attract similar problems, I’m sure.

I’m glad that the Texas authorities are concerned about this and that they are being proactive in minimising the amount of trafficking and forced prostitution going on in the days and weeks surrounding the Super Bowl, and I’m glad that they did mention the ‘customers” complicity in crimes being committed against these women and girls, but I’m still not convinced that they are approaching the problem in the right way. Just as with ‘regular’ prostitution, it is almost impossible to deter supply when the demand is so high. Traffickers, pimps and brothel owners will always have jobs as long as men are roaming the streets or banding together in groups to demand sexual services, whether through visual stimulation (like at strip clubs) or sexual contact and intercourse, with women they see as available and willing, even if, in reality, that is not the case.

Surely these men — these middle class, otherwise decent men — know better? Shouldn’t they know somewhere deep down that soliciting sex from prostitutes, girls who may be the same age as their own daughters, is wrong? I don’t believe for a second that their ‘natural urges’ are what drive them to purchase others’ bodies. There is nothing natural about having sex with a child quivering in fear, or a drug-addled, poverty-stricken corner prostitute, or a non-English-speaking woman tied to a filthy mattress in an outbuilding. There is nothing natural about stuffing money into a woman’s underwear while she shakes her breasts and dances on a pole so she can put food on the table for her kids or fund her education.

In short, there is nothing natural about the objectification of women.

It is, however, historical. Prostitution is called the world’s oldest profession not because it is inherent and will never go away, but because since the beginning of recorded history it has been accepted and encouraged in our male-dominated society. While women are oppressed and at an economic disadvantage to men (and make no mistake, they are — even in so-called progressive,  industrialised nations), they will continue to use or be forced to use the only currency all of us has: our selves.

So why are we not doing more to target the demand for purchase of others’ bodies? Why are we not coming up with awareness-raising national ad campaigns targeted at the men who buy sex at these sporting events? Instead of lecturing women about the dangers and pitfalls of prostitution, stripping or walking alone at night during these testosterone-fuelled events, why aren’t we punishing and lecturing and scolding the men who take advantage of them? Why are the messages that do exist not getting through?

Sports has long been one of the only culturally acceptable ways in which men can spend time together and socialise outside of work without women present, along with going to the pub. Going to the cinema (unless it’s to see the latest action or sci-fi movie), a restaurant, the park or the town centre for a bit of shopping with another (straight) male friend would be unthinkable or at least uncomfortable for many men. In a group for a special occasion, perhaps. But just one-on-one with another dude, at a nice restaurant? Gay alert! Masculinity malfunction alert! All ego stations manned!

It’s not their fault, really. Just as hetero, middle class women have been conditioned to believe that the path to true sisterhood is paved with shopping trips, gossip, spa days and al fresco lunches, hetero, middle class men have been conditioned to believe that sports, beer, women and technology are the only acceptable ways in which they can socially bond and still be ‘normal’. At any event that is primarily focused on one of these things, the others are bound to be added on. So at a sporting event such as the Super Bowl, it comes as no surprise when beer, women and technology are ladled out like tasty side dishes for consumption with the entrée.

Beer and technology are products and services, that’s fine. Advertise and tout them all you want. But when women are lumped into that category and seen as a given, something sold alongside the team hats and hamburgers, that’s when the long shadow of the dark side of sports comes marching on the field.

And how is the idea that women are for sale being reinforced? Why, with all of the busty beauties and lovely ladies appearing in the ads selling the beer and the technology. You can’t watch a Super Bowl and its renowned halftime ads without seeing dozens of breasts, bums, bikinis and come-hither looks (from the cheerleaders and the women on TV), inviting the men to check out their goods while they think about buying some others.

Taken in isolation, of course these ads are not single-handedly responsible for the objectification of women. But it’s an example of the culmination of the drip-drip effect, being constantly fed in tiny, everyday increments to men and boys (and women and girls) across the nation and across the world.

Figuring out how to impede traffickers, while important, should not be the main concern of the officials in Texas, or anyone else concerned with stopping these crimes. It all begins — has always begun — with the idea that women are less-than, that we are subservient beings with no sexuality of our own besides the kind that satisfies or complements men’s.

Want to stop trafficking? Start with the beer commercials.
Image credit

The psychology of motherhood: nature or nurture?

3

As someone who firmly believes that many of the alleged psychological differences between the male and female sexes can be attributed to cultural reinforcement of popular myth, bad or ethically-questionable science and a healthy dose of plain ol’ sexism, it’s hardly surprising that I am instinctually repelled by claims that girls are ‘hard-wired’ to like pink things and be terrible drivers or that pregnant women and new mothers have diminished mental capacity and memory, otherwise known as ‘baby brain’.

On the other hand, as an advocate for mothers and someone who acknowledges and has experienced first-hand the powerful effect of hormonal changes on a woman’s mind and body, I do not deny that biology and its many processes may play a role in shaping who we are and how we live.

But just how much credence should we give to the idea that having children brings with it an overwhelming and inevitable shift in how we think? Is the psychology of motherhood subconsciously learned and culturally-ingrained or is it simply a case of biological design, wherein mothers are destined to expend more brain power on their offspring than on themselves or the world around them? Is ‘baby brain’ part of human evolution or a convenient theory to explain why women still undertake the psychological burden of parenthood, making them supposedly more naturally suited to be caretakers than professionals?

If you ask a group of mothers whether they felt less sharp or had bad memories while pregnant and within the first several months of each of their children’s lives, many will answer with a resounding ‘Yes!’ Anecdote after anecdote about forgetting a phone number known for decades or struggling to remember what that large rectangular thing in the kitchen that chills the perishable food is called soon follow. Mothers who work outside the home also sometimes report not being able to focus on their jobs because they are so busy thinking of and organising all the many things that need doing in relation to the household and children.

While I’m sure these things are true and that many women do indeed experience some element of memory loss in pregnancy and in the early years of parenting, I have to wonder if there isn’t another (series of) explanation(s) other than a decrease in mental acuity. After all, some women report not experiencing this phenomenon at all.

So is ‘baby brain’ just a stereotype perpetuated to remind women that their focus should be on their foetus or child, or an inescapable truism? Let’s look at the evidence.

First, there’s a question of whether our brains literally shrink during pregnancy. According to this news report and associated study (though a very small one, with only 9 participants), the late stage of pregnancy does seem to cause individual brain cells to decrease in volume, though not in quantity. One theory is that this may be because the body is busy pumping extra blood and other fluids around the body and to the foetus and the associated reproductive organs. Another study found that pregnancy “adversely affects ability to recall previously seen spatial locations” due to hormonal changes and concludes that pregnant women will likely have diminished capacity to perform certain cognitive tasks because of said changes.

However, this does not necessarily explain anecdotal reporting of memory loss or lack of focus. The authors of the above studies themselves conclude that their findings are speculative and the sample sizes were very small.

A much larger, more comprehensive study performed in Australia earlier this year concluded — after studying 1,241 women both before and after they had children (and comparing them to those who never had children at all) — that having a baby does not adversely affect memory or cognitive abilities. The head researcher said:

“Part of the problem is that pregnancy manuals tell women they are likely to experience memory and concentration problems — so women and their partners are primed to attribute any memory lapse to the ‘hard to miss’ physical sign of pregnancy.

Pregnant women may also shift their focus away from work issues to help them prepare for the birth of their new baby, while new mothers selectively attend to their baby.

But she said this shift should not be labelled a ‘cognitive deficit.’”

In the same article, a senior midwife notes that the physical and emotional stresses of pregnancy, coupled with lack of sleep and the shock of a major life change, are the more likely explanations for any reported memory lapses or concentration difficulties.

Moving on from pregnancy, we have also generally accepted the idea that women’s abilities for systematization and concentration decrease (even if only marginally) in the months and years after birth. Couple this with the oft-spouted stereotype that women are hard-wired for empathy and we go from the idea of a brain-addled new mummy as dubious myth to a widely accepted cultural norm, in the form of ‘Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus’, et al.

Dr. Cordelia Fine, a cognitive neuroscientist and author of “Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society and Neurosexism Create Difference,” hits back at what she believes is the perpetuation of old sexism with new science. Dr. Fine attributes many of the studies’ stated outcomes to researchers using their own biases and belief in gender differences to influence not only the way the studies are conducted but how they are written. Knowing that the media do not generally dissect scientific studies at their core and instead take the best ‘plain English’ tidbits to create sensational headlines, some of these studies authors may be (wittingly or unwittingly) contributing to the idea that men’s and women’s differences can be explained by nature, not nurture.

In this New York Times review of Dr. Fine’s book, we see previous examples of biological differences used as rationale for all sorts of discrimination against women.

Experts used to attribute gender inequality to the “delicacy of the brain fibers” in women ; then to the smaller dimensions of the female brain (the “missing five ounces,” the Victorians called it); then to the ratio of skull length to skull breadth. In 1915 the neurologist Dr. Charles L. Dana wrote in this newspaper that because a woman’s upper spinal cord is smaller than a man’s it affects women’s “efficiency” in the evaluation of “political initiative or of judicial authority in a community’s organization” — and thus compromises their ability to vote.

Dr. Fine also examines the popular opinion that new mothers are ill-suited to return to work full-time and, if they do, how challenging they find it due to their hearts and minds remaining firmly in the home, even when they are at work. Her article in Neuroethics magazine, entitled “Will Working Mothers’ Brains Explode? The Popular New Genre of Neurosexism” is a must read for those interested in or concerned with the way women’s abilities are viewed upon returning to work after having a child.

So if we know that science is not always reliable and is, indeed, subject to societal influence, how do we know which studies to trust and which to throw out with the bathwater? When can we be sure that a woman self-reporting memory loss and a general feeling of being ‘a bit stupid’ is a neurological truth instead of an internalised stereotype?

The short answer is that we don’t and we can’t. If someone’s experience confirms previously-held views or theories, they will be hard-pressed to view it any other way. The longer answer is that we have to scrutinise these studies before accepting them as fact and learn to examine not only the source of the study and the possible motivations behind it, but what personal prejudices may influence the outcome. We must also question the use of anecdotes (even when they are numerous) that fly in the face of evidence-based research.

Having said that, I am not a proponent of telling other women how to rationalise their experiences or how to feel their feelings. If a woman thinks she’s hard-wired to look after her baby and to put the milk in the cupboard instead of the fridge when she is expecting, that is her truth and her prerogative. Likewise, I wouldn’t discount a woman who insisted she had zero cognitive dissipation and zero doubts about her abilities to perform her job or other duties just as well after she’s had children as she did before.

In my view, the prevailing idea of ‘baby brain’ is likely a combination of factors, some biological but mostly cultural. I’ll likely never know for sure if I’m right or not, as when it comes to nature versus nurture there are no cut-and-dried answers.

So what do you think? Or have you forgotten what we were talking about?

Photo credit

Guest post: It’s a MAD dad world

30

If you follow the parent blogging world at all, you can’t have failed to have noticed the launch of the MADs Awards. That stands for Mums And Dads. You can read about them here. Stage 1 was nominations, when anyone could nominate anyone. And we did. Literally hundreds of blogs were nominated. We’re now at Stage 2. The most popular 5 blogs in each category have been named, and we’re all invited to vote on those top 5. Voting closes on 6th June.

When I looked at the list of finalists, I was very struck by the preponderance of Dads. Don’t get me wrong. There are some very fine Daddy bloggers out there, and their presence adds to the parent blogging mix. But I’m honestly a little puzzled why they feature quite so prevalently in the awards. I mean, it can’t be, can it, that they’re really so very much better than the Mummy bloggers?

Do the maths with me, if you will. There are 50 finalists. That’s 5 in each of the 9 categories, and 5 nominated for overall Best Blogger of the Year. Of these, 8 are male. That’s 16%. You’re thinking that’s not a very high percentage? Well, let’s put it against the percentage of Dad bloggers in the parent blogosphere, which I’ve taken to be British Mummy Bloggers. BMB has over 1,300 members now, and there are around 25 Dads. That works out at less than 2%. Is that 2% really so gifted that they deserve the disproportionate 16% of finalist places? If the ratios were proportionate, there would be over 200 Dad members of BMB – nearly 10 times the actual number. And what about this? For the top accolade of Best Blogger of the Year, they are in the majority. Yes, 3 out of the 5 nominees for Best Blogger are Dads. Is it not surprising, in any sphere, if a 2% minority of the population produces 3 out of the 5 candidates for top recognition?
What to make of this? Well, I’d like to be really angry about it, because that would have given the opportunity for a clever title to this post along the lines of “Why I’m truly a MAD finalist”. But I find it hard to be angry, because the awards have been designed very democratically. Bloggers nominated fellow bloggers, so who can we point the finger of sexism at here? It’s at ourselves, isn’t it? And when I look at myself, I can see how that happens. It’s partly the novelty value of a man’s viewpoint in what is predominantly a woman’s world. A Dad blogger arrests the attention, as a woman in the board room does, or a lady doctor used to (did we really call them that?). They stand out simply for being different.

I think it’s more than that, though. I sense in myself something that wants to reward a man for being a good father more than a woman for being a good mother (and I’m not, by that, implying that blogging equates to good parenthood). If I see a father accompanying his child on a school field trip, I feel that he must be a good dad, as he’s taken a day off work to do so. If I see a mother who has a full-time job on a field trip, do I feel the same? I don’t think I do. How often have I read in the blogosphere of a mum who is going away for a week-end on her own, and there’ll be a comment “How lovely that your partner is so supportive and is happy to look after the children on his own for a whole week-end”. Do we feel the same way when a husband goes away? I don’t think we do. I know a lot of this stuff is wrapped up in practicalities, bread-winning, role patterns and daily norms, and of course it may be a bigger hurdle for the woman to let go of her parental responsibilities and duties than for the man to step up to them (I’ll put my hand up to that one.) But at an emotional level, I think we love to love a man who’s being a father, more than we allow ourselves to love ourselves for being mothers.

It’s the same syndrome by which men who are chefs or primary school teachers seem to do so well in those careers. It’s almost as if we’re so flattered that these individuals will enter our women’s world, that we want to reward them with our favour. I know it’s more complicated than that. Those men may typically have more time to devote to their careers, or may be more ambitious, or may value promotion and publicity more than their female colleagues. But I do also sense that there’s some kind of self-destruct button that we women press, to allow them to thrive so successfully. It seems we get all star-struck by the dads in our female midst, and assume that their voices are more worth listening to than our own, and that their achievements are more valuable.

It’s interesting to see which other categories the men fared well in. There’s 1 nominated for Best Writer, 2 for Most Innovative Blog, and 2 for Funniest Blog. Am I reading too much into these to see them as representing the characteristics that we admire in men? Perhaps. I don’t want to get carried away here. I hesitated to write this post. It’s going to sound awfully like sour grapes if I don’t win, isn’t it? That’s why I’m publishing it now, before we know who the winners are. Of course I’d love it if you voted for me, but I hope this post will persuade you to do so on the basis of my writing, not my gender – because that would miss the point rather, wouldn’t it?

Iota Manhattan blogs at Not Wrong, Just Different and is a UK-to-US transplant. She describes herself as “an erstwhile civil servant, then fundraiser (arts and voluntary sector). Now Mum/Mom at home.” She likes reading, going to the cinema and a good cup of tea.

Reply turned post: What is ‘work’?

21
I have to say, it can be a bit tiresome hearing all about how incredibly privileged and wealthy those who stay home, even part of the time, must be — I stay home with my children and work a part-time job from home (as do many of the working and middle class women in my area who can’t afford full-time child care but must work to some extent, though not many do theirs from home and instead work nights or weekends) and while there are undoubtedly some privileges in that, they certainly aren’t economic. My caring labour is worth absolutely nothing in economic or social terms because what I do is supposed to be a ‘labour of love,’ not worthy of compensation. There’s an awful lot of talk about how important raising children is and how motherhood is so great, blah blah blah, but talk is cheap when actions belie the opposite.
When I do re-enter the ‘proper’ workforce my skills will be considered outdated, unpolished and worth even less than they were before. I will earn much less over my lifetime than a man, a woman without children and those mothers who returned to work when their paid maternity leaves (if they got one) were up. I’ll be much more at risk for poverty when I’m older as I will have forgone the fully paid-up state pension that other workers have. While I might be privileged in staying home with my children now, I am paying a ‘mummy tax’ that will have a knock-on effect for the rest of my life. Again, that’s not to say I’ve got it so rough because lord knows I’ve got it easy compared to so many women working their fingers to the bone night and day, but merely to point out that even those of us ‘privileged’ enough to stay at home are paying for it one way or another.
One can’t put raising children or managing a household on one’s CV as it is seen as irrelevant. And it will continue to be viewed as irrelevant, even undesirable, as long as only labour that falls outside of the domestic sphere is treated as “real” work. Women who stay at home ARE working. It’s just that our contributions to society  aren’t counted in economic terms, even though they are great.
Saying that a child would be better off with one-to-one or small group care (which doesn’t have to be a parent) isn’t judgmental, it’s a pretty indisputable fact. That so many families are forced to put their children into cheap, large-group care where they aren’t given the individual attention they deserve (even though the care may be adequate for its purposes) is not acceptable or desirable to most. If women are expected to be proficient consumers and workers as well as primary caregivers, we need much better caring systems, heavily subsidised by the state, and with much better-paid and trained workers. Don’t forget that one of the demands of the second wave movement was free 24/7 child care. We seem to have let that one fall by the wayside, leaving individual mothers in the lurch to fight that battle on our own.
Counting on men to step up the plate and start doing an equal amount of childrearing and housework hasn’t worked so far and, short of an economic and social revolution, doesn’t look likely any time soon, no matter how many baby steps have been made. Men are also constrained by long-established economic pressures and gender stereotypes. I fear that placing all of our hopes for change on fathers’ ability to break though rigid societal structures is going to leave us, and our children, waiting in the wings for a very long time. We can and should work towards a more equitable division of household and caring labour, not to mention an overhaul of gender stereotypes, but it’s proved to be a slow, arduous process. In the meantime and in concert with those efforts, we should be working to value (both societally and economically) women’s work as primary caregivers and essential parts of our communities. We should make it easier for women to work, yes, but we should also make it easier for them (or their partners) to stay at home when their children are young if that’s what they want. And there’s nothing ’1950s housewife’ (read: derisory) about that.

baby juggling

I left this rather long comment on Catherine Redfern’s post on The F-Word, which was about the Conservatives’ proposed tax break for married couples but quickly turned into a bit of commentary on whether the ideal of one parent at home with the children is harmful to women. In the post, Catherine included a poster from a 1947 magazine encouraging women to “try to free yourself for work” to help the economy and wondered if, with the idolisation of motherhood, the reverse would soon be true — posters extolling us to stay at home where we belong.

While I understand and agree with Catherine’s dislike of the tax break for married couples, which, as she rightly says, would be largely irrelevant and, even worse, ignores the diversity and complexity of modern families, I do take issue with the idea that one parent (usually the mother) being at home with the children is undesirable, unattainable or even unnecessary. Is it, as it stands, an unfair and flawed system that puts women at a disadvantage? Yes. But I don’t think the answer is simply making working outside the home unavoidable and staying at home some kind of insult to the sisterhood (not that this is what Catherine insinuated; this is what many stay-at-home mothers have told me it feels like).

It’s such a complex issue and one that I’ve been thinking about a lot as I’ve been reading this fascinating analysis of the value of ‘women’s work’ in economic journalist Ann Crittenden’s 2001 book The Price of Motherhood: Why the most important job in the world is still the least valued. I’m only halfway through and it has already challenged and altered the way I’d been approaching the solution for the modern mother’s dilemma of combining work and family. I still have lots more reading and thinking to do on the subject but I’m seeing things from a slightly different angle for the first time in ages and it is wholly refreshing. I’ll be doing a review of the book once I’m finished with it.

My comment on The F-Word post is below [altered slightly for clarity].

I have to say, it can be a bit tiresome hearing all about how incredibly privileged and wealthy those who stay home, even part of the time, must be — I stay home with my children and work a part-time job from home (as do many of the working and middle class women in my area who can’t afford full-time child care but must work to some extent, though not many are able to do their jobs from home and instead work nights or weekends) and while there are undoubtedly some privileges in that, they certainly aren’t economic. My caring labour is worth absolutely nothing in economic or social terms because what I do is supposed to be a ‘labour of love,’ not worthy of compensation. There’s an awful lot of talk about how important raising children is and how motherhood is so great, blah blah blah, but talk is cheap when actions belie the opposite.

When I do re-enter the ‘proper’ workforce my skills will be considered outdated, unpolished and worth even less than they were before. I will earn much less over my lifetime than a man, a woman without children and those mothers who returned to work when their paid maternity leaves (if they got one) were up. I’ll be more at risk for poverty when I’m retirement age as my pension will have suffered greatly in the years when I was ‘not contributing’. While I might be privileged in staying home with my children now, I am paying a ‘mummy tax’ that will have a knock-on effect for the rest of my life. Again, that’s not to say I’ve got it rough because lord knows I’ve got it easy compared to so many women working their fingers to the bone night and day, but merely to point out that even those of us ‘privileged’ enough to stay at home are paying for it one way or another.

One can’t put raising children or managing a household on one’s CV as it is seen as irrelevant. And it will continue to be seen as irrelevant, even undesirable, as long as only labour that falls outside of the domestic sphere is treated as “real” work. Women who stay at home ARE working. It’s just that our contributions to society  aren’t counted in economic terms, even though they are great.

Saying that a child would be better off with one-to-one or small group care (which doesn’t have to be a parent) isn’t judgmental, it’s a pretty indisputable fact. That so many families are forced to put their children into cheap, large-group care where they aren’t given the individual attention they deserve (even though the care may be adequate for its purposes) is not acceptable or at least desirable. If women are expected to be proficient consumers and workers as well as primary caregivers, we need much better caring systems, heavily subsidised by the state, and with much better-paid and trained workers, along with more flexible working options for both parents. Don’t forget that one of the demands of the second wave movement was free 24/7 child care. We seem to have let that one fall by the wayside, leaving individual mothers in the lurch to fight that battle on their own.

Counting on men to step up the plate and start doing an equal amount of childrearing and housework hasn’t worked so far and, short of an economic and social revolution, doesn’t look likely any time soon, no matter how many baby steps have been made. Men are also constrained by long-established economic pressures and gender stereotypes. I fear that placing all of our hopes for change on fathers’ ability to break though rigid societal structures is going to leave us, and our children, waiting in the wings for a very long time. We can and should work towards a more equitable division of household and caring labour, not to mention an overhaul of gender stereotypes, but it has proven to be a slow, arduous process. In the meantime and in concert with those efforts, we should be working to value (both societally and economically) women’s work as primary caregivers and essential parts of our communities. We should make it easier for women to work, yes, but we should also make it easier for them (or their partners) to stay at home when their children are young if that’s what they want. And there’s nothing ’1950s housewife’ (read: derisory) about that.

Photo credit

Women’s bodies, men’s work (part 1)

30

2502352045_2d306b64e0

Vered at MomGrind recently wrote a post in which she relayed a conversation she’d had with friends about whether displaying cleavage is acceptable, inspired by some of the more ‘daring’ outfits worn by female celebrities at the Golden Globe awards. In the course of this conversation, it emerged that there seems to be two schools of thought when it comes to cleavage: Cover It Up, Sister and If You’ve Got It, Flaunt It. The first is generally thought of as the more conservative, repressive option and the second as more liberal and empowering.

Now, this may seem like a trivial issue to some but to me it is actually a great example of a real division within the feminist community and the public at large. Why? Because each school of thought on cleavage has two conflicting ‘sides’ supporting it; supporters who are, in many ways, diametrically opposed to one another. The Cover It proponents are usually either quite socially conservative and rank modesty as an important virtue in their personal morals (often on religious grounds), or they are quite liberal-minded, socially progressive people who think that while breasts are of course natural and an inherent part of women’s bodies, covering up is essential if they are to to get ahead and be taken seriously, especially in the workplace. Many feminists, particularly those of the Second Wave who had to fight to get into the workplace at all, fall into this category (though this is just a generalisation based on observation, not a hard-and-fast fact or attempt to pigeon-hole anyone).

Those who are in favour of the Flaunt It approach almost always think of themselves as neo-liberal, open-minded and supportive of sexual expressiveness and, again, includes many self-proclaimed feminists, especially those of the younger generation, or Third Wave. They think women should be able to wear whatever they want, however they want and whenever they want. They will defend a woman’s right to be ‘sexy’ and ‘feel good about herself’ and exclaim loudly that breasts are nothing to be ashamed of. This is all well and good. I support that view, in theory. However, within that ideology lurks dangerous territory; a faux-liberalism in which supporting women in their quest to be ever-sexier and conform to modern beauty standards is actually harmful, reinforcing the link that ties a woman’s body and perceived attractiveness directly with her feelings of self-worth and her abilities.

A perfect example of this is those What Not To Wear and How To Look Good Naked shows on television that purport to accept and even glorify women of all shapes and sizes, but which really, at their core, are just showing these women the tricks of the trade for getting as close as possible to the beauty ideal and giving them a patronising, ‘there, there love’ pat on the head about the parts of themselves that come up short. What’s so progressive about taking a woman who has had three babies (with the saggy tummy to prove it) and giving her a corset to wear underneath her clothes instead of the less acceptable methods of telling her to starve herself or have surgery? It’s not as bad as the latter, obviously, but it’s still not true acceptance. Every woman knows that no matter how proud she is of her ‘curves’, she must try to minimise and detract attention away from the parts of her considered less desirable and that don’t meet the criteria of perfection. Drawing attention to your large breasts because you know they will focus eyes away from your ‘thunder thighs’ isn’t exactly Body Confidence, is it? But I digress. Back to cleavage…

The other, oft-quoted caveat of some within the Flaunt It school is that it’s okay to show off your breasts, but only if they are of an acceptable size and appearance. If you are relatively young, of at least average weight and without any obvious disabilities, you will be encouraged to use your breasts to attract a partner and garner praise. At Mardi Gras? Show us your tits! At a club? Show us your tits! On the beach? Show us your tits! But if you’re not any of these, or with any other ‘affliction’ marking you out from the sexually available vixens, woe betide you. Wrinkled or exceedingly freckled? Ew! Naturally very large and/or ‘saggy’? Tuck ‘em back in! Too small? Who are you kidding! Pulling up your shirt to breastfeed a baby? Jesus, we don’t want to see THAT! So, still, the message is that ‘flaunting it’ is acceptable but only if you fall within the range of what is considered worthy of flaunting. If you are not pre-approved by the pornulation and empowerfulization committees for hawtness (be it because of your age, shape, weight or race) you won’t get your Dove blue ribbon award for not hating yourself quite as much as you used to.

Even the language we use to describe how we feel about our breasts is telling: Women with small breasts will talk about not feeling as feminine or ‘womanly’ and being unable to ‘fill out’ tops and dresses, while women with large chests, like a commenter on Vered’s post, say that men talk to their breasts, not their faces, and that normal clothes look “pornographic” on them, suggesting that large breasts are equated with not being taken seriously and sexual promiscuousness, which is a common and long-held prejudice that we’re just supposed to accept as the norm.

This leads me to the issue of women’s bodies in the workplace, the main crux of this discussion, for which a second post is forthcoming. I don’t want this sucker getting too long — brevity is not my strong suit and I’m trying to work on making posts more manageable and easy to read. Watch this space!

And in the meantime, tell me your thoughts and experiences with cleavage and body image. Are you a Cover It Up sort of person or a Flaunt It believer? Do you think showing off our bodies is empowering, harmful or a combination of the two?

Photo credit

Go to Top