Newsweek articles on feminism

Since I'm doubting any of us has finished the last chapter yet, here's some easier and more current reading on feminism.

Are we there yet? - The headline article about sexism working at Newsweek, in 1970 and now. They bring up the disturbing point that women make 80 cents for every dollar men make (although they didn't cite the study, which always makes me a bit skeptical). I was intrigued by the following two quotes:

"We know what you're thinking: we're young and entitled, whiny and humorless—to use a single, dirty word, feminists! But just as the first black president hasn't wiped out racism, a female at the top of a company doesn't eradicate sexism. In fact, those contradictory signs of progress—high-profile successes that mask persistent inequality—are precisely the problem."

""The U.S. always scores abysmally in terms of work-life balance," says the WEF's Kevin Steinberg. "But even here, [women] still rank 'masculine or patriarchal corporate culture' as the highest impediment to success." Exhibit A: the four most common female professions today are secretary, registered nurse, teacher, and cashier—low-paying, "pink collar" jobs that employ 43 percent of all women. Swap "domestic help" for nurse and you'd be looking at the top female jobs from 1960, back when want ads were segregated by gender."

Feminism or bust (Why young women need feminism) - The author claims that people of her (and my) generation are over feminism and feel that we don't need it (true), but that we do still need it. Unfortunately, she doesn't say where or why, just that sexism is "harder to pinpoint" and when women enter the workforce they feel like "outsiders in a male-dominated club." (I suppose this is because she's assuming you read the previous article.) Personally I've never experienced this, but I've never been outside academia.

My parents' failed experiment in gender neutrality - Though Jesse's parents wanted to raise her genderless, girlie-ness prevailed.

"Since then, of course, countless studies have shown that men and women think and behave differently—to the point that it's not the existence of these differences, but the source of them, that is the subject of any debate." 

I'm always floored when you come across people who haven't realized this.

"Looking like a sex object but also claiming the rights of women who are not sex objects—that's tricky." 

Yes it is! This actually gives me hope, when traditional* feminists and new feminists can agree on problem areas.

So in an attempt to spur discussion (without having to read the articles necessarily), why do you think pay discrepancies still exist? Do you think women are in more "pink-collar" jobs because they like them more, because they are more family-friendly, both, or something else? Have you experienced sexism, particularly in the workplace? Is it possible to completely eradicate sexism? What areas do you think contemporary* feminists and new feminists can agree?



*I'm not sure of the right word to reference feminists who aren't radical but still follow the old-school (that is 70s-80s) platform. There are just so many strands of feminism!

Having it all

I confess, I had a busy weekend and haven't read the next chapter yet. But I just read two articles by Kate Wicker about feminism that I thought might be more interesting to us than the book right now.

I Am Woman was her original article, and she followed that up with a blog post Some Further Thoughts on Feminism, Motherhood, and Having It All.

My favorite quote from the first article was the following:

When we "liberate" women from the "menial" tasks of motherhood, when we suggest a woman loses her life and her identity if she stays home with the kids all day, when we say that women must be fiercer in the workplace or become more "rational" and physically and emotionally "stronger" like their male counterparts, what we're really saying is that men and the male role in society is superior to our own, and we must do everything in our power to become more like them.

Check 'em out and come back with comments!

Man-Bashing

In the comments on my last post Elizabeth asked whether anyone else had noticed the man-bashing. Given the level of discussion, I suspect that many of us are not finding the book worth reading. So here is the short version from pages 155-157 for those who would like to chime in.

Black or white, married women agree that, more than occasionally, the men they most love are, well, just plain impossible. More than once, out of the blue, a woman has said to me, "You know, the trouble with men is that they always want to be with you." And it matters not at all that she is echoing an oft-heard complaint that men file against women.

[cut]

But then, I would have trouble thinking of a woman I know, of any age, class, color, or ethnicity, who has a family and does not consider time alone in her own house a luxury. An old friend of my mother blurted out that her dream was to be alone, pull the shades, strip off her clothes, and eat a pint of ice cream without interruption. Michale, like many other husbands, wants companionship and attention at home--just to have Martha sit next to him to watch the news or something like that. "He really needs that." His desire for her company makes it difficult for her to just shut herself "in the other room and do schoolwork."

Martha recently confessed that one of her pet peeves was Michael's tendency to interrupt without apparent thought to what she might be doing: "It just kills me. I'm busy in the kitchen and he'll see something on television and he'll say, 'Hey, Martha, come here,' as if I'm not doing anything." But if the tables are turned, if he has work to do, "then you've got to leave him alone. You can't go near him." And I have yet to meet a woman of any race at any level of income or education who does not agree. Men just never seem to understand that women need privacy as much as they do.

For as long as anyone can remember, women have had their lists of the ways in which men who claim to be serious adults behave like thoughtless boys. Martha Miller thinks her husband even shops like a boy.

[cut]

Countless women in all income brackets, like their grandmothers and mothers before them, patiently and impatiently share complaints about men's incorrigible thoughtlessness: Men talk through women's silences as if women had no private thoughts; men never assume their full share of domestic responsibilities; men flip the television channel in the middle of something you are watching. But like the many other women who complain knowingly of men's predictable failings, we could not wait to get home, and, to many people's amazement, each of us expected to have dinner waiting for us on the table.

What do you think?

Half-way

We're now more than half-way done with the book and I am still not sure about the point. A few chapters ago I wanted to tear apart E F-G's use of "natural law" as entirely inconsistent with the generally accepted philosophical meaning. The next chapter I wanted to rip into her portrayal of history since she seemed to imply that privileged women having sex before marriage was somehow the result of the feminist movement and sexual revolution. Now I have gotten to the point where I wonder whether the stories in the book even seem real to anyone outside of the Northeast. If the point of stories is to have them resonate in a different way than pure argument, why not tell a wider variety of stories?

But I am trying to see beyond my quibbles to read E F-G's deeper points.

She thinks that the reality of women is captured neither by radical feminists nor the conservatives.

Fair enough.

She thinks that women "never outgrow the need for stories about women's lives" (150). Certainly.

"Feminism is not the story of our lives, but neither is full-time domesticity" (152)

Indeed.

Women are individuals with different hopes and dreams.

Hence the fact that there is not a cohesive story of "our" lives.

Of course I still disagree with E F-G on little points: "Men just never seem to understand that women need privacy as much as they do." (Actually my husband is very good at giving me space) And big ones: sexual freedom contributes to women's danger (then why is it that you were just telling us the stories of the danger in past generations when women had to sleep in separate rooms from their *husbands*?!).

But I can agree with her that marriage and mothering will always be central to women's lives when taken as a whole. So I guess that if that is the point of the book, then I will be more likely to agree than to disagree.

What do you think about the book so far?