The great feminisation theory.

Whitewavemark2

The latest gem from the far right in America and beginning to get a footing in the U.K.

The right are now talking about what they see as an existential problem of women in the professional workplace. The argument is that professions are becoming too feminised. The traditional roles and distinct areas of influence have been muddied largely to men’s detriment and the innate rolls the two sexes fill, so - men = strong fighters, providers - women = caring non-rational role.

We must get back to the “proper rolls fulfilled by the sexes.

Takes some believing!

The issue is greatly obscured by misinterpretation of evolution. There is a good Barry's Economics on "How the Rich Hijacked Evolution". I'll try to put over what he says.

What is the first thing most people think when they hear the word "evolution"? He suggests "survival of the fittest".This phrase is used a lot when people talk about evolution. The deal is "kill or be killed". "It's a dog eat dog world". I don't think any of us would be surprised to here this tripping off the tongue of the anti-feminists.

But this isn't true. Although most people think thus was the conclusion Darwin reached - it wasn't. He never said "survival of the fittest". Not once in the Origin of the Species or in comments. The phrase was invented by one Herbert Spencer. Who is Herbert Spencer? Well that's the point, isn't it. He wasn't the man who did all the work he was a man who knew how to capture an untruth that sounded good.

The Rich loved Spencer. His phrase allowed them to say "nature" decides who survives. Anti-feminists love his little phrase too. It helps the "keep women in their place" (the "place" decided by them) and, from Atilla the Hun, though to the nazi propoganda to the Christian "right and white" Evangelical protestants it has been used in favour of the rich. Barry explains "motivated reasoning" far better than I can, but thius sort of reasoning is all about starting with what you want and finding anything you can to support it - even if it isn't true!

Darwin's theory was about adaptation not strength. About being able to change as the world changes - just as women have always done. When he wrote about humans he said that the groups that survived weren't the most selfish. They were the ones that showed sympathy and empathy. The tribes that looked after their weak, that helped each other. Cooperation won the game.

The rich, the hoarders of wealth, are clearly telling us the world belongs to them and their henchmen. The question is, when women come out so badly under these dictatorships, why do women support them?

Personally, I would like to see more strong women leading their countries. It may be an idealised way of thinking but I wonder if there would be less conflict in the world if more women were in powerful positions.

Any one ever read about the Nordic Gender Paradox?
Very interesting stats on equality of opportunity and the unexpected outcomes with regards to personal choice of careers.
It appears to contradict the perceived outcomes.

Whitewavemark2

David49

I see the feminization of the workplace as the men let women run things - then the men take less responsibility. A growing number seem to take no responsibility for anything, I think that is very bad for society in general

Blimey that is a loaded post!

I genuinely despair at the behavior and lifestyle of a great many young men.

They don’t need to take responsibility they have each other for companionship, spend their money on beer, (or weed), cars, gambling or whatever they want, pick up a girl whenever they want, no commitment. I’m glad I don’t have to find workers, even 20 yrs ago women were a far better prospect for getting the job done

Maremia

They want us to be 'surrendered wives', and some women in the States are going along with this coercion.

Some women in the States will prefer that way of being - submission and giving over of responsibility totally to your partner.

I'm not against choice. Some women will be coerced but those it genuinely suits do exist and aren't "letting the side down".

Thank you MOnica

That is where we want to go.

David, there are so very many ways of taking responsibility, for men, and for women. Traditional male roles are not the only ones for men, and indeed have been a straitjacket for far too many.

We do nto wanr masculinised work psaces any more than we want feminised work places. What we want are work spaces that are nurturing for everyone; male and female, regardless of culture or ethnicity, whether you are disabled, neuro diverse or just plain awkward.

In the past many workplaces, especially above operative level, have been primarily male places run to suit men. Times have changed. Workplaces at every level have become more diverse. so cultures must change.

David49

I see the feminization of the workplace as the men let women run things - then the men take less responsibility. A growing number seem to take no responsibility for anything, I think that is very bad for society in general

Blimey that is a loaded post!

I see the feminization of the workplace as the men let women run things - then the men take less responsibility. A growing number seem to take no responsibility for anything, I think that is very bad for society in general

I think that you are right, Dorrian. Some work on which parts of the brain respond to certain stimuli suggest that some people are better suited to roles requiring empathy and others to careers in which analytics are important.
Perhaps this means that traditional " caring" professions may continue to attract more women, and subjects such as engineering possibly be more likely to be attractive to men.
The important part is choice. The feminist movement was clear on equal pay and equal opportunities for women and men. If a man wants a career in nursing, or a woman as an engineer, that should be open to both.
It does not, necessarily mean that Early Years jobs will be filled 50 % by men and women, or that heads of international engineering firms will automatically be half and half men and women.
It allows, surely, men and women to choose their work/life balance. Some will want the top job, and understand the impact of this on other aspects of their life: others will decide that the price is too high.
As an addendum - my highest paid, family member, head of a department of engineering in an international business is my DIL.

While this is slightly left of field the nature vs nurture debate is an interesting one.

I work in early childhood and for a few years we had a consultant visit weekly to assist with the educational programme. She had a PHD in early childhood and insisted that gender is a social construct.

She tried imposing all sorts of activities and actually removed toys she deemed as reinforcing the social norms.

She had no children of her own and clashed with parents on a regular basis.

She would literally push the boys into the art area and insist they produce something. She removed the dolls and cots etc on the day she worked at the centre all of which was totally at odds with regulations related to play based learning.

After a few years and a change of director she was not invited back, and all the staff were relieved, to say the least.

On a different tangent I remember the expression, 'Men end life and women create life' and it held true for millennia.

Times are changing and unfortunately some men feel threatened by women who challenge this long held belief.

As a parent and teacher I try to temper gender norms but do NOT stifle innate needs, we need to find the middle ground and I sense and we are slowly finding our way.

That feels rather familiar in terms of what Mum and Dad actually said, but actually, apart from politics..

She was da boss.

However that also involved her being busy every evening as she worked full time as a teacher, and Dad sitting watching TV. and she got up at 6am, but to be fair that was partly to have a little sit down and time for herself before the morning chaos with 4 children started.

Years ago I read a statement which very roughly said “my husband makes the important decisions like who we should go to war with and what cars we should have, whereas I decide on the smaller issues such as which school the children should attend and where we should live”. I’ve probably got the second part a bit wrong, but it both amused me and (thinking of my parents) struck a chord.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Yes, I found this a bizarre statement. I watch quite a lot of TV police reality programmes. Police women have a way of handling some men in aggressive situations at times that are far more effective than men. All in the psychology of it.

Few very drunk men can compete with a well trained police woman who has a baton or taser and knows how to use them. And those who have martial arts training at the most basic levels are substantially advantaged.

ArthurAskey

I have to say the most women police officers are totally useless when it comes to policing the streets.

You have not met our 2 PCSOs. Both under 5 ft, they terrify the young tearaways around here!!

Replying to Namsnanny

ON: Nature or nurture, and violence against women

I think it's an interesting question, a mixture of both,

Here is the Nordic paradox theory in full

"The "Nordic Paradox" refers to contradictory trends in highly gender-equal Nordic societies, primarily the coexistence of strong gender equality with a surprisingly low representation of women in top leadership roles (the Gender Equality Paradox)

and disproportionately high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women (the IPV Paradox).

This highlights that while Nordic countries excel in women's labour participation and welfare support, systemic issues, cultural norms, and policy impacts (like favouring shorter work hours) can hinder female advancement and fail to fully address violence despite progressive ideals"

I believe it's based on issues of our time, and grossly over simplifies behaviour rather than "fixed in stone for ever"

The main point I'd like to make is that the apparent rise in violence is not because of a change in male behaviour but that in Nordic countries that law is such that women now report incidents they have not previously
The problem of certain kinds of male behaviour has not gone away, and progressive countries are still trying to work out how to deal with it and make changes.

Centuries of patriarchy in terms of matters like male violence, the desire to control women, does not go away in a matter of 40 years or so

The other point I'd like to make is that the so called paradox assumes that women if given the opportunity, actually want these "high value" leadership roles.

I honestly don't know if its nature or nurture: whether the way some women who do rise to a high level are currently vilified in social media and often in a particularly nasty way like rape threats from men who feel disempowered as a group,

Or whether is is a born disinclination to take a "lead" in the way our current society is structured.

Currently this is true

"Where more women choose to work in the 'caring' nursing/educational etc. sector, and men in engineering/tech etc?

But is it true for now, the way we are still brought up, our sense of selves, our confidence, the possibilities of working outside of gendered expectations still relatively new, and could change over time?

Anybody read about the Nordic gender equality paradox? Where more women choose to work in the 'caring' nursing/educational etc. sector, and men in engineering/tech etc?
Nature or nurture?

The argument needs to be more nuanced. Each sex is more suited to certain work than others. We'll always need some female police officers and soldiers and some male nurses but the majority will always be one sex.

My post was highlighting GMT8

☝️this is where people who wish to protect women's rights should be concentrating.
Setting right against left is a strategy to confuse the public. Don't we know better now?

Christian fundamentalists meets the Handwives Tale .. its so exhausting living this life a century later .. I SO hope it improves for my Daughter & her daughter 🙏🥰

The Stepford Wives movement is unlikely to gain a foothold in the UK. We have the Suffragette legacy to remind us of the need to fight for our rights. The trans women activists, who continue to try to gain access to women's cloakrooms, prisons, hospital wards, refugee, rape crisis centres etc, seem to be losing the political argument that they are women (thank you the Supreme Court). We need to continue to be protective of our rights as there are men who want to remove them.

Women have proved time and time again that they can fulfil professional roles just as well as men can. For generations women have managed to excel at traditionally male jobs when they have won the opportunity.

It is for this reason I cannot find myself too worked up about it all, either way.
As in, yes lots of women in top professional roles. In largely office situations.
But equally, there are endless[often non office based] jobs that are still very much predominately men led.

Evens itself out in my opinion.

Its not about numbers of politicians, you are entirely missing the point here

this is to belittle a whole movement of women

who struggled for real change and are still tackling high levels male abuse in our communities:

Many men are still often suffering from the straitjacket of judgemental traditional masculinity (ie, ideas about being a success, being a 'loser", unable to share feelings) and quite often in "AIBU" we have men from our generation who insist on doing little in the home but insisting on control...

And women, we are still only beginning to be "heard" properly on issues like abuse and getting police involved/being supported/believed, and proper support for going back to work. Long way to go.