|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are workplaces designed by default to penalize mothers?
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
writing this without having read all the responses, because I wanted my answer to be untainted... I'll see if I change my mind after reading other people's thoughts.
I'm a mother who has a career. I have run into some blocks, but as I never took a break (given that in the US even as a Federal employee I had relatively minimal "maternity" leave), I can't say my career was significantly impacted by that. I also had the benefit of a SAH spouse (or at least a partially SAH spouse).
What could help? well, certainly treating mothers and fathers equally both at work and at home in terms of expectations (equally... not identically) would help. I do think that someone of either gender who chooses to forgo the joys of a family in order to focus solely on their career will and should reap some benefit from that choice, but if both mothers and fathers are generally treated equally both legally and in terms of societal expectations, then the impact of parenthood would be shared by the majority of the population. as it is, we place that burden primarily on women (although that is changing, and has changed significantly in my own adult lifetime).
Other things that help: yes, on site daycare, but also flexible work hours (something I have always had) and the ability to work from home (something I have now, but did not have when my kids were small). the 9-5 work day is already a thing of the past around here.. almost everyone I know works some other combination of hours, either a "compressed" schedule (9 hrs vs. 8, with an extra day off every other week), or very early or very late schedules (I work 6am to 3:30 pm), or both. some jobs certainly lend themselves to this more than others, but most do have at least some wiggle room.
school schedules can be adjusted. Not entirely sure how, but I do know that one major problem many people (mostly women) face is that they need to adjust their work hours around school hours. it's hard to get a job when you can't come in before the kids have left for school, and/or get home after they have. with two parents who have flexibility, it's easier but still can be a challenge. then there is the need for at least one parent to be available to pick up kids in case of sickness or other emergency. I work an hour away. I take a train to work, and there is no return train until later in the day. If I had to go home to pick up a sick child from school, I don't know what I'd do. Take a taxi I guess... but that would cost MAJOR bucks, and still take over an hour.
Again, if the expectation was that parents share this load equally, then the burden wouldn't fall primarily on women.
and of course... many times the decision for one parent to stay home is based on income potential.. and because women are still generally paid less than men, it's the women who stay home (or take on more of the burden)... which causes employers to say they can pay women less because of this.. which... well, you see how that goes.
Finally, it used to be that multi-generational families were the norm. one generation worked and another took care of kids (OK, it was the norm in some countries.. I don't know if it ever was here). My grandmother raised me because both of my parents worked. Actually, my grandmother also worked, but between them the three adults were able to juggle schedules so that day care was not needed. back then (1960s) daycare in the form we know it now was extremely rare. having parents (or aunts/uncles etc) around to spread the burden would make it easier for everyone, but sadly that's very unusual in the states, and I suspect elsewhere as well.
it all boils down, in my mind, to a societal expectation that everyone shares equally in the burden of raising children, that it's not something that only mothers are expected to do, and that therefore mothers can be penalized for both doing it and NOT doing it (as is often the case now).
I thin k we are moving in the right direction, by the way. I have seen it very up close and personal. I think by the time my daughter is facing this delema, it will be much more normal to assume fathers as well as mothers will be on a "parent track" in their careers, and that since most people are parents at some point in their lives, no one is singled out to take the hit to their careers (or to their family life).
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
I know exactly what I've written. You go back and reread. I have never implied that parenthood is a bed of roses. But I AM heartily sick of people who seem to think that there are few pleasures and an excess of pain in being around children.
You are heartily sick of people whose experience isn't the same as yours. Do you think these people are lying or something?
That is not what I'm saying and your selective quotes do you no credit. I do not accuse anyone of lying as you very well know, I made it abundantly clear in posts unthread that there are many experiences of bringing up children. Some love it some loathe and most see both pleasure and pain. Please don't distort what I have said.
quote:
I really do wonder sometimes why they feel the need to rubbish bringing up children and focus on the downside.
We don't rubbish it. We give an accurate description of our experience of it.
Then I can only say that I feel sorry that your experiences were so devoid of pleasure. Just accept that your experience is not the only way to view parenthood.
And now I'm off to help the three year old to prepare his tea and play with the eight month old. Much more rewarding than wasting time on here.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I quoted your entire post, so you can take your "selective quoting" crap back.
Meanwhile, I have not said it's "devoid of pleasure". I said the day to day realities are dull, unfulfilling and uninspiring. Example - tomorrow I'm taking the boys to their climbing club. One day, when they're older, it'll be great to spend weekends in the mountains. But at the moment it means having to be up at 8 on a Saturday, chivvying them along to have their breakfast, chivvying them into shoes and coats, sitting in a leisure centre café for an hour and a half (not my idea of an inspiring environment), then driving them home again. Yes, there's some pleasure in seeing their achievements and their progress, but the on the ground reality of it isn't something I particularly relish. Frankly I'd rather a lie-in and a fried breakfast, then out on the bike for 30 miles or so. Can't really do that much with children.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Most educated young people don't want to have a child without a stable home (preferably owned) which is the main factor I see among my friends (late 20s/early 30s age group).
I aim squarely at that. Basically, I intend to advantage those who "risk" children early, by financing their higher education or vocational training. Once a few people have used this scheme successfully, I think perceptions will start to change. A child costs something like £9-12k per year, slowly rising as they grow older. As it happens, most UK universities now charge tuition fees of around £9k per year (though less for PGs). Thus basically the state ends up paying for up to the first five years of having a child, if you are willing to combine your own education with child rearing (possibly the education of your partner with your own child rearing, one can take advantage of this scheme as a family, not just as an individual). Whereas there are no benefits for those who "play safe" and instead attempt to "have it made" before they even consider having children. It is it is an incentive worth up to £45k just from one child. I think plenty of people will consider taking that bet against their future, at least eventually.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I can't imagine the taxpayer would delight in paying for either of us to get another degree for free because we've had a child.
I would rather "waste" some money on over-qualifying some mothers and fathers, than see many people struggling to combine raising young kids with demanding work, and many other people not daring to have kids until it is too late. However, it is not the case that educating yourself ever further, even if someone else pays for it, continues to be optimal. First, you still have to support yourself, it's not like you can make a living out of having children there. Second, you are spending time and effort on this, and having three degrees is not going to give you threefold chances to land a three times better paid job. There is a point of optimal return there. Or rather, there are many, as individuals have different priorities, but I do not think that many people will choose to have a dozen children in order to obtain a dozen degrees! One could indeed add a rule like "at most one Bachelor, one Master, and one PhD per person", if this becomes an issue.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Example - tomorrow I'm taking the boys to their climbing club. One day, when they're older, it'll be great to spend weekends in the mountains. But at the moment it means having to be up at 8 on a Saturday, chivvying them along to have their breakfast, chivvying them into shoes and coats, sitting in a leisure centre café for an hour and a half (not my idea of an inspiring environment), then driving them home again. Yes, there's some pleasure in seeing their achievements and their progress, but the on the ground reality of it isn't something I particularly relish.
I can identify with this (though not in relation to climbing). I do sometimes tell mine that I'm finding something I have to do with them dull. And they sometimes tell me that something they have to do with me is dull. I think this is healthy and normal and part of family life and learning to live with other people.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
I'm sorry you feel like this Jade. I'm assuming that you don't have children yourself, and if you know you don't want to have much to do with them, that's a fair choice. But this view is not held by many - men as well as women. Watching a new new human being be born and seeing how they grow and develop and how as an adult you can aid that development, is in fact a rewarding intellectual experience as well as an emotional one.
If the only way you see bringing up children as 'singing nursery rhymes and watching Cbeebies' you really need to extend your experience of young children instead of making sweeping generalisations about the rewards of interacting with adults as a contrast.
Actually, I have a lot of experience of young children - that's how I know that I much prefer the company of adults and find being around children for extended periods of time to be incredibly dull.
But this is unfortunately an unacceptable view for women to have, even now.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Might one say that stating that women ought to gain more pleasure / reward from one set of activities rather than another is an example of the misogyny that you've castigated others for?
No, because there's no 'ought' about it. Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are. There should be much better (and more affordable) childcare provision, and shared parental leave as the norm (including for same-gender parents), rather than assuming that a male parent will want to be the breadwinner and a female parent won't.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are.
Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
[ 10. January 2014, 18:15: Message edited by: Tommy1 ]
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are.
Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
Most people prefer earning a living for themselves as opposed to living on another person's wage. Even if it's not the work itself that's enjoyable (although plenty of people do enjoy their work, that's why people spend time and money on education and training in order to get those jobs), the achievement and self-sufficiency of earning one's own money is.
Anyway, the point I was making was more that women are as capable of finding a career more fulfilling than being a stay-at-home parent as men are.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There should be much better (and more affordable) childcare provision,
You can have good or cheap - pick one.
Let's look at some numbers. For under fives, you want one competent adult per 4 or 5 children. Let's say 5.
Then if you want childcare, you have to pay for 20% of a person's salary per child. But there are overheads - even if the full cost of childcare is tax-deductible, so you can pay for it out of your gross income, you still have to pay employers' NI, an allowance for replacement staff to cover vacation, maternity and sick leave, insurance premiums, heat, light and rent for the childcare facility, legal and secretarial costs, advertising and so on. A factor of 2.5 for total overheads seems to be in reasonably common use, so you're actually going to have to pay 50% of a person's salary per child in childcare.
Right there, we see that if you have two young children, and your earning potential is similar to that of the kind of person you'd like to look after your children, it makes absolutely no financial sense for you to pay for childcare. Equally, it makes no financial sense for the state to subsidize your childcare.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Workplaces are designed to maximise profits for employers. Of course employers want to incentivise employees as that makes them work harder and part of this involves promoting the ideas that salaries have something to do with 'fairness'. In reality the fact that one workers wages cost more than another's is no more to do with fairness than the fact that apples and pears have different prices in a grocery shop.
All true. But it doesn't have to stay true. We can change the world to suit ourselves if we want. We don't have to meekly obey the orders our bosses give us just because they have more money in their bank accounts than we do, or some piece of paper that says they own loads of stuff and we don't. There are more of us then them. All we need to is co-operate and work together for what we want and it would happen. The current way politics and economics are ordered is not a law of nature, any more than the varous ways society was ordered in the past were entirely due to laws of nature. These things too shall pass.
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
For most women just as for most men their work is not a 'fulfilling career', its a boring treadmill that they climb onto because they have to pay the bills. Only a minority of either sex have a 'fulfilling career'.
Also true. But it doesn't have to be that way. We could change it.
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
On employers providing day-care – it is only possible in large structures.
Then if we need it we find another way to provide it. Other times and places have, why not here and now?
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Otherwise 35 year old women with young children would leave work to do a part-time masters or post-graduate diploma for free until their kids are old enough for school.
Sounds good to me...
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Frankly I'd rather a lie-in and a fried breakfast, then out on the bike for 30 miles or so. Can't really do that much with children.
I still remember the joy and happiness of the Saturday morning when my daughter came into my bedroom and I said, for the first time ever, "I'm going back to sleep, get your own breakfast". ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) I think she was about nine.
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
Hear hear!
But unlike you I think we can make it better. Its not a given.
Sometimes I thionk the second basic personality difference underlying politics is that left-wingers are mostly essentially optimists, right-wingers pessimists. (The most basic one is that conservatives tend to be misanthropes but lefties like people. And if I didn't already know that to be true the whinging rants I suffered through last night in the local pub woudl have convinced me of it)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Might one say that stating that women ought to gain more pleasure / reward from one set of activities rather than another is an example of the misogyny that you've castigated others for?
No, because there's no 'ought' about it. Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are. There should be much better (and more affordable) childcare provision, and shared parental leave as the norm (including for same-gender parents), rather than assuming that a male parent will want to be the breadwinner and a female parent won't.
There seems to be an ought here - your posts don't appear to appreciate that some women want to stay at home and bring up their children full time.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We seem to have a society now - in some quarters at least - where the idea of being in work is seen as somehow better and more rewarding than staying at home and looking after children. Perhaps we should work towards de-stigmatising stay-at-home mothers and support them? I suspect we have something to learn from the Germans here.
That's because working and interacting with adults generally is better and more rewarding than watching Cbeebies and singing nursery rhymes.
Might one say that stating that women ought to gain more pleasure / reward from one set of activities rather than another is an example of the misogyny that you've castigated others for?
No, because there's no 'ought' about it. Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are. There should be much better (and more affordable) childcare provision, and shared parental leave as the norm (including for same-gender parents), rather than assuming that a male parent will want to be the breadwinner and a female parent won't.
There seems to be an ought here - your posts don't appear to appreciate that some women want to stay at home and bring up their children full time.
But I've already said that there's not. Do you think I'm lying? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
And again, some men want to be stay-at-home parents too. I'm not being misogynistic if I'm not just talking about women, am I? Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
Often they don't choose. In my case, it was a simple economic decision: Mrs Tor earned over twice what I did.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I was doing various things this morning and the radio was on in the background. I wasn't really listening but happened to hear a woman say that in her country, a civilised one but I'm not going to say which, it is normal to describe pregnancy and maternity leave as 'a temporary disability' and for employment purposes to treat them as such. Even to me, that sounded antediluvian.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thoughts?
Interesting and innovative.
Which is precisely, of course, while most politicians will never go for it. And they certainly won't go for openly discussing the reasons for it, because there'll be a massive outcry of 'social engineering' and 'you can't tell me when I should have children'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are.
Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
Most people prefer earning a living for themselves as opposed to living on another person's wage. Even if it's not the work itself that's enjoyable (although plenty of people do enjoy their work, that's why people spend time and money on education and training in order to get those jobs), the achievement and self-sufficiency of earning one's own money is.
How many people really enjoy their work? By that I mean how many people, if they were freed from the necessity of earning money would be willing to continue to do their work anyway. A small minority to be found mainly within certain types of jobs. As for satisfaction what is really satisfying is having spending money. Whether or not someone else has done the work to get it is secondary. I can understand your point about the satisfaction of 'having earned it yourself' but is that satisfaction really worth the unpleasantness of working all day?
quote:
Anyway, the point I was making was more that women are as capable of finding a career more fulfilling than being a stay-at-home parent as men are.
Given that most men do not find their work fulfilling at all that's not really saying much.
quote:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
Why do you think most people choose the tedium of getting jobs?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
You seem to have a lot of disdain for people who spend time with small children. Do you despise teachers, too, or just people who are unenlightened enough to spend time with their own children?
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
You seem to have a lot of disdain for people who spend time with small children. Do you despise teachers, too, or just people who are unenlightened enough to spend time with their own children?
Well quite. Does Jade really think that being a nursery nurse is a less pleasant job than most of the jobs in our economy?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Millions of women entered the workforce in the mid-20th Century because they wanted to work, because women are as likely to find work enjoyable and fulfilling as men are.
Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
Most people prefer earning a living for themselves as opposed to living on another person's wage. Even if it's not the work itself that's enjoyable (although plenty of people do enjoy their work, that's why people spend time and money on education and training in order to get those jobs), the achievement and self-sufficiency of earning one's own money is.
How many people really enjoy their work? By that I mean how many people, if they were freed from the necessity of earning money would be willing to continue to do their work anyway. A small minority to be found mainly within certain types of jobs. As for satisfaction what is really satisfying is having spending money. Whether or not someone else has done the work to get it is secondary. I can understand your point about the satisfaction of 'having earned it yourself' but is that satisfaction really worth the unpleasantness of working all day?
quote:
Anyway, the point I was making was more that women are as capable of finding a career more fulfilling than being a stay-at-home parent as men are.
Given that most men do not find their work fulfilling at all that's not really saying much.
quote:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
Why do you think most people choose the tedium of getting jobs?
I genuinely enjoy working and would continue even if I didn't have to for financial reasons.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
You seem to have a lot of disdain for people who spend time with small children. Do you despise teachers, too, or just people who are unenlightened enough to spend time with their own children?
Um no, I don't have disdain for people who spend time with small children. I don't understand why people would choose it but only in the same way that I don't understand why people would choose anything else I find dull or unpleasant. How you would deduce that I despise teachers when I've always made my support of all public-sector workers clear?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
You seem to have a lot of disdain for people who spend time with small children. Do you despise teachers, too, or just people who are unenlightened enough to spend time with their own children?
Well quite. Does Jade really think that being a nursery nurse is a less pleasant job than most of the jobs in our economy?
Well yes, I would find being a nursery nurse far less pleasant than working in an office, for example. I'm allowed to think that, surely?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Why anyone of any gender would choose such tedium I don't understand, but there we are.
You seem to have a lot of disdain for people who spend time with small children. Do you despise teachers, too, or just people who are unenlightened enough to spend time with their own children?
Well quite. Does Jade really think that being a nursery nurse is a less pleasant job than most of the jobs in our economy?
Well yes, I would find being a nursery nurse far less pleasant than working in an office, for example. I'm allowed to think that, surely?
You think office work is pleasant? I suppose its less unpleasant than cleaning sewers or slaughterhouse floors but I wouldn't really call it pleasant
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Well yes, I would find being a nursery nurse far less pleasant than working in an office, for example. I'm allowed to think that, surely?
Of course not! You have ovaries, therefore must love children (and kittens).
As a man, I must be stern and distant, and love double-entry book-keeping. Bring me my pipe and slippers, I have some 1950s stereotyping to see to!
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
It seems a bit pointless to argue over what we as individuals prefer as our work! There's always going to be a lot of variation in that.
And anyway, teaching or nursery care is not the same as parenting your own children. I like looking after my own children (most of the time!) but I have no great desire to take care of lots of other people's for extended periods!
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
quote:
Canadian workers are among the happiest in the world, with nearly two-thirds saying they love or like their job a lot, according a study for job website Monster.ca.
The survey found that 24 per cent of Canadians love their job so much they’d do it for free and 40 per cent say enjoy what they do, but "could like it more." About 29 per cent said they like it "well enough for now."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadians-top-job-satisfaction-survey-1.2430864
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Um no, I don't have disdain for people who spend time with small children. I don't understand why people would choose it but only in the same way that I don't understand why people would choose anything else I find dull or unpleasant. How you would deduce that I despise teachers when I've always made my support of all public-sector workers clear?
Ah. So when a person is doing a difficult, dull job for money, they are a Worker and deserve your support. But when they are doing a difficult, dull job for free, they spend all their time watching TV and singing. Thanks for clearing that up.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Where on earth do you get the idea that the majority on men find work enjoyable and fulfilling? For most men, just as for most women, it is something to be endured so they can get money to pay for themselves and their families to survive and, with luck, find enjoyable and fulfilling things to do in their spare time.
quote:
Canadian workers are among the happiest in the world, with nearly two-thirds saying they love or like their job a lot, according a study for job website Monster.ca.
The survey found that 24 per cent of Canadians love their job so much they’d do it for free and 40 per cent say enjoy what they do, but "could like it more." About 29 per cent said they like it "well enough for now."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadians-top-job-satisfaction-survey-1.2430864
So of the 64% of Canadians who claim to like their jobs most don't actually like their jobs enough that they would still do them if they had a real choice. I also rather suspect some (and possibly much) of that 24% are kidding themselves, making a virtue of necessity.
That means that in one of the richest countries on earth where much of the more unpleasant factory work has been outsourced to the Far East less than a quarter of workers even claim to like their jobs well enough that they would do them if they had a real choice.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Um no, I don't have disdain for people who spend time with small children. I don't understand why people would choose it but only in the same way that I don't understand why people would choose anything else I find dull or unpleasant. How you would deduce that I despise teachers when I've always made my support of all public-sector workers clear?
Ah. So when a person is doing a difficult, dull job for money, they are a Worker and deserve your support. But when they are doing a difficult, dull job for free, they spend all their time watching TV and singing. Thanks for clearing that up.
That's so not what JC said that it qualifies as Not Even Wrong (qv).
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
First, according to the Guttmacher Institute, only about half the pregnancies launched in any given year in the U.S. are planned by the couple doing the canoodling which launches the pregnancy. I don't know what this says to you, but to me it says that roughly half of yearly pregnancies (minus the relatively few which get terminated and the other few which lead to an adoption agency) of Americans of childbearing age are entered into childcare with astonishing haphazardness.
Second, childminders have been discussed on this thread. Granted, these folks get paid peanuts. The point, though, is they get paid. This means something, too: it's a recognition that childcare is work. It's work which generates wages, may have a few little benefits thrown in, and so on.
Until, ta-dah, that work is performed by a parent.
How many other paying occupations do we have where the question of compensation or wages turns solely on there being a blood tie to the one being cared for?
The fact is that caring -- whether done in a nursing home, a daycare, or in various other settings -- is an actual occupation. Some people enjoy doing this work; others don't.
Why not create a kind of umbrella agency where those who wish to provide care sign up and get a paycheck for doing what is plain, honest work? Why don't we, while we're at it, provide support and training for those who elect to provide such care? It shouldn't matter a damn whether it's your own family member you're caring for, or whether you're doing it on behalf of someone who doesn't enjoy that role and prefers a different occupation.
In 1814, most of what we call "work" was done in a family setting by ordinary people; the division between "work" and "family life" was, for most, far less sharp and clear.
By 1914, much of this had changed. "Work" had turned into an activity carried on outside the home in factories and mills. The domestic sphere became a separate place inhabited by children too young to work, elders too frail to work, and women who stayed behind to to make sure the first two didn't burn the place down or maim themselves, plus manage all the domestic chores and tend a garden and supervise the hired hand, etc. all for free.
Now in 2014, we still seem undecided about what "work" is. I can't help wondering if those who find childrearing tedious or oppressive might feel better about it, and put a little more spit into it if they got a paycheck in return?
[ 11. January 2014, 20:30: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I genuinely enjoy working and would continue even if I didn't have to for financial reasons.
You must be very lucky. I can't imagine wanting to turn up to my workplace even if I didn't need the money.
As for surveys, if I was answering one I would say I love my job. Because it's true - given that I have to work, it's one of the best workplaces I've ever known. But if I didn't have to work - if I won the lottery or something - I'd never set foot in the office again. Shit, if I won the lottery I wouldn't even bother working out my notice period.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Um no, I don't have disdain for people who spend time with small children. I don't understand why people would choose it but only in the same way that I don't understand why people would choose anything else I find dull or unpleasant. How you would deduce that I despise teachers when I've always made my support of all public-sector workers clear?
Ah. So when a person is doing a difficult, dull job for money, they are a Worker and deserve your support. But when they are doing a difficult, dull job for free, they spend all their time watching TV and singing. Thanks for clearing that up.
Not what I said. I am well aware that SAHP don't spend all their time watching TV and singing (but used it as shorthand since the majority of SAHP will do those things at some point), I still would find it dull and tedious and wouldn't want to do it. Why is that unacceptable? If it's so difficult and dull, surely it's quite normal for people to not want to do it? But then I forgot, as a woman it's my duty to want to spend my time looking after children...
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
First, according to the Guttmacher Institute, only about half the pregnancies launched in any given year in the U.S. are planned by the couple doing the canoodling which launches the pregnancy. I don't know what this says to you, but to me it says that roughly half of yearly pregnancies (minus the relatively few which get terminated and the other few which lead to an adoption agency) of Americans of childbearing age are entered into childcare with astonishing haphazardness.
Second, childminders have been discussed on this thread. Granted, these folks get paid peanuts. The point, though, is they get paid. This means something, too: it's a recognition that childcare is work. It's work which generates wages, may have a few little benefits thrown in, and so on.
Until, ta-dah, that work is performed by a parent.
How many other paying occupations do we have where the question of compensation or wages turns solely on there being a blood tie to the one being cared for?
The fact is that caring -- whether done in a nursing home, a daycare, or in various other settings -- is an actual occupation. Some people enjoy doing this work; others don't.
Why not create a kind of umbrella agency where those who wish to provide care sign up and get a paycheck for doing what is plain, honest work? Why don't we, while we're at it, provide support and training for those who elect to provide such care? It shouldn't matter a damn whether it's your own family member you're caring for, or whether you're doing it on behalf of someone who doesn't enjoy that role and prefers a different occupation.
In 1814, most of what we call "work" was done in a family setting by ordinary people; the division between "work" and "family life" was, for most, far less sharp and clear.
By 1914, much of this had changed. "Work" had turned into an activity carried on outside the home in factories and mills. The domestic sphere became a separate place inhabited by children too young to work, elders too frail to work, and women who stayed behind to to make sure the first two didn't burn the place down or maim themselves, plus manage all the domestic chores and tend a garden and supervise the hired hand, etc. all for free.
Now in 2014, we still seem undecided about what "work" is. I can't help wondering if those who find childrearing tedious or oppressive might feel better about it, and put a little more spit into it if they got a paycheck in return?
Not for me. Caring for children is tedious for me whether there's a paycheck involved or not.
There are some individual children I like and I am happy to coo over babies in their prams, but I don't enjoy spending long periods of time with children. I do find children on the whole to be quite annoying. Apparently this is an unacceptable thing for a woman to think.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I still would find it dull and tedious and wouldn't want to do it. Why is that unacceptable?
Its perfectly acceptable. What needs to be remembered is that for the huge majority of both men and women their paid employment is dull and tedious and they don't want to do it. I'm sorry to have to labour this point but its crucial for understanding the whole issue.
Why has feminism been permitted to flourish in the years since the Second World War? Its because employers want there to be as many women as possible in the workforce. What was initially presented as choice has for most now become a necessity.
Also if you don't mind me asking what job is it that you do that you would actually do if you didn't have to?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I still would find it dull and tedious and wouldn't want to do it. Why is that unacceptable?
Its perfectly acceptable. What needs to be remembered is that for the huge majority of both men and women their paid employment is dull and tedious and they don't want to do it. I'm sorry to have to labour this point but its crucial for understanding the whole issue.
Why has feminism been permitted to flourish in the years since the Second World War? Its because employers want there to be as many women as possible in the workforce. What was initially presented as choice has for most now become a necessity.
Also if you don't mind me asking what job is it that you do that you would actually do if you didn't have to?
I would rather do any job (well, not one working with children clearly, but any other job). Perhaps it's because of years not working because of circumstances out of my control, but I really do not enjoy not working and find it dull. On the other hand, when I have worked, even in jobs that weren't really what I wanted to do, I got a lot of satisfaction from doing the job to the best of my ability.
So, yeah, for me in a decision between spending unpaid time with my (hypothetical) children and doing a 'boring' paid job, I would pick the job every time.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
It seems a bit pointless to argue over what we as individuals prefer as our work! There's always going to be a lot of variation in that.
And anyway, teaching or nursery care is not the same as parenting your own children. I like looking after my own children (most of the time!) but I have no great desire to take care of lots of other people's for extended periods!
First off, Jade, I get you and do not feel insulted (as a teacher.)Basically because of what Lucia just wrote-- caring for children in group settings takes a specific skill set, temperament, and knowledge base.
The reason the majority of preschool teachers in the US get paid far below the living wage is precisely what is described above-- it is a female-dominated field, and "because we have ovaries" it doesn't really take much education or skill-- it's simply our natural urges kicking in, and why on earth should someone get professional pay for essentially doing what they were born to do?
Which is codswallop, of course-- people don't naturally have large families of children exactly the same age. Children are not naturally accustomed to competing with children in the same age range for the exact same developmental needs. An early childhood teacher needs specific education and specific acquired experience to help children navigate the unique experience of child care.
I could never be a waitress- not because I think it is a bad job, or beneath me, or anything like that, but because I am clumsy as hell and can't imagine being of service to anyone by breaking things and spilling stuff on people.
So yeah, it's beneficial for a woman to examine her temperament, skill set and inclinations and exclude herself from the job of childcare if she is not wholeheartedly convinced she is cut out for it-- because man, it sucks to work with someone who hates their line of work. Many people who love children would suck as preschool teachers. More power to those who naturally select themselves out of the job.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So, yeah, for me in a decision between spending unpaid time with my (hypothetical) children and doing a 'boring' paid job, I would pick the job every time.
What you've just said, in effect, is that even if money wasn't an issue in the decision you'd rather do any job (including sewer maintenance and working in a slaughterhouse but not including childcare) rather than spend the time with your own children.
I appreciate that's how you feel. I hope you can also appreciate that most people wouldn't feel like that and that the reason feminism has been allowed to succeed is exactly because it has been needed to expand the workforce in the interests of employers.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So yeah, it's beneficial for a woman to examine her temperament, skill set and inclinations and exclude herself from the job of childcare if she is not wholeheartedly convinced she is cut out for it-- because man, it sucks to work with someone who hates their line of work.
Yes.
I have been a teacher for 35 years but I am not great at childcare. It's a totally different ball game.
My babies were far better off at daycare! I learned a lot from their childminders and nurseries, but holidays were a trial! My husband quit his job (headteacher) and became a house husband when they were four and six, for four years. He loved it.
My niece has 6 month old twins and, much as I love to visit, I said "We'll have them to stay over when they are walking and talking, not before!". Their other great aunt loves to care for them and give their Mum a night off.
We are all different. The thing I wish we all had is choice in the matter, but there's very little of that around, sadly.
[ 12. January 2014, 09:26: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing I wish we all had is choice in the matter, but there's very little of that around, sadly.
The whole point of permitting feminist ideas to spread through society is to get women into the workforce. If women had a real choice not to enter the workforce it would negate that point.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So, yeah, for me in a decision between spending unpaid time with my (hypothetical) children and doing a 'boring' paid job, I would pick the job every time.
What you've just said, in effect, is that even if money wasn't an issue in the decision you'd rather do any job (including sewer maintenance and working in a slaughterhouse but not including childcare) rather than spend the time with your own children.
I appreciate that's how you feel. I hope you can also appreciate that most people wouldn't feel like that and that the reason feminism has been allowed to succeed is exactly because it has been needed to expand the workforce in the interests of employers.
I think myself and a lot of other feminists would take issue with the idea that because feminism has been exploited by capitalism, it has 'succeeded'. Women being able to have the same career opportunities as men is not the only goal of feminism by a long way.
Also, I find having to explain and justify my preference of paid work compared to being a stay at home parent to be rather suspect anyway - men get to prefer working to being a SAHP all the time and it's never questioned. This idea that all working parents are actually longing to be at home with their children (even those with children at school?) and hate their jobs is not the case. Plenty of people DO enjoy their jobs. Plenty of parents DO prefer working to being a SAHP. You can have a dull job and find joy and fulfilment in it, I know because I have done it (sounding quite Puritan here I know!).
For me the decision between spending time with my children and working in a slaughterhouse is irrelevant because I don't want children and won't have them (if I found out I was pregnant tomorrow I would have an abortion with no question and no guilt, wouldn't date a person with kids etc). It's not a decision I will have to make. Sure, I would rather not work in a slaughterhouse but I would also rather not have children full-stop, to be honest they both sound equally unpleasant (in different ways, and not comparing having children to working in a slaughterhouse directly).
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing I wish we all had is choice in the matter, but there's very little of that around, sadly.
The whole point of permitting feminist ideas to spread through society is to get women into the workforce. If women had a real choice not to enter the workforce it would negate that point.
Using women for the benefit of capitalism is inherently not a feminist idea. Capitalism is in opposition to women's liberation because capitalism is part of women's oppression.
Also, yeah, stay at home mothers don't exist at all and all women are forced to enter the workforce ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing I wish we all had is choice in the matter, but there's very little of that around, sadly.
The whole point of permitting feminist ideas to spread through society is to get women into the workforce. If women had a real choice not to enter the workforce it would negate that point.
Using women for the benefit of capitalism is inherently not a feminist idea. Capitalism is in opposition to women's liberation because capitalism is part of women's oppression.
I'm sure most feminists don't think of themselves as serving the interests of capitalism. That does not alter the fact that feminist ideas have only been allowed to spread exactly because they can be used to further the interests of employers.
quote:
Also, yeah, stay at home mothers don't exist at all and all women are forced to enter the workforce
I didn't say all did I?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kittyville
Shipmate
# 16106
|
Posted
How is capitalism part of (specifically) women's oppression?
And it seems to me, Jade, that you are setting up a straw man about women not being able to say that they don't enjoy spending time around children. I've seen plenty of that sentiment expressed on the Ship (and elsewhere, obviously). I'm happily child free myself, and happy to tell anyone who asks that I don't really like children much, and have very, very rarely had anyone seriously challenge me on that IRL.
Posts: 291 | From: Sydney | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The thing I wish we all had is choice in the matter, but there's very little of that around, sadly.
The whole point of permitting feminist ideas to spread through society is to get women into the workforce. If women had a real choice not to enter the workforce it would negate that point.
Using women for the benefit of capitalism is inherently not a feminist idea. Capitalism is in opposition to women's liberation because capitalism is part of women's oppression.
I'm sure most feminists don't think of themselves as serving the interests of capitalism. That does not alter the fact that feminist ideas have only been allowed to spread exactly because they can be used to further the interests of employers.
quote:
Also, yeah, stay at home mothers don't exist at all and all women are forced to enter the workforce
I didn't say all did I?
I'm not really seeing that feminist ideas (and not even all of them) have been 'allowed' to spread. Why is the spread of ideas reliant on it being helpful to capitalism? Marxist-feminism is a big subset of feminism but is obviously opposed to capitalism. Feminism didn't spread because it was 'allowed' to, it spread because people agreed with it.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think myself and a lot of other feminists would take issue with the idea that because feminism has been exploited by capitalism, it has 'succeeded'. Women being able to have the same career opportunities as men is not the only goal of feminism by a long way.
I'll rephrase that then. To the extent that feminism has been permitted to succeed it has been allowed to do so because it serves the interest of employers.
quote:
Also, I find having to explain and justify my preference of paid work compared to being a stay at home parent to be rather suspect anyway - men get to prefer working to being a SAHP all the time and it's never questioned.
I wouldn't agree that they do. If men tend to be more 'career driven' than women its because there is more social pressure for them to be so.
quote:
Plenty of people DO enjoy their jobs.
Most people don't however. They might think their job is 'alright', they might take pride in their ability to do it well, they might even claim they would still do if they had the choice not to. However the great majority of people would quit their jobs if freed from financial necessity.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not really seeing that feminist ideas (and not even all of them) have been 'allowed' to spread. Why is the spread of ideas reliant on it being helpful to capitalism? Marxist-feminism is a big subset of feminism but is obviously opposed to capitalism. Feminism didn't spread because it was 'allowed' to, it spread because people agreed with it.
Feminist ideas would never had spread if feminists had not been able to spread their ideas through the media, through publishing and through the universities and education.
To put in crude terms the media and publishing are overwhelmingly controlled by the rich. Funding for Universities and education are controlled by governments who are friends of the rich.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
However the great majority of people would quit their jobs if freed from financial necessity.
And then, in about 6 months, they would slowly realise that they are getting bored out of their bloody minds.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not really seeing that feminist ideas (and not even all of them) have been 'allowed' to spread. Why is the spread of ideas reliant on it being helpful to capitalism? Marxist-feminism is a big subset of feminism but is obviously opposed to capitalism. Feminism didn't spread because it was 'allowed' to, it spread because people agreed with it.
Feminist ideas would never had spread if feminists had not been able to spread their ideas through the media, through publishing and through the universities and education.
To put in crude terms the media and publishing are overwhelmingly controlled by the rich. Funding for Universities and education are controlled by governments who are friends of the rich.
Actually much feminism started in American universities, which are mostly not government-funded.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Also the idea that feminism has only happened because men have allowed it is so fucking offensive I don't know how to even respond to it.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
