Men and Women and Having It All

The Corinthian

Interesting opinion piece in today's IT: Why politics and family life simply do not mix.

I'll have to say I generally agree with her description of how politics works in Ireland, and most Western democracies, at a 'grass root' level. Personally, I've been to a few of these meetings over the years, but frankly go only on sufferance.

I couldn't do a politicians job. In part because someone like me is frankly unelectable - your average man on the street is unlikely to identify with me and I certainly am unlikely to identify with them, and often make little effort to hide this. I lack a politician's patient capacity to listen to tripe from constituents and to reflect back their views with a sense of empathy and conviction that makes them think that you care.

This is just one of those things. Not everyone can or wants to be a politician and I learned a long time that influencing rather than being them was often just as effective and far less tedious. We make our choices.

However, and more to the point, the article's author blamed the barrier to entry into politics on it being family unfriendly - which it is - and this meant women were at a disadvantage. Then towards the end, she betrayed a key sentiment - "I have a great husband, but that’s not the same, and anyway, call me a control freak, but I like doing the wife stuff."

And this is the core of the problem. A century ago, the traditional model had the man providing and the woman caring. A century of female emancipation and Feminism has meant that women now can choose between caring and the previously male role of providing - while men still have very limited choices where it comes to the reverse, due to a combination of prejudiced social attitudes and biased laws.

In short, you can't have you cake and eat it. If you want the provider role, then you're going to have to sacrifice much, if not all, of the carer role and if you want the carer role, you need to accept that you're not going to be the provider.

Unfortunately, because of how things stand legally and socially, this choice is really not open to either gender. Such are the attitudes and laws towards men adopting the carer role while their better half becomes the provider that it makes it difficult to impossible for men to do this. Child custody and rights laws are heavily skewed in favour of women, who are seen as the 'natural' child carer and even the role of homemaker is officially only recognized as a female one in our Constitution:

Article 41.2.1 In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

It's hardly surprising that, as a result, we live in a society that tacitly views house-husbands as lesser men, who are assumed to be home simply because they are lazy or somehow deficient in character.

This leaves the choice for women with a problem that can only be solved in one of two ways; either change those laws and attitudes so that the roles may be exchanged freely or seek a means whereby you can choose both, and ultimately, I don't think you can do that.

As such, I think the piece was a disappointment in that it did not realistically examine the limitations that will inevitably be placed upon our lives by our lifestyle choices and instead chose to bellyache about how we can't have it all.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

As such, I think the piece was a disappointment in that it did not realistically examine the limitations that will inevitably be placed upon our lives by our lifestyle choices and instead chose to bellyache about how we can't have it all.

That's exactly it. She talks about how it's in women's "nature" to care more about their family and, as you point out, somehow having a supportive husband isn't the same as having a supportive wife. Then she uses a personal anecdote that she likes to do the wifey/motherly stuff to somehow justify her previous sweeping generalisation that all women are naturally family-oriented.

What she's basically saying is that men are not as good as supporting their partners as women and anyway, sure it's in women's nature to want to do all that stuff anyway.

Infuriating!

Head The Wall

Sexism works both ways is what she's saying without realising it.

Bloody feminists demanding equality but only cases where it suits them.

Macha

Head The Wall wrote: »

Bloody feminists demanding equality but only cases where it suits them.

Thank you for lumping every single feminist in together. A truly subtle and nuanced opinion.

rolly1

Being a carer or being a provider are demanding jobs and no Sarah, you cant have it all; but it's nice to have the choice to attempt either or both as a female isn't it? So you like taking on the "domestic burden" instead of going into politics, nice being able to do what you like, no?

Rational people would be kind of appreciative of the choice, instead of bellyaching about it.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

Thank you for lumping every single feminist in together. A truly subtle and nuanced opinion.

While I would not agree with the manner of the criticism, Head The Wall does have a point. Feminism was created in the context of seeking more rights for women, not less - and so the idea that to get better choice for women would require them to sacrifice their monopoly on the carer role is ideologically alien to it.

The post-Feminist solution to this is to demand a change to the structure of society so that women can have do both without this sacrifice. It portrays role models, such as the lawyer in Sex and the City, who can be both the carer and provider - while glossing over the fact that in the Real World she'd probably be working an 18-hour day and suffering from burn-out syndrome.

Of course we could change politics and society to become more family friendly; we could supply low cost or even free child care to all and cap the working week at thirty hours. But then the article's author would no doubt write a follow up to bellyache about how 70% of her salary goes in taxes to pay for it all.

So unless Feminism can break from this cake and eat it mindset, women will continue to be spread too thin, while men will continue to be pigeonholed into an increasingly marginalized role.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

While I would not agree with the manner of the criticism, Head The Wall does have a point. Feminism was created in the context of seeking more rights for women, not less - and so the idea that to get better choice for women would require them to sacrifice their monopoly on the carer role is ideologically alien to it.

The post-Feminist solution to this is to demand a change to the structure of society so that women can have do both without this sacrifice. It portrays role models, such as the lawyer in Sex and the City, who can be both the carer and provider - while glossing over the fact that in the Real World she'd probably be working an 18-hour day and suffering from burn-out syndrome.

Of course we could change politics and society to become more family friendly; we could supply low cost or even free child care to all and cap the working week at thirty hours. But then the article's author would no doubt write a follow up to bellyache about how 70% of her salary goes in taxes to pay for it all.

So unless Feminism can break from this cake and eat it mindset, women will continue to be spread too thin, while men will continue to be pigeonholed into an increasingly marginalized role.

Again, you're talking about one particular strand of feminism, not all feminists.

Also, feminism is an evolving ideology and therefore the part in bold may have been accurate in the past but is not necessarily accurate today for all feminists. There are plenty of feminists, myself included, we were sold a lie with the "having it all" nonsense of the 1990s. As long as gender-based assumptions and stereotypes prevail, there will be someone losing out.

The Corinthian

taconnol wrote: »

Again, you're talking about one particular strand of feminism, not all feminists.

I'm not disagreeing with you about it only being simply one particular strand, but isn't that the dominant particular stand at present?

As long as gender-based assumptions and stereotypes prevail, there will be someone losing out.

I agree, but you're kind of in the minority there.

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you about it only being simply one particular strand, but isn't that the dominant particular stand at present?

Feminism isn't like Christianity with a Pope, official dogma and then heretical splinter groups. If by "dominant" you mean the strand that gets the most airtime, probably. The fact that Germaine Greer gets a regular column in the Guardian doesn't mean she is a spokesperson for feminism, even if she sets herself up as one.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree, but you're kind of in the minority there.

A depressing thought. I agree that being taught feminism in a certain way can blind women to the inequalities that men suffer. The author of this article certainly seems incapable of viewing the issue from the point of view of the other gender, which is rather a large point of considering gender issues.

metrovelvet

I can't see anything in that article that is remotely feminist, any strand of feminism I'm aware of anyhow.