Feminism

[merithyn]

This actually goes to a problem I had with what might be called "classic" feminism (as opposed to the extreme or "feminazi" stuff, like all male-female sex being rape), as it was presented in the early 70s--it's elitist.  At the time, feminist leaders talked a lot about women's right to a fulfilling career outside the home.  I was just a kid at the time, of course, but I thought that was nuts--not the women working outside the home, but the "fulfilling" part.  I looked at my stepfather, my mom's brothers, and even my mom (who worked until my younger brother was born when I was 7).  None of them really had fulfilling careers, or for the most part, careers at all--they had jobs.  They worked as coal miners, factory workers, salesmen in furniture stores, stuff like that.  They didn't get fulfilment from those jobs, they got paychecks.  Any fulfilment they got in their lives was from their families, their hobbies and other interests, not from their jobs.  The only person even in our extended family who might have gotten much fulfilment from their job was one of my mom's cousins who was a schoolteacher--I can see how that can be fulfilling, but it's both a relatively low-paying job (even moreso then) and a traditional field for women.  Feminist leaders were talking about women's rights to pursue careers as doctors, lawyers, writers, etc.  Well, that's all well and good, but it didn't have much to do with the types of jobs that most people are going to have.  "Hey, Woman!  You've been liberated!  You have the right to be a doctor or lawyer if you want.  Oh, don't have the grades to get into medical school, or the money to go to college at all.  That's OK--you're still liberated!  You now have the right to perform backbreaking labor all day digging coal, just like your brothers.  Enjoy the next methane explosion, and the black lung disease 30 years down the road."  Should a woman have the right to seek employment as a miner, and be given the same opportunity to find a job in that field as a man?  Absolutely.  Should she get the same pay as a male miner if she does the same work and has the same amount of time on the job?  Of course.  Are most women in the workforce working because they can pursue careers that they really enjoy and get a lot satisfaction out of?  No--they're just working because they need the money, the same reason that most men are working.

My grandmothers, and probably yours, too, would have had very limited opportunities for employment if they had tried to find work outside the home--but they didn't have to work outside the home, either.  You and my wife have a lot more opportunities--but you pretty much have to work outside the home, whether you want to or not.

Brilliant post. And you're aboslutely right. To the average person, the only thing that changed was the expectation that women work now, when before the expectation wasn't there.

But with that came opportunities, too. My sister is a director at ADP, THE largest human resources company in the US. She wouldn't have had that chance 50 years ago. She's a single mom with two kids, and she makes pretty good bank. She got her degree while she was working (the company paid for it), and she's now considering getting her MBA (again, the company paying for it) so that she can keep moving up. Again, something that just wasn't an option back when we were kids. She could have been a secretary, but not a director with two administrative assistants under her. We came from a very poor background, so she got there entirely on her own merit.

That being said, she had to leave two different jobs because her boss at one of them (a man) didn't think she was up for more of a challenge than just a team lead. He felt that as a single mom, she was better off in that position. The next company hamstringed her as a manager, for the same reason. It wasn't until she moved to ADP that she finally got the chance to really show what she could do, and she's exceeded. She's one of their top directors - her team of 200+ international employees consistently out-perform the other departments. That was despite being held back in two other jobs.

For the Walmart employees out there, yeah, women's liberation didn't do much, unless they also take the initiative.

[dps]

This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

It is required to take a year off to care for children?  Damn we have been doing it wrong.  I fail to see how it makes any sense financially for anybody to be taking a year off. 

Well, arguably it takes 18 years.  My mom might tell you that it's taken 50 years so far, and the job's not finished yet.

[merithyn]

This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

It is required to take a year off to care for children?  Damn we have been doing it wrong.  I fail to see how it makes any sense financially for anybody to be taking a year off.

The assumption was that IF one of the two of them were to take a year off.... etc

[garbon]

This actually goes to a problem I had with what might be called "classic" feminism (as opposed to the extreme or "feminazi" stuff, like all male-female sex being rape), as it was presented in the early 70s--it's elitist.  At the time, feminist leaders talked a lot about women's right to a fulfilling career outside the home.  I was just a kid at the time, of course, but I thought that was nuts--not the women working outside the home, but the "fulfilling" part.  I looked at my stepfather, my mom's brothers, and even my mom (who worked until my younger brother was born when I was 7).  None of them really had fulfilling careers, or for the most part, careers at all--they had jobs.  They worked as coal miners, factory workers, salesmen in furniture stores, stuff like that.  They didn't get fulfilment from those jobs, they got paychecks.  Any fulfilment they got in their lives was from their families, their hobbies and other interests, not from their jobs.  The only person even in our extended family who might have gotten much fulfilment from their job was one of my mom's cousins who was a schoolteacher--I can see how that can be fulfilling, but it's both a relatively low-paying job (even moreso then) and a traditional field for women.  Feminist leaders were talking about women's rights to pursue careers as doctors, lawyers, writers, etc.  Well, that's all well and good, but it didn't have much to do with the types of jobs that most people are going to have.  "Hey, Woman!  You've been liberated!  You have the right to be a doctor or lawyer if you want.  Oh, don't have the grades to get into medical school, or the money to go to college at all.  That's OK--you're still liberated!  You now have the right to perform backbreaking labor all day digging coal, just like your brothers.  Enjoy the next methane explosion, and the black lung disease 30 years down the road."  Should a woman have the right to seek employment as a miner, and be given the same opportunity to find a job in that field as a man?  Absolutely.  Should she get the same pay as a male miner if she does the same work and has the same amount of time on the job?  Of course.  Are most women in the workforce working because they can pursue careers that they really enjoy and get a lot satisfaction out of?  No--they're just working because they need the money, the same reason that most men are working.

My grandmothers, and probably yours, too, would have had very limited opportunities for employment if they had tried to find work outside the home--but they didn't have to work outside the home, either.  You and my wife have a lot more opportunities--but you pretty much have to work outside the home, whether you want to or not.

Brilliant post. And you're aboslutely right. To the average person, the only thing that changed was the expectation that women work now, when before the expectation wasn't there.

That's also one of the reason that feminism fractured as already working women (and minority women) got their voices out there that what certain middle-upper class white women were agitating for - wasn't of much use to them.

[Valmy]

The assumption was that IF one of the two of them were to take a year off.... etc

Yeah but today that is probably a tiny minority.  You have to be doing really well to afford to have a family with only one income.

[merithyn]

Brilliant post. And you're aboslutely right. To the average person, the only thing that changed was the expectation that women work now, when before the expectation wasn't there.

That's also one of the reason that feminism fractured as already working women (and minority women) got their voices out there that what certain middle-upper class white women were agitating for - wasn't of much use to them.

Yeah, makes sense.

Of course, there was more to women's rights than just the right to work. It was also the right to succeed beyond where they had been before. That's been a benefit for all women, and, arguably, men, too. It's loosened the stranglehold on both genders. Men were no longer expected to be the sole wage-earner, and could stay home if they chose. And women had more opportunities to move up the corporate ladder. (Well hell, actually get ONTO the corporate ladder!)

[merithyn]

The assumption was that IF one of the two of them were to take a year off.... etc

Yeah but today that is probably a tiny minority.  You have to be doing really well to afford to have a family with only one income.

Like I said, it wasn't worthwhile for me to work when my boys were born. Childcare cost more than I would have made. I'm sure other families have found that to be true, too, once they have more than one kid.

[dps]

Men were no longer expected to be the sole wage-earner, and could stay home if they chose.

But again, there is only a very small percentage of men who actually have that choice in practice.  Even with couples where the wife makes more than the husband, they generally need both paychecks.

[dps]

The assumption was that IF one of the two of them were to take a year off.... etc

Yeah but today that is probably a tiny minority.  You have to be doing really well to afford to have a family with only one income.

Like I said, it wasn't worthwhile for me to work when my boys were born. Childcare cost more than I would have made. I'm sure other families have found that to be true, too, once they have more than one kid.

That's what grandparents are for.

Of course, that's not a realistic option for a lot of people, but there are lot of people who go that route.  If not a grandparent, maybe an aunt or the like who doesn't work outside the home.

Nuclear families make sense with stay-at-home moms.  With working moms, extended families are actually a lot more reasonable.

[merithyn]

Men were no longer expected to be the sole wage-earner, and could stay home if they chose.

But again, there is only a very small percentage of men who actually have that choice in practice.  Even with couples where the wife makes more than the husband, they generally need both paychecks.

Yeah. This really is theoretical in a lot of ways, because most families can't afford for either to be off work.

[merithyn]

Well, feminism isn't necessary in France, anyway, according to "Her Ladyship" Sarkozy.

'My generation doesn't need feminism': Former French first lady Carla Bruni says a woman's place is in the home
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy told Vogue magazine that she is not an active feminist
While she shares many of her husband's conservative views, she admits that the pair disagree over gay marriage
By Steve Nolan

Former French first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy has said that she believes a woman's place is in the home with her children and her generation of women 'don't need to be feminist'.

The 45-year-old, a self-styled champagne socialist famed for her one-time Bohemian lifestyle, waded into the debate about a woman's role in society in an interview for Vogue magazine, with her views sure to outrage feminists.

Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy said: 'There are pioneers who opened the breach.

'I'm not at all an active feminist. On the contrary, I'm a bourgeois. I love family life, I love doing the same thing every day.'

Before marrying former French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2008, the former singer and model admitted that she found monogamy boring.

She had previously been romantically linked with rock stars Mick Jagger and Eric Clapton as well as a number of famous politicians and businessmen.

However, she soon turned into a conservative wife who shared her husband's right wing views on everything.
But she admits that the couple disagree when it comes to gay marriage.

She said: 'I'm rather in favour of homosexual marriage and adoption, I've lots of friends - women and men - who are in this situation and I don't see anything unstable or perverse in homo-parental families.'

Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy says that her 58-year-old husband is opposed to gay marriage because he 'sees people in groups of thousands rather than as groups of people we know.'

She has one child with Mr Sarkozy, a baby girl called Giulia, and an 11-year-old son, Aurelian, from her relationship with the philosophy professor Raphael Enthoven.

Her life in the limelight has escalated since Mr Sarkozy lost the May presidential election to his Socialist rival, Francois Hollande.

She is currently on billboards all over Paris advertising headphones, is appearing on glossy magazine covers, and has a new album out in February.

All of this coincides with Mr Sarkozy being implicated in a number of fraud scandals, including one in which he is accused of illicitly accepting cash in contravention of electoral rules from Lilian Bettencourt, the l'Oreal heiress and France's richest women.


Conservative: Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy shares many of husband Nicolas Sarkozy's views, but she admits that they disagree when it comes to gay marriage. The pair are pictured together earlier this year
It led to the Paris home Ms Bruni-Sarkozy shares with her husband being raided by police in July, but she refused to be drawn into questions about her husband's legal problems.

'I don't feel like talking about all that, and I won't do any more,' said Ms Bruni-Sarkozy, adding: 'The adventure was fun, but now I want to go back to being an ordinary citizen like everybody else.

'I no longer feel the desire nor the obligation to answer questions about a world that has enriched me humanly, which opened my eyes and mind, but in the end is not mine.'

Mr Sarkozy has denied 'taking a penny' from Mrs Bettencourt, but was last week made an assisted witness in a case which could see him end up in a criminal trial.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238515/My-generation-doesnt-need-feminism-Carla-Bruni-Sarkozy-says-womans-place-home.html#ixzz2DXi1hmVO

[Valmy]

Wow she named her son Aurelian?

Dominus et deus!  Restitutor orbis invictus!

[Legbiter]

Glad France is off the hook.

[MadImmortalMan]

This is from several years ago, and I couldn't remember where I had first seen it. It seems like all these "end of men" articles we've been seeing in the culture tabs recently has mentioned it too. Anyway, imperfect analysis, obviously, but there's lots of progress for the young single girls.



Wages for Women vs. Male Peers


Metro Area       Wage Ratio   
Atlanta, GA    121%
Memphis, TN-AR-MS    119%
New York City-Northeastern NJ    117%
Sacramento, CA    116%
San Diego, CA    115%
Miami-Hialeah, FL    114%
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC    114%
Raleigh-Durham, NC    114%
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA    112%
Phoenix, AZ    112%
Richmond-Petersburg, VA    112%
San Francisco-Oakland-Vallejo, CA    111%
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN    111%
Oklahoma City, OK    110%
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA    109%
Salt Lake City, UT    109%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX    108%
St. Louis, MO-IL    108%
Kansas City, MO-KS    108%
Columbus, OH    107%
Washington, DC-MD-VA    106%
San Antonio, TX    106%
Milwaukee, WI    106%
Jacksonville, FL    106%
San Jose, CA    105%
Houston-Brazoria, TX    104%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL    104%
Portland, OR-WA    104%
Cleveland, OH    104%
Orlando, FL    104%
Las Vegas, NV    104%
Austin, TX    104%
Providence-Fall River-Pawtucket, MA-RI    104%
Nashville, TN    104%
Louisville, KY-IN    104%
Birmingham, AL    104%
Chicago, IL    103%
Norfolk-VA Beach-Newport News, VA    102%
Philadelphia, PA-NJ    101%
Boston, MA-NH    100%
Detroit, MI    100%
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN    100%
Baltimore, MD    100%
Denver-Boulder, CO    100%
Pittsburgh, PA    100%
Indianapolis, IN    100%
Hartford-Bristol-Middleton-New Britain, CT    100%
Seattle-Everett, WA    96%
New Orleans, LA    93%
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY    92%



I guess we should move to Seattle, guys. 


Edit: Probably highly attributable to this--

Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census.

[CountDeMoney]

No kidding;  best option of the 3.

New Orleans:  too hot.
Buffalo: too Buffalo.