Today’s articles on women in the economy were disheartening to say the least. What struck me most about this topic is how it applies to every single woman, regardless of race, age, education, or motherhood. Many of the feminist issues we discuss in class spur fiery debates because of their intense emotional and experiential components. The topic of women in the economy, however, is so uncomplicated because it has nothing to do with personal feelings or familiarity; it’s a simple number crunch.
Anne Crittenden’s The Mommy Tax does a fantastic job of laying out these numbers, while remaining fairly objective. Although it is easiest to look to the countless examples of mothers and non-mothers making far less than men, Crittenden’s strongest point is her description of stay-at-home dads who face equal difficulties. If the men making decisions about equal pay, maternity leave, and benefits had more experience with the disadvantageous position themselves, we would see a sea change in the way parenting is valued. This article interestingly connects with the recent “Manifesta” lecture, where Amy Richards discussed the need to value motherhood. Richards illustrated this idea by asking what the success of our male CEOs would be if they had not had wives to give them emotional support and companionship, raise their children, and manage their homes. While motherhood has been publicly underscored for centuries, wifehood has been privately underscored too. A husband’s success at the unacknowledged cost of his wife’s is a scary thought, as it shows just how far feminism still has to go.
When it comes to defending feminism to even the most challenging of parties, I see no way that the economic equality argument could be overlooked. Those who still insist that feminism is archaic are not denying the data, but rather undermining its importance in the face of other feminism qualities, such as butch, bra-burning lesbians. I can only hope that when my anti-feminist friends start receiving smaller paychecks and fewer promotions than their male counterparts, their need for feminism will resonate.
In contrast, Barbara Ehrenreich’s article was anything but objective and failed to have a succinct argument. She began with great ideas about the hierarchy of housework and the way it has helped to fortify the patriarchal system. Her transition into the use of maid services as a crutch for male dominance quickly devalued her argument as she renounced the very idea that women should not be tied to their vacuums. A maid does not signify relationship trouble, but rather the fact that both partners are engaged in demanding jobs or childrearing. The reality that more household need maids is a testament to the advancement of women, not their degradation. Her claim that all women patronize and oppress their help by having something “more important to do” is outlandish and offensive. I strongly believe that any disrespect or entrapment maids experience is a direct result of the entitlement their employers feel. While this entitlement may be related to gender, class, or race, to say that all wives/mothers who hire help are disrespectful and oppressive people is pathetic. Clearly the demand for maids indicates an economic divide, but this does not mean we should judge the mother working full-time to make partner any more than we would an immigrant single-mother working as a maid to make ends meet. Both Aisha Hakim-Dyce and María Cristina Rangel bring this economic hierarchy to life, yet with a great deal more autonomy, pride, and strength than Ehrenreich is willing to admit. Financial inequality and human decency are not mutually exclusive. It is up to each individual to value the work of those both above and below them.
I agree with Hilary's position on Ehrenreich’s article, having maid does not signify anything but the fact that a family has enough money to put the responsibility of nagging tasks onto another person that gets paid. I was recently reading a book for another class about the development of Las Vegas and there was a section about illegal immigrants; one particular family was wealthy enough to afford a full time maid. This woman was not just a maid, she also took care of this couple's children, and the family was very loving and accepted the maid into their family. The reason that this family needed this woman is that both the mother and father worked full time jobs and simply did not have the time to get everything done for their children and house, so they hired this woman to handle these things and eventually she was accepted into the family as if she were an aunt. The family took her on vacations and paid for her to make trips home to see her family. The point here is that this is a solid family unit with two working parents that needed a little help, maybe Hakim-Dyce should take a page out of this book and get a job.
ReplyDeleteGreat thoughts, all! These four blog entries together do a really nice job of highlighting some of the most useful and controversial parts of the various readings for today, and discussing the variety of intertwined issues covered. Great thoughts about the "daddy tax"; I hope we can discuss the ways in which the gendered labor market and home affects men as well as women. We'll also try to clear up what it was that Ehrenreich was trying to get at in her essay.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with all the blogs in that if men were going to lose their money due to a baby something would change. Also if babies would cause men to the burden of losing money and job opportunity men would revamp the system. Although I don't know if Ehrenreich’s article,fully explains the role that women also play in the patriarchal system the men play too. She is forgetting to talk about the disadvantage woman who has to work for the advantaged woman. I think that it is a women problem just as much a man problem of housework for women.
ReplyDelete