Posts tagged women
This is not a whisper
13
A few weeks ago I discussed women’s bodies in the workplace and how our biological and social needs were never truly integrated, even when we were finally ‘allowed’ to work. I said:
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.
I also said:
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.
…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.
Finally, I concluded that:
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.
Essentially, I was arguing that we can’t ‘fix’ the current system or try to force our way into existing frameworks because those systems and frameworks don’t serve our needs or our lives, which is what author Hilary Mantel says in today’s Guardian as well. What both of us are trying to say, I believe, is that moulding ourselves to fit a system designed without our bodies, our wants or our priorities in mind can do us harm. It does do harm to women the world over, every day. Being forced to delay children until our 30s and 40s in order to establish successful careers is harmful. Being denied educational and professional opportunities if we choose to have children in our teens or 20s is harmful. All this analysis of feckless, fertile teen mums and desperate, over-achieving 40-somethings undergoing IVF sends one clear message and it is this:
You can’t win.
You can’t win because the perfect time to have a child, according to current advice, is in one’s mid-20s to early 30s. Unfortunately for us, that also happens to coincide with the prime years for establishing a career and moving up the ladder, or pursuing further education. Taking long ‘career breaks’ (because, as we know, having and raising children is not considered ‘real work’), even if short-term, harms our long-term financial and professional potential. Women who take career breaks at this time in their lives rarely end up in senior positions, earning as much and on the same par with similarly-aged male colleagues. If we want to have even a chance at joining their ranks we have two choices — don’t have children for another 10-15 years (or at all) or have children but get back to work quickly by placing them in care, the provision and management of which will be made preposterously difficult given the restrictions of the working environment.
Each of these ‘choices’, of course, has negative consequences. Risking infertility or having to pay someone else most of your salary to care for your child in the first years of its life are not ideal options, though they are the ones we have to live with in the here and now. Without truly flexible academic and professional accommodation and without access to affordable, quality childcare and meaningful, fairly-waged part-time work, we are getting nowhere. Giving dads a bit more paternity leave or giving mums a bit more money for their leave, while a nice gesture, is pointless in the end. It’s an adhesive, cartoon-faced bandage for a gaping, bleeding shotgun wound of a problem. No matter how many smiley-faced plasters we stick on it, the wound will ooze and fester without first extracting all of the detritus and cleaning it up. Putting superficial fixes on a wound of this size only masks the rotting infection underneath.
Eventually, the infection will spread and what little good the bandages did will be for nothing. We will be pushed out of the workplace again, unable to operate within the male-structured system, or continue to rely on luck and technology to have children later in life. The poor, the working class and even much of the middle class (i.e. most women), for whom talk of career breaks and IVF isn’t even relevant or possible, will continue to have children at their reproductive peak and be punished for it by being priced out of decent housing, higher education and training, and quality childcare. They will also continue to have the blame for perceived societal breakdown lain at their feet, convenient scapegoats for a system that set them (and all of us, including our children) up to fail.
I am not being dramatic at all when I say we need radical, revolutionary change. Asking the men behind the curtain very nicely and calmly if we can have this or that concession, only to see if taken away again with budget cuts that deem “women’s issues” unimportant in comparison with military spending or lining bankers’ pockets has proven ineffective. The overwhelmingly white, male, middle-class parliamentarians will pay lip service to equality and fairness, sure. They’re not stupid and know they need our votes. I’m sure many of them do know the system is unfair and would like to change it. But when push comes to shove, people protect themselves, their own families and their own jobs and interests first, we know that. We all know who is doing the shoving and who will be shoved. An increasingly hostile, ‘anti-PC’ segment of the public who feel threatened by challenges to their long-standing privileges also contributes to this climate of intolerance, narrow-mindedness and unwillingness to change on any substantial level.
No one is giving anything to us. Wringing our hands and writing moving essays or angry blog posts is not enough. As far as I’m concerned, it’s time for battle and we need more soldiers. I’ve had enough. And though I understand completely that not everyone feels so passionately about it, or thinks we can actually change anything, or even has the desire to, I can’t help but feel completely, helplessly angry when I know that if we really could get a million women to rise, we’d finally be noticed. If, like our sisters of the first and second waves have done before us, we sat down, refused to move, refused to accept the status quo or meek little promises of incremental change, we would be an undeniable force to be reckoned with. We are 52 per cent of the population. We vote. We live here. We matter. And I, for one, am tired of playing it down and carefully explaining and ‘being reasonable’ and keeping my voice down.
I’m fucking angry and I want you to be too.
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.