Waiting like a girl? The temporal constitution of femininity as a factor in gender inequality

Abstract

This paper explores temporal constituents of the female self in terms of their role in underpinning ongoing gender inequality. Drawing on the work of Simone de Beauvoir and Iris Marion Young, together with sociological approaches to ambivalence, I suggest that these temporal subjectivities are embodied, arise from the split subjectivity associated with woman as simultaneously subject and object, and counterpose the neoliberal emphasis on “choice” and agency with a more traditional gendered “expectation,” or “waiting” style. The dialectic between both temporalities, in which neither is hegemonic, results in a chronic state of ambivalence which impedes women's ability to fully project themselves into the future, a skill significant to planning and career ambition and the absence of which suspends women instead in an extended present. The paper aims to do two things in particular. In conceptual terms it aims to explore aspects of the configuration of the gendered self that underlie the stalling and slowing down of the gender revolution and which can be seen to provide a “missing link” between structures, institutions, and micro‐cultures. In empirical terms, it suggests a future research agenda, of which this paper constitutes a beginning, through which such gendered temporalities can be explored in greater detail via ethnographies of women's lived experience of time throughout the life course.

The emergence of temporality in attitudes towards cryo-fertility: a case study comparing German and Israeli social egg freezing users

“…Following this line of reasoning, according to Lahad ( 2017 ), the notion of ‘waiting’ attributed to single women, reflects a heteronormative logic which produces power relations supported by a disciplinary temporal regime. At the same time, and in line with Pickard’s ( 2020 ) insights regarding female temporality in late modernity, as our findings reveal, while women’s temporal experiences can be interpreted as reflecting a traditional style of ’waiting‘, those experiences are also simultaneously counterposed by the neoliberal emphasis on ‘choice’ and agency-reflected in women’s search for a right partner and demanding a form of control over their reproductive potential. This dialectic “results in a chronic state of ambivalence” (ibid, p. 314).…”

“…The context of SEF usage is however, ambivalent and two-fold. When relating to the temporal constituents of the female self, Pickard ( 2020 ), who presents an overview of relevant feminist scholarship, discusses its identification as reflecting a gendered tension between constraining modes of ‘waiting’ or ‘expectation’ versus aspects of ‘choice’ and agency- to which we can relate as empowering. On the one hand, women are subjected to the highly gendered notion of “patiently waiting”, reflecting a traditional and constrained temporal condition.…”

“…On the one hand, women are subjected to the highly gendered notion of “patiently waiting”, reflecting a traditional and constrained temporal condition. This temporal notion becomes particularly salient in the context of traditional heterosexual romantic scripts according to which single women are expected to wait to be chosen (Pickard, 2020 ), or more generally wait for a partner. Following this line of reasoning, according to Lahad ( 2017 ), the notion of ‘waiting’ attributed to single women, reflects a heteronormative logic which produces power relations supported by a disciplinary temporal regime.…”

“…On the one hand, as single women, our interviewees are subjected to the traditional idea that they should wait for the right partner. Such gendered temporalities and the related constitution of the hybrid feminine self, underlie the stalling and slowing down of the “gender revolution” (Pickard, 2020 ). On the other hand, within the Western capitalist social context idealizing notions of efficiency, such waiting is understood as a waste of time that should be eliminated (Lahad, 2012 ).…”

“…SEF users are therefore faced with a dialectic tension between choice and agency and the traditional expectations of waiting- which also represent competing interpretations in the context of SEF usage. This tension echoes the gendered challenge of the dual management of a rational-instrumental approach to time, associated with the future, and the caring time of immanence (Pickard, 2020 , p. 318). Within this context, SEF serves as an empowering means by which women are able to mobilize greater agency over their reproduction—also reflecting a positive moral attitude towards active and “responsible” (hopefully) efficient time management in the light of future prognoses and risks (i.e., of ‘biological’ fertility decline) (van Carroll & Kroløkke, 2017 ; de Wiel, 2015 ).…”