Equal To The Next Woman

I've listened to Natasha Walter’s (author of the Living Dolls: the Return of Sexism) contribution to Woman’s Hour, twice. On the second occasion, I found myself counting the number of times Ms Walter used the word empowerment, it was at least nine.

It doesn’t really matter how one tries to argue equality, being female is hard work; the basic difference is that women have to do the bearing and usually the nurturing of children.
The idea of the “separatist feminist" - the suggestion that women are not only people, but better than men and men are necessary only for procreation – is of little long-term interest or value. The media remains titillated, implying that feminism is only actively carried out by lesbian women.

However feminism, the self worth of the female, is something that every girl and woman can understand. Using the word ‘empowerment’ simply disenfranchises the less educated from the debate. Women who are capable of financial independence are easily able to achieve liberty within or out with a marriage but the continuing gender pay gap emphasises the gulf for the less affluent woman. It's much harder to be a feminist, if you’re cash-strapped and wondering how to feed your children.

The great failure of contemporary feminism, in my opinion, is that it's essentially a middle-class movement. Addressing inequality requires more than indignation; it also requires commitment. I am passionate about improving the diet of all children but this involves getting out there and cooking with children in schools of the hard to reach areas.

Where women are most unequal and have the least options is down at the bottom of the social heap. A chance ear battering from a mother, at a school in the Scottish Borders drove this point home to me. She was overweight and overwrought. She was struggling to cope and all I was doing was increasing her child’s (dietary) expectations and her (organisational) burdens.

Natasha Walter spoke of surveys (including Cambridge graduates and medical students) but this makes gender politics look indulgent - a study of affluent educated women who are the least in need of help. No one denies that women have always worked hard, either in the home or outside of it, but some ignore their need to be justly rewarded whatever their employment.

Most women work because they have to, they aren't in a position to agonise over whether or not they should work or stay at home full-time with their children. This choice would be good but it isn't available to every women and the Boden set need to understand this. The home can become a concentration camp to poorer women. Who else is there to do the housework and take care of children, the infirm, and the elderly? The well paid woman can afford to pay for others (often women) to do this. Feminists must keep the message simple, one that can be understood by every less fortunate girl on the block. We need to be campaigning for equal pay opportunities rather than becoming preoccupied with glitzy Barbie clothes and pornography.


I promised to obey my husband when we married. This wasn't something that I undertook lightly or felt any need to challenge because I believed, (and still do) that marriage is about teamwork. I was confident that I wouldn’t ever be bullied into anything that I wasn’t comfortable with. I have been a fortunate woman, we battle - but most of the time without too much disagreement; we have ploughed our wobbly furrow together, albeit one of individual compromises.

I am aware of the power of negative female tools such as vanity but the natural female traits of care and gentleness are positive. They are not always promoted and are rarely rewarded. They are important in the raising of and care for a family. It may have been easier for me than for many but for all of us success and even survival need dedication and perseverance.

Common values have changed hugely since my marriage a quarter of a century ago. Children grow up all too quickly. It is with trepidation that I express my belief that the sacrifice, as some would see it, of time spent in the family home is, for them, not thought to be worth it. Financial security versus family cohesion is a tough choice to make, especially for a mother; but what lies at the heart of it?

The mass exodus from the church ensures that some may consider my views to be an intellectual cop out but I know that they have proved a rock for a solid marriage. Personally, I would argue that the generous caring mother, is worthy of as much praise as the successful business woman. It is the daily reality of caring and giving being so severely undervalued that contributes to some women feeling second-class.


John Stuart Mill argued that the inequality of women in the family was incompatible with their equality in the wider social world. Boys growing up in male dominated households were by the mere fact of being born male, superior to an entire half of the human race. He questioned how such boys would grow up into men if they treated women as equals. As the mother of five boys, an important part of my mothering role has been to ensure that they do not show physical or emotional domination over their sister (who has proved a match for any unsuspecting boy) or indeed any girl /woman. I relished in the glitzy pink of Only Girl’s carriage dolls' pram but so did she, and a couple of the younger boys enjoyed her dolls too. Three cheers for Only Girl, without her, the dolls wouldn’t have been in the playroom. We continue to chant "Girls are best" and the boys shrug resignedly; they can point score over triviality but we respond by raising our unfluttering eyelashes to the ceiling and dismiss them.

Many of my female medical friends paid a fee on marriage, to change their name on the General Medical Council list; nowadays I suspect this rarely happens. I was amazed by a friend who decided to keep her (first) husband’s surname even after divorce and remarriage; it made little sense to me but she liked the name and that was that. Over the years, more and more of my friends have not taken up their husband’s name and of course many decide not to marry. During motherhood it mattered little and I cared less, until Kids' Kitchen was published and I realised that my wonderful (nicer) Scottish surname wasn’t on the book. It doesn’t really trouble me because I love my husband but there remains a part of my life that isn’t written on the cover.

I don’t take issue with women keeping their maiden names; perhaps, I am even a little envious: they are having their cake and eating it. When I married, it was the norm to take a husband's identity, full stop. Perhaps this made life easier in many ways. A woman marrying later in life may already have a career identity from which she cannot, or does not wish to, part with, so the workplace name remains unchanged. However when a woman keeps her name simply to identify with her own notable family, there is a subtle undermining of the dynamics in marriage. Keeping one’s own identity is understandable but rejecting a husband’s heritage indicates a lack of commitment to both a family identity and a unity of purpose.

In an ideal world we would all show love and compassion rather than be anxious over who holds power but we have to live in this imperfect society. I find most contentment when I’m with my family; the less stress, the better the family connection and the better I feel. Perhaps there is a ‘feel good factor’ in simply holding everything together. As a woman I would like to improve the overall condition for other women in general but in particular for those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged. I am privileged, my husband is generous and kind but (selfishly) I’m not prepared to share him around..... I prefer lemon, orange and lime flavours - often when I get into the car I find a half finished sweetie pack with only the citrus flavours remaining. I have no ideal if he prefers the other flavours, I suspect not.