Feminism in Economics

I thought I would try to get on the ball here and actually try to read the book on time for a change. I still find the book kind of hard to read, and I have a difficult time understanding just what EFG is arguing for. Or is she not arguing for anything and is just laying down the history of feminism as she sees it? I'm still a little lost on that point.

I may not have enjoyed reading this chapter that much, but I think that the topic is a really important one to discuss. One of the things that I thought that was interesting in the general tone of the chapter was the general idea of how men and women were doing competitively in the job market. There was almost an idea of who's beating who and by how much, and is the gap closing even further. There's also the idea of women needing to work so they can be free of their dependence on men.

That stuff right there is all of the stuff that I don't particularly like about feminism. This idea that we are pitted against men, or at the very least that we have to be able to be free from them is sort of crazy to me. To me, we are in this together as a human race. I don't like women trying be free from men as in this chapter, or from children as in the previous chapter. I think that seriously takes away from what it means to be a woman.

On the other hand, I very much appreciate the advances that have been made allowing women to have more access to the work force. As a single woman, I'm glad that I can support myself and that I was not limited to choices as a secretary, a nurse or a teacher. As much as I hate the fact that it's necessary, I also appreciate that married women have more options open to them for work as well. I think that there are times that a second income is not as necessary as we make it out to be, but there are definitely times that it is absolutely needed as well.

I guess from the standpoint of someone who leans more towards the idea of a "New Feminism" (though I admit to not fully understanding all that entails either), I think that figuring out the role of women in the workplace and how to balance that with family life is one that falls to us. I think that it is already happening in a lot of places that women are working less so that they can be home with their children more. Not just as SAHM's, but also as people working part time or shorter hours. I don't think that there is any one answer to how much a woman should work, because it's going to vary a lot depending on every family's need. Personally, I can't say much about the balance, since I sort of focus on my job as a default. What are everyone's thoughts about how we can try to be women working and balancing family at the same time?

Sexual Revolution

This chapter solidified my position on Feminism.  I have felt from as early as my teens that contraception and abortion were the reasons I couldn't call myself a Feminist, even though I believe in equal pay for equal work, and equal opportunities for women in academia, work, etc.  I find myself saddened by the fact that I don't want to identify with something that could have been (and was at one point in time) a good for society.


I believe that even though an action is commonplace does not then make it a good action.

Just because women were quietly/secretly having premarital sex even before the Sexual Revolution, does not mean it was good.

And just because it is now accepted and even expected that women engage openly in premarital sex after the Sexual Revolution, it does not mean it is good.

Encouraging the behavior by normalizing the behavior seems to only have added more heartache than not.  We have a society filled with girls who have no self-esteem, who believe their worth to a male companion is measured in her willingness to put out.  What is really sad is that many girls have been taught to believe that they ARE confident and they DO have self-esteem BECAUSE they engage in sex outside of marriage.

Instead of building up our boys and girls to respect themselves enough to live a chaste life, we do not expect this of them.  Instead our teachers, parents, doctors...hand them condoms or birth control pills (things that fail over and over) and say under their breath, "Well, kid...just don't get (her) pregnant"  And this literally validates this expectation that they will or even should engage in sexual behavior before marriage.

It's a vicious cycle we have created for ourselves.  It's unfortunate.  I pray like crazy every single day that my husband and I will be able to impress upon our children their worth, their prized possession of their chastity...that they will believe they are worth waiting for.  And yes...I know we are fighting an uphill battle.  But I believe it is possible.  I have seen it.  I am encouraged by the families that we know in our prayer circles who are having success in this matter.  They are absolutely counter-cultural in the ways they lead their children through courtship...but it is beautiful the results they have seen.

One word about Abstinence education because surely someone will come along and remind me how "unrealistic" I am on it.  I believe Abstinence Education, as it stands, does not work because the adults teaching it are not credible.  Kids are very perceptive (especially at the age when sex education is taught in most schools) and they can tell that the people telling them to remain abstinent don't believe that they can do it.  And since that underlying message is there...they do not believe they can do it either.

Chapter 4

This chapter was sort of like a horrific car wreck to me. I was both highly disturbed and fascinated by it, all at the same time. My blood pressure was through the roof at times, but my curiosity got the better of me and kept me reading.

I think what fascinated me the most was the discussion of our new-found sexual freedom as women. Finally, we have sexual freedom like men do. I know I can be terribly naive at times, but all I could think is that if the men have been sexually free all this time and the women haven't, then who, pray tell, are the men having sex with?

I know, I know. The men could have it and not be judged, whereas their women were no longer acceptable in society. Well, in that case, why "free" the women to act like the men? Why not instead hold the men to a higher standard, and judge them to be as equally shameful as we judged the women to be?

You know, I don't like the sexual repression that denied the deep hunger for love that lies within all of us. But neither do I like unrestrained sex. There has to be some discipline because sex is a very beautiful and very powerful thing. Fireworks are beautiful when they are used safely and correctly, but dangerous as all get out when used without respect for their power.

I don't know if EFG was trying to help us figure out how we should define this new morality that we find ourselves in. I have to admit that I think that the idea of trying to redefine morality to fit our newfound sexual freedom is ridiculous. It's not as though we as Americans used to have one morality and now we have a different one. That's really not up for debate any more than the laws of science are. We are created as we are created. Ignoring that will not make it go away.

Here's how I see it. The sexual repression of the previous generation was an anorexia of sorts. Like if they tried to deny the need it would go away. Of course, the constant denial can lead to a binge/purge cycle with sex as well. The sexual revolution decided that sex was good, and that any sex we wanted was good, so let's go with it all. Like a glutton spiraling towards disastrous obesity. Both are deadly to the body, and we are only fooling ourselves if we think that we can play games with sexuality and end up any better.

Finally!!!

I finally, finally, FINALLY, have my copy (looong story, very boring) and can now join in the fun!! I have been trying so hard to not read any posts so I wouldn't spoil any of the book and now I can catch up and join!! I am so sorry for my absence! Yeah, book club, here I come!!

Chapter 4 - Eugenics Gets One Sentence

I'm actually not really enjoying chapter 4 so far. I mean, I agree with the main points Mrs. F-G is making, but frankly, I am tired of reading and thinking about abortion. As a woman who is struggling to get pregnant, and would like nothing better than to be a mother, I have little patience for arguments from people whose claims work like this: A "fetus" is a human being if it's parents or someone else wants it (adoption), but it's not a human being if "no one" wants it and/or it was conceived in less than ideal circumstances, or has "something wrong with it".

I got seven pages into the chapter (pg. 89) when I had to stop reading because I was throwing up a little bit in my mouth. The reason? Well, what else makes one throw up in their mouth other than moral relativism?

"One woman captured the attitudes of many: "I would say my views are true for me, but I can't put that on someone else. I just can't force my truths on other people." How cosmopolitan and liberated of her. Us poor Christian bumpkins sure could learn a thing or two from her about the truth, huh?

"Many other respondents acknowledged inconsistencies in their views, but then fell back on "that's just how I feel." Oh well then, if that's just how she feels, we have to let her walk away with an inconsistent viewpoint about when and how its o.k. to kill human beings, right? I mean, if that's how she feels, she must be correct. *facepalm*

And following right on the heels of the above quoted gem, is this beauty: "Some admitted - privately - that concerns about overpopulation by "poor" and "minority" children influenced their views." Gosh, folks, don't be shy about your desire to eradicate the poor and people of color. No, seriously. You're in good company. Margaret Sanger, you know, the sainted founder of Planned Parenthood, said some similar things.

"Such class-consciousness points to one important reason for promoting birth control for the unfit -- the burden they place on what Sanger, in Pivot, called "the normal and healthy sections of the community." She claims that the healthy classes unduly bear the costs of "those who should never have been born." Indeed, Sanger's movement only took off when the wealthy elite, including the eugenic Rockefeller Foundation, rallied to her side." -Angela Franz

Here is the above quoted article attesting to the same attitude of eugenics and social control by Ms. Sanger and her organization.

Also, this is a short video clip from a longer documentary called Maafa 21, which was created to raise awareness within the African-American community about the eugenic motives of Planned Parenthood. (This is just one clip of about 15.)





Something funny happened on the way through chapter 4: eugenics got one sentence. Perhaps it is because the initial aims of the Sanger/Planned Parenthood movement were birth control and not abortion, Mrs. F-G didn't want to spend any time discussing the eugenic spirit alive and well in these United States. But I'd say that if there are people responding to a study that they support abortion because there are too many poor and minority people, that's cause for alarm. And perhaps, for more than just one sentence.

Why don't we have anything to say about this chapter?

Until Sarah and Kay posted last night, there were no discussions about this chapter. I was trying to figure out why.

It may be that we've just hit a bit of a lull in the club (maybe we should read more than a chapter a week?) but I suspect it's more a combination of (a) some disappointment in the book so far and (b) we've heard it all.

It's not that my blood wasn't pumping when I read it - whenever I hear about the sexual revolution I get fired up. And yet, while it left me upset, I didn't feel like I had anything noteworthy to say. It's not like I learned anything new. Here's hoping the next chapter has more blog fodder!

Chapter 3 - Shocking and Barbaric

So, I guess I'll break the ice on this week's chapter...

One thing in particular that stood out to me (and I'm sure many of you, as well), was the story of the African American man in South Carolina who, upon discovering his unwed daughter was pregnant, proceeded to lock her in a room and isolate her from her sisters until she went into labor. When her labor started, he refused to call a doctor and the outcome of her hours of seemingly painful labor was a stillborn child and her bleeding to death (pg 61). Talk about barbaric! Not only is the man's daughter dead, but her child is dead, as well.

Although EFG doesn't give a year for this incident, it is presumed to be pre-1960s. The father's motive for this act was reportedly to retain the family's "honor"(?!). Honestly, I'd be curious to hear what happened to the father. I wonder if the family's honor remained intact after his neglect led to two deaths.

Now, enter the question of abortion. Although this incident is presumed to have happened in a time when abortions were not legal, given that the family was of middle-class standing, they would likely have been able to afford an abortion that would have prevented this outcome. They may or may not have chosen this option and the woman may or may not have wanted to give birth to and/or raise the child, but, in any event, the availability of the abortion option, not to mention the greater independence of women that came to be after the feminist movement could have resulted in a very different, and quite possibly more pleasant outcome for this woman.