COMMENTS: 127
Women's Work: Still Not Done
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
A New York Times headline put the story in a nutshell: "Stretched to the Limit, Women Stall the March to Work." Harper's Bazaar reports that up-and-coming fashion designers are leaving their blossoming careers to raise children. Even celebrity tabloids scream the message down every grocery aisle, claiming that Tom Cruise wants Katie Holmes to stop acting to care for their new baby.
The details differ, but the story boils down to the same thing: Women find it almost impossible to have successful careers and successful families; so, if they can afford to, they choose one or the other. But that's just the first paragraph, not the whole story.
Ask a different question of this phenomenon and quite a different tale would be told. Why are we still struggling over this conundrum four decades after the second wave of feminism brought it up? When will we figure out how to make work actually work?
The friction between women's roles as professionals and mothers has been intense since they entered the work force in huge numbers in the 1960s. Ever since, some critics have insisted that women can't be "managers" in the home and in the office at the same time. The women's movement failed us, they say, by promising we could do it all when we actually can't, and mothers who give up their careers only prove that feminism was a wash. As Gloria Steinem once said, they've declared feminism dead every Wednesday at teatime since 1969.
Lately, however, the discussion has taken on a new tone. Women no longer seem angry or argumentative on this subject, only resigned. Quietest are those with the most at stake -- young women just starting their careers and planning their families.
If we are to believe the media, it's as if over these last four decades the women's movement has been on trial and recently the verdict came in -- women tried to have it all and were found guilty of failing. Now, it seems, they're simply accepting their sentence.
But it's possible to think of this another way. Perhaps the judge handed down his decision before hearing all the evidence. After all, the original feminists never intended women to "do it all" -- at least, not by themselves. They expected the workplace, government and men to step up and do some significant changing, too. That largely hasn't happened. Until all those parties weigh in, until some structural changes in the workplace are made to accommodate women's desires to have careers and children, how can we conclude the effort has failed?
The second-wave feminists of the 1960s opened the doors for us. We now have equal access to universities, the right (however embattled) to control when and whether we have babies and laws that protect us against overt discrimination in the workplace.
But America is only half-changed. The office still favors employees who put in uninterrupted 10-hour days, which automatically excludes primary childcare-givers. It's almost impossible in many offices to get promoted if you can't make evening meetings, leave mid-day to pick up your kid from school or take off a year after giving birth.
Of course, the number of women who can afford to stay home is tiny. Studies have shown that most women still work. But the barrage of stories about those who are "opting out" catches something of the zeitgeist. If the first generation of women to come of age after the feminist revolution is already giving up, that's a frightening but not completely surprising development.
After all, we've largely been left to struggle with the work-family issue on an individual level. Our mothers told us we would be the first generation of women who could do anything we set out to do; when we can't, we assume it's a personal failing. All the recent media pieces affirm just that, framing the opt-out story as an issue between a woman and her boss, a woman and her husband, or a woman and her child.
Aren't we forgetting an important lesson from the last generation of feminists? Naming a problem can be the first step toward solving it. Acknowledging and naming the feminine mystique, domestic violence and sexual harassment turned them from problems-that-had-no-name to injustices that could no longer be ignored.
Women got started by gathering in rooms, letting their individual problems pour out and discovering that all the other women in the room shared them, too. Maybe we need to leave both the office and the baby's bedroom for a while, gather together, let it all pour out, and come up with a few names of our own.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kit79 on Aug 16, 2006 2:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It makes sense for one partner to stay home for a little while, because daycare is so expensive, and many moms opt to do it because a lot of moms seem to feel that no one can care for baby like they can. I guess that happens when it comes out of your body. That's not to say that men aren't helping out.
But domestic things still fall on the shoulders of the women, so I know working moms who just feel like they have two jobs. Take care of the kids/husband/home and do their paid job. The attitude is that the husband just doesn't clean up right. Well how about getting a grown up man who picks up after himself and will help out with 50% of the housework and 50% of the childcare? I'm not saying there aren't men who don't or won't - of course there are. I'm just saying that many women will settle for a husband suddenly becomes another child to be taken care when it comes time to do housework and who becomes a burden instead of helpmate. Women must be expected to bring in their share of the income, and men must be expected to do their share of housework and childcare duties.
Maybe we need more work-at-home jobs and more self-employment? And more daycare at work? With so many single parents, mele and female, that would be helpful. But having a baby is a sacrifice and it hurts you career-wise, so men I think will always do better economically. It's inconvenient biology.
Maybe in a fluffy perfect world working mothers should retire like 5 years later and should receive something like social security benefits while they're staying at home. I notice it's becoming more common for the dads to stay at home with the kids while they're going to school.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: redjenny
» It's the f***ing South, OK?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: It's the f***ing South, OK
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: jackie
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Parenthood is a Blessing!
Posted by: Loopylafae
» Women should get cash subsidies for existing
Posted by: H_H
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Aug 16, 2006 4:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They expected the workplace, government and men to step up and do some significant changing, too. That largely hasn't happened.
They can be translated as Mommy, the workplace as a something that owes me, the government that pesky patriarchy and men (untermensch). That largely hasn't happened means everyone else is to blame for things not going my way.
Our mothers told us we would be the first generation of women who could do anything we set out to do; when we can't, we assume it's a personal failing.
Again Mommy told me it was now all mine and we are now obligated to become superwoman. And along with that message was the unspoken implication that if I failed it was my fault. The idea that Mommy may have been living her expectations through her little girl without the mature realization of reality, boundaries or limitations that all other human beings face in life seems not to enter into the discussion. Why?
Just a suggestion that maybe all these Mommies gave these daughters goals, expectations and explanations that were based more on their own needs rather than what were realistic and best for their children. Promising any child that they "could do anything you set out to do" and that they should demand that the "workplace, government and men step up and do some significant changing" seems a doomed to failure proposition. It may be time for all these daughters to look Mommy in the eye and tell her their feelings, anxities and sense of loss. In other words Mommy is just another human being. See her strengths and weaknesses and you will see your own.
As for my view I have always felt the most important responsibility in life is to raise a health human being. Workplace, government and career are secondary. Yes I believe that men as fathers are equally responsible for children but not as I often read or hear from a feminist perspective which, as this article supports, is usually never the right (their) way.
Maturity is a difficult process but one constructive attitude I have learned is when events, situations or people are not conforming to my expectations I look at myself and ask what am I doing wrong. Looking outward and finding who or what is at fault just keeps me from growing and displaces me from being a part of life.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: geming
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: elderwoman.org
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: Annarisse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: erb77 on Aug 16, 2006 4:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boygranddakar on Aug 16, 2006 5:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women don't want to choose between work and family, necessarily. Doesn't a significant chunk of the population - women and men - want both? A fulfilling career and a life with partner and children?
This isn't simply an issue for feminism, although women certainly bear the brunt of this problem. Few people actually want to work 60/70/80-hour weeks. Yet there's no labor movement to put the brakes on companies trying to squeeze more hours out of fewer people. We need universal health care, a guaranteed annual vacation of at least two weeks (not including sick days!), affordable and accessible childcare, and a more humane working environment... for the good of everyone: men and women, parents and children, and the nation as a whole.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women could do it all, if...
Posted by: Shakti
» RE: Women could do it all, if...
Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Women could do it all, if...
Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Women could do it all, if...
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Poe on Aug 16, 2006 5:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cook....I clean.....take care of the garden and all of the household chores.....and household maintenance......and I panic at 4pm when I have no idea what to do for dinner.
Today, my wife will come home to grilled garlic lemon chicken, snap peas and baby red potatoes. She'll finish a glass of wine while I do the dishes and while she plays, reads and puts our daughter to bed....I, no doubt, will be working on revisions for a brochure until 2am.
Pretty strange day, huh....for a guy that votes mostly Republican.
I have all the respect in the world for stay at home moms......but believe me.....I don't get that same respect from most people. It's too bad, in a time when so many "fathers" bail out on their families.
Anyway....I think I now have more estrogen than testosterone.
Poe
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stay at home dad, here.
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Stay at home dad, here.
Posted by: agapegirl
» Considering the source ...
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Stay at home dad, here.
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: zoomorph
» Wow!! Kudo's MatthewSavage ...
Posted by: Loopylafae
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: kit79
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: meganita
» Holy stereotype, batman!
Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: cbrege
» Sorry, no
Posted by: McJulie
» Nominclature is everything ...
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Nominclature is everything ...
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» "Not getting it "
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: "Not getting it "
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Touche ... and also 'gotcha' !
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Nominclature is everything ...
Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: Stay at home dad, here.
Posted by: Loopylafae
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kamcallen on Aug 16, 2006 7:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ajnablue
Posted by: Poe
» RE: Ajnablue
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Ajnablue
Posted by: agapegirl
» RE: Ajnablue
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Ajnablue
Posted by: KellyMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cdtomei on Aug 16, 2006 8:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh yes, they have changed -- in degree
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Aug 16, 2006 9:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The working class and the ruling class have nothing in common.
People should be living in houses they built themselves and eating food they grew themselves (The Grapes of Wrath).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: evolution is the answer -What is the question?
Posted by: pomes
» RE: evolution is the answer -What is the question?
Posted by: WitchyNy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Blue Heron on Aug 16, 2006 9:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leaving the game altogether can be a powerful statement and catalyst for change. What would businessmen do if their wives didn't stay at home? Women do indeed have the power of denial, and we need to keep saying NO to society until society can say yes to us. We are a precious resource, and we can take it off the shelf anytime - that is our birthright.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: powerful conclusion
Posted by: pomes
» whatever, Pomes
Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: whatever, Pomes
Posted by: pomes
» Well yeah...
Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Well yeah...
Posted by: pomes
» As this is all getting you so very ruffled little man...
Posted by: Blue Heron
» Alimony . . .
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: pomes
» what?
Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: MarinaCelli
» RE: Alimony and Child Support
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Alimony and Child Support
Posted by: kit79
» RE: powerful conclusion
Posted by: BassFace
» RE: powerful conclusion
Posted by: kit79
Comments are closed-
Posted by: magpiemeg on Aug 16, 2006 11:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fork on Aug 16, 2006 12:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
". . .It seems to me to be this: how to arrange the world so that women can be human beings, with a chance to exercise their infinitely varied gifts in infinitely varied ways, instead of being destined by the accident of their sex to one field of activity -housework and child-raising. . .
(W)e must institute a revolution in the early training and education of both boys and girls. It must be womanly as well as manly to earn your own living, to stand on your own feet. And it must be manly as well as womanly to know how to cook and sew and clean and take care of yourself in the ordinary exigencies of life. I need not add that the second part of this revolution will be more passionately resisted than the first. . .
A growing number of men admire the woman who has a job, and, especially since the cost of living doubled, rather like the idea of their own wives contributing to the family income by outside work. . . But these bread-winning wives have not yet developed homemaking husbands. When the two come home from the factory the man sits down while his wife gets supper, and he does so with exactly the same sense of fore-ordained right as if he were "supporting her." Higher up in the economic scale the same thing is true. The business or professional woman who is married, perhaps engages a cook, but the responsibility is not shifted, it is still hers. She "hires and fires," she orders meals, she does the buying, she meets and resolves all domestic crises, she takes charge of moving, furnishing, settling. She may be, like her husband, a busy executive at her office all day, but unlike him, she is also an executive in a small way every night and morning at home. . .
Two business women can "make a home" together without either one being over-burdened or over-bored. It is because they both know how and both feel responsible. But it is a rare man who can marry one of them and continue the homemaking partnership. Yet if there are no children, there is nothing essentially different in the combination. Two self-supporting adults decide to make a home together: if both are women it is a pleasant partnership, more fun than work; if one is a man, it is almost never a partnership -- the woman simply adds running the home to her regular outside job. Unless she is very strong, it is too much for her, she gets tired and bitter over it, and finally perhaps gives up her outside work and condemns herself to the tiresome half-job of housekeeping for two. . .
How can we change the nature of man so that he will honorably share that work and responsibility and thus make the homemaking enterprise a song instead of a burden? "
- Crystal Eastman, 1920
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Plus ca change . . .
Posted by: kit79
» that was written in 1920????
Posted by: Loopylafae
Comments are closed-
Posted by: theracerace on Aug 16, 2006 12:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a very convenient coincidence that the feminists want exactly what they're told to want by the media and big business. More than anything, it seems, feminists want to be a cog (and an important/successful cog at that) in a powerful corporation. This appears to be the new freedom. A successful life is now one defined by this "success" and feminists have fallen for it. It's quite astonishing that this mind-job would work since most men have never had anything resembling a "career" in their daily grind. Work has traditionally been a means to an end. Where women got the idea that work should be a source of joy and fulfillment in life is beyond me. They certainly didn't get the idea by polling men.
It's even worse on the home front where feminists have been duped into believing that it is fundamental to their liberty to achieve/acquire all of the trappings of the modern media driven consumerist American life. The result has been unprecedented levels of debt: student debt, house, car and credit card debt. All this in an effort to gain "equality" with men and "have it all".
Corporations benefit enormously by keeping the population believing that it's vital to join their rat race. But it's an illusion. Women have invested heavily by way of student debt to become part of the system. When they have children they become even more dependent on the benevolence of the corporation.
At this point women already have what most men have - a crummy job. Good work. The trouble is that women also want to have children which is an enormous extra burden both in terms of time and money. It's also probably the single most consumerist act one can perform. In the end, it seems only fair that since women are generally the driving force behind having a family, that they carry the extra burden and "have it all".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Feminism: Duped by corporate culture
Posted by: fork
» "..corporate culture has managed to deliver these things to men"?
Posted by: theracerace
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Aug 16, 2006 1:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's demanding enough that even if dad puts in even shares, you end up with both parents basically sacrificing their careers for their kids.
I think the best change to make would be to work expectations which are consuming the lives of people. Pass a law that no company is allowed to have people late at work or on weekends. In the evening and nights, they must kick everyone out, lock the doors and turn off the email servers.
That would go a long way toward both evening the playing field and giving parents a sane life where they can nuture the children and each other.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Because after all, the state knows best.
Posted by: MatthewSavage
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 16, 2006 3:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The feminists should quit obsessing over frivolous issues such as "abortion"
Posted by: molotov
» From Crystal Eastman's 1920 essay
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pomes on Aug 16, 2006 3:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» wow
Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Feminist movement: see no good, hear no good
Posted by: kit79
» You're right...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: You're right...
Posted by: H_H
» RE: You're right...
Posted by: KellyMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BassFace on Aug 16, 2006 6:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Poor you.
Posted by: fork
» RE: Poor you.
Posted by: BassFace
» RE: Poor you.
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 16, 2006 7:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: browngoddess on Aug 16, 2006 10:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: H_H on Aug 17, 2006 9:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, that's a toughie.
It's not exactly a secret that raising children tends to take-up the time one would normally be spending at one's career. And this isn't a "women's" issue, single fathers are affected by this as well (oh yeah, single dads don't count as REAL parents.) I know it's fashionable to suggest that the government ought to set-up free kid-kennels for the public (and would all moms feel comfortable with something like that? Hardly.)
If you take one road, it means there's a road not taken. You can have 100% of one, 100% of the other, but you can't have 100% of both. That's life. There is no such thing as a perfect existence, no one can "have it all", despite much carping insistence to the contrary.
Fun fact: most of the progressives of the early 20th century (including Mother Jones, of all people) favored a division of labor whereby dads would be paid enough to be breadwinners who could support a mom who'd raise kids. This was considered a decent trade-off compared to, say, having both parents work in sweatshops while the kids ran-around the streets unsupervised. But 70 years later, feminists decided that this was actually a sinister male plot to oppress womyn by forcing them to run the microwave. Now that women can have a mix of both family AND career (something that most men cannot count on having), it's a sinister male plot to prevent women from becoming CEO SuperMoms. And hey, if women all become CEO SuperMoms, we'll suddenly treated to feminist harangues about how it's a sinister male plot to give women stress headaches.
(PS- if women's work is never done, why is most daytime programming oriented towards women? One would imagine that they wouldn't have enough time to watch Oprah and Dr. Phil. You know, seeing as how women don't have the time to watch tv?)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» Firefly!!
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: Madam Hatter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: theracerace on Aug 17, 2006 8:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Epicurienne on Aug 18, 2006 7:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 18, 2006 6:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard lots of disdainful put downs of men, about how women didn't need men to begin with. Since the discussion included, as the original piece here noted, discussions of sexual harrassment and domestic violence--two areas in which there have been huge shifts in behavior and opinion--the complaints were justified.
But we've ended up like sober drunks--no longer indulging in our vices but just as miserable or more so than ever. That's because we say we are trying to change but without making any changes.
I would like to see a serious content study of women's popular magazines. And not just the lede stories, but the display advertising, the front pages, the footnotes. I have not looked at one in a long, long time. I expect not to see much change, judging from what I see as I pass through the check out lines at the supermarket.
In the days of "Feminine Mystique" making change was in the air. Today change is threatening, after 25+ years of conservative government. So if we want to see women's roles change, we'd better do something about changing legislators' roles--and no that doesn't just mean electing more women; it's time we outgrew that notion because it clearly has not worked. Honesty, especially in keeping promises, is more important than gender. After all, we're all in it together.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: clux on Aug 20, 2006 7:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I, as a mother, calculated back to what I needed and played with quite happily and applied those equivalent costs to my child, I would not even have to work. We drive our expectations and therefore our childrens expectations to be so high these days, that we spent a great deal of working time saving up for items that are not by any means important for daily living or for true contentment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: freerain on Aug 21, 2006 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The loss to our country is that we lost the worth of women by trying to define that worth through the language of men. To be in the corporate game, you had to give up your feminine sensibilities and turn grotesquely masculine. Most corporate women dress like men--even Sen. Hillary Clinton follows the male model.
We now don't know anymore that war is the worst thing that can be put upon civilized society, that women can fight just like a man, yes they can, but is it really our nature to do that? No, but the money is there, the prestige and the opportunity. Corporate boardrooms are war zones.
Women need to stand up to what it means to be a woman--in our own terms. Most women would tell you that it is awful to leave their children with someone else while they go about feeding the corporate machine. For this our society get institutionalized children growing up with institutional parents.
It is not wrong to be a mother, it is natural. Now that corporate America NEEDS the 51% of employment that make up women in the work place then women do control the system if they unify their efforts--start by quitting the worthless job and set about caring and raising the children you have--see what happens to wages and rights. Then come back to the work force on your own terms.
FR
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Beautifully put.
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Missing the point
Posted by: kit79
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kit79 on Aug 16, 2006 2:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It makes sense for one partner to stay home for a little while, because daycare is so expensive, and many moms opt to do it because a lot of moms seem to feel that no one can care for baby like they can. I guess that happens when it comes out of your body. That's not to say that men aren't helping out.
But domestic things still fall on the shoulders of the women, so I know working moms who just feel like they have two jobs. Take care of the kids/husband/home and do their paid job. The attitude is that the husband just doesn't clean up right. Well how about getting a grown up man who picks up after himself and will help out with 50% of the housework and 50% of the childcare? I'm not saying there aren't men who don't or won't - of course there are. I'm just saying that many women will settle for a husband suddenly becomes another child to be taken care when it comes time to do housework and who becomes a burden instead of helpmate. Women must be expected to bring in their share of the income, and men must be expected to do their share of housework and childcare duties.
Maybe we need more work-at-home jobs and more self-employment? And more daycare at work? With so many single parents, mele and female, that would be helpful. But having a baby is a sacrifice and it hurts you career-wise, so men I think will always do better economically. It's inconvenient biology.
Maybe in a fluffy perfect world working mothers should retire like 5 years later and should receive something like social security benefits while they're staying at home. I notice it's becoming more common for the dads to stay at home with the kids while they're going to school.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: redjenny
» It's the f***ing South, OK?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: It's the f***ing South, OK
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: jackie
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Parenthood is a Blessing!
Posted by: Loopylafae
» Women should get cash subsidies for existing
Posted by: H_H
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Aug 16, 2006 4:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They expected the workplace, government and men to step up and do some significant changing, too. That largely hasn't happened.
They can be translated as Mommy, the workplace as a something that owes me, the government that pesky patriarchy and men (untermensch). That largely hasn't happened means everyone else is to blame for things not going my way.
Our mothers told us we would be the first generation of women who could do anything we set out to do; when we can't, we assume it's a personal failing.
Again Mommy told me it was now all mine and we are now obligated to become superwoman. And along with that message was the unspoken implication that if I failed it was my fault. The idea that Mommy may have been living her expectations through her little girl without the mature realization of reality, boundaries or limitations that all other human beings face in life seems not to enter into the discussion. Why?
Just a suggestion that maybe all these Mommies gave these daughters goals, expectations and explanations that were based more on their own needs rather than what were realistic and best for their children. Promising any child that they "could do anything you set out to do" and that they should demand that the "workplace, government and men step up and do some significant changing" seems a doomed to failure proposition. It may be time for all these daughters to look Mommy in the eye and tell her their feelings, anxities and sense of loss. In other words Mommy is just another human being. See her strengths and weaknesses and you will see your own.
As for my view I have always felt the most important responsibility in life is to raise a health human being. Workplace, government and career are secondary. Yes I believe that men as fathers are equally responsible for children but not as I often read or hear from a feminist perspective which, as this article supports, is usually never the right (their) way.
Maturity is a difficult process but one constructive attitude I have learned is when events, situations or people are not conforming to my expectations I look at myself and ask what am I doing wrong. Looking outward and finding who or what is at fault just keeps me from growing and displaces me from being a part of life.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: geming
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: elderwoman.org
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault?
Posted by: Annarisse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: erb77 on Aug 16, 2006 4:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boygranddakar on Aug 16, 2006 5:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women don't want to choose between work and family, necessarily. Doesn't a significant chunk of the population - women and men - want both? A fulfilling career and a life with partner and children?
This isn't simply an issue for feminism, although women certainly bear the brunt of this problem. Few people actually want to work 60/70/80-hour weeks. Yet there's no labor movement to put the brakes on companies trying to squeeze more hours out of fewer people. We need universal health care, a guaranteed annual vacation of at least two weeks (not including sick days!), affordable and accessible childcare, and a more humane working environment... for the good of everyone: men and women, parents and children, and the nation as a whole.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Women could do it all, if...
Posted by: Shakti
» RE: Women could do it all, if...
Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Women could do it all, if...
Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Women could do it all, if...
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Poe on Aug 16, 2006 5:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cook....I clean.....take care of the garden and all of the household chores.....and household maintenance......and I panic at 4pm when I have no idea what to do for dinner.
Today, my wife will come home to grilled garlic lemon chicken, snap peas and baby red potatoes. She'll finish a glass of wine while I do the dishes and while she plays, reads and puts our daughter to bed....I, no doubt, will be working on revisions for a brochure until 2am.
Pretty strange day, huh....for a guy that votes mostly Republican.
I have all the respect in the world for stay at home moms......but believe me.....I don't get that same respect from most people. It's too bad, in a time when so many "fathers" bail out on their families.
Anyway....I think I now have more estrogen than testosterone.
Poe
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stay at home dad, here.
Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Stay at home dad, here.
Posted by: agapegirl
» Considering the source ...
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Stay at home dad, here.
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: zoomorph
» Wow!! Kudo's MatthewSavage ...
Posted by: Loopylafae
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: kit79
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: meganita
» Holy stereotype, batman!
Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: This is exactly the problem...
Posted by: cbrege
» Sorry, no
Posted by: McJulie
» Nominclature is everything ...
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Nominclature is everything ...
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» "Not getting it "
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: "Not getting it "
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Touche ... and also 'gotcha' !
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Nominclature is everything ...
Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: Stay at home dad, here.
Posted by: Loopylafae
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kamcallen on Aug 16, 2006 7:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ajnablue
Posted by: Poe
» RE: Ajnablue
Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Ajnablue
Posted by: agapegirl
» RE: Ajnablue
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Ajnablue
Posted by: KellyMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cdtomei on Aug 16, 2006 8:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh yes, they have changed -- in degree
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Aug 16, 2006 9:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The working class and the ruling class have nothing in common.
People should be living in houses they built themselves and eating food they grew themselves (The Grapes of Wrath).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: evolution is the answer -What is the question?
Posted by: pomes
» RE: evolution is the answer -What is the question?
Posted by: WitchyNy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Blue Heron on Aug 16, 2006 9:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Leaving the game altogether can be a powerful statement and catalyst for change. What would businessmen do if their wives didn't stay at home? Women do indeed have the power of denial, and we need to keep saying NO to society until society can say yes to us. We are a precious resource, and we can take it off the shelf anytime - that is our birthright.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: powerful conclusion
Posted by: pomes
» whatever, Pomes
Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: whatever, Pomes
Posted by: pomes
» Well yeah...
Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Well yeah...
Posted by: pomes
» As this is all getting you so very ruffled little man...
Posted by: Blue Heron
» Alimony . . .
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: pomes
» what?
Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Alimony . . .
Posted by: MarinaCelli
» RE: Alimony and Child Support
Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Alimony and Child Support
Posted by: kit79
» RE: powerful conclusion
Posted by: BassFace
» RE: powerful conclusion
Posted by: kit79
Comments are closed-
Posted by: magpiemeg on Aug 16, 2006 11:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fork on Aug 16, 2006 12:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
". . .It seems to me to be this: how to arrange the world so that women can be human beings, with a chance to exercise their infinitely varied gifts in infinitely varied ways, instead of being destined by the accident of their sex to one field of activity -housework and child-raising. . .
(W)e must institute a revolution in the early training and education of both boys and girls. It must be womanly as well as manly to earn your own living, to stand on your own feet. And it must be manly as well as womanly to know how to cook and sew and clean and take care of yourself in the ordinary exigencies of life. I need not add that the second part of this revolution will be more passionately resisted than the first. . .
A growing number of men admire the woman who has a job, and, especially since the cost of living doubled, rather like the idea of their own wives contributing to the family income by outside work. . . But these bread-winning wives have not yet developed homemaking husbands. When the two come home from the factory the man sits down while his wife gets supper, and he does so with exactly the same sense of fore-ordained right as if he were "supporting her." Higher up in the economic scale the same thing is true. The business or professional woman who is married, perhaps engages a cook, but the responsibility is not shifted, it is still hers. She "hires and fires," she orders meals, she does the buying, she meets and resolves all domestic crises, she takes charge of moving, furnishing, settling. She may be, like her husband, a busy executive at her office all day, but unlike him, she is also an executive in a small way every night and morning at home. . .
Two business women can "make a home" together without either one being over-burdened or over-bored. It is because they both know how and both feel responsible. But it is a rare man who can marry one of them and continue the homemaking partnership. Yet if there are no children, there is nothing essentially different in the combination. Two self-supporting adults decide to make a home together: if both are women it is a pleasant partnership, more fun than work; if one is a man, it is almost never a partnership -- the woman simply adds running the home to her regular outside job. Unless she is very strong, it is too much for her, she gets tired and bitter over it, and finally perhaps gives up her outside work and condemns herself to the tiresome half-job of housekeeping for two. . .
How can we change the nature of man so that he will honorably share that work and responsibility and thus make the homemaking enterprise a song instead of a burden? "
- Crystal Eastman, 1920
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Plus ca change . . .
Posted by: kit79
» that was written in 1920????
Posted by: Loopylafae
Comments are closed-
Posted by: theracerace on Aug 16, 2006 12:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a very convenient coincidence that the feminists want exactly what they're told to want by the media and big business. More than anything, it seems, feminists want to be a cog (and an important/successful cog at that) in a powerful corporation. This appears to be the new freedom. A successful life is now one defined by this "success" and feminists have fallen for it. It's quite astonishing that this mind-job would work since most men have never had anything resembling a "career" in their daily grind. Work has traditionally been a means to an end. Where women got the idea that work should be a source of joy and fulfillment in life is beyond me. They certainly didn't get the idea by polling men.
It's even worse on the home front where feminists have been duped into believing that it is fundamental to their liberty to achieve/acquire all of the trappings of the modern media driven consumerist American life. The result has been unprecedented levels of debt: student debt, house, car and credit card debt. All this in an effort to gain "equality" with men and "have it all".
Corporations benefit enormously by keeping the population believing that it's vital to join their rat race. But it's an illusion. Women have invested heavily by way of student debt to become part of the system. When they have children they become even more dependent on the benevolence of the corporation.
At this point women already have what most men have - a crummy job. Good work. The trouble is that women also want to have children which is an enormous extra burden both in terms of time and money. It's also probably the single most consumerist act one can perform. In the end, it seems only fair that since women are generally the driving force behind having a family, that they carry the extra burden and "have it all".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Feminism: Duped by corporate culture
Posted by: fork
» "..corporate culture has managed to deliver these things to men"?
Posted by: theracerace
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Aug 16, 2006 1:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's demanding enough that even if dad puts in even shares, you end up with both parents basically sacrificing their careers for their kids.
I think the best change to make would be to work expectations which are consuming the lives of people. Pass a law that no company is allowed to have people late at work or on weekends. In the evening and nights, they must kick everyone out, lock the doors and turn off the email servers.
That would go a long way toward both evening the playing field and giving parents a sane life where they can nuture the children and each other.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Because after all, the state knows best.
Posted by: MatthewSavage
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 16, 2006 3:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The feminists should quit obsessing over frivolous issues such as "abortion"
Posted by: molotov
» From Crystal Eastman's 1920 essay
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pomes on Aug 16, 2006 3:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» wow
Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Feminist movement: see no good, hear no good
Posted by: kit79
» You're right...
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: You're right...
Posted by: H_H
» RE: You're right...
Posted by: KellyMB
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BassFace on Aug 16, 2006 6:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Poor you.
Posted by: fork
» RE: Poor you.
Posted by: BassFace
» RE: Poor you.
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 16, 2006 7:51 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: browngoddess on Aug 16, 2006 10:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: H_H on Aug 17, 2006 9:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gee, that's a toughie.
It's not exactly a secret that raising children tends to take-up the time one would normally be spending at one's career. And this isn't a "women's" issue, single fathers are affected by this as well (oh yeah, single dads don't count as REAL parents.) I know it's fashionable to suggest that the government ought to set-up free kid-kennels for the public (and would all moms feel comfortable with something like that? Hardly.)
If you take one road, it means there's a road not taken. You can have 100% of one, 100% of the other, but you can't have 100% of both. That's life. There is no such thing as a perfect existence, no one can "have it all", despite much carping insistence to the contrary.
Fun fact: most of the progressives of the early 20th century (including Mother Jones, of all people) favored a division of labor whereby dads would be paid enough to be breadwinners who could support a mom who'd raise kids. This was considered a decent trade-off compared to, say, having both parents work in sweatshops while the kids ran-around the streets unsupervised. But 70 years later, feminists decided that this was actually a sinister male plot to oppress womyn by forcing them to run the microwave. Now that women can have a mix of both family AND career (something that most men cannot count on having), it's a sinister male plot to prevent women from becoming CEO SuperMoms. And hey, if women all become CEO SuperMoms, we'll suddenly treated to feminist harangues about how it's a sinister male plot to give women stress headaches.
(PS- if women's work is never done, why is most daytime programming oriented towards women? One would imagine that they wouldn't have enough time to watch Oprah and Dr. Phil. You know, seeing as how women don't have the time to watch tv?)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: MatthewSavage
» Firefly!!
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: kit79
» RE: Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: Madam Hatter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: theracerace on Aug 17, 2006 8:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Epicurienne on Aug 18, 2006 7:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 18, 2006 6:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard lots of disdainful put downs of men, about how women didn't need men to begin with. Since the discussion included, as the original piece here noted, discussions of sexual harrassment and domestic violence--two areas in which there have been huge shifts in behavior and opinion--the complaints were justified.
But we've ended up like sober drunks--no longer indulging in our vices but just as miserable or more so than ever. That's because we say we are trying to change but without making any changes.
I would like to see a serious content study of women's popular magazines. And not just the lede stories, but the display advertising, the front pages, the footnotes. I have not looked at one in a long, long time. I expect not to see much change, judging from what I see as I pass through the check out lines at the supermarket.
In the days of "Feminine Mystique" making change was in the air. Today change is threatening, after 25+ years of conservative government. So if we want to see women's roles change, we'd better do something about changing legislators' roles--and no that doesn't just mean electing more women; it's time we outgrew that notion because it clearly has not worked. Honesty, especially in keeping promises, is more important than gender. After all, we're all in it together.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: clux on Aug 20, 2006 7:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I, as a mother, calculated back to what I needed and played with quite happily and applied those equivalent costs to my child, I would not even have to work. We drive our expectations and therefore our childrens expectations to be so high these days, that we spent a great deal of working time saving up for items that are not by any means important for daily living or for true contentment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: freerain on Aug 21, 2006 10:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The loss to our country is that we lost the worth of women by trying to define that worth through the language of men. To be in the corporate game, you had to give up your feminine sensibilities and turn grotesquely masculine. Most corporate women dress like men--even Sen. Hillary Clinton follows the male model.
We now don't know anymore that war is the worst thing that can be put upon civilized society, that women can fight just like a man, yes they can, but is it really our nature to do that? No, but the money is there, the prestige and the opportunity. Corporate boardrooms are war zones.
Women need to stand up to what it means to be a woman--in our own terms. Most women would tell you that it is awful to leave their children with someone else while they go about feeding the corporate machine. For this our society get institutionalized children growing up with institutional parents.
It is not wrong to be a mother, it is natural. Now that corporate America NEEDS the 51% of employment that make up women in the work place then women do control the system if they unify their efforts--start by quitting the worthless job and set about caring and raising the children you have--see what happens to wages and rights. Then come back to the work force on your own terms.
FR
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Beautifully put.
Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Missing the point
Posted by: kit79
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say




