“Nobody has yet come up with a satisfactory explanation of why in our culture sexual difference is synonymous with gender inequality”

Ms. Wilson, kindly, tell us what you mean by ‘sexual difference’ and ‘gender inequality’ so that I can proceed with the reading or your article.

Sexual difference - female or male

Gender - the social and cultural roles that are imposed on females and males based solely on biological difference

Gender inequality - inequalities that result from gender roles imposed according to sexual difference.

In short, gender up there, (brain) sex down there (between the legs.)
Cheers, Jennifer.

Perhaps the author should read this story, the story of someone born a male, but attempts were made to transform him into a female.

Didn't work.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/reimer/

As for equal gender representation on boards, why should there be?

It does definitely appear that the majority of women do not want to do outdoors work or work requiring much physical effort, they are not interested in mechanical, electrical or trade work, and they have minimal interest in innovation or developing new industry.

If they were foregin workers or someone seeking to immigrate into the country, no one would have them.

So why should there be equal representation on boards?

*In short, gender up there, (brain) sex down there (between the legs.)*

Ah Jennifer, but what is down there is driven by what is up there.
Neuroscience is showing us that there are indeed differences
between sterotypical male and female brains, influenced as they
are by different hormones. Yes, there are always exceptions.

The biggest inequality of all in our society today is of course sexual
power. Women hold it all.No wonder that there are so many
henpecked husbands out there!

I wonder is there gender roles for sheep, dogs, cats, birds, sea horses and snails? I'm all for not stopping people from doing things if they can do them, but some things are the way they are.

"No one has yet come up with a satisfactory explanation of why in our culture sexual difference is synonymous with gender inequality."

Jennifer, that strikes me as a piece of egregious deliberate ignorance of the bleeding obvious. Even with the great disadvantage of your education, you should still be able to see it. Come on. Stop playing dumb. What might be *one thing* that would make sexual difference synonymous with gender inequality? One thing that women do, that's not socially constructed, that is by nature sexual, and that men don't do?

Don't be such a tease, Peter. Tell me what it is that women do *that's not socially constructed, that is by nature sexual, and that men don't do?* that *causes* gender inequality, and while you're at it, tell me how and why it justifies that gender inequality?

You don't mean bleed, do you? Like the Alice Cooper song...Only women...

I asked you first.

Are you honestly arguing that there is no significance in the difference between male and female?

Jennifer,

Thanks for your beautifully graphic definition but my question was in all innocence.

Once I followed a course in Biology and from it I gathered that sex is the resultant of the interaction of genetic, hormonal and environmental inputs so that the resultant male or female are not beings at the opposite ends of a stick but anywhere between those ends.

Apparently it is a bit like the various degrees of virginity as claimed by the sellers of olive oil.

Peter you ask me: *Are you honestly arguing that there is no significance in the difference between male and female?*

I don't know how you came to that conclusion - I'm arguing that the gender roles imposed on women and men solely because of our biological difference inevitably lead to inequality.

I don't know what the inherent significance is in the difference between male and female - the significance is created by the gender roles a culture imposes. In itself, the fact that we are biologically different isn't significant, but what is made of it by a culture is.

Our culture uses biological difference to justify an inequality between women and men that is neither "natural" nor "normal", but constructed.

Why is the fact that a woman can give birth and a man can't grounds for social inequality in either instance?

Briar rose, if you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking very closely.

There is something about giving birth that changes most women very greatly. I believe it is probably a hormonal thing. Most of them go from being an individual to being a "mother". Protection of their offspring comes first, middle & last, & that includes a total change to their attitude to any thing that may endanger themselves, & thus leave the offspring exposed.

I have seen exactly the same thing occur in urban elites, suburban & country folk, bush kanaka villages, & even islander communities. I found it strange in islanders, where in general the whole village raise kids, once they are off the breast, & some as young as 3 or 4 will not come to the parents home for days.

Even there, after child birth most women stop doing even mildly dangerous things, like climb coconut palms, or go on fishing trips.

Closer to home I have seen so many lady equestrians, top eventers, at the high end of the sport, continue through marriage, but never get on a horse again after child birth.

It is not that long ago that a woman who returned to even totally safe but competitive sport, after child birth, was given the title "super mum". Think about it.

Hasbeen.

Interestingly, I get your point.

When i was twelve, i climbed almost to the top of a Norfolk Island Pine just get the view of the beach in front of me and look out to Rottnest Island. I was prone to taking risks just for the experience of living.

Moving on - I noticed that when I became a mother, there was no chance that I would indulge in that way...and the thought of my children emulating my adventures fills me with horror.

Continued.

This change in attitude which most women undergo at childbirth is, in no way imposed on women. As a matter of fact it is often greeted with bewilderment, & frustration by many men.

Many men find themselves living with a totally different creature to the one they married, & one who fits their hopes & plans very poorly. It often stops even mildly adventurous activity.

Fortunately, for some, it does wear off with enough years. That's why you will see very few traveling around Oz, soon after child birth. It is only after many years, usually after they become grandmothers that any of the ladies old adventurous spirit comes to the surface, hence the grey nomads.

It would be a good thing for the country if we could get all women out of any decision making roll, while they are in this cautious "I'm a mother" mode.

Ducks for cover!

i don't know what all the fuss is about,not worth writing about!

The more jobs the female can do the less for me to do and I can concentrate on things I like, such as watching the cricket. I do help with advice. Besides the more occupied they are the less time they have to think up work for me.

My wife once accepted my offer to buy her a ladies chain saw. Thought about it for 10 minutes and then came and gave me the two finger salute and a verbal barrage. Wouldn;t even accept a gift?

Hasbeen,

.....however, your parting comment is the most ridiculous "logic" I've heard!

Perhaps if women "in this condition" had more input, the world of human endeavour might be tempered somewhat and, therfore, not quite as screwed up as it is.

Banjo, on old bloke that I know, bought his wife and axe for
her birthday, as she was complaining about the firewood. So
she bought him a dishwasher :)

I think that Jennifer is simply refusing to accept biological
realities and IMHO women are far better at complaining then men.

Men are more commonly strategic thinkers, women more commonly empathic thinkers. That affects the things for which they have
a natural aptitude and their perception of the world.

Ask most women what is most important in their lives, they will
mention their kids. Why should that not be a valid role? Why
this obsession with women sitting on boards? Alot of those board
meetings are frankly very boring.

“Ironically, it's probably women who hold the key to the radical changes we need. Mothers are usually the primary influence in the infant's life, and carry the main responsibility for initially imposing gendered roles the infant will come to learn are "natural."”

“imposing gendered roles”

That is an unhealthily and suspiciously authoritarian way of putting things

Dress them how you like but I bet boys will still be relatively more “aggressive” and play at war, whilst girls will still be more “nurturing” and play with dolls, regardless the boys are running round in pink frocks and the girls in blue denim…..

It might even be something to do with hormones and their effects on brain development

So Jennifer, forget about imposing or compensating impositions which you think produce what you consider might be less than “natural”

When you have your baby and hopefully, you will not get post-partum depression, you will be happy that it has 10 fingers, 10 toes, two ears, two eyes separated by a nose and it resembles a miniature Winston Churchill.

After that you will be too busy bathing it and changing its nappy, whilst you husband is out working to support his and your responsibility to bother whether your child has a male, female or androgynous assignment.

(- we worry about the androgynous" bit in about another 13-15 years, when the issue of our loins start worrying about their own sexual orientation)

I suggest you just do the best you can for yourself and your family and leave everyone else alone to do the best for themselves

Banjo - "My wife once accepted my offer to buy her a ladies chain saw. Thought about it for 10 minutes and then came and gave me the two finger salute and a verbal barrage. Wouldn;t even accept a gift?"

she was lucky to still have two fingers.....

mind you.... women, chainsaws and PMT is not a healthy mix....

that is why we keep all the heavy dismembering gear in the Big Blue Blokey tool box, secured with a hefty padlock

Come on Poirot, you can't expect me to hold a serious train of thought for too long, now can you?

Jennifer

Just because women are not represented in equal proportions to men in law or any other occupation, does not axiomatically prove that there’s something sexist or unjust going on. Why not? Because you haven’t disposed of the possibility that it’s a result of people doing what they want, choosing what they prefer from legitimate options and limitations, and that there's nothing unfair or irrational about it.

“I'm arguing that the gender roles imposed on women and men solely because of our biological difference inevitably lead to inequality.”

You haven’t yet established that they are “imposed”, rather than arising from people valuing and treating “having-a-baby” differently from “not-having-a-baby”. Therefore you have not begun to establish that the problem is down to gender roles at all.

For example a co-worker recently announced she’s pregnant. Everyone congratulated and made a fuss over her. But they didn’t congratulate or make a fuss over me, obviously, because I’m not having a baby. So we have: significance of biological differences between male and female – people valuing and treating these differences differently – social inequality. Now accordingly to my theory, there’s nothing wrong with this, and no reason why people should not behave so. But according to your theory, there was “social inequality” and this axiomatically proves social injustice. It’s nonsense.

Since there *is* significance in the difference between male and female, how could it ever be the case that they are evaluated or treated “equally”? How? What would it mean? Women with a baby would be expected to work just as if they didn’t have a baby? Or men would be expected to take time off just as if they did? It’s meaningless.

People including women, in buying butter or legal services, pay for the satisfaction of their wants, not so as to make things easier for working mothers.

To prove your conclusion that gender roles are imposed and this is a social injustice, you assume in your premises that gender roles are imposed and this is a social injustice. So the structure of your argument is fundamentally illogical.

(cont.)
It is precisely the tendency of employers to seek profit that guarantees that women will be employed equally *if* their work is of equal value. The fact that this doesn’t happen despite equal-pay legislation, only begs the question why *you* don’t enter the market and make super-profits by employing all those women whose work, according to you, is “devalued”. But you won’t do that even where their conditions of work were equal to men’s would you, let alone where women had special consideration such as maternity leave and lactation breaks? Why not?

Your reasoning also involves the ecological fallacy: confusing class and case probability. If you put nine red marbles and one white marble in a bag, and take one out at random, it’s not going to be 90% red and 10% white, is it? By the same token, the fact that men and women are not represented in equal proportions in law or other occupations, does not self-evidently prove that women are being unjustly treated in individual cases. It only proves your confusion from a misunderstanding of aggregate measures.

Furthermore, your aggregate measures themselves involve the use of meaningless categories. Your argument depends on the idea that there is a class of persons with homogeneous capacities and interests called “men”, another class of persons with homogeneous capacities and interests called “women”, and that they do a homogeneous class of activities called “work”. Once we correct for these misconceptions, your entire argument evaporates.

To discuss a category called work without distinguishing between the work of opera singers or carpenters is obviously erroneous. But even within one occupation, some carpenters make formwork, some tables, and some make jewellery boxes, some in Sydney, and some in Dubbo. Even then, there is a difference between a jewellery box made by Jones, and all others.

“Work” is NOT a homogeneous category. It always involves a specific person doing specific activities with specific materials for a specific employer at a specific time and place. This is why the equal pay legislation has not resulted in sexual equality.

*How* would you establish that "men's" and "women's" work is equal in the first place?

Suppose there were two races of people, visually distinguishable. One race has a rate of violent crime of 0.1%, and the other has a rate of violent crime of 10%. You are a taxi-driver on a dark night. A person of the more violent race hails you. Now let’s suppose you decide not to pick him up. Have you done anything morally wrong? No! Why not? Because if he was in fact intending to violate you, you have done nothing wrong. But even if he wasn’t, you still have done nothing wrong, because he has no right to a service from you that you don’t agree to offer. That’s the fundamental human right of freedom of association. Those who don’t like it, should start their own taxi company and reap the benefits they allege, not bully those who disagree.

Similarly, if it was wrong to discriminate on the ground of sex, sexual preference would be morally wrong. Not only should separate male and female toilets be abolished, but you should give equal consideration to persons of either sex, as prospective sexual partners. It’s moral nonsense.

If you are an employer and you need someone who can make work their top priority, and you have two candidates equally qualified only one is a male and the other is a female, there is no reason why you should pretend as if females do not have babies, or that having a baby is, for all intents and purposes, the same as not having a baby, or that being at work is for all relevant purposes, the same as not being at work.

Gibbon famously said the mediaeval church “defended nonsense with cruelty”, and affirmative action legislation defends illogical moral nonsense with intolerant bullying.

The only way your argument could make sense is if you deliberately embrace factual and logical falsehoods for the sake, not of equality, but of a double standard by which women get an unequal and sexist privilege, which appears to be what you are doing.

peter,

Your last paragraph says it all.

Men's problem is that when we hear women say they want equality we think they want equality. This comes down to the way women communicate. When a women says, 'does my bum look big in this?' the last thing she wants to know about is whether her bum looks big. She wants reassurance that her bum is not big or some other compliment.

Society and women see themselves as much more valuable than men. Car insurance companies discriminate against men because we are suppose to be a bigger risk yet imagine if health insurance companies said men get a 30% discount because they work longer, take less sick days, seek medical help only a fraction of the times women do, and then have the courtesy to die 6 years younger and so save the taxpayer and health funds zillions!! It would be pandemonium.

The reality is that there are many more cases where women get a much better deal then men. However, men don't have a multi billion dollar industry in the universities, government and other groups to speak for their rights. We are just here to shut up and pay the bill.

So if the author is really just asking whether her bum looks big, I think it's time men started to say, honey, that's one big backyard you've got there.

Hm, no doubt Jennifer feels vindicated by some of the responses here.
I guess I should say firstly that I like, very much, the co-operation I see amongst the sexes and when it works in our nuclear families, it adds a sense of dignity and meaning to both male and female lives.

I would hate to see the concept of 'mother' deconstructed entirely, as some within bureaucracy seem so intent on doing.

However, I do agree with Jennifer that there is a social agreement to close our collective eyes towards the talents and personal aspirations of women.
Even now, it seems that having proves ourselves suitable for breeding (degree? check. Overseas travel? check) the most interesting parts of ourselves are often 'offered up' for motherhood.
At the same time, fatherhood seems to galvanise men, into becoming the most productive and powerful possibility for themselves.

This seems that many new mothers feel their best bet is to closely support their husband's career... aiming to live vicariously, sharing his success financially, and also personally.

I do not tend to see so many men closely abetting a woman's career development. In my own career days, most of the truly talented and successful women were single and doing it all alone, while the successful men were 'family men' with their children's photographs proudly on their desks.

Financial power IS power within marriage, and it is my view that men ultimately control and divert women's desire for power through sexual selection and relating. That men 'select for compliance' is a poor little joke of mine. No human wants a lover that is NOT co-operative...but what are the behaviours in women that men reward

(cont'd)
The number of female graduates who drop out to part-time is reflective of our sexual aspirations. (probably an important reason why HECS was brought in ... as a group, male graduates are far more productive than their female peers)

A 'family man' is a man in charge. when children come, 'good men' may double their workload. Personally, I approve of my husband's productive habits. Motherhood may bore me brainless, leaving me suffocated and lobotomised, there is no way I would choose to physically leave my baby in the hands of others - raising my own child seems as a birthright to me.

While women are routinely expected to sign as guarantor for their husband's business aspirations, proportionally far fewer men will put their financial lives in the hands and control of their wives.

In many if not most cases a woman must dance backwards, if she is to dance happily with a man. I would argue this is as men would have it... modern women must invest and risk so very heavily to win the 'right' to legitimately conceive and raise children, that there is often very little emotional energy left beyond the high-risk and drama of the dating game that continues so long into the fertile years.

At the same time, many women are ultimately unwilling to make the same sacrifices in terms of responsibility to succeed in the world of work. Nor will she be aided by her partner - she may even be emotionally 'punished' - if she were to attempt to spend the time, effort and importantly MONEY required for her to develop her professional skills to the highest level.

In my view the Fair Work Australia bid for increases in female-dominated areas of work is a total crock.

Playing 'the victim' and appealing to a bureaucracy for a legislated increase to allowances is no way to win respect and true equality for women in 2011.

Women must be honest and responsible about our financial and personal ambitions, even if at the risk of our sexual success. There are enough children in the world, anyway.

Oh dear, it would seem that thousands of years of genetic selection where the neurological basis of survival skills and human behaviour are hard wired into the neuro cortex gets left out in the cold, and a few short decades of 'equality' is all that is needed to rewire the thousands of years of the genetic selection process.

firstly 'equality' has become one of those extremely rubbery words, open to being manipulated to the extreme. Even with one's own gender not all people are treated equally. Some will have added advantages because of 'skill', 'looks' or just plain luck or hard work.

The extremely lopsided focus on gender equality where as more is the case these days, women's inequality is more imagined than actually real. Or is a matter of corrupted interpretation, or perspective.

If we were really serious about 'gender inequality' then both sides of the equation would be examined. But then if both sides were examined, with equally serious intent?

What would we find or uncover?

"Damning report exposes journalists who cry wolf."
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/read-all-about-it-damning-report-exposes-journalists-crying-wolf-20110624-1gjlz.html

A written statement I recall, I think says it all.

"If women only had sex with men who walked on their hands, pretty soon almost 50% of the population would be walking on their hands."

Equality, I do not think will ever be achievable.

Firstly because nobody has ever set down a set of principles to define what equality is, so that we know when it has been achieved.

What has happened it that the 'principles' keep getting moved. Once it was the vote, then is was property, wages, education, career.

The health care one was a bit of a furphy. Once the primary causes of early female deaths was addressed, sometimes in collaberation between the genders. The complications of pregnancy and child birth, women started out living men.

Interestingly many of the early industrial laws protected females workers, but not male workers.

Even today in our society we put much more value on the safety and wellbeing of the females than we do for males. In our society saving a female's life is much more valuable than that of a male.

Oh dear.

Peter, I don't agree with your premise, and you don't agree with mine. For a start I don't equate difference with inequality, as you seem to be doing, and as I'm arguing society does, to everybody's detriment.

To me, it's self evident that in our culture gender expectations and roles are imposed on a child at birth, or before. Your arguments confirm that.

I think that your fundamental argument, that difference equals inequality, is deeply flawed. Society is organized around just such a flaw and that's the problem.

Why are you *unequal* because you don't get pregnant and give birth? Who is attaching this value to you? Who is valuing you less than a pregnant woman? Using what criteria?

The world is full of people who are different fro me, for a million reasons. Are they all unequal to me? Am I unequal to them? Not unless the society we're in attaches a value to them and me that is unequal based only on our difference, rather than our abilities and achievements.

Fair Work Australia found that workers in the community sector are paid considerably less than others,even when they have tertiary qualifications, and the conclusion they arrived at was this is because the work is considered "women's work," and therefore undervalued and underpaid.

So there is a strong concept of "women's work" in our society, and the value attached to that concept is less than the value attached to other forms of work not considered to be "women's." This is entirely gender based, and nothing to do with ability, commitment, education, or anything else.
Jennifer

“I think that your fundamental argument, that difference equals inequality, is deeply flawed. Society is organized around just such a flaw and that's the problem.”

The other possibility is that you’re wrong.

You are reduced to arguing that things can be different without being unequal. But they can’t, because the whole point of things being different – in anything – is that we attach a different value to them. If we didn’t, we’d consider them the same. For example, in mathematics, when we say 2 + 2 “equals” 4, what we’re really saying is, 2 + 2* are the same as* 4.

When you go shopping for a dozen eggs and 500g of butter, you don’t say “Well I can get a dozen eggs here, and a ton of eggs there, so I’ll get the ton, because to me, even though these quantities are *different*, they’re still *equal*. And though this 500g of butter costs $1, and that 500g of butter of the same quality costs $2, I’ll buy the $2 one, because they are both equal in my eyes.”

That’s not what you do, is it?

It’s cognitive and moral nonsense. It would transform the world and society into a senseless jumble. It’s not even possible, let alone desirable.

When you, and everyone, makes such decisions, you are sending signals, via the price mechanism, up the line of production. And the signals you are sending to the producers say to them “I am prepared to pay for what it takes you to produce this butter because I want to butter my sandwiches, but NOT so as to pay any extra for your lifestyle choices unrelated to making butter. I do NOT regard your desire for maternity leave as “equal” to my desire for buttered sandwiches.”

*That’s* what’s causing the phenomenon you see, not imposed gender roles.

If this were not so, then butter advertised as made with maternity leave would command a premium among consumers, especially feminist consumers. It doesn’t because they, like you, don’t even agree with your own theory.

Briar rose, has it ever occurred to you that all tertiary qualifications are not equal? Those who settle for light weight qualifications do have to settle for light weight job prospects.

Then you persist in this fallacy that gender expectations are "imposed" at child birth. Your desire to be a victim is very strong.

You could equally well suggest that for a male, the prospect of being killed by the mammoth you were hunting to feed your tribe was "imposed" at birth. If this is what you are arguing, you are not doing it very well, as I have gained the opposite impression. You seem to suggest that he is only having fun.

Yes, the impression give is that you believe that our inherited instincts are a burden for women, but only women.

I have only met a very few men for whom breading was important, a few, but very few. In fact, most men I know would prefer not to be fathers. Most of them have become fathers to please a lady they love. The lady who became increasingly desperate to breed as her age increased. If any "hood" is imposed by society it is fatherhood, not motherhood.

The fact that most women find motherhood somewhat less full filling than their hormones told them it would be, is not the fault of any man. The man involved has very often given up some long held dreams of his own to grant his ladies desire.

I have personal experience of this. My eldest daughter had sailed over 2000 nautical miles by the time she was 9 months old, but I had to give up my lifestyle because of her mothers growing fear. This lady who could handle a yacht in any howling gale before motherhood, was now fearful on the boat, even in port.

Continued

You may be correct that very many women feel let down, even cheated, in life. They have believed everything would be perfect, in todays world, with motherhood, a nice home, car, & labour saving devices. That so many of them are basically dissatisfied with their life, as their children reach maturity makes this obvious.

You see many of them at any gathering. Middle class women who are unhappy with their lot, although they have everything they ever aspired to, all the "things" at least. Yet some how happiness continues to elude them.

She has no idea why she is not happy, but in her attitude you can see that she blames him. The poor bloke has no idea what he has done wrong. How can he? She doesn't know herself, but he's done something wrong anyway.

If you are a bloke in this position, hang on there, she just may grow out of it. The coming of grand kids does appear to be a switch, a bit like childbirth.

Your lady just may turn back into the one you married, & once again enjoy doing things with you. It may even be some of the things you have wanted to do for years.

Those grey nomads can't all be wrong

There are very few imposed gender roles anymore given that everyone has access to a wide variety of occupations depending more on individual talents and motivation. Much of what is limited is more self-imposed I would think than society imposed. 'Society' has come a long way from the times when women were forced out of the workforce by law once they were married. Those few troglodytes left are a minority but I concede if you come into contact with them, that is hardly any consolation.

Women do not hold sexual power any more than men do. I always marvel at that comment. Men can say no too - I don't hold that men are so governed by sexual urges all reason goes out the window. It might come as a shock but women like sex too.

Being a mother is not something that should be demeaned. More men are staying at home although it is still largely a woman's choice. While it is mainly men oddly enough that diminish the role it is disappointing that some women also diminish the role perhaps in emphasising the importance of career. I tend to ignore those who imply, perhaps unconsciously, that women who choose home over career are somehow lacking, letting the side down or choosing to be a chattel.

I reckon Col is right, people in the main should just be left to get on with what they think is best for them and their families.

Gaining social approval is for those who lack the confidence of their own convictions and let's face it - what a pointless endeavour.

"While women are routinely expected to sign as guarantor for their husband's business aspirations, proportionally far fewer men will put their financial lives in the hands and control of their wives."

floatinglili, I work in an area where I get to view this firsthand. I agree that in more than 50% of instances, women go along with their partner's business desires. However I disagree that they are routinely expected to sign as guarantor (although some are expected to sign on the dotted line without questioning). As for who has financial control, I would argue in the case of the 500-odd businesses that I deal with, its the wife making the underlying decisions. The other 50% the wife is there to breed, look after the children and look after the household. I am pretty satisfied with the split - 50% is quite a reasonable representation. Whilst I could not possibly cope with handing over the financial responsibility in my household (the small amount of time I did this whilst having my two children just about drove me nuts), there are some women that are most happy to do so. I tend to not befriend these women much, because we dont have a lot in common to talk about, but I respect their choice. At the end of the day they have ended up married to a person that suits them.

Aaaargh!

I am saying that it is unacceptable to attach worth to a human being based on what genitals they have!

Forget butter, how do you decide on the value of a human being

@Peter Hume. Yes I get your argument about butter, and completely agree. I do think though that it is important for a child to have time with their parent/s as a young baby, and I support unpaid parental leave in this context. I would dearly like to see more fathers take up this opportunity (instead of whinging that they are working so much more and never seeing their kids). My boss (male) believes that men should have access to flexible working hours as well as women, and makes this available as an option. I work whatever hours I need to get the job done (at the moment that's 5.30-7.30am, home to get the kids ready for school, then back to the office at 9 to do a full days work) - in return for this, I can go to school assemblies, finish early on Fridays, and knock-off by 6pm. Blokes are free to do the same if they are willing to get out of bed early.

Jennifer,

Could it be that our society is now too complex? All these "problems" associated with gender have accompanied our triumph over previously unquestioned gender-specific roles.

In a traditional village there would be no argument in the raising of a child in a gender-specific manner. This would be a matter of the intrinsic value of each gender being seen for what it was.

I think it comes with the territory that once we reached a stage of development where gender lines were blurred we would begin to argue about the specifics of the new paradigm.

Humans have always been in the grip of a dominant truth regime regarding gender - the only difference is that now we can peek inside the womb and begin the process earlier.

*Women do not hold sexual power any more than men do*

Sheesh, in that case men will have to try a bit of role reversal
here. "Honey, if you go shopping for those clothes, I won't
sleep with you for a month" That should stop em.

Yes, Poirot I agree with your village analogy up to a point.

However, going back to the research that claims that from birth, and now pre birth, girls and boys are viewed differently by parents and society, girls as objects of the male and female gaze, boys in terms of what they accomplish, one has to accept that this is going to have an effect on how they both engage with the society in which they live.

This situation is peculiar to a capitalist society that stands to profit enormously from exploiting sexual difference. I don't know how any comparisons can be made between our culture and that of a traditional village. A girl child in a traditional village is not socialized as an object of the male and female gaze as is a girl child in a capitalist society.

My question is how much of gender role assignation in our society is constructed and controlled by capitalism? And how much of the "value" assigned to women and men is entirely determined by capitalism, and has nothing at all to do with so-called "natural" and inherent differences?

Peter, your claim that difference is solely defined by value is rubbish. (IMO)

We note a difference, and then we attach a value to that difference. If we're racist we note a black skin and a white skin and attribute a value or a set of values to that difference in skin colour without seeking any other information about the person concerned. If we're sexist, we do the same based on genitals.

That value is then inevitably regarded as a "moral" value. In fact it's entirely to do with what we like and what we don't like, or what we've been taught we should like or dislike, to which predispositions we add the weight of ethical significance.

As Nietzsche wrote somewhere in Beyond Good and Evil, morality is nothing more than emotions, and obedience to cultural customs. i.e. traditional ways of behaving and evaluating.

The child in the womb, as soon as it is sexed, is imbued with the cultural and moral evaluations that we traditionally consider appropriate to that sex. The values do not determine it's sex. Its sex determines the values that will be imposed on it.

Read what Yabby writes if there's any doubt as to the attribution of moral worth according to sex.

Jennifer, your premise that woman are paid less then men because
"womens work" is seen as less valuable, is clearly proven wrong
by the evidence.

Being a supermodel is largely deemed to be "womens work", they
are hardly shortchanged by the market. For that matter, neither
are super hookers.

Briar rose
In terms of traits, there are genetic traits, and also traits derived from environmental influences.

See genotype and phenotype, as I think most feminists undergoing mind training in universities often get the two mixed up.

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/BioInfo/GP/Definition.html

Most people in society have a value, as most contribute in some way, although the contributions from some do seem very minimal if they carry out misinformation and bigotry.

To portray women are “carers” in very much a part of bigotry and misinformation, as it indirectly portrays men as being “non-carers”, and then men have to defend themselves from accusations of being “non-carers”.

I won’t bother attempting to defend myself from that type of accusation, but it could be left to the accuser to have a look around them.

If they are in a building, almost everything in that building has to be built and installed to a certain government standard to ensure the safety of any person in it.

That is caring, and that type of caring extends to nearly every aspect of everyone’s life now, because every time they get food from a shop the food has to be to a certain standard, and every time they drink water from a tap, the water has to be of a certain standard.

Those standards are there for the health and safety of people, regardless of who they are.

The idea that capitalism oppresses women is also misinformation and bigotry.

Build a house that doesn’t abide by council standards, and see how long the council allows you to keep the house, and not pull it down.

""Honey, if you go shopping for those clothes, I won't
sleep with you for a month" That should stop em."

Yabby I have never in my life heard of any women who make those sorts of statements. That is something out of Hollywood. Where do some of you people live?

Men are qually capable of rejecting a woman if she is not to his liking. When women age their sexual 'powers' decrease while men tend to age more gracefully often looking more debonair and distinguished in older age. Perhaps Yabby it is swings and roundabouts and you can seek your revenge. :)

Sexual allure is not power - power can only be handed to someone not taken in this context.

As for Jennifer's article, thankfully the paradigm is changing and there are less rigid structures around what constitutes men's work or women's work. There are still some remnants in some spheres such as defence force participation and child care in the home more likely based on the fact that biologically women give birth and breastfeed but after that time, the choices are wider for men and women.

I have met as many nurturing and caring men as women, men can indeed be just as capable of being the primary carer. It is all a matter of individual characteristics rather than gender generalisations.

While there are obvious differences between men and women they are not so profound as to enable any rigid rules around work. There may be less attraction for many women to work on construction sites but equally there are more women attracted to nursing in aged care homes.

It doesn't matter really as long as people are free to make choices.

pelican,

Women don't only have the sexual power they also have the financial power. Something like 60-70% of divorces are initiated by women. They know that in a divorce they will get the house, kids...basically the lot. This means that women have enormous power in marriage and that men are disempowered. Men know that if the marriage breaks down they lose everything. This plays itself out daily in who gets what they want.

Then we get these 20 and 30 something women complaining that men won't commit. So we have this case where men don't want to get married because they know the odds are stacked against them and then when they do women still complain about......well, everything.

Pelican
Yes, that’s it in a nutshell. The basic value is freedom, not equality per se.

Jennifer
“We note a difference, and then we attach a value to that difference.”

Yes and for a very good reason - sexual difference makes a difference to reality. Even before a child is born, people rightly understand that a female is a member of the class who have babies, and men aren’t. This has consequences, durr. It’s not just arbitrary and capricious as you seem to imagine.

It’s not that some wicked class of exploiters out there is causing the social construction of gender. It’s that *you* by your behaviour and everyone else including all women are causing the devaluation of women’s work because you do *not* value the productivity of a baby, or a woman with a baby, as “equal” to the productivity of a man. There’s no reason why they should value them equally, for the bleeding obvious reason that they’re not equal.

The only possible way it could be as you are suggesting, is if people valued having-a-child as “equal” to not-having-a-child. But Jennifer, what would be an example of people valuing a baby as “equal to” not-a-baby? It doesn’t make sense. Give us an example, if you are not to be accused of arrant nincompoopery.

Therefore I have explained why it is, and you haven’t explained why it isn’t, rational and fair to distinguish the actual and potential difference that sex – not “gender” - makes to value.

As for your very funny idea that it is a peculiarity of capitalism that girls are valued for their looks and males for their accomplishments, when I related this to my wife she exclaimed with a horse laugh: “So traditional Indian peasants valued girls equally? They killed them! That’s barking mad!”

Yes sorry Jennifer, but that theory really is barking mad.

Wifey also said: “Can you imagine how deeply ingrained it is in the female psyche that someone should pay for their baby?”

Now there’s a better theory explaining Jennifer's argument!

Women in modern consumer society use the same value system as men. That means that everything is valued in monetary terms.

Capitalism is all about material gain and consumption, so that all members of society set their values according to how much of the action is attached to themselves. I have no doubt that both genders are exploited by capitalism - with the full approval of each.

I believe that instead of fashioning their own value system which gives credence to their role as mothers and nurturers, women have tried to have it both ways by juggling their reproductive responsibilities while trying to match it with the men in the cut and thrust of capitalist practice. The sexualisation of girls and women as eye candy is really just another commodity in a system that commodifies almost everything.

Imagine the shift in consciousness if women were to lead the way in affirming their strengths instead of attempting to go forward with a foot in both camps. I don't think it can be achieved in a capitalist society, as everything takes second place to profit and gain, and the kudos attached to "material success".

Poirot
Women have never had it so good. They have never been safer or lived longer, and almost all of that can be attributable to men.

There is now the situation of Marxist/feminists sitting in air-conditioned offices with carpet underfoot, and everything around them has been built or installed to a government standard to ensure it is as safe as possible.

But the Marxist/feminist can’t stop complaining.

“Women in modern consumer society use the same value system as men. That means that everything is valued in monetary terms.”

No it’s not. Only things that can be exchanged against money can be valued in monetary terms. When people fall in love, or have a baby, these things cannot be valued in money terms. Indeed in terms of money, they may and often do represent a loss. Therefore not everything of value is valued in money terms.

Indeed, nothing of ultimate importance can be valued in money terms, since money – the *medium* of exchange – can only be used as a *means* to satisfy given ends. Strictly speaking, it is only those *ends* that are the real locus of value.

Money does not provide a “value system”. It *enables* goods and services to be exchanged against a common medium of exchange, and it enables calculation in terms of that lowest common denominator, which would not be possible under barter.

“Capitalism is all about material gain and consumption, so that all members of society set their values according to how much of the action is attached to themselves.”

People set their values according to whatever they want. For example, at some stage, all people prefer to sacrifice material gain and consumption - what you’re calling “action” - in favour of increased leisure. Many people sacrifice greater income or career advancement for the benefits of being with their partner, being with their children, love, family life, etc. Therefore it is not true that people under capitalism invariably set their values according to material gain, nor that “capitalism” requires it.

“I have no doubt that both genders are exploited by capitalism - with the full approval of each.”

Well if they approve it’s not exploitation is it?

Men have enjoyed looking at the beauty of girls and women since before people were people; it’s hard-wired into our brains. There is no society in the history of the world, anywhere, ever, where this was not so. All the men who didn’t enjoy female beauty became extinct. To ascribe this enjoyment to “ capitalism” is ludicrous woolly thinking.

There is no reason why people should not enjoy female beauty, nor buy and sell goods and services which satisfy their want to enjoy it. The consent of the parties answers all questions of morality: there’s nothing exploitative about it. It’s an absurd argument to say it “commodifies” females - the buyer obtains no property right in any female as a result of the transaction. It’s literally as stupid as saying that women only go to cafes because they enjoy the “slavery” of the waiter.

What kind of insane Puritanism is it that castigates female beauty as being nothing but the tool of exploiters, and vilifies men for enjoying female beauty as dreadful beasts? What lemon-sucking, hateful, sexist, anti-life creed is this?

There is nothing wrong with women choosing either to work, if they want to, or stay at home and look after their children, if that’s what they want. And there’s nothing wrong with employers, seeing that women have babies, preferring to employ men, all other things being equal. Those who claim that women’s work is undervalued should go right ahead and employ women on the favourable terms they think right – and pay the costs themselves!

It is precisely the anti-capitalists arguing for laws to forcibly subsidise women's choices, who consider money more important than higher values such as human freedom and equality under law, and who devalue women!

Well, I think it comes down to male brute strength and historical change.
A matter of generations even for the most advanced western societies (Eurocentric, blah) for a species only a few million years down from the trees and a mere ten thousand years of that into serious civilisation- building. However the long evolving social and cultural communicative mechanism don't work in a post industrial era; people are still trying to build their lives around conditioning that sees them think themselves nineteen fifties people- pink for girls, blue for boys, marriage, Father Knows Best.
It's only been two generations since the Pill came on tap and people in societies like ours set off on an adventure not conceivable even by HG Wells.
Capitalism certainly has shredded so many of the good old things and replaced these with seemingly little. It's mentality seems ubiquitous down through the ages. We need to get civilised about what we want for future generations as well as ourselves, but I suspect evolution real or artificial, may tend to be the game changer in future, or not at all the way the world has been and continues to be, run.