I have been meeting some of my besties in Portugal. What a treat to catch up with them. During a hike along the beach, one of my friends told me about a friend of hers, Jason, a Londoner. He suggested in a wider conversation that it seems to him that women hate men.
I had some things to say and to ask about this statement. My friend couldn’t remember the context any more. It was just a snippet of their conversation. My mind was fired up. Why would anyone, a man, say that? What did he mean? Is that really how some men are feeling about women?
So, why not start this imagined conversation with Jason right now, right here?
Let’s go.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
I am sitting in a cosy dining room full of Buddhist artefacts. A huge wooden table with benches, a fireplace and three cats. It is still a bit chilly. And windy. It’s the end of November. The house is very close to the rough Atlantic Ocean of Portugal’s stunning South-West Coast. I decided to make myself comfortable in a chair close to the fireplace. Once I approached, a black cat immediately vacated the spot. Jason had already taken another seat near the fireplace nursing a Tequila & Tonic. A handsome guy, we like.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Jason: Hiya, how are you? Nice to meet you. Good flight?
Moi: Yeah, thanks, good to meet you, too! Always great flying into Faro, such an easy airport to navigate.
Jason (laughs): I know! Such a pleasant surprise and so chilled picking up a rental car. There was literally no-one in the queue!
Moi: Haha, yes, guess that is the advantage of travelling in the low season. August might be a different beast.
Jason (looks at me inquisitively): True, true. Well, Jaydee said you wanted to talk to me about something very specific?
Moi: Yeah, that’s right. I was just wondering about one of your last conversations with her.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Why do women hate men? Women don’t hate men.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Jason: Yes, she said so. Well, this is my question. Why do women hate men?
Moi (deep breath): Jason, let me put this bluntly: Women don’t hate men. Well, correction, of course, there are some women in some circumstances who would say that of themselves, but generally speaking, I’d say most women appreciate men who are kind, eloquent, interesting, generous and considerate. And I’d go as far to state as that women love men who are kind, eloquent, interesting, generous, considerate and attractive.
Jason: Haha, okay, if you say so! But I mean, women’s liberation has gone too far! What the hell, are we supposed to be all the same?
Moi: Ah, the “are we all the same now” question. I have come across this question a lot. And to answer you: No, we are not all the same, but we are all equal.
Jason: Right, so all equal means no more differences between men and women, no more outstanding attributes, no more thrill to meet opposites, no more romance between the sexes.
Moi: Well, define romance, would you? Equality doesn’t mean we deprive ourselves of romantic feelings. In whatever direction those feelings might go. Maybe the most loveable person you know isn’t the opposite sex.
Jason: I am not talking about homosexual or lesbian encounters. I’m okay with that. I am talking about if women and men are now supposed to be the same. As that would be an insane idea.
Moi: I see. But depends how you look at it. Are we talking behaviour or goals or life approach?
Jason: Oh dear, what? No, I am talking about what a man makes a man and a woman makes a woman.
Moi: That is a bit generic. Sorry, I cannot answer to that.
Jason: Right. So where do we start?
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women can relate to the lack of agency.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: Okay. Let’s start here: Romantic comedies are popular on Netflix. The wild success of, let’s say, Bridgerton still plays with the same old-fashioned gender roles. Apart from some gimmicks of a mixed-race society in the 19th century, that is. As in so many movies and series, women’s life goal is still getting the wealthy man or the one with higher social standing to marry her. End of story. It seems generations of people are content to colour their life with the same old blueprint. Though we know better.
Jason (pulling a face): So, what? Bridgerton is a no-brainer entertainment story. Might not be as progressive as it looks and certainly very creative in its historical interpretation, but draws people in! I read the other day that Bridgerton boasts a predominantly female audience spread across multiple generations. (Jason smirks teasingly).
Moi: Haha, interesting, but still doesn’t deflect from the fact that learnt social norms are hard to shake. Which explains why contemporary script writers can still rely on well-established brainwashing mechanisms to make their shows successful. So, according to Bridgerton, let’s assume that ultimately both women and men seek intelligent and sensitive companionship. We can only hope. I guess that is the message but I don’t know for sure. But as this is a fictional conversation, I have your indulgent ear and your never-ending patience, so please hang in there. I’ve got a point to make.
Jason (laughing): Oh dear, I am in the fangs of an imagined writing session. I am a pawn in your story. So, what next? How can I help to make this encounter even more meaningful?
Moi: Funny. Glad you are asking. And highlighting how frustrating lack of agency can feel. Most women will relate to that. Please question the correlation between money and effort. Make it obvious. Let’s say question the nurse and investment banker scenario.
Jason: Perfect, thanks for that pointer. Before going there, I need to ask about men being criticised? Is it so obvious that men are not used to being questioned?
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women lived radically different lives 100 years ago. Men didn’t.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: Oh, Jason, a deep pit you have opened here. But yes, it is so obvious that men usually don’t like to be criticised. And I am not talking about routine stuff like “oh, please rinse the sink after shaving.” Or “I do not like how you behaved when I asked you to wash the dishes and take out the bin”.
Jason: Ha, interesting, it resonates.
Moi (exaggerated eye-roll): Cool, what a great start. Now, let’s dive a bit deeper. Obviously, you have never been asked to change.
Jason (smirks and imitates my German accent): What? I do not understand what you are asking for.
Moi (being cool about it, but not really): Well, see, change has been on women’s agenda over so many centuries. Women nowadays live a radically different life of those women a hundred years ago. Women have suffered, and questioned, and struggled, and plotted, and revised, and tried, and errored, and reinvented themselves. Women have changed themselves and their lives so profoundly over the last 100 years, one could go nuts experiencing those changes in a lifetime. Men didn’t.
Jason: So, men didn’t need to change or even resisted to change because they already had social privileges, they were very happy with?
Moi: Yes, exactly, well put. See, Jason, women went from being completely dictated (and it was reinforced by psychological or violent power) by their fathers, brothers, husband and other male society, to independent competitive beings without the need of associating themselves to men for pure survival. And this led to women establishing their realm, their opportunities, their newfound raison-d’etre and power in society.
Jason: Okay, I see, and with this new self-confidence, women have formulated expectations. But why don’t they know exactly what they want? We guys do!
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Expectations are nothing else than learnt requirements about (mostly about someone else’s) behaviour.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: Good point. I agree, those expectations are sometimes not fully formulated and sometimes, women struggle expressing their needs. But I ask you: Who could, after so many centuries of inferiority treatment aka mental and physical enslavement? Who could immediately come up with impeccably expressed and thought-through requirements? So, all I am saying is, women have suddenly started to formulate first call expectations for men to meet.
Jason: Okay, okay, stop. Sure, we all have expectations. Who doesn’t?
Moi: Well, look at it from this point of view: Expectations are nothing else than learnt requirements about (mostly about someone else’s) behaviour.
And girls have been and are still being told: Men have to work outside the house to provide for the family. This means fathers or husbands can come and go and leave how and when they want because their job requires so. Men enjoy freedom, independence and are entitled to pleasure seeking. They work so hard.
Yet, wives and mothers were and are expected to do “the rest”. Bearing the children, raising the children, organising the family, taking care of elderly relatives, coaching the husband emotionally and intellectually, supporting him hands-on in his business, having second jobs, being responsible for the whole family framework to function, and (what most religions vigorously helped to enforce) being available for sex at any given time to relieve the husband’s lust, on his own schedule and timing, often irrespective of the wife’s.
Jason (rolling eyes and snorting): Buh, that is so generic. That might have been the case ages ago. But now all is different!
Moi (trying to sound patient): Is it? How have you been brought up? What are your family dynamics?
Jason: Okay, I see where your question is leading to. I just don’t understand why …
Moi (cutting him short): Let’s move on. We still need to dive into the core issue.
Jason: Which is?
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women’s expectations of men have changed.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: Well. It is that: Women have shaped different expectations of themselves and for their future standing in society. Women are refusing to submit to a patriarchal world in which men hold primary power. Which by the way is the ludicrous social system of people in power telling people not in power what to want. Women’s expectations of men are suddenly different.
Jason: Like?
Moi: Women might now ask from their partners: Provide emotional support! Be nice when I am down! Be supportive of my career! Accept that I am earning more money than you! Just acknowledge that I am smarter than you! Don’t just masturbate in me (calling it sex) but explore my pleasure, too! Take care of the kids when I am working! Do the household chores without wanting special appreciation for it, you are an adult after all! I am too busy, so take care of our socialising schedule!
Jason: Oooh.
Moi: Yes, oooh, and just like that (no pun intended), things become weird, and then women’s liberation has gone too far. Because you know why? Because privileges are being taken away from men. And it hurts, I get it. But those privileges are taken away. Period. And men have to deal with it. Not just complain about it.
Jason (irritated voice): Oh, doom and gloom, is it? Women can be so dramatic! What about all the good guys out there? Don’t they have a right to be heard and asked what is coming their way?
Moi: Hmm, not really, it was coming their way for so long. They just ignored it.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women don’t hate men. Women just demand change from men.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: Let’s look at Germany, as an example, the largest economy in Europe as of today’s terms. Women could only have their own bank account without the husband’s consent some decades ago. Women could only work without the husband’s consent after 1977. Women could only have an abortion without severe penalty (for the women only, not the guys who impregnated them) after 1974. And making rape in marriage a crime was only acknowledged after 1997, that is only 29 years ago.
Jason: Really?
Moi: Yes, really. And looking to another continent: Birth control was mostly illegal in the United States until 1965. American Women could not get a credit card without a husband or male co-signer until 1974. Firing a woman in the US for being pregnant was legal until 1978. Spousal rape was not recognised as a crime across in the US until 1993. And breastfeeding in public became legal only after 2018.
Jason: Really? What?
Moi: Yes. And this is the worst: Women could legally be refused service at bars in parts of the US until 1969. In the UK, many pubs refused to serve women at a bar until the 1980s. Atrocious!
Jason: What, really?
Moi: Correcto. And this, in a nutshell, is why men think women hate men. But women don’t hate men. Women just demand change from men. That’s all.
Jason (downbeat): I didn’t know.
Moi (relieved he gets it): That is exactly what I am saying. Women didn’t take things away from men. Women just adopted their behaviour to gain freedom and enjoy prosperity. And men now interpret women’s behaviour changes as their loss.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women of previous centuries were living a life of domestic slaves
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Jason: But it feels like women have taken over. Just look at social media feeds. Everything is about women. What their career chances are, whom they are dating, what child care is supposed to be important and so on.
Moi: Well, of course, men feel the presence of women now. I am afraid to say that history, as we know it, is a rogue account of events. They say history is written by the winners. And this is exactly why our history books are only accounting for 50% of the population, aka men. It mostly excludes the lives, stories, heartaches and achievements of women. And there were plenty of achievements, we just don’t know about them.
Moi (expanding): And even the prospect of female competition for sharing historical accounts was taken care of: Women were educationally brainwashed to be 2nd class citizens, deprived of education, confined to marriage, meeting expectations of their husbands, bringing up children and managing repetitive household chores. One way of getting rid of the competition and at the same time grooming a serf operating silently on your behalf in the background, methinks!
Jason (drawing his head back in disbelief): Serfs? What are you talking about?
Moi: Well, of course, you have to see that most women of previous centuries were living a life of domestic slaves. Women were taught pre-emptive obedience. Instilled modesty. So eager to comply. Submission at all means. Not knowing their own worth, nor their requirements, ignoring their own needs.
Jason: Doom and gloom, there we go again!
Moi: No, just realistic analysis! Most women of my generation, GenX if you want to know, still fail to recognise and articulate their own needs. It is different for the men of my generation. And this is still the reason where currently powerful (though erratic) men’s entitlement to rule the world comes from.
Jason: But what about boys’ education? Shouldn’t they know, and be prepared to act as true equals?
Moi: Exactly to my point. Perhaps Amadeus Mozart would have been much happier as a music teacher and family man? After all, he wasn’t asked if he wanted to be a pop star ..
Moi (continuing, playing innocent): .. but wait, it was Amadeus’ sister Maria who was the original prodigy. And it was all taken away from her, all the fame and recognition and opportunities. Only because she was a woman. And it was her who was being reduced to collect and publish her because-of-her-soon-to-be-famous little brother’s works. Yet, she has not received adequate recognition as composer in her own right and uber-talented musician to this day. History is full of those sad stories and it breaks your heart to read this dismal injustice.
Jason: I get it, I hear what you say. But, hey, come on … all of those social structures have been established over a long period of time and they had their evolutionary reasons. You seem to simplify and just lay the blame at men’s door.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women were told to be 2nd class
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: Unfortunately, it is all that simple. The fate of upbringing. Nature vs Nurture, they say. Make it Nurture, I say. The social structures you are mentioning have been defined by men. And men have been taking advantage of women over the last centuries.
Jason (another bit of eye rolling and making air quotes): Well, why didn’t women then oppose to all that “misaligned” social structure. They could have protested and boycotted their men, and history would have taken a different turn!
Moi: Which is the exactly what we are experiencing right now. Women protesting and challenging and asking for their rightful place in society. Not as a minority discrimination case, but as 50% of the world’s human population asking to share power in a fair way. A state of things long overdue.
Jason (sneers): They could have done that a long time ago! Why wait so long?
Moi: I don’t think it is that straightforward. Once you are in a system keeping you constantly pregnant (and exhausted) and brainwashed to be an inferior class of human existence, your feel of self and perception of your self-worth consequently takes a knock. You believe what you are told and this believe is enforced by the ones you are trusting – your parents, your siblings, your community, your husband, your entire world around you is telling you that you are second class. That’s in a nutshell how brainwash works.
Jason (taken aback): Oh dear, what? Why? How in all of the world did this start?
Moi: If you go back, men and women once have been hunting side by side and shared responsibilities for …
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Kind of crazy that modern woman offer monthly fertility
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Jason (interrupts): No, no, correction here: Women have been the gatherers preparing food, giving birth and looking after the kids, while men were the hunters providing the food to feed the family and wider community. This is the nature of mankind!
Moi: No. Actually not. That is the often-spun tale by historical winners (aka men). Every bit of research, if you ask me, is biased. Even if we think it is not, because it has the label of “research”. A researcher’s view of the world will influence and dominate the outcome of their research, often without knowing. It is a systematic bias.
Jason: Sooo, men haven’t been the hunters and women haven’t been the gatherers?
Moi: Exactly. Latest research has changed direction, and shown that in ancient civilisations both men and women were hunting. Which makes sense. Why waste precious resources getting hold of the food? Child birth was a part of it all, it was more integrated and not such a big deal.
Moi (expanding): I am assuming that in hunter and gatherer societies, women were physically fitter and also didn’t have the same fertility cycle as nowadays. If you think about it, it is crazy that modern women offer monthly fertility. Far too much in comparison with any wild animal. Tigers will typically get pregnant about once every 2-3 years. Chimpanzees every 4-5 years.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women were busy being pregnant. While moving hunter-gatherer societies kept birth spaced at over 3 years, women in agricultural societies began having babies every year.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Jason: Ugh, that is too much detail to be honest.
Moi: I understand, but it was your question in the first place why women weren’t fired up enough changing society. Reason being is women in previous centuries were rather busy. Let me give you some examples.
Moi (fired up): Queen Anne of Great Britain endured 17 pregnancies in 17 years. That was the 17th century.
Moi (equally fired up): In the 18th century, Empress Maria Theresa of Austria -the mum of tragically fated Queen Marie Antoinette of France- was pregnant 16 times in 20 years.
Moi (concluding): Yet, the most prolific mother in recorded history seems a Russian woman called Valentina Vassilyeva, an 18th century Russian peasant woman. She went through 27 multiple-eggs pregnancies in 40 years, resulting in 69 children. Sounds utterly exhausting to me.
Jason (incredulous): Ouch! Crazy! So how in all of the world did we get to this state of misalignment?
Moi: Good question. I guess, the human invention of agriculture and the connected settling in fixed domains away from hunting and gathering has changed women’s standing in society. Suddenly, through planned agricultural efforts, there was a surplus of consistently provided food. And let’s not forget: That made humans an immensely successful species on planet Earth. Humans expanded their realm and took so much space on the planet compared to all other living beings on Earth.
Moi (adding): And that generated the real first “Baby Boom”. While moving hunter-gatherer societies kept birth spaced at over 3 years, women in agricultural societies began having babies every year.
Moi (emphasising): Being constantly pregnant and nursing tied women to the home.
Jason: Ouch!
Moi: Yes. Ouch indeed. Overdrive child birth removed women from public life, political decisions, trade and generally from any knowledge outside of home. This system was enforced by the circumstance that, on a farm, children became free labourers. So, it seemed to work, speaking in evolutionary terms, and the new-fangled system kept going.
Moi (explaining more): Agriculture as a way of reliable and constant food provision versus unpredictable hunting outcomes might be the clue. I am also assuming that women became physically weaker through less movement and exercise throughout the centuries, meaning child birth became extremely dangerous as some women were not fit and healthy enough for the strain of child birth.
Moi: And at some stage, the whole chose got reinforced by laws. The invention of agriculture and subsequently the creation of “Property” did its historical thing.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women were confined to the inside of the home. And experienced forced motherhood.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Jason (curious now again): Like what?
Moi (relieved Jason shows some interest): The shift from foraging to farming about 12,000 years ago introduced land ownership. It seems women’s roles became increasingly focused on maximising childbirth to build a free labour force. Which was needed to farm land. And because it was all so laborious to farm land, property became important.
Moi (adding): Agricultural success was based on a long-term plan to farm the land. Women producing babies was the key to this legacy. Women did their part to ensure the survival of the tribe.
Jason: Women were privatised?
Moi: Correct. Women were confined to the inside of the home. And experienced forced motherhood. Without birth control, women were locked into a gruelling cycle of pregnancy and childcare, leaving them with no time or physical mobility to build independent wealth.
Moi (elaborating): Women had no chance of networking, going out, exploring, experimenting, exchanging views, bettering themselves in competition with the others out there.
Jason: And men did?
Moi: Yes, indeed, men did. Men became women’s link to the outside world, and were able to manipulate women’s perception of how the world “worked”. Men warped it to their experiences outside the home and made it the gold standard of life, shaped to men’s needs and advantages, completely undervaluing that women did their (more than) equal share.
Jason (astonished look): And that really worked?
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Once agriculture took over, women were systematically cut off from the resources they used to control.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: Yes. Somewhen it was decided that women’s work at home which was birthing, raising children, cooking, cleaning, doing their share to provide food on a farm, looking after elderly parents and parents-in-law, being available for sex, and helping to keep the boat afloat, wasn’t really sexy. It was rather dull, repetitive and gruesomely tiring work. Who would want to do that voluntarily?
Moi (summarising): Hence, it was decided, women had to do that exhausting and unappreciated work because of their inferiority. Inferior intellect, inferior capacities, inferior people.
Jason: Argh. Really?
Moi: Yes. Once agriculture took over, women were systematically cut off from the resources they used to control. Women were confronted with the survival choice. In a world where you could not buy food at a store and were barred as a woman from owning a farm, a woman’s only option for survival was to be attached to a husband or father who did.
Jason (inquisitive voice): So, when did this all go so wrong? I mean women not being appreciated any more playing their part in the orchestra of survival?
Moi: I am not sure. There is research going on as we speak but I think we will learn more details over the next decades when all of the findings are presented by scientific communities. It is only clear so far that when land needed to be inheritable to secure the work you had done the year before, men seemed to have become stressed about passing it on to their biological sons. That is what the science books say.
Moi (continuing): I am always a bit wary about this argument. Science books say: “Men sought to ensure that their property passed to their biological sons which led to the strict control of women’s sexuality and reproduction through early marriage systems.”
Moi (going further): I feel there is a step missing in between. Who cares if it is your biological son as long as the lad provides and continues the food provision? And why not the daughter anyway? She would be the one knowing exactly who the heirs came from!
Jason: Hmm, yes, that is strange.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
About 4,000 years ago, women were suddenly legally classified as the property of their fathers or husbands.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: Yeah, I feel something went totally wrong when laws suddenly enforced women’s second-class citizenship.
Jason: Ah, so when was that?
Moi: About 4,000 years ago, women were suddenly legally classified as the property of their fathers or husbands. Women were put under enforced tutelage of their male relatives. A famous record known as the “Code of Hammurabi” written in Mesopotamia (aka modern-day Iraq) documents this change from equal to inferior.
Jason: But how could have women tolerated that? Why didn’t they do something about it?
Moi: That is a good question, Jason. I don’t know. I think we look at this development from our hyper-informed connected world of today. But it wasn’t a particular event in time. It was a slow and progressively developing injustice. I don’t think women accepted their inferior status willingly, nor did the shift happen overnight. It was a slow process of entrapment that took thousands of years. Thing is also: History is written by the winners (aka the dominating force of the time aka men for those last centuries) so we will be short of sources telling us a balanced picture.
Jason: Meaning we just don’t know what really happened and how we go here?
Moi: Yes. I think so. By the time the patriarchal system became the norm, women were caught in a trap where any rebellion against the oppressive system meant death, starvation or social ostracism.
Jason: Men being better than women was never real.
Moi: The classification was never about a real difference in human worth. It was an artificial social system, devised by men to control resources and maintain political power. Because men were free from child labour and had time at their hands! Men saw a chance to control power so they wrote laws that treated women as second-class citizens, using the lie and myth of female inferiority to make that unfair system seem normal and excuse their violent actions.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
I think men eventually got lost in their own narrative.
Men drank their own Kool-Aid after a while.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: I think men eventually got lost in their own narrative. Men drank their own Kool-Aid after a while.
Jason: Seems very unfair.
Moi: We call this system patriarchy.
Jason: Reality is that men and women have always been equal in intelligence, capability, and human value, yet ancient rulers wanted total control over land, resources, and family inheritance. And to keep that control, they forced women into a lower social status and falsely claimed it was because women were “naturally” less capable.
Moi: There you go, you got it.
Jason: Women don’t hate men. Women demand change from men.
Moi: That’s right. And that’s the good news: How you do that is completely up to you. Re-invent yourself!
Jason: Hm, yes, but I will be losing privileges previous centuries had granted men. Not very sexy.
Moi: True. Men are and will be losing previously granted privileges. Yet, those privileges were unfair to begin with. It is in the word itself: “Privilege” is a special right or immunity; it is an unearned social advantage. There you go. It will be taken away anyway. As with so many other unfair privileges in society.
Jason: Dear Lord, sounds like a communist manifesto.
Moi: I am not a communist at all.
Jason: What are you then?
Moi: I am a pragmatist.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Men so far have always benchmarked themselves against the inferiority of women.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Jason: Haha, okay, so what do we do next?
Moi: Good one. We change.
Jason: How?
Moi: We allow men to be emotional, to be nourishing, to be communicative, to be altruistic, to be caring, to not always knowing what to do, to not always needing to lead the way, and it is all good. And wanted.
Jason: Women would take the mickey out of me.
Moi: No, most women wouldn’t. You would simply be developing your personality to its full potential while unveiling other aspects of yourself.
Jason (snorting laugh): Haha, showing who you are? That is so Bridgerton. Sorry, but this suggestion sounds utterly ridiculous. I would expose myself as a complete moron to be taken advantage of. Not going to happen.
Moi: But don’t you feel that way sometimes? That you could be a more colourful book instead of just the standard edition on the shelf?
Jason: This is getting more and more ridiculous.
Moi: Fine. I understand you feel this way. As this is a fictional account of things, we can say whatever we want, can’t we?
Jason: Yes! This is the magic of it and I do not need to hold back either. I am f** exhausted of the stuff you are telling me and I want to go to bed and sleep.
Moi (tsking): Almost there. But, you see, you are my virtual hostage, so we continue. Our communication will be the blueprint for future relationships! It is worth the trouble. Believe me.
Jason: You are annoying. I do not want to be the blueprint person for anything. Release me!
Moi (shaking head scoldingly): Please stop moaning. We are almost there.
Jason (slowly exhaling): Where exactly, please?
Moi: It is non-negotiable any more that women will share power. Women will be competitors. So far most of the past centuries’ women (aka 50% of the worlds’ population) were excluded from the race on attention, power and money. So, yes, men have lost and will lose privileges. And we all need to be pragmatic and accept the new situation.
Jason (slowly exhaling again): Sooo?
Moi: Men so far have always tried to anchor and benchmark themselves against the inferiority of women. Their promise of a meaningful life, of belonging, of status. Now, the deck of cards has been reshuffled. And men do not cope very well. It is maddening to be stripped of one’s privileges, we understand. Men’s social privileges have been utterly dismantled by women who they previously treated as inferior. And men are resentful about it.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women have disrupted the known social texture. Who will fill their shoes?
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi (continuing while looking at Jason): Having said all this, Jason, I hate to break this to you, but we actually have moved on in this debate. The most pressing issue now isn’t the anyway-very-soon-to-be-rebalanced power between men and women any more.
Jason (yawning): Why? And who’s is we?
Moi: As for your last question: “We”, that is my omnipotence of categorising and prioritising pressing world issues in this virtual debate. So good, I love it.
Jason (eye rolling and sighing): I bet you do.
Moi: What’s that?
Jason: Nothing.
Moi: Great, back to it. As a result of women demanding their place in society, a care vacuum has arisen.
Jason (bored): Why would that be?
Moi: Okay, let’s approach this subject with a simple question.
Jason (sighing again): All ears.
Moi: Whom of those protagonists do you want to be: (A) An investment banker, or (B) a stay-at-home-mother-housewife with three kids and an elderly parent to take care of?
Jason (eye rolling and staring into the distant void): That is a trick question. Not gonna answer that. Obvious choice.
Moi: Okay, fair enough. So, then let’s go down another route. Why don’t you tell me who is adding more value here – the investment banker or the domestic carer?
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
More than twice the size of the UK economy: That is the estimated value of women’s unpaid work globally
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Jason (deep sigh): Oh dear, I see where you want me to go. Fine. So, the investment banker is adding more monetary value to the world, but the unpaid domestic carer occupies the higher ground for ethic reasons. Is that what you expect me to say?
Moi: Indeed, I thought you would say that. But you are wrong.
Jason: How so?
Moi: Well. You got it wrong. Though investment bankers are regarded the crème-de-la-crème of earning power, unpaid carers are topping the economic value charts.
Jason (incredulous eyebrow raising): What?! How?
Moi: That is easy. Please question the unpaid carer and investment banker scenario again. Who do you think is generating more money, hence more value? Go!
Jason: Oh, dear. Okay, okay. So, tell me: If you’d compare an investment banker’s work outcome to unpaid care work to care for kids, elderly parents or the family’s surrounding community, what would you find?
Moi: If women’s unpaid care labour were counted as economic output, its contribution would far exceed Switzerland’s total country income, its GDP. Essentially equal to about 7–8 Switzerlands every year.
Jason: Ah, usually I know this, but can you explain what GDP is?
Moi: Of course, GDP means Gross Domestic Product. It is the total monetary value of all finished goods and services produced within a country.
Jason: So, GDP is a performance indicator of the size and health of a country?
Moi: Correct. Whatever health in this context means, GDP is a scorecard of wealth. And power.
Jason: Ah, so where do those figures come from?
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
If unpaid care by women were counted as global company, her CEO would be the most powerful CEO on the planet.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: Several international organisations and research groups have attempted to quantify the global economic value of unpaid care work done by women. It is telling that standard economic measures like GDP normally exclude non-market labour such as household chores and caregiving. Reason being is that this standard was designed by men.
Jason (perking up): Ah, of course, men wouldn’t be able to relate to those hidden economical contributions… as they didn’t have to perform them.
Moi: Exactly.
Jason: Tell me more about it. How does women’s unpaid care work all relate to global economy?
Moi: A good question. The economic value of women’s unpaid care work globally is more than double the size of the entire UK economy.
Jason: What? Are you joking?
Moi: No. Women’s unpaid care work would represent an economy more than 2-times bigger than the UK’s annual output. Oxfam estimates that globally, unpaid care and domestic work (which is mostly done by women) is thought to be worth about $11 trillion per year – if valued as market labour rather than excluded from GDP.
Jason: What, really? Who is Oxfam by the way..
Moi: Oxfam is a global confederation of over 20 independent non-governmental organizations.
Jason: Ah, ok.
Moi: So, to recap: Women perform 75% of that care work, so their share alone amounts to roughly $8 trillion annually. This is 7% of global GDP.
Jason: You lost me here. What the hell are you trying to say?
Moi (sighing): In simple terms: If unpaid care by women were counted as economic output, it would function like a top-tier global economy on its own. Or in more simple terms: If unpaid care by women were counted as global company, her CEO would be the most powerful CEO on the planet. Forget Jamie.
Jason (shaking his head cluelessly): Um, Jamie as in Jamie Oliver, the once famous British celebrity chef?
Moi (slightly annoyed): What? No! I am referring to Jamie Dimon, CEO of the bank JP Morgan Chase. He is credited with turning the bank he works for into a $917 billion banking giant and he wields significant influence over global finance.
Jason: Ah, I see. And so, Jamie’s empire would be nothing compared to the $8 trillion unpaid care work women would generate – if paid that is?
Moi: Correct, that is the analysis of worldwide value researchers.
Jason: How depressing.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women’s unpaid care work is 20× larger than global investment banking output. In other words: Investment banking is a shit business compared to women’s unpaid care work
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: Well, it is not only a numbers’ game, but an appreciation and value indicator. If you compare socially highly esteemed investment banking with socially undervalued unpaid care work of women, you actually find that care work produces so much more actual value. In total, it is found that unpaid care work by women is 20× larger than global investment banking output. It is crazy that no one has actually called this out .. but then it isn’t.
Jason: Why is that?
Moi: Investment banking is highly paid and prestige-heavy. Unpaid care work is essential for labour markets to function, overwhelmingly done by women, yet economically invisible. However: The value creation isn’t even close.
Jason (not interested): Nice. But what do you mean by value creation?
Moi (incredulous): What?! Don’t you understand after all of our discussions?! Investment banking is a shit business compared to women’s unpaid care work.
Jason (gingering up): Ah, so you mean, more real money could be made with investment in global (so far unpaid) care business rather than focusing on global (so far heavily paid) investment banking?
Moi: Hurray, you got it. But just to be clear: Investment banking was an innovation and it has its value. I am comparing its outcomes against other global value creation, like unpaid care work in this example.
Jason: Ha. So, why don’t we revalue things?
Moi: There is an issue.
Jason: Which is?
Moi: Care work is inferior to investment banking, based on our social currency value.
Jason: Social currency?
Moi (getting a bit tired of this): What I mean is: Our current social values say so. You are an investment banker, go, you made it. You are an unpaid carer, shit, you are not valuable.
Jason (checking his phone): That is kind of harsh, isn’t it?
Moi: Still true. And as most unpaid carers are women so far, it seems women’s care work isn’t really appreciated and valued as it should.
Jason: How do you mean?
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women and all things connected to femineity like care work are still classified as inferior in our current social standing
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: Well, women being inferior to men seems a stubbornly celebrated value in society. Women’s work (as in their unpaid care work) is not rewarded by us as society, but rather secretly ridiculed. It is a mechanism of oppression that keeps girls and women compliant and assigns them the role of unpaid provider and carer without their consent and without social recognition.
Jason (distracted by his phone checking): Omg, ridiculous, we are all the same!
Moi: No, not really, the real issue in our current society is that everyone wants to be rather an investment banker than a nurse. Secretly that is. The pay and most importantly the value, secretly that is, accredited to those professions couldn’t be more diverse. And then there is also the secondary issue of perceived social value.
Jason: Ehm, social value?
Moi: Yes. Social value. Men don’t really want to do jobs so far associated with women. Nurse, mother, carer. Those jobs are attributed to inferiority. And you know why?
Jason: Well, why?
Moi: Because women and all the things connected to femineity are still classified as inferior in our current social standing. We are talking the year 2026.
Jason: Oh god, that is so ridiculous!
Moi: Really? So, you would be happy to swap sides?
Jason (confused): Swap sides?
Moi: Becoming a carer? I know your sister is taking care of your parents as we speak. Why not swapping sides with her and doing what she does so she has a break?
Jason: Um, that is not possible. I am very busy with my job.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
It is not a women-hating-men-hating-women problem. We are dealing here with an issue caused by centuries of patriarchy that has distorted value creation.
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi: We are not in a care crisis. We are in a value crisis.
Jason: Eeh, what? I am really tired.
Moi (ignoring him): How do we mitigate the losses women make in unpaid care work? We need to reshoot values. We need to reassess. We need to rewire our value system!
Jason (bored and tired): Right, who knows?
Moi: Well, we are dealing here with a flawed and by centuries of patriarchy distorted value system issue, not a women-hating-men-hating-women problem.
Jason: What is the solution?
Moi: Only robotic AI can solve the care crisis anyway. It will replace the unpaid “love” care work of women globally. That is in my opinion the only chance. Especially with a rapid aging society and women being freed and men being unwilling and educationally unprepared to fill in the voids.
Jason (exaggerated eye rolling): Oh god, I am so tired of this conversation!
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Women are the same disruptive forces of the 20th century as AI has been and will be for the 21st. It is about systematically changing perspectives, and even more importantly, life choices
⍜ ⍜ ⍜ ⍜
Moi (not interested in letting him go): We have evolved beyond the men vs women vs men thing. What we need to focus on now is to answer and to deal with the reality after women’s liberation. Meaning: Who is taking over the care work so far executed by women as unpaid work of dutiful love (without economic value as patriarchy determined). To care for kids, husband, elderly parents, parents in law, relatives, community?
Jason (completely checked out): What does that mean?
Moi: Well, look at it from that side: Women are the same disruptive forces of the 20th century as AI has been and will be for the 21st. It is about systematically changing perspectives, and even more importantly, life choices.
⌘ ⌘ ⌘ ⌘
I had to interrupt our conversation. Had to go to the loo. When I came back, Jason wasn’t there anymore. I went to my room.
When trying to make sense of the night, I remembered the great Margaret Atwood who once said: “Men are afraid that women make fun of them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
Good night.
Leave a Reply