It’s A Man’s World
Ladies, please: less greedy, more breedy
8
In the news today we are treated to the kindly ‘advice’ of one well-meaning (male) OB, in which he encourages women to become “better at resolving the conflict” between career and family and have their children when they are biologically meant to, between age 20 and 35. Instead of picking apart everything that’s wrong with this advice, let’s turn it around and say what should have been printed but was (as always) completely ignored. [Note: The article's text has been partially copied and pasted with wording changed for satire. Italics indicate text I have added. Copyright of the original article remains with the author].
“The message that ages 20 to 35 are the best for a woman to have a child should be taught to all genders in schools and governments alongside education about the realities of and societal need to support teenage pregnancies and contraception parenthood, the leader of the UK’s maternity doctors has said.
Dr Tony Falconer, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), warned against the pronounced trend towards older motherhood discouraging women from having children in their most fertile years by making it difficult for them to be mothers and work/go to school and said women and couples politicians and business leaders have to become “better at resolving the conflict” between their careers profits and family plans decency as human beings.
“It’s never our responsibility business[as doctors men] to tell people women when they should have their family, because there are all sorts of patriarchal constraints and societal pressures,” he told the Guardian in his first major interview since taking up the post in October.
But he added: “There’s no doubt that between 20 and 35 is the time to have your children. We are building up a difficulty for ourselves as a society by people’s expectations capitalism’s sexist limitations that they women will would be prudent to wait until they are older. That’s a very complex issue (and one few men in power care about), but it is a problem.”
His views on what he sees as the increasing problem of women waiting to have children society forcing women to choose between or compromise on matters of family and career could cause controversy.
But Falconer said there is strong evidence that women who leave starting a family until they are 35 industries that refuse to place any value on or make provisions for employees simultaneously undertaking pregnancy, birth, breastfeeding and parenting will have reduced fertility credibility and so find it harder to conceive hire and keep employees, even more so once they hit 40 men are required to more fully participate in childrearing.”
Now that, my friends, would actually be a radical concept in a progressive newspaper. Telling us we should have our babies earlier isn’t news, it’s recycled sexism with a big dollop of duh.
Sex for sale: the dark side of the Super Bowl
1
What happens when you get many thousands of men together for a major sporting event?
Along with the hot dogs and beer, women and girls go on sale.
The NFL Super Bowl is apparently one of the biggest human trafficking events in the United States, with tens of thousands of women and girls brought in to provide sex for the fans at last year’s game in Miami. Many of them were forced into prostitution and some were underage. State agencies rescued 24 children who had been sold into sexual slavery at that event alone. This year, officials in Texas (where the Super Bowl will be held) are cracking down on traffickers and warning ‘customers’ that if they buy sex in the days leading up to the big game, they must know they are likely complicit in trafficking, human enslavement and/or prostitution crimes against a woman or child.
In Europe, major football (soccer) matches like the European Championships and the World Cup prompt a similar influx of ‘sex workers’. If the area is not already rife with women willingly (though I use that term loosely) selling themselves, more are bused in. At this summer’s World Cup in South Africa, up to 40,000 prostitutes are estimated to have been in the country to meet demand. Other large sporting events in other countries attract similar problems, I’m sure.
I’m glad that the Texas authorities are concerned about this and that they are being proactive in minimising the amount of trafficking and forced prostitution going on in the days and weeks surrounding the Super Bowl, and I’m glad that they did mention the ‘customers” complicity in crimes being committed against these women and girls, but I’m still not convinced that they are approaching the problem in the right way. Just as with ‘regular’ prostitution, it is almost impossible to deter supply when the demand is so high. Traffickers, pimps and brothel owners will always have jobs as long as men are roaming the streets or banding together in groups to demand sexual services, whether through visual stimulation (like at strip clubs) or sexual contact and intercourse, with women they see as available and willing, even if, in reality, that is not the case.
Surely these men — these middle class, otherwise decent men — know better? Shouldn’t they know somewhere deep down that soliciting sex from prostitutes, girls who may be the same age as their own daughters, is wrong? I don’t believe for a second that their ‘natural urges’ are what drive them to purchase others’ bodies. There is nothing natural about having sex with a child quivering in fear, or a drug-addled, poverty-stricken corner prostitute, or a non-English-speaking woman tied to a filthy mattress in an outbuilding. There is nothing natural about stuffing money into a woman’s underwear while she shakes her breasts and dances on a pole so she can put food on the table for her kids or fund her education.
In short, there is nothing natural about the objectification of women.
It is, however, historical. Prostitution is called the world’s oldest profession not because it is inherent and will never go away, but because since the beginning of recorded history it has been accepted and encouraged in our male-dominated society. While women are oppressed and at an economic disadvantage to men (and make no mistake, they are — even in so-called progressive, industrialised nations), they will continue to use or be forced to use the only currency all of us has: our selves.
So why are we not doing more to target the demand for purchase of others’ bodies? Why are we not coming up with awareness-raising national ad campaigns targeted at the men who buy sex at these sporting events? Instead of lecturing women about the dangers and pitfalls of prostitution, stripping or walking alone at night during these testosterone-fuelled events, why aren’t we punishing and lecturing and scolding the men who take advantage of them? Why are the messages that do exist not getting through?
Sports has long been one of the only culturally acceptable ways in which men can spend time together and socialise outside of work without women present, along with going to the pub. Going to the cinema (unless it’s to see the latest action or sci-fi movie), a restaurant, the park or the town centre for a bit of shopping with another (straight) male friend would be unthinkable or at least uncomfortable for many men. In a group for a special occasion, perhaps. But just one-on-one with another dude, at a nice restaurant? Gay alert! Masculinity malfunction alert! All ego stations manned!
It’s not their fault, really. Just as hetero, middle class women have been conditioned to believe that the path to true sisterhood is paved with shopping trips, gossip, spa days and al fresco lunches, hetero, middle class men have been conditioned to believe that sports, beer, women and technology are the only acceptable ways in which they can socially bond and still be ‘normal’. At any event that is primarily focused on one of these things, the others are bound to be added on. So at a sporting event such as the Super Bowl, it comes as no surprise when beer, women and technology are ladled out like tasty side dishes for consumption with the entrée.
Beer and technology are products and services, that’s fine. Advertise and tout them all you want. But when women are lumped into that category and seen as a given, something sold alongside the team hats and hamburgers, that’s when the long shadow of the dark side of sports comes marching on the field.
And how is the idea that women are for sale being reinforced? Why, with all of the busty beauties and lovely ladies appearing in the ads selling the beer and the technology. You can’t watch a Super Bowl and its renowned halftime ads without seeing dozens of breasts, bums, bikinis and come-hither looks (from the cheerleaders and the women on TV), inviting the men to check out their goods while they think about buying some others.
Taken in isolation, of course these ads are not single-handedly responsible for the objectification of women. But it’s an example of the culmination of the drip-drip effect, being constantly fed in tiny, everyday increments to men and boys (and women and girls) across the nation and across the world.
Figuring out how to impede traffickers, while important, should not be the main concern of the officials in Texas, or anyone else concerned with stopping these crimes. It all begins — has always begun — with the idea that women are less-than, that we are subservient beings with no sexuality of our own besides the kind that satisfies or complements men’s.
Want to stop trafficking? Start with the beer commercials.
Image credit
The cleaner, the baker, the child care-taker
3
We pay a lot of lip service to those who work with children, don’t we? Moulding young minds, shaping the future, the most difficult (but rewarding!) job in the world (after motherhood, of course)…blah, blah, blah. Yes, so rewarding and important and indispensable that we can justify paying teachers, and particularly early years child care workers, a pittance. Some argue that teachers have shorter days and a shorter working year than most, with more holidays and job security. Therefore, they don’t need/deserve as much. Some people, like a man on BBC London’s call-in radio show this morning, say teachers aren’t paid that well, no, but they can take on extra jobs after school hours and in the summer holidays to supplement their incomes.
Correction: male teachers, the currently able-bodied and well-connected, and those without school-age children can take on temporary, part-time jobs as it suits their schedule (but only if they can find one — they’ll be in fierce competition with teens looking for summer jobs and the unskilled unemployed during a recession). Many teachers, however, are women with school-age children themselves and who are the primary carers, or primary child care arrangers, for their families. If a teacher is not teaching, her children aren’t in school either. What, pray tell, would this male caller propose she do with her children while she shuffles off to a part-time job, perhaps in retail, caring or tutoring, one that is unlikely to even cover the costs of paying someone to look after them? I’m guessing the caller’s wife took care of all that, leaving him free to take on the building and courier jobs that supplemented his below-average income. Well bully for him. Must be nice living in a bubble of privilege where child care is sourced and performed by the Child Care Faeries.
But ‘regular’ teachers’ pay isn’t even the issue here. The actual topic of discussion on this radio show was whether it was fair for a head teacher of a state school in Lonodn, which is publicly funded, to be earning more than £230,000 a year while the teachers themselves faced pay freezes under new government budget slashing, and the cleaners at the same school earn £10,000 per year, which is not even a living wage. Many callers thought he earned this high salary because, at the end of the day (the most overused expression in Britain), he takes full responsibility for the school’s performance. Oh, the weight on his shoulders is heavy alright — earning 20 times as much as some of your staff must be quite a gold-plated burden indeed. Pulling up in the Jag, sliding into that Reserved spot, clutching your lambskin briefcase and Starbucks coffee as you wave to the cleaning crew straggling in off the public buses after being up since 5am getting their own children dressed, fed and off to school across town before coming into work to mop floors and scrub toilets for below the minimum wage…what a chore! So worth the ridiculous salary, that.
As is often the case, even in female-dominated sectors like schools, the people at the top get all the credit and pay with little regard for the machine, as it were, as a whole. Instead of looking at employment structure as a pyramid, with one person on top and the rest of the underlings trickling down en masse, it would be helpful to consider it as a cog with interlocking teeth. All the parts have to work perfectly and in harmony to make things run smoothly. If even one small bit breaks down, the whole machine comes grinding to a halt. That includes the cleaners, cooks and teaching assistants at a school.
But after all, as one caller said, pushing a mop around or serving spaghetti isn’t exactly rocket science. Neither is changing nappies, caring for babies or running a pre-school, apparently. It’s not until you get to the prestigious job of shaping those young minds and filling them with information (or propaganda and biases, if you’re not a fan of education with a capital E) that it becomes real work worthy of a high salary and oodles of respect. Funnily enough, these top jobs are more often than not filled by men, even though the vast majority of those working within the state school system are women. Why might that be? Let me scratch my chin for a bit here. I’m thinking it starts with P and ends in -archy.
It’s the same reason why women are cooks but men are chefs. It’s why stay-at-home mums aren’t given a second thought but stay-at-home dads are fawned over and patted on the back. It’s why even in mummy blogging, dads come out top. It’s why men working in unskilled jobs (grave diggers, bin men, street cleaners, etc..) for Birmingham Council were given ‘bonuses’ to supplement their paltry base pay while women working similarly-skilled jobs (cleaners, teaching assistants, carers, etc..) were kept in the dark about this practice and remained on the base salary.
Until roles traditionally performed by women are given the respect and remuneration they deserve and until our disgusting, capitalist ‘winner takes all’ system is turned on its head or gotten rid of altogether, we will continue to see men in tweed jackets and business suits growing rich and fat on the backs of women, the poor and the disadvantaged.
Downing Street goes family (time) friendly
7I was delighted to learn today that British Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy, Nick Clegg, have taken to organising some Cabinet meetings around their children’s bedtimes and have expressed their desire to make this a regular occurrence so that they can remain involved with their family lives. Despite what I may think of their partnership and other policies, Cameron and Clegg seem to have taken a firm stance on the importance of spending time together as a family and a work-life balance by not just talking the talk but walking the walk, or at least trying to. And I admire that, even though I think Cameron’s definition of what a family is is entirely too narrow.
But of course, it wasn’t long before the criticisms of Cameron and Clegg’s new ‘flexitime’ practices started coming: ‘What the hell are they THINKING?! Shouldn’t their wives or nannies be doing that? These are important men with important, full-time jobs and a country to run! They need to sort out the economy, not doing little Johnny’s nappies and night-time sing-songs! Working parents all over Britain hardly get to see their children because of the demands their job(s) places on them; why should these rich boffins get to swan off home and rearrange meetings around their little dears?’
That was the sum of the content and comments on this Daily Mail article [I read them so you don't have to; believe me, it's a hot shower needed afterwards].
So, to sum up: Men should stick to the important stuff like running the country and making decisions about all of our lives and The Wives should shoulder the entire burden of childcare/rearing and household management (in addition to their own piddling ‘careers’ if they have one) because what you produce and how much you earn are more important than family and any man who doesn’t realise that is a threat to his own financial security and that of the World Order of Dudeliness And Other Masculine Pursuits.
No wonder we have such a long way to go in allowing women more options and flexibility in their professional lives and men more options and flexibility in their personal lives. Until we can break down these kinds of stereotypes, we’re just running in circles.
Guest post: It’s a MAD dad world
30If you follow the parent blogging world at all, you can’t have failed to have noticed the launch of the MADs Awards. That stands for Mums And Dads. You can read about them here. Stage 1 was nominations, when anyone could nominate anyone. And we did. Literally hundreds of blogs were nominated. We’re now at Stage 2. The most popular 5 blogs in each category have been named, and we’re all invited to vote on those top 5. Voting closes on 6th June.
When I looked at the list of finalists, I was very struck by the preponderance of Dads. Don’t get me wrong. There are some very fine Daddy bloggers out there, and their presence adds to the parent blogging mix. But I’m honestly a little puzzled why they feature quite so prevalently in the awards. I mean, it can’t be, can it, that they’re really so very much better than the Mummy bloggers?
Do the maths with me, if you will. There are 50 finalists. That’s 5 in each of the 9 categories, and 5 nominated for overall Best Blogger of the Year. Of these, 8 are male. That’s 16%. You’re thinking that’s not a very high percentage? Well, let’s put it against the percentage of Dad bloggers in the parent blogosphere, which I’ve taken to be British Mummy Bloggers. BMB has over 1,300 members now, and there are around 25 Dads. That works out at less than 2%. Is that 2% really so gifted that they deserve the disproportionate 16% of finalist places? If the ratios were proportionate, there would be over 200 Dad members of BMB – nearly 10 times the actual number. And what about this? For the top accolade of Best Blogger of the Year, they are in the majority. Yes, 3 out of the 5 nominees for Best Blogger are Dads. Is it not surprising, in any sphere, if a 2% minority of the population produces 3 out of the 5 candidates for top recognition?
What to make of this? Well, I’d like to be really angry about it, because that would have given the opportunity for a clever title to this post along the lines of “Why I’m truly a MAD finalist”. But I find it hard to be angry, because the awards have been designed very democratically. Bloggers nominated fellow bloggers, so who can we point the finger of sexism at here? It’s at ourselves, isn’t it? And when I look at myself, I can see how that happens. It’s partly the novelty value of a man’s viewpoint in what is predominantly a woman’s world. A Dad blogger arrests the attention, as a woman in the board room does, or a lady doctor used to (did we really call them that?). They stand out simply for being different.
I think it’s more than that, though. I sense in myself something that wants to reward a man for being a good father more than a woman for being a good mother (and I’m not, by that, implying that blogging equates to good parenthood). If I see a father accompanying his child on a school field trip, I feel that he must be a good dad, as he’s taken a day off work to do so. If I see a mother who has a full-time job on a field trip, do I feel the same? I don’t think I do. How often have I read in the blogosphere of a mum who is going away for a week-end on her own, and there’ll be a comment “How lovely that your partner is so supportive and is happy to look after the children on his own for a whole week-end”. Do we feel the same way when a husband goes away? I don’t think we do. I know a lot of this stuff is wrapped up in practicalities, bread-winning, role patterns and daily norms, and of course it may be a bigger hurdle for the woman to let go of her parental responsibilities and duties than for the man to step up to them (I’ll put my hand up to that one.) But at an emotional level, I think we love to love a man who’s being a father, more than we allow ourselves to love ourselves for being mothers.
It’s the same syndrome by which men who are chefs or primary school teachers seem to do so well in those careers. It’s almost as if we’re so flattered that these individuals will enter our women’s world, that we want to reward them with our favour. I know it’s more complicated than that. Those men may typically have more time to devote to their careers, or may be more ambitious, or may value promotion and publicity more than their female colleagues. But I do also sense that there’s some kind of self-destruct button that we women press, to allow them to thrive so successfully. It seems we get all star-struck by the dads in our female midst, and assume that their voices are more worth listening to than our own, and that their achievements are more valuable.
It’s interesting to see which other categories the men fared well in. There’s 1 nominated for Best Writer, 2 for Most Innovative Blog, and 2 for Funniest Blog. Am I reading too much into these to see them as representing the characteristics that we admire in men? Perhaps. I don’t want to get carried away here. I hesitated to write this post. It’s going to sound awfully like sour grapes if I don’t win, isn’t it? That’s why I’m publishing it now, before we know who the winners are. Of course I’d love it if you voted for me, but I hope this post will persuade you to do so on the basis of my writing, not my gender – because that would miss the point rather, wouldn’t it?
Iota Manhattan blogs at Not Wrong, Just Different and is a UK-to-US transplant. She describes herself as “an erstwhile civil servant, then fundraiser (arts and voluntary sector). Now Mum/Mom at home.” She likes reading, going to the cinema and a good cup of tea.
Economic independence and the happy housewife
3
I had an interesting conversation with my husband last night about economic independence (and its sometimes-evil cousin, dependence) and what it means for women, particularly those in relationships in which their partner is abusive or adulterous. As you will know if you’ve been anywhere near a newspaper stand, television or computer, there have been two big ‘he cheated’ scandals in the media lately — golf star Tiger Woods on wife Elin Nordegren, and footballer Ashley Cole on wife and popstar Cheryl Cole (nee Tweedy). While Cheryl has reportedly dumped her philandering husband, Elin appears to be ‘standing by her man.’
What my husband wondered is whether Cheryl’s economic independence and social status as a star in her own right had anything to do with why she finally felt able to dump her cheating partner and if Elin’s significantly lesser status and economic wealth (in comparison to Tiger’s — she was a retail clerk, nanny and sometimes-model before they met) may have contributed to her willingness to give him another chance. My feeling? Yes and no. Aren’t I helpful? But hear me out.
I do think that Elin’s greater economic dependence on Tiger may have played a part in her decision, whereas Cheryl, who has largely created her own wealth and cemented her status as the (supposed) ‘Nation’s Sweetheart’ through her own actions, not her husband’s, was undoubtedly less concerned with what she would do and how she would get by if she were to leave Ashley. That said, there is a big difference between the two couples that has to be taken into consideration as well; the Woods had children and the Coles didn’t. Subsequently, it becomes a much, much tougher decision to make. The upheaval and trauma is a lot for any child to take on and no mother wants to subject her children to that unless it’s absolutely necessary for her own emotional health. Considering the added pressure of going through divorce in the very public eye and what that could do to her children, Elin may have made the choice that was right for her them, not her.
Having said that, I’m not one who thinks that a couple should necessarily split up when cheating has occurred. Every person, no matter their economic dependence on or independence from their partners and regardless of their parental or social status, will have a different reaction to being cheated on from the next person. There are women who are completely economically dependent on their partners and who have children with that person who still walk right out the door at the first hint of unfaithfulness, while many woman of their own financial means and without children will stay with cheating partners in the hopes that he or she will change and that they can put the affair(s) behind them. Some of the ones who stay go on to have happy, fulfilling relationships. Others aren’t able to. Some women who leave don’t regret their decision for a second while others wonder if they should have granted their partner a second chance. There is no easy, ready-made answer. And that’s just when we’re talking about already middle-class, relatively privileged people! When you look at women from economically and socially deprived areas and those in truly abusive relationships, not just adulterous ones, the stakes change entirely.
This put me in mind of an article I recently read in the Guardian (h/t to Brinkster) that wondered ‘Why do women want to be Wags?’ (Wives And Girlfriends (of footballers), for the uninitiated). In the piece, women who actively pursue marriage to footballers as a lifestyle or career move (and some of whom have been successful at this) were interviewed to find out if the publicly-held assumption of Wags as ‘gold-diggers’, ‘slappers’ and shamelessly self-absorbed Barbie dolls trading on their husbands’ hard work is true. I could pick apart the article piece by piece but, really, my response to it could be formulated having only read the title. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised that there’s anyone out there who doesn’t already know why women from disadvantaged backgrounds actively ‘chase’ men of wealth and status. Does the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid” ring any bells?
Instead of taking a long, hard look at why so many girls and young women feel their only hope of ever lifting themselves out of poverty is by capitalising on their looks and being completely reliant on male approval and the security a wealthy male can provide, the public seems bent on making these women look slightly sad and pathetic, and more than a little lazy. The question should not be ‘Why do women want to be Wags?’ but ‘Why is a woman’s perceived sexuality a commodity?’
There’s also a large element of class snobbery at play here — a large swathe of the middle and upper classes seem to think it’s only ‘those’ (read: ‘chavvy’ or ‘trashy’) girls who do this kind of thing and, therefore, are safe to mock and belittle. Refusing to recognise the lack of educational and employment options for these young women as their chief motivator in seeking fame and fortune and instead putting it down to some kind of innate character flaw of the poor and misguided is absolutely abhorrent, not to mention ignorant. These are undoubtedly the same people who complain of people ‘sponging’ off the government and some of whom sneer at women who stay at home looking after their children, claiming they have it easy in comparison to their poor, hen-pecked, worked-to-the-bone husbands.
And indeed, not that many people consider being a housewife or a stay-at-home mum ‘work’. Oh, sure, we get lip service about how we’re (cue the violins) doing the hardest, most important job in the world and how amazing and selfless we are, and all the rest of it, but when it comes to trying to secure a longer, better paid maternity leave to give more women that opportunity, we’re suddenly whiny, entitled breeders who should have saved up for our squawking brats if we wanted them or be prepared to work to support them from the day they’re born. No taxpayer money will be spent on the fruit of your womb, madam, regardless of how much you earn or have paid into the system yourself or been denied opportunities based on arbitrary things like skin colour or postcode.
Thinking about things like this makes me look at my own economic dependence on my husband and shudder with fear. While I absolutely love and trust him, know that our marriage is solid and that he considers my contribution to the household just as valid as his, I am undoubtedly at his mercy. If I found out he cheated on me today, would I be able to just pack up my things and leave, with only my principles and dignity to guide me? Unfortunately, I couldn’t. Even if I wanted to, I wouldn’t. I would have to think about where to go, how I would live, what I would do for money, how I would provide shelter and food for my children, how I would get my daughter to school and wash her uniform, not to mention the intense emotional fallout for both myself and my kids. Would it make me think more carefully about whether I should stay in the marriage and try to forgive him, because I am dependent on him? Definitely. Does that scare the hell out of me? Undoubtedly.
Our dependence on men and their control over numerous aspects of our lives has been conditioned into us and is indeed a reality many women face. While women still earn 17% less than men for doing the same job, while they continue to be the ones to sacrifice their educations and careers to be carers, while they are told that it’s more important to be pretty than to be smart, it’s not a surprise and not something that will be easily fixed. It’s a complex issue and one which I am glad the feminists of the second-wave took up and made great strides in. That far greater numbers of women in the Western world are able to make decisions about relationships based on their feelings and personal ambitions rather than worries over their financial security is indeed a blessing. But we still have a long way to go before our independence (and that of women in less developed areas of the world) is a real option and a real choice, not a matter of luck or circumstance.
Women’s bodies, men’s work (part two)
17
Carrying on from part one, in which I discussed cleavage and how views of women’s bodies affect our views of ourselves and the way we are treated, I want to talk about women’s bodies as they relate to the workplace.
When women were finally integrated into the workplace, the move was largely concessionary. Women at that time were only ‘allowed’ in after many, many years of political and social struggle and after proving their worth doing men’s jobs during World War II. Gradually, more companies became open to or were forced to begin hiring women, with great big shoves from bodies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the US and passage of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in the UK. That these laws were only passed a few years before I was born reminds me that this really was a long and hard-fought battle by the women of my grandmothers’ and mother’s generations and that they completely revolutionised the way we navigate public spheres and live our lives. Hell, it was only 45 years ago that it became illegal for companies in the US to fire a woman immediately upon marriage! These were not easy trails our foremothers blazed.
Unfortunately, when these women fought to get into the workplace they largely based their arguments on the premise that they could do the same work as men and, therefore, should be treated exactly the same as them. While I’m sure these pioneering ladies had done what they felt was necessary to get that first foothold on the ladder secured, I’m not sure they properly contemplated and anticipated the negative aspects of this kind of strategy. Because let’s be honest — the working environment didn’t change all that much when women moved in, and they didn’t ask it to. They were expected to simply fit in with the guys and draw as little attention to their gender as possible. That is, if they wanted to do a ‘man’s job’; if they were doing traditionally female jobs (like secretarial work, nursing, etc..) they were expected to be a bit of helpful eye candy and not much more. You’ve seen Mad Men, right? The ass-slapping, “c’mere, darlin” open patronisation and blatant sexism? It’s a true portrayal of working life for many at the time.
But that was then and this is now, or so say those who claim we are living in a ‘post-feminist’, non-sexist, utopian (read: imaginary) society. Women’s lib, equal opportunity laws and sexual harassment lawsuits took care of all that, didn’t it? We have maternity leave (though only an extremely paltry 12 weeks in the US) and the right to report our sexist co-workers or bosses to the proper authorities if they bother us and only a 17% disparity between our pay packets for the exact same work. What the hell else do we want, some wonder?
The problem is this — nearly all of the business world was built around the male biological and social imperative. It was understood that a working man was either single and carefree or with a wife at home who took care of his house, his children and all domestic tasks, aside from the more ‘manly’ chores like grass-cutting, wood-chopping and car repairs. The male worker had no need for flexible hours that fit in around school or shopping hours. The male worker had no dramatic hormonal changes, pregnancies, breastfeeding or post-partum recovery to deal with. The male worker was not the primary caregiver for his offspring and, if his wife did work for some reason, he was not held responsible for arranging their care. If a project needed more work or clients needed schmoozing or the boss wanted more hours put in, it wasn’t much of a problem. A quick phone call to say he’d be late and to keep his dinner warm in the oven was all that was required.
For women who were wives and had children, it was not so easy. Because their jobs were often seen as insignificant or merely ways to ’keep them busy’ — rather than sources of personal fulfilment, empowerment and financial independence – they were still expected to put their responsibilities to their children, husbands, husbands’ careers, home and image before their own aspirations. The fact that they were paid less and so were nearly always the secondary earner in the relationship (hence, with the ‘less important’ career), didn’t seem to register, or even matter. We’d thrown our hats into the ring and now we were going to have to take it on the chin…like men. No special treatment here, sweetheart!The fact that women were (and still are, in some quarters) viewed as irrational, emotional and lacking in intelligence didn’t help either. Hundreds of years of gender stereotypes and male privilege made sure of that. And though the distinctions are not so black-and-white as they used to be, the division between men and women in how they are expected to prioritise their careers and families is still prevalent.
But one of the biggest problems remaining, in my view, is that women’s bodies have not been integrated and accepted into the workplace. Pregnancy and maternity leave are still career-killers. Taking time off for antenatal appointments or to look after a sick child is still met with groans and rolled eyes from a sizeable minority who wonder why mothers don’t just chuck in their jobs and stay at home already, like they’re supposed to. We’ve all heard of colleagues who make that asinine remark, “I wish I could have a few months off,” as if taking time off to give birth and care for a newborn was a beach holiday with cocktails.
Some people would even begrudge a woman the right to pump milk at work, calling it an ‘extra break’ and complaining that she’s getting ‘special treatment,’ which I think any mother who has ever breastfed or expressed knows is misguided. Trying to get as much milk as possible out of your breasts while hunched over an electronic pump in a storage closet, hoping no one walks in on you, is not a ‘break’. It’s just more work, though of the unpaid, ‘unimportant’ variety in capitalism’s eyes.
And then there’s the super-gross, super-secret monster called Menstruation. Ever dragged yourself into work despite the debilitating menstrual cramps, copious bleeding, excessive bloating, splitting headache and hormone levels that rise and plummet like a roller coaster? Ever had to sit through a round of PMS jokes when you snap at someone or cry after a tense conflict with a colleague? I don’t know many women who haven’t.
No, women’s bodies are not welcome in the workplace. Our biological differences are still shrouded in shame and secrecy. When we walk into our offices, we’re supposed to check our femaleness at the door. No crying, cramps, children or breast milk, please. It’s all man here.
Look also at what is considered ‘professional’ dress code for women and all of the mixed messages therein: be sexy and attractive, but not so much that other women are jealous and men are ‘distracted’ or don’t take you seriously; wear fitted, tailored clothing so as not to hide’your figure (if you have a ‘good’ one) but attire must also not be too tight or revealing, lest men are distracted or don’t take you seriously; etc., etc., etc… The workplace didn’t welcome women (and their bodies) as they were, it tried to force them into the existing mould of masculine power.
Women’s bodies have always been blamed for men’s moral weaknesses; it’s why strict adherents of many religions (and even those of a more secular persuasion) have rules about how covered up women should be and why this is for their own protection from men. From the burqa-clad Muslim to the mini-skirted rape victim, women’s clothing has always been a symbol of her modesty and an advertisement for her chasteness, or lack thereof. It’s a man’s world and we’re just living in it…and so we have to dress accordingly, including at work.
Because industry and business were built upon male norms, the working environment reflects this attitude as well. We got on the ladder alright, but what we should’ve been after was an entirely different climbing apparatus, one in which we could move horizontally across a continuum we helped create, not forced to climb vertically up those rigid, historically-male rungs (in high heels, naturally) before hitting that infamous glass ceiling.
And so the women of the previous generation — not wanting to appear unreliable, uncommitted or in any way inferior to men — shouldered the burden of both work and home and tried to turn the enormous stress and strain of it all into a message of empowerment for their daughters. Saying, “See! We can work and still have kids and houses and husbands! We’re not asexual, frigid, heartless, childless wenches after all! We can have careers and be taken seriously and earn money while still running the PTA, doing all the grocery shopping and ironing everyone’s clothes! This is freedom!”
I don’t blame those women one bit for taking on that message. They did the best they could with what they had and turned centuries of degradation and discrimination into opportunity and possibility. I applaud them. I respect them. My beef is not with them.
But.
‘Doing it all’ is not working. ‘Having it all’ is not possible. Women of my generation have watched as our mothers worked themselves to early graves, ill health, divorces, unimaginable stress, or lives devoid of personal interests once the careers were finished and the kids were grown. Men of my generation have been raised by these women and lauded their efforts, thought it ‘noble’ that their mothers did everything while perhaps their fathers did what they’ve always done — worked, and done the odd bit of housework or parenting when asked. We have, by and large, not grown up seeing functional, equitable, reciprocal partnerships. While what these women did was indeed extraordinary, it needn’t be The Way Things Are.
People of my generation are, more than ever, seeking the kinds of partnerships they saw as lacking in their own parents. More men are involved in the rearing of their children, the cleanliness and order of their homes and the day-to-day tending of their romantic relationships. More and more women are realising that they perhaps can’t or even don’t want to do everything all at once. More mothers are choosing to stay at home when their children are young and then returning to work later. This is, of course, usually to the detriment of their careers. More women with successful careers are choosing not to have children at all due to the constraints of their professions, or delaying motherhood until the possibility of it occurring naturally becomes slimmer and slimmer. So, at the moment, we seem to be faced with two choices, neither of which seems all that appealing: Do it all at once, or choose between career and children.
There must be a better way. There has to be a better way. We deserve it. Men who care about their partners and their children deserve it. Children most certainly deserve it. We can’t carry on the status quo anymore, it is (by and large) not working. This is why we are fighting for the right to decide when and if we will become mothers at all. This is why those who are already mothers are getting angry. This is why I think we’re approaching some of the major feminist dilemmas from the wrong angle. And in the next post, I will outline some of the changes that I think we need in order to really revolutionise the way both men and women combine careers and families and how women are treated within the public spheres.
Here’s where you come in; I want to hear your experiences, ideas and suggestions. What do you think we need to do to get real change rolling? Let’s think outside the box and brainstorm here. From the smallest detail to the bigger picture, I want to hear your ideas for how we can make motherhood truly compatible with having careers and equitable marriages. What small things are you doing within your own lives to help reach that goal? What kind of legislation do you think would be helpful in effecting these changes? How can we overcome patriarchal norms and heteronormativity and reach out to those who hold the reins to these stifling structures?
The chicken or the egg: Paternity leave and gender roles
12
So as you probably didn’t hear (because I’ve not seen it covered anywhere within the feminist blogosphere – sigh – and only given marginal press within mainstream media), Labour announced a couple days ago quite radical changes to the maternity and paternity leave laws, which will apply to children due on or after 3 April 2011 (provided they win the next general election).
Right now in the UK, a woman who gives birth to or adopts a child while in paid employment* is entitled to nine months’ paid maternity leave (most of which is on the Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) of £123.06 per week; only the first six weeks is paid at 90% of one’s regular salary) and then three further months unpaid, with her partner being eligible for two weeks’ paid paternity leave, also paid at the SMP rate. Some employers pay more on top of that but many don’t so it can be assumed that this is what the majority of employees who take maternity or paternity leave will earn.
The proposed changes would give a woman the option of returning to work after six months, transferring the remaining three months of paid leave over to her partner. Her partner would then have the option of taking a further three months’ leave from his or her** job, unpaid. The total leave would still amount to 12 months (9 paid, 3 unpaid) but would be more easily split between them. In theory, this would give female breadwinners and those who would like to return to work after six months the ability to go back sooner without having to put their babies into non-familial care. It would also give men who earn less than their partners or who want to be more involved in their child’s care in the first year an opportunity to stay at home for 3-6 months without losing their jobs.
That’s the bare-bones of it and how it’s laid out on paper. However, whether and how it is taken up in practise is another matter entirely. Let’s run this through a reality check.
First, let’s look at the various combinations that could be employed with this new legislation. One reality is that some women won’t be able to afford being on the SMP rate at all (a more likely situation for single mums) and so will return to work even sooner than six months. This change does not help her at all, sadly. Another likely scenario for many people will be for the mother to stay at home for the full nine months until the unpaid portion of leave kicks in, which she may or may not take depending on the family’s circumstances. This may be due to personal choice, social conditioning/pressure or practical reasons (such as financial concerns or breastfeeding).
But a woman who takes her six months’ leave and then decides to return to work after this period of time (because she is the higher earner or because her income, though less than her partner’s, is needed, or simply because she wants to) now has the option of putting her 5-6 month-old baby into care or transferring the remainder of her leave entitlement over to her partner (if she has one). In families where it is financially possible for the father to take a 3-6 month financial hit after the mother already has as well, without any severe consequences, this is potentially great news. But in a family where unpaid or reduced-pay leave for the father (even for ‘only’ three months) is not an option, does it seem likely that the male partner will be willing or able to take over the childcare duties for those three months? Will he even want to? Or will it “make more sense” for the woman to stay at home for the three remaining ‘paid’ months, as she has done for the previous six, especially if she is paid less, is breastfeeding and/or already has a daily routine and support system in place?
Though I do think that there are certainly couples out there in which the woman either needs or wants to return to work after six months and the father would be willing, perhaps even eager, to be the sole care provider for his child for at least three months, I don’t think as many men will take it up as one might expect or hope. First, there is the social stigma to deal with. A man wanting to look after his baby in theory faces the reality of having to ask for the leave from his employer and then explain to his colleagues why he will be gone. For most men, caring for children is still widely viewed as ‘women’s work’ and taking on a role almost exclusively performed by women can be viewed as a threat to his status, both socially and professionally; if not by him then certainly by at least some of his peers.
A man who looks after his children is often viewed as a bumbling, inept ‘helper’ to the mother, doing her a favour or humouring her for the sake of the ‘easy life’. Fathers I’ve spoken to (including my own husband) have told me of the times they’ve taken their children out in public without the mother present and gotten comments about how great he is for “taking them off mum’s hands,” or “giving mum the day off” as if that’s the only reason he would be solely responsible for them — as a favour to his wife or partner. Heaven forbid he actually wants and is able to look after them by himself! Some dads even report being asked if they’re divorced and on a ‘weekend pass’ with their children.
The social conditioning that men (and all of us) have been subject to sends the strong message that fathers are the second-string, the back-up team, only needed when mum isn’t around for some (usually selfish) reason. Even then, fathers aren’t expected to perform as well at parenting as their female counterparts. I’ve heard many a story of other women rushing in to offer to make a cake for a single dad who is supposed to contribute to the school’s bake sale, or telling a stay-at-home dad that he doesn’t have to take part in the snack rota at playgroup because he “has his hands full already.” The message to men, from all sides, is that parenting is not really their area of expertise (or at least, combining parenting with household responsibilities isn’t) and that just keeping the children alive and fed and the house standing is all that is expected of them.
The second hurdle in encouraging men to take this option is financial. If a man is the higher earner (as is the case in the majority of partnerships), it will be much more difficult and sometimes even impossible for him to collect SMP wages instead of his normal salary. Of the small proportion of families who would be able to do this, few within that group would be able to function without any income at all on his part, if he were to take the final three months unpaid. It isn’t clear from the wording of the new legislation but I’ve read from other sources that if a couple wants the father to take his three months at SMP but cannot afford for him to take the final three months unpaid, they lose the option for the mother to take it, effectively shortening their total entitlement to just nine months instead of twelve. This is supposedly to encourage more fathers to take at least their three months at SMP.
Again, it sounds good in theory, giving a bit of incentive for men to take the paternity leave they are entitled to, but I remain doubtful that the incentives will be enough to overcome the social and financial hurdles that a lengthened paternity leave presents. Until the social stigma of men caring for children and performing domestic duties is broken and until women receive equal pay and opportunities at work, free from gender discrimination, paternity leave and maternity leave will remain quick fixes for a much wider, more complex problem that is endemic in our society.
**Paternity leave applies to female partners of women who give birth or adopt but for the sake of simplicity and because heterosexual relationships that produce children are more prevalent, I will be using ‘he’ to signify the partners of new mothers
Women’s bodies, men’s work (part 1)
30
Vered at MomGrind recently wrote a post in which she relayed a conversation she’d had with friends about whether displaying cleavage is acceptable, inspired by some of the more ‘daring’ outfits worn by female celebrities at the Golden Globe awards. In the course of this conversation, it emerged that there seems to be two schools of thought when it comes to cleavage: Cover It Up, Sister and If You’ve Got It, Flaunt It. The first is generally thought of as the more conservative, repressive option and the second as more liberal and empowering.
Now, this may seem like a trivial issue to some but to me it is actually a great example of a real division within the feminist community and the public at large. Why? Because each school of thought on cleavage has two conflicting ‘sides’ supporting it; supporters who are, in many ways, diametrically opposed to one another. The Cover It proponents are usually either quite socially conservative and rank modesty as an important virtue in their personal morals (often on religious grounds), or they are quite liberal-minded, socially progressive people who think that while breasts are of course natural and an inherent part of women’s bodies, covering up is essential if they are to to get ahead and be taken seriously, especially in the workplace. Many feminists, particularly those of the Second Wave who had to fight to get into the workplace at all, fall into this category (though this is just a generalisation based on observation, not a hard-and-fast fact or attempt to pigeon-hole anyone).
Those who are in favour of the Flaunt It approach almost always think of themselves as neo-liberal, open-minded and supportive of sexual expressiveness and, again, includes many self-proclaimed feminists, especially those of the younger generation, or Third Wave. They think women should be able to wear whatever they want, however they want and whenever they want. They will defend a woman’s right to be ‘sexy’ and ‘feel good about herself’ and exclaim loudly that breasts are nothing to be ashamed of. This is all well and good. I support that view, in theory. However, within that ideology lurks dangerous territory; a faux-liberalism in which supporting women in their quest to be ever-sexier and conform to modern beauty standards is actually harmful, reinforcing the link that ties a woman’s body and perceived attractiveness directly with her feelings of self-worth and her abilities.
A perfect example of this is those What Not To Wear and How To Look Good Naked shows on television that purport to accept and even glorify women of all shapes and sizes, but which really, at their core, are just showing these women the tricks of the trade for getting as close as possible to the beauty ideal and giving them a patronising, ‘there, there love’ pat on the head about the parts of themselves that come up short. What’s so progressive about taking a woman who has had three babies (with the saggy tummy to prove it) and giving her a corset to wear underneath her clothes instead of the less acceptable methods of telling her to starve herself or have surgery? It’s not as bad as the latter, obviously, but it’s still not true acceptance. Every woman knows that no matter how proud she is of her ‘curves’, she must try to minimise and detract attention away from the parts of her considered less desirable and that don’t meet the criteria of perfection. Drawing attention to your large breasts because you know they will focus eyes away from your ‘thunder thighs’ isn’t exactly Body Confidence, is it? But I digress. Back to cleavage…
The other, oft-quoted caveat of some within the Flaunt It school is that it’s okay to show off your breasts, but only if they are of an acceptable size and appearance. If you are relatively young, of at least average weight and without any obvious disabilities, you will be encouraged to use your breasts to attract a partner and garner praise. At Mardi Gras? Show us your tits! At a club? Show us your tits! On the beach? Show us your tits! But if you’re not any of these, or with any other ‘affliction’ marking you out from the sexually available vixens, woe betide you. Wrinkled or exceedingly freckled? Ew! Naturally very large and/or ‘saggy’? Tuck ‘em back in! Too small? Who are you kidding! Pulling up your shirt to breastfeed a baby? Jesus, we don’t want to see THAT! So, still, the message is that ‘flaunting it’ is acceptable but only if you fall within the range of what is considered worthy of flaunting. If you are not pre-approved by the pornulation and empowerfulization committees for hawtness (be it because of your age, shape, weight or race) you won’t get your Dove blue ribbon award for not hating yourself quite as much as you used to.
Even the language we use to describe how we feel about our breasts is telling: Women with small breasts will talk about not feeling as feminine or ‘womanly’ and being unable to ‘fill out’ tops and dresses, while women with large chests, like a commenter on Vered’s post, say that men talk to their breasts, not their faces, and that normal clothes look “pornographic” on them, suggesting that large breasts are equated with not being taken seriously and sexual promiscuousness, which is a common and long-held prejudice that we’re just supposed to accept as the norm.
This leads me to the issue of women’s bodies in the workplace, the main crux of this discussion, for which a second post is forthcoming. I don’t want this sucker getting too long — brevity is not my strong suit and I’m trying to work on making posts more manageable and easy to read. Watch this space!
And in the meantime, tell me your thoughts and experiences with cleavage and body image. Are you a Cover It Up sort of person or a Flaunt It believer? Do you think showing off our bodies is empowering, harmful or a combination of the two?