apparently today has a theme
Apr. 4th, 2006 01:25 pmFrom
crankygrrl: Working girls, broken society
Yeah. Yeah, getting to it. To drastically simplify her argument:
1. Historically, educated women had few jobs open to them.
a) Most women had a lot in common -- marriage, babies -- with other women.
b) Women had a lot of time in which to bring up their kids and volunteer.
2. Now educated women can do pretty much anything they like.
a) There is tremendous disparity between educated professional women and less educated working-class women who may work part-time and take a lot of time off to raise children.
b) Women aren't volunteering any more.
3. In consequence, women aren't bringing the traditionally feminine concerns of altruism and service into the public sphere any more.
a) Sisterhood is dying out.
b) The voluntary sector is becoming less voluntary and more professional.
c) The world is going to hell in a handbasket.
d) Woe!
4. Educated professional women face huge economic disadvantages if they have children.
a) So they don't have as many.
b) But children are intrinsically wonderful and rewarding.
c) Woe!
5. Conclusions:
a) I'd list them here, but I can't actually figure out what she's trying to get at.
b) At a guess, she means, but does not wish to say,* that educated women should stop being so pushy and taking rewarding highly paid jobs and get back to raising children and making the world a better place to be.
c) As usual, it's all your fault.
*Because the feminists would attack!
Feldman has rebutted by email much more nicely than I can. (May I quote?)
While the benefits of career equality are axiomatic, its negative repercussions are wilfully ignored. In a contentious essay that is sparking fierce debate in Britain, a King's College professor argues that we must confront the losses to society when women choose work over familyStill sorting out my response to this. I find it a tad simplistic. I am struck by the near-total absence of men in this discussion. Also by the absence of possible alternatives. I think our societies are somewhat fucked up, she has that right, but as long as career success and financial success are seen as THE important things for both men and women I don't think that's going to change. I don't get why women are supposed to take on the whole job of being altruistic and volunteering and looking after children and making common cause with other people in different walks of life. Where is this Angel in the House and in the Public Sphere business coming from?
Yeah. Yeah, getting to it. To drastically simplify her argument:
1. Historically, educated women had few jobs open to them.
a) Most women had a lot in common -- marriage, babies -- with other women.
b) Women had a lot of time in which to bring up their kids and volunteer.
2. Now educated women can do pretty much anything they like.
a) There is tremendous disparity between educated professional women and less educated working-class women who may work part-time and take a lot of time off to raise children.
b) Women aren't volunteering any more.
3. In consequence, women aren't bringing the traditionally feminine concerns of altruism and service into the public sphere any more.
a) Sisterhood is dying out.
b) The voluntary sector is becoming less voluntary and more professional.
c) The world is going to hell in a handbasket.
d) Woe!
4. Educated professional women face huge economic disadvantages if they have children.
a) So they don't have as many.
b) But children are intrinsically wonderful and rewarding.
c) Woe!
5. Conclusions:
a) I'd list them here, but I can't actually figure out what she's trying to get at.
b) At a guess, she means, but does not wish to say,* that educated women should stop being so pushy and taking rewarding highly paid jobs and get back to raising children and making the world a better place to be.
c) As usual, it's all your fault.
*Because the feminists would attack!
Feldman has rebutted by email much more nicely than I can. (May I quote?)
no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 07:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-04 10:21 pm (UTC)