In the office while making a cup of coffee this week, I was impressed by a professional and serious discussion taking place about strategy by two of the few men in the office. They sound so serious, expert and intelligent discussing tactics and management. It was only after a few minutes that I realised they were discussing football, a hobby. It was a way of having small talk and bonding (with the few other men around) but sounded more informed and intelligent than when they discuss work – their actual expertise.
I am also amazed at the amount of chat by women about relationships, their love lives, family, parents, or friends. Not just in the office, but in the pub, over coffee, walking in the park. The analysis is often as in-depth as the football chat.
This is an old cliché. That men talk about football and women talk about emotions and relationships. Its obviously an absurd generalisation and stereotype. There are lots of women that love discussing sport. And I discuss relationships and love with my male friends just as much as with my female friends. Sometimes more.
What is interesting though is how these habits are ascribed gender characteristics. Apparently men talk about football because they don’t do emotions and are better at facts and physical strength. And women talk about love because they are better at emotions and relationships.
But I really doubt how much this is down to differences in men and women and whether these are ‘male’ or ‘female’ characteristics.
I have a longstanding argument with my husband about the differences between men and women. I think that there are little or no differences except physiological and biological differences and everything else is a process of social conditioning and learning what it is to be ‘male’ and ‘female’. I sometimes go even further and argue that women are ascribed characteristics that prevent them from succeeding in life. My pet hate is multitasking. I think women are told they are naturally good at multitasking because it means they are more conditioned to perform menial jobs that require juggling lots of small things, and gets men off the hook with domestic chores. Multitasking is a useful skill if you’re a mother juggling a baby, cooking and your long list of things to do. Its useful if you have an administrative role at work. But its no good if you need to focus and concentrate – an apparently ‘male’ trait.
Gustavo thinks this is absurd and that men and women are clearly totally different and have different clusters of characteristics because of their gender.
Well a new report out this week by the think tank Demos put this debate on the political agenda. In the report Yvonne Roberts argues that there is evidence to support my theory that it’s all largely learned and conditioned by parenting, schools, and the wider society. She does point out that the scientific evidence is confusing and could be used to draw either conclusion.
But while the jury is out on the evidence, I think it makes sense to try to keep gender away from characteristics as much as possible because of the constraints that this can put on equality, success and happiness. The report argues that confusion about what is masculine and feminine restrains women (it’s not feminine to be tough at work and push for promotion, and women are good at multitasking so take the lion’s share of domestic work) and it also constrains men (its not masculine to be good at communication – a skill required to find job where there has been a shift from manufacturing to predominantly service economy).
Roberts adds some evidence to my previous post about the lack of good female role models in film. In a study of Hollywood films released from 2006-2009 out of 5,554 lead characters only 29% were female and out of these a quarter were eye candy (compared to 4% of men). Roberts asks the same question I’ve been wondering, ‘So where are the positive heroines?’
 |
| Female Warrior, Greek statue |
Interestingly a worthy new group, the Man Collective, has been set up to help men redefine what masculinity is. They feel they are part of a generation of men who feel lost and confused about their role now that they are no longer the ‘breadwinner’.
I have many male friends struggling with this inherited idea they should be the ‘breadwinner’, earning enough to ‘take care of the family’, while in reality their partners are earning more or they aren’t in a position to earn enough to be defined as the ‘breadwinner’. And this is despite the fact that they know rationally this is absurd, that we don’t live in that world anymore, and that one of the reasons they are attracted to the women they are with is because of their ambitious or success at work.
Generations of women, rightly, have been trying to redefine femininity. Men need to do the same. And together we need to try to loosen the expectations of gender and allow for men that enjoy gossiping and women that run companies.
So an ambitious woman who is good at negotiating is not masculine, she’s just ambitious and good at her job. Or when a man is sensitive or makes an effort with his appearance he’s not ‘in touch with his feminine side’, he’s just more balanced and making an effort.
One of my favourite quotes from Roberts paper is from Edward Glover who gave an influential series of broadcasts for the BBC, arguing that women were naturally weak, needed domesticity to impose discipline, without which they would fall to ‘an orgy of knitting. Failing such solace they are inclined to eat their hearts out.’
Harsh! Although I quite like the image of an orgy of knitting….
No comments:
Post a Comment