Failings of feminism - real or not?

[Lyanna Stark]

By the way, now that I'm home and can access SA, here's one of the threads I was talking about earlier.

Just skimmed the beginning of that thread, but it's already brilliant. Bookmarking it. Thanks for posting it Eefa. :)

[Sci-2]

I don't expect other minorities to bear the burden of educating the masses on why prejudicial attitudes are wrong. But feminists should be the educators of the world regarding equal opportunity, equal pay, equal societal roles?

I think the idea that feminists are morally obligated to educate people is erroneous. But people won't change themselves.

As such, I do think the question of strategy comes up as to how best to convince any group that doesn't not recognize it is wrong to change their minds.

That said, I don't think the strategy of politeness will always be the best one. Some of my understanding of feminism came from people nicely explaining things to me. Some of it came from someone pissing me off but forcing me to reconsider my positions.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

For the record, I'm going to make a dirty little confession. I've never read any of the accepted feminist canon in the original.* (*Here's my feminist card*). I'm not so into canon, and as I said upthread, when I was in University, I was utterly uninterested in anything bearing the label "feminist." I still think I'm qualified to comment in this (and any) thread on feminism. I'm divided about the academization of feminism. Smart people thinking about, and writing about these issues is a good thing. On the flip side, I don't think that the "canon" should in fact be that - it shouldn't be used as tool to stifle debate. If someone confesses to not having read the canon, that's all right. Discuss the issues. Go back to the sources used by the canon to illustrate the points if you believe in canon, and listen to other points with an open mind (which should also be illustrated).

*Actually, I've read a fair bit of Virginia Woolf, if she's counted as canon.

[SerMixalot]

From Aiofe's link:

"On top of seeing decreasing economic value placed on careers which become dominated by women, there is the problem of the total devaluation of work done by women in the domestic sphere. Raising children is not considered to be an occupation worthy of monetary compensation, so households in which one spouse stays home to parent usually suffer from much lower levels of financial income than households in which both parents work. Due in part to a greater likelihood that a man will bring in more money and in part to traditional roles which view child-rearing as women's' work, the overwhelming majority of stay-at-home parents are mothers."

This seems to imply that there is a fundamental problem with SAHM because they are not paid. I have heard that critique in a variety of forms. Is there expectation that women should be paid to raise their own children? How does that economic model work? How exactly does that issue apply to feminism? Ok I get that women may feel pressured to be the SAHM in a marriage from cultural or societal or economic reasons, but does the fact that when that choice is made obligate society to pay the woman? Lack of payment is some form of sexism? I dont understand that argument. Who should pay in individual for raising their own children?

[Sci-2]

SirMixaLot -> Whoah, that's a topic unto itself. I'm also not sure if you are properly interpreting the passage you quote. From that one quote I didn't get that the person wanted to stay and home parents to be directly compensated.

[Lummel]

@Ser Mixalot

I wouldn't say that the problem is that the stay-at-home-mum isn't paid as such. I'd say that it is a provocative statement that by colliding ideas of value and cost is trying to shake our thinking.

We say we value and respect child bearing and rearing, but we never put our money where our mouths are kind of thing. I would read this as more of a commentary on how society is ordered and structured than a concrete demand for wages for mothers.

Others will read it differently :)

@ Mam'selle Zabzie, I guess if "A room of one's own" was one of the pack you could be in the clear

[Galactus]

I think the idea that feminists are morally obligated to educate people is erroneous.

I don't. Not just feminists either, everyone. If you believe that something is wrong you have a moral duty to oppose it, and how do you oppose things? By persuading people not to do them. (now there's a question about tactics here, whether or not education actually works and so forth)

[Sci-2]

I don't. Not just feminists either, everyone. If you believe that something is wrong you have a moral duty to oppose it, and how do you oppose things? By persuading people not to do them. (now there's a question about tactics here, whether or not education actually works and so forth)

I guess it's one of those situations where one should separate responsibility from fault. I just think it is easy to then say people who are mistreated deserve their mistreatment.

[SerMixalot]

Sci-ok fair enough, but what do you make of this "Raising children is not considered to be an occupation worthy of monetary compensation, so households in which one spouse stays home to parent usually suffer from much lower levels of financial income than households in which both parents work." How can that be interpreted other than call for monetary compensation? Pay the working parent more?-then you will have conflict over people being paid to have kids.

I have never viewed the issue of SAHM(P) as an issue as I view marital assets as joined, what the provider provides is both their assets. Though having gone through a divorce I can see if from the other side. The lack of credit history for example can be difficult for a woman, loss of job experience is another, but I dont know how society could be structured otherwise in any model that works. I do say SAHP should be considered an honorable endeavor because of the inherent importance of raising children.

[sologdin]

Is there expectation that women should be paid to raise their own children? How does that economic model work? How exactly does that issue apply to feminism? Ok I get that women may feel pressured to be the SAHM in a marriage from cultural or societal or economic reasons, but does the fact that when that choice is made obligate society to pay the woman? Lack of payment is some form of sexism? I dont understand that argument. Who should pay in individual for raising their own children?

think of it as a type of insurance. we already have short-term disability insurance associated with pregnancy & maternity leave in the US. the EU grants quite a bit more paid leave for maternity/paternity than the US, which is private STD/LTD plus the lame FMLA right not to be fired for three months of unpaid leave, provided you've worked with a sufficiently large non-exempt employer for sufficient duration.

the fundamental question is whether a society with "family values" that is "pro-life" wants to support natalism beyond mere propaganda slogans and cheap bans on the right to terminate pregnancy. parenting benefits as a form of insurance would be part of the non-slogan pro-natalist policy.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

This seems to imply that there is a fundamental problem with SAHM because they are not paid.

I don't believe the poster meant paying the SAHMs themselves, but changing the society which doesn't support childrearing as a productive endeavour. Parents shouldn't be punished for the choice of being parents, childfree people shouldn't be punished for the choice of being childfree, and the vicious circle which tends to hold down women even further in either case should be addressed.

Pretty much what Lummel said about putting our [society's] money where our mouth is. Parental leave, more / subsidised childcare to facilitate return to work if desired, etc.

[SerMixalot]

but by providing those resources, PAID leave, subsidized childcare, are you not paying those people who decide to have children more? Isnt that discrmination against childless adults? I would imagine that this would get into the range of "real money" compensation. An employers resources for compensation are limited and if more go to the parents less will go to the childless adults. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but something worthy of consideration.

for example if i and a coworker work together for 10 years. I have no children and she has 4 kids and a system that pays for family leave (say 6 months) plus child care subsidies. Is that truly fair to me that she has only worked 80% of what I have worked and received additional compensation in the form of the child care subsidies?

[mormont]

From Aiofe's link:

"On top of seeing decreasing economic value placed on careers which become dominated by women, there is the problem of the total devaluation of work done by women in the domestic sphere. Raising children is not considered to be an occupation worthy of monetary compensation, so households in which one spouse stays home to parent usually suffer from much lower levels of financial income than households in which both parents work. Due in part to a greater likelihood that a man will bring in more money and in part to traditional roles which view child-rearing as women's' work, the overwhelming majority of stay-at-home parents are mothers."

This seems to imply that there is a fundamental problem with SAHM because they are not paid. I have heard that critique in a variety of forms. Is there expectation that women should be paid to raise their own children? How does that economic model work? How exactly does that issue apply to feminism? Ok I get that women may feel pressured to be the SAHM in a marriage from cultural or societal or economic reasons, but does the fact that when that choice is made obligate society to pay the woman? Lack of payment is some form of sexism? I dont understand that argument. Who should pay in individual for raising their own children?

In general, I think Lummel is correct. However, I would note that many Western societies do effectively 'pay' parents to raise their children. They give them tax breaks, or some form of payment like child benefit, or in various subsidies. There are other ways in which childcare work can be recognised, financially or otherwise. And why not? There is a social and economic benefit both in people having children (if nobody has kids, economic activity falls as there is a lack of workers), and in making sure those children are well looked after in their formative years (this saves money and produces better social outcomes in the long term). Of course, even those societies that do make some sort of financial contribution to this sort of work, make only a relatively tiny contribution. (No-one's expecting them to pay parents $10 an hour just to be parents, mind you.)

Where does the sexism come into it? Well, at the moment, most childcare responsibilities fall on the mother - whether or not she has a job, and whether or not her partner has one (assuming she has a partner)*. So, in effect, at the moment in most Western societies women do on average more work than men, and therefore effectively subsidise society. Or, if you prefer, are being exploited.

*Yes, there are single fathers too. I should bloody know, I am one. But I also know I'm in a very small minority.

[Galactus]

but by providing those resources, PAID leave, subsidized childcare, are you not paying those people who decide to have children more? Isnt that discrmination against childless adults? I would imagine that this would get into the range of "real money" compensation. An employers resources for compensation are limited and if more go to the parents less will go to the childless adults. I am not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but something worthy of consideration.

for example if i and a coworker work together for 10 years. I have no children and she has 4 kids and a system that pays for family leave (say 6 months) plus child care subsidies. Is that truly fair to me that she has only worked 80% of what I have worked and received additional compensation in the form of the child care subsidies?

But she hasn't. That's the point, she's worked the same as you do, it's just that 20% of that time as been taking care of children.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I actually sort of disagree with part of the notion that I think is being expressed in quote. That is, I do agree, and think that there is empirical evidence to support the proposition that once a profession has been "feminized" its pay and status in society decreases (see teaching and secretary work as prominent historical examples). However, assuming that people are even semi-rational actors (yeah, yeah, assume a canopener, I know), I don't agree that it is necessarily the case that the work of staying home and raising children is fundamentally devalued. There is an opportunity cost (in an economic sense) in a person choosing to be a SAHP. If a couple has determined that one of them should be a SAHP (which, btw, is their choice and none of my g-d business), they are choosing to bear that opportunity cost. Therefore, they must believe that in their economic unit, the value of the paid work previously done by SAHP is less than the sum of the cost of childcare, housecare and the intangible benefits they believe they receive as an economic unit by having a SAHP provide those services. Now, the tricky bit is the bit that Raidne has pointed out several times. It has also been shown (and again, I don't have time to find links, but she's done it before) that when women work, they do a disproportionate amount of household chores/residual childcare etc., so one must figure out how to price that point in as well.

[SerMixalot]

In general, I think Lummel is correct. However, I would note that many Western societies do effectively 'pay' parents to raise their children. They give them tax breaks, or some form of payment like child benefit, or in various subsidies. There are other ways in which childcare work can be recognised, financially or otherwise. And why not? There is a social and economic benefit both in people having children (if nobody has kids, economic activity falls as there is a lack of workers), and in making sure those children are well looked after in their formative years (this saves money and produces better social outcomes in the long term). Of course, even those societies that do make some sort of financial contribution to this sort of work, make only a relatively tiny contribution. (No-one's expecting them to pay parents $10 an hour just to be parents, mind you.)

Where does the sexism come into it? Well, at the moment, most childcare responsibilities fall on the mother - whether or not she has a job, and whether or not her partner has one (assuming she has a partner)*. So, in effect, at the moment in most Western societies women do on average more work than men, and therefore effectively subsidise society. Or, if you prefer, are being exploited.

*Yes, there are single fathers too. I should bloody know, I am one. But I also know I'm in a very small minority.

ahh yes thank you I hadnt thought in those terms, societal benefit and all thanks

[SerMixalot]

But she hasn't. That's the point, she's worked the same as you do, it's just that 20% of that time as been taking care of children.

yes but that 20% was not for our employer, generatng a product or service for their profit and our pay.

[TerraPrime]

I thought the point of this thread was to discuss the failures within the movement, especially when it comes to the misinformed.

Why is it the responsibility of feminists to educate and enlighten the world about equality? This is something I don't understand. Shouldn't all decent people want this? Does the fact that I'm a woman mean it's solely my responsibility to do the educating? I don't expect other minorities to bear the burden of educating the masses on why prejudicial attitudes are wrong. But feminists should be the educators of the world regarding equal opportunity, equal pay, equal societal roles?

This is what I don't understand.

Communication is a two-party activity - the speaker has to speak clearly and the listener has to listen well. When there's a miscommunication, it bears examining the relative contribution from both parties to the problem. What I keep reading from you (and others) is that feminism as a movement has failed in truly representing their core beliefs, to the extent that many people have a negative view of the movement over all.

I am not convinced that this is largely a problem created by feminism. I think this is largely a consequence of the misquoting and misinterpretation of feminist ideas by either well-intended but clueless mainstream media, or sometimes by people with malicious intent.

I think a movement does have the duty of accurately disseminating their ideas. But they have no control on what others may do with the information. The portrayal of feminists as strident, ugly, frumpy, and unloved women on TV and movies are certainly not helping. Yet, libraries are full to the brim with volumes on this topic that would disabuse people of the idea. So, whose responsibility is it here - the party who has put out a variety of material that reflects the diverse array of opinions in the field, or the party who latches on to memes and soundbytes?

At its core, feminism, like other social movements, threatens the status quo and will garner negative reactions from the mainstream. It is very difficult to critique the rape culture, for instance, without making broad statements concerning how the two genders interact, which will necessarily put men in a position to be defensive. Sometimes, merely pointing out areas where men are privileged over women (not that there are no cases where women are privileged over men) (and the fact that I need that first disclaimer speaks to the point) is seen as an attack on men, and is thus characterized as one of the reasons why people can't support feminism - because we hate men.

This is where the idea that feminists must hate men come from, because we criticize and seek to demolish the structures that serve the benefits of men for so long. We are not the creators of this conflict except by raising challenge to the dominant social structure, but it nevertheless falls to our shoulders to solve it, unfair as it may seem.

I think if there are critiques on specific instances of poorly-managed PR, it'll be easier to have a discussion. For instance, the black-woman cake in the Swedish Minister of Arts fiasco was a good illustration on how not to talk about one's support for racial equality. In comparison, this generic complaint that feminism as a movement has failed in its mission of PR relations over all is rather unconvincing, and even, derailing.

[sologdin]

Isnt that discrmination against childless adult

eh? parenting is difficult work, aye?

[SerMixalot]

Isnt that discrmination against childless adult

eh? parenting is difficult work, aye?

da hardest.