Unsavory Industrial Byproduct: Feminism
The other day I wrote a post about how women in the workforce have damaged the family wage, and therefore how ironic it was that there were news reports worrying over how economic downturns affect women’s wages and therefore the financial health of families.
The comments got dragged off-topic into a long discussion about just wages and personal finance, but the question still remains - is feminism closely associated with the loss of wages, and what positive goods have feminism provided?
Independence (economic or otherwise)? Well, it’s certainly accomplished that, but the question is independence from what? Forgive me for being a bit Chesterton-crazy these days but I can’t get enough of the guy’s common sense:
I could give many other instances of this plutocratic assumption behind progressive fads. For instance, there is a plutocratic assumption behind the phrase “Why should woman be economically dependent upon man?” The answer is that among poor and practical people she isn’t; except in the sense in which he is dependent upon her. A hunter has to tear his clothes; there must be somebody to mend them. A fisher has to catch fish; there must be somebody to cook them. It is surely quite clear that this modern notion that woman is a mere “pretty clinging parasite,” “a plaything,” etc., arose through the somber contemplation of some rich banking family, in which the banker, at least, went to the city and pretended to do something, while the banker’s wife went to the Park and did not pretend to do anything at all. A poor man and his wife are a business partnership. If one partner in a firm of publishers interviews the authors while the other interviews the clerks, is one of them economically dependent?
Sexual liberation? Yes, that too, for all the good it’s done. Men are now free to use women (under the pretense of women using them) under the auspices of supporting the feminist movement. To follow the feminist line of reasoning, porn and rampant immodesty don’t objectify womyn (after all, if you have it, flaunt it - be proud of your body!) and recreational sex is something womyn have been longing for for centuries. Commitment, monogamy, security and children? All for the birds.
Feminism has certainly trumped the patriarchal management of the Church. Now the old biddies on the committee are running the show, reading from the pulpit, handling the sacred vessels, and their daughters are wearing albs and hanging out in the sanctuary. Nuns don’t wear veils anymore, and for that matter, neither do laywomen at Mass. After all, why should a woman have to cover her head if a man doesn’t? No, that’ll never do. As for the priest - what’s his job again? Can’t we just replace him with a 62-year old social worker of slightly ambiguous gender preference?
But all of this role-swapping, tradition-dropping, egalitarianism-seeking nonsense has everything to do with the dissolution of the home - a thing that could not have happened in the way that it did if it weren’t for the creation of the modern workplace.
I have a lot of respect for the particular genius of women. They most certainly are not playthings, and a good wife is a formidable force for a husband to reckon with - which a good husband absolutely needs. What I don’t see, however, in all this supposed advancement of women, is how their situation has improved. They work more (taking on both domestic and office tasks), they give their bodies away more freely and get less, if anything, in return, their dignity has been cheapened overall, they’ve added sufficient competition to the workforce that they’ve made both themselves and their husbands worth less in the marketplace, and they are either abandoning the idea of children altogether or handing off the ones they do have to someone else to be raised.
Are they happier? I don’t see it. If anything, they’re more angry, still slamming themselves against “the glass ceiling”, still trying to take powerful men down a peg, still crying about misogyny, still trying to show, in the words of Irving Berlin’s Annie Oakley, “Anything you can do I can do better; anything I can do better than you.”
Feminism might have originated as something good. Obviously, women haven’t always been treated well, and in some cultures (that’s you, Islamic world) they still aren’t.
For my part, I like Chesterton’s depiction of a husband and wife as a business partnership. In a family, there’s a lot of work that needs doing, and the division of labor should ideally take place along the lines where it makes the most sense. Obviously, a man can’t bear children, or breastfeed them. A man tends, often enough, to be not particularly nurturing, needing as he does to be nurtured. A guy will never make a good mother, though he may make a good cook, he may be fantastic at cleaning the house, and he may be faster at doing dishes. But in the domestic realm, a woman reigns supreme. The idea that she is the heart of the home is an accurate one. Her unique abilities, her more naturally sensitive and caring disposition (there are exceptions) and her biological connection to her children make her far and away the more suited for those tasks most immediately domestic.
If a woman is disposed toward domesticity, there is nothing to say that the man is intrinsically anti-domestic. Again, I think it a shame that the man must go out of the home to work. It may be true that he has often gone out of the home to hunt for food (then, however, probably in his own woods) or away from his family and country to fight a war, but I don’t suppose there is anything really natural about the fact that he goes 20 or 30 miles down the road every day to sit in a little cubicle and stare at a computer screen all day. His life has become compartmentalized, and his work so mundane, that of course, often enough, a woman can now do precisely what men do. There are few advantages men have by nature that have not been erased by technology. Those remaining are the ones that fall under whatever natural distinctions occur in the intellect and the emotions, which no one, thanks to feminism, is allowed to talk about.
And yet for all this blather about equal pay for equal work, we’d might as well be fighting over equal prison time for our equal crimes. Being in the modern workforce, as often as not, ain’t all that great. What has been lost is the cooperation of the past, where the workplace was rooted in the home, and the combined work of a husband and wife was at once both domestic and productive. There was a division of tasks but a sharing of responsibilities, particularly in agricultural economies.
One can still see this work philosophy in Asian immigrant entrepreneurs. Often enough, if you walk into an oriental grocery store, you see the entire family hanging out behind the counter of a shop hardly big enough to park your car in. They’re talking, watching a movie, visiting with family and friends, and waiting for customers. Business was, and is, a family affair. Meals are taken in the store (as are naps) and the children take part in learning the responsibilities and running the cash register. Even more importantly, families in situations like these are more able to see each other as whole persons, not “Dad, who goes to work” or “Mom, who stays home with the kids”. No, it’s an enterprise, and everyone plays a role in every task, domestic and income-producing.
If it was the unfortunately necessary migration from home to office - itself a byproduct of industrialization - that damaged the domestic enterprise, it was the fleeing of women from motherhood out of a desire to be in that office that created the rift in the home. That flight was spurred on by industry, exploited by feminism, embraced by capitalists, and has left us with the domestic power struggle we face today.
It seems to me that feminism, such as it is, could never have flourished without the industrial revolution. Whatever complaints women had before this time, society as a whole was more cohesive, and families (working together) especially so. When everyone’s life was centered around the work of the home, there wasn’t much point is saying that men were getting better treatment. And the only reason, once industrialism hit, that men got better treatment, is that they had to take care of everyone else at home.
Anyone else have a headache yet?
Filed under: Chesterton, Family, Feminism, Uncategorized
“And yet for all this blather about equal pay for equal work, we’d might as well be fighting over equal prison time for our equal crimes.”
I find a agree with the basic thrust of your argument here about feminism and industrialization, although I disagree with your characterization of the quality of the modern job. But enough of that. What I want to say is: It can’t be emphasized enough that in today’s day and age, the feminist idea that there isn’t “equal work for equal pay” is economically illiterate. If women really did the same work for 75% of the cost, managers would be crazy to ever hire a man. Companies of all women would be dominated the market by undercutting the prices of their competition. The reality is that women tend to prefer different kinds of work than men, and that is that.
Ice cream headache.
BTW: are we having a long post contest? Or just practicing on the Leathern-Winged Harpie Duck Call?
Have you read Mr. Engels on the family?
If not you might be surprised.
I rather like my compartmentalized life, thank you. I don’t want my work life to interfere with home life.
And as for replacing man’s job with technology… you really should look into technology fields themselves. There’s much money to be made building new technology, installing/applying it for companies, and fixing stuff that’s broken. Yes, there’s fewer jobs doing more menial work, but there’s plenty of high-tech work out there. I’m a software developer, fairly senior, and I get an average of 2 job offers per week.
It also creates jobs in related fields — like web design. Every company of note needs a web site.
After all of the stuff I’m doing gets automated, I’ll be ready to create the things that automate my job now. It’s a tech worker’s own responsibility to keep himself up-to-date.
On the basic point, you’re correct. Greater supply of workers = lower prices for workers.
The trouble always comes in when you try and come up with a solution. The solutions are legion (unionization, immigration restrictions, minimum wages, tighter licensing requirements on day-care), and have all kinds of strange side effects (corruption, corruption, more corruption). That may be why Chesterton generally avoided the arcane world of policy prescriptions.
That being said, the cost-benefit to the two-income lifestyle is quite often not looked at carefully enough.
I should disclaim this post by saying this is all off the top of my head. I actually know virtually nothing about this topic other than what I can derive from common sense and a vague notion of history.
So I’ll agree, Joe, that policy prescriptions are tough.
And Aaron, I appreciate the sentiment, but your profession is the sort that seems would be easy to run from a home office. My ideal would be to have an office that’s walking distance from my house, so I could get out of the distractions of the environment while still keeping a family life together. Commuting all day and night is for the birds, and the quasi-agrarianism I’d like to be a part of requires more time at home, working together with my family.
Aaron, Try getting a tech job over the age of 40.
I agree that my job could partially be run out of a home office; I’m in a quasi-managerial role, however, and I need to be around. I agree, one’s work should ideally be within walking distance of one’s home. However, the tradeoff I’ve made is for flexibility. I’ve had a number of jobs over the years within 60 minutes commute of my house, in all different directions. Seeking promotions and learning opportunity necessitates some flexibility. Also, knowing that I could get another job within 60 minutes commute if I were to lose this one gives me quite a bit of security that I need to support my family.
Joe, I think the solution is not in regulation, but in the reinstitution of the old boy’s club. A young man has to pay his dues and climb the ladder before he gets a cushy, high-paid job. He only gets the job if he’s shown loyalty and hard work, and once he’s done it, he has a right to a good income, especially if he has a wife and kids.
“Equal pay for equal work” is the problem. Snot-nosed kids fresh out of college aren’t entitled to squat other than working their butts off and making their boss look good. Note that doing this would not require government programs or regulations, but merely general agreement in the business community.
Society must ensure that one worker can comfortably support a family. It does not have to ensure that kids can afford all of the latest electronic gadgets.
Mark,
I’m already 32, and my opportunities have increased over the years, not decreased. That’s because I invest in myself; I take time to keep up with the latest tech (teaching myself PHP, Flash, Flex, Ruby, J2EE, etc. as well as learning about design and typography and other things outside my comfort zone), going to conferences (usually paid for by the companies I’ve worked for). I have NEVER interviewed with a company and not been offered the job. That doesn’t mean I’ve accepted all offers. At my last job, we had several over-40 developers and sysadmins. In my current job, we have one, but it’s a tiny company with a total of 6 IT/developer types.
If you’re willing to work hard and make sure you stay current, there’s plenty of jobs out there. The first thing I did when I was hired at my current company is find 3 more people to work under me. That was difficult. There were no shortage of applicants, but there was a shortage of good applicants.
Mark,
I have just as much distaste for feminism as the next Trad, but how does the “old boy’s club” provide fiduciary value to the company? Besides, it’s probably illegal to operate this way.
I’m frequently in positions where I need to hire someone. My two questions are 1) can he do the job well, and 2) will his salary requirements fit in my budget? From a business standpoint, it doesn’t matter whether he has a family or not. If he can’t do his job, MY butt is on the line, or I may have the unpleasant business of letting him go.
That being said, I generally dislike working with women. I’m also glad my wife plans to stop working after she gives birth to our first-born in march.
–Aaron
Aaron, when I was 32, that was when my career took off tremendously. I wore many hats and my expertise was amazing.
Nowadays, company “wellness programs” want to see my medical records before they hire me — this is an interesting side-effect of the so-called health care privacy law. Privately, recruiters have told me that health insurance cost kills the deal. Huh. I take $35 worth of medicine a month. Seems cheap to me. But it worries them.
But I will have a major book published next year, and am starting to make money on architectural photography. THOSE are careers for older folks. Some things only come with wisdom (not that I actually have any though).
Aaron,
The Old Boy’s Club is an informal agreement, and if it is illegal, then the laws that make it illegal aren’t laws at all, according to Aquinas. A law which prevents a social good, a family wage, is unjust and must be amended.
This is the deal. A young man (or woman) just starting work with no dependents does not get a high income, period. They have to earn it with loyalty and hard work. They must work their way up the ladder. The cost savings from these workers is transferred to those who have dependents. Those who work hard and show loyalty have the right to a cushy job when they get older, get married, and have kids. It all works out to a socially desirable end. It was customary that a worker get a significant raise if he got married or had a child. Isn’t this a social good? Isn’t this social justice, especially as the Church defines it?
Another traditional way of ensuring a family wage is the widespread payment of bonuses. This allows companies to pay what is effectively market wages to employees, despite the fluctuating market: employers are not burdened with high fixed salary costs, employees get much better job security, and they get a share in company success. Nowadays, with fixed salaries, they have to fire people if they miss their quarterly financial projections, which is another great social injustice.
Feminism has brought about some good things. But it has brought about far more bad, specifically freeing men from any responsibility re: children and making the murdering of one’s own a rite of passage.
But there was a time when my grandmother could not open up a savings account without her husband’s permission. This permission was lacking because my grandfather was in a mental hospital. And I am being bombarded lately with stories of Catholic families where Mom has dutifully stayed home, raised 10-12 children and her “Catholic” husband found someone else- in many cases someone with an income so that they can buy the 5 bedroom house and go on vacation to the Carribean. Or Dad has a girlfriend and Mom decides that they have to stay together b/c she has no means of supporting 8-10 children and child support is a joke. Hopefully Dad will give up his girlfriend but when Catholic priests are telling women that they have to “forgive” because this is so commonplace I get really sickened.
All I can say is I never want my daughters to be in this type of position. If that means they have a high powered career before they marry so be it.
Being economically dependent on a good man is fine but on a lousy slob- unbearable. I’m one of the lucky ones and unfortunately it seems that is not so commonplace.
Mary,
It is true! We are lousy, good-for-nothing bums. But we can be so charming too. Doesn’t Genesis have a warning about this sort of thing?
I can see the goodness in having the signatures of both spouses required for major purchases. That way, a bum husband can’t rent an apartment to shack up with some floozy. I had a relative whose lousy husband squirreled away money in a separate bank account: and he cleared it out before leaving her. But this also means that a wife can’t gamble away the savings on the boats, either. The new laws merely facilitate these sort of problems; certainly, a court order ought to grant to exceptions in cases like your grandmother’s problem.
Bad men lead to the situation where women must have a good career, but this means that they don’t have to find a good man, and by lowering their standards, this encourages men to be bad.
Mark Scott: You idea is only feasible in certain old-fashioned industries where experience really is valuable. In most places it would be bad for business just like any other form of discrimination: It prevents the business from making the best decision for the stockholders. Over time, the increased cost of overpaying the old guys and the decreased productivity of hiring substandard new guys (who turn into overpaid substandard old guys) would drive the company into the ground.
Also, don’t forget to discriminate in favor of single moms and dads over the married old guys. Because if you idea doesn’t do that, it doesn’t do what’s best for the FAMILY!!1!
Both genders are fallible, Mary. I knew a case of a guy that did the sort of thing you describe (they weren’t church-going, thought.) I also know a nice, very good looking young Catholic man whose wife left him within a year of marriage and is having affairs. She was well educated and financially independent, of course! If this guy can’t get an annulment, what is he supposed to do with himself? Throw himself into his career? He can’t become a priest! That crazy floozy has basically ruined his life.
Kevin,
You ought not think of each company as being isolated. Instead, consider society as a whole. All young guys and girls will get substandard pay, no matter what company they work for. They won’t have a choice. You may dislike the fact that your company will have to pay for extra for the old guys, but everybody will do it. Would you rather have them on welfare, or have their kids in daycare while their wife also works? Please recall that the goal of this system is ensuring a family wage without excess government regulation. Working hard for little money while young guarantees, by policy, a cushy job in the future, and a cushy job is only available to those who have paid their dues. The average salary will remain the same - just those who need it more will get more. Actually, salaries will rise, because this system ensures that a single worker (male or female) can support a family comfortably. Such practices will engender loyalty both ways between workers and owners.
What are you going to do when those bright young people start their own company and put the old folks out of business?
In the tech industries, and I’m sure in a lot of others, that is completely plausible.
Under the Uniform Commercial Code and the Common Law, local customary business practices as recognized by trade associations have the force of law, as long as they don’t violate governmental law, and the old system was specifically outlawed by the federal government.
But don’t forget that the old fogies are also trying to maintain an orderly, stable, and just business environment. The young entrepreneurs would have to join the local business association and state their case for higher salaries.
These are just the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity in action. Yes, it limits freedom. But currently, Western national governments have enormous powers of regulation, which is tightly coupled to loose and dynamic business practices. Instead, I’m calling for higher business standards and lower government regulation.
Recall that the goal is to provide such a wage so that each family can live comfortably on the income of one worker, while also adhering to the principle of local self-regulation.
I think the Industrial Revolution and the Sexual Revolution are two of the worst things that could happen to this world.
I would love to have an agricultural based life where I can be out in God’s nature and do manual sweat producing work with my sons and have my wife and daughters at home just a few minutes walk from where I’m working, homeschool, and during freetime find creative things to do with the kids on the land.
But thanks to the Industrial and Sexual Revolution, it is darn near impossible to make a reasonable living with agrarian based work, rather I have to commute an hour each way and do mind-numbing and emasculatiing work at the computer, in which my family is completely seperate from.
I don’t like it one bit, I hope to change it one day, in the meantime I’ll just offer it up to God.
Brian,
That’s a hard life you’re wishing on yourself. Why not just move to Siberia and give it a try? I’m sure you can find some cheap land over there.
Mark, I agree that you are calling for “lower government regulation.”
Also, I am Mickey Mouse.
Kevin,
Office life has its own hardships. Where in the world did we get this notion that physical labor is The Worst Thing One Can Do™?
Especially skilled physical labor. Best yet, labor that one gets to retain the value of, rather than being a cog in a corporate machine, working to enrich an organization which has <i>no</i> loyalty to you as a person or concern from your well-being or the social good (you’ve already mentioned the exalted Good of the Stockholders, which trumps all).
And “if you don’t like it, leave!” is a child’s taunt, not an argument.
peace,
Zach
I disagree! Brian has stated that he wished he could achieve a certain lifestyle, and I pointed out that it is achieveable. Where is the taunt in that? If Brian moves to Siberia and finds happiness there, I think that would be great.
“…working to enrich an organization which has no loyalty to you as a person…”
I may be an employee, but I work to enrich myself, just like a farmer does. And as a stockholder, I expect my employees (corporate management) to act in my fiduciary interest: to do the job I hired them to do.
Kevin,
I call B.S. - “don’t like how America runs — move to Russia, ya commie pinko sympathizer!” was the defensive taunt for years of those who couldn’t stand the slightest criticism of the American business system.
And you picked Siberia - the traditional place of political exile. I don’t think that you picked that exact place <i>only</i> because of land prices.
Proverbs 26:18, dude.
So, Jefferson’s dream of a nation of gentleman farmers, in your mind, is fit only for exiles somewhere else — we don’t do that here now? Nice. At least you’re open about it.
Actually… I agree with Kevin pretty strongly on the “If you don’t like it, leave” mentality. Not just when it comes to locations, but jobs as well. When you’re job sucks, find something better. That’s what I’ve done a number of times over the last decade.
I’m also planning on leaving NJ in the 3-5 year timespan, because NJ sucks. Don’t know where I’m going to yet, but I’ll find somewhere.
As for the “fiduciary duty” dodge, let’s be plain:
You expect that management has a duty to wring the maximum profit out of mere employees.
You further expect that there’s no corresponding duty of owners to respect the good of employees, or the common good of society.
And not only are you OK with that, you hold this up as practically virtuous.
Furthermore, you’re happy with the entire economy being run on this principle. The only place you can envision something less rapacious is Siberia. Let those who won’t prostrate themselves to the greater profit of the shareholders be exiled there.
There’s a certain consistency to this view. I just deplore its lack of humanity.
God have mercy.
Zach, go pound sand. I know somebody who did mission work in Siberia, so its a place whose characteristics are familiar to me through conversation. If I’m not allowed to present a perfectly plausible clarification of my meaning, I have no interest in your criticisms.
Lack of humility? To actually go with the system and maximize your income based on it?
I think it’s a great lack of humility that says “Woe is me! My financial situation is terrible because the MAN is keeping me down! I have little or no responsibility for my own misfortune.
The responsibility of a business isn’t the betterment of society — it’s the maximization of return on investment. The point of the argument is that Kevin and I posit that this IS better for society as a whole as a side effect, whilst everyone else here thinks that it isn’t.
Kevin,
If you’re so tone-deaf that you don’t get how “Don’t like it? Try Siberia” is going to sound to 98% of your audience, we probably can’t have a useful discussion.
I was pretty clear on your interest in criticism of your position already.
Aaron,
While I’m in favor of personal action and responsibility, it’s … not consistent with history and reality to pretend that our social and legal structures that we work within “just happened”, either — or that they’re not designed to produce winners and losers.
The responsibility of a business isn’t the betterment of society — it’s the maximization of return on investment.
Precisely as Ebineezer Scrooge argued. His ex-partner Marley, however, had a different perspective.
peace,
Does “Go to Kansas” (where they are giving away free land) have a better ring? The location is superfluous; it’s a matter of picking oneself up from one’s proverbial bootstraps…
Link
Zach reminds me of this.
“While I’m in favor of personal action and responsibility, it’s … not consistent with history and reality to pretend that our social and legal structures that we work within “just happened”, either — or that they’re not designed to produce winners and losers.”
Oh, I see. Now you’re calling Aaron an atheist! The economic system “just happened”, just like the evolution of life on earth, huh? Aaron is no better than Richard Dawkins?
THis is a child’s taunt, not an argument!!!
Precisely as Ebineezer Scrooge argued. His ex-partner Marley, however, had a different perspective.
That makes it no less true. The individual responsibility to charity has nothing to do with the corporate desire for money. We regrettably do not live in a confessional state, and as such why do you expect corporations to have some sort of responsibility to the family? What is the business case?
My whole point is that the family CAN profit from the type of system we are in. We are in a far richer society than our ancestors. If you were to go back to living the way my grandparents lived with a modern salary, you’d be able to save enormous amounts of money.
Am I doing well for myself? Yes. I am VERY blessed. My parents, and grandparents, and great-grandparents (who I’m blessed to have known) were all not so well off, by today’s standards. But they always had a roof over their heads, food, and clothing. None of them had many luxuries (until recently, when my father’s investments payed off), or much money to spare. By todays standards, however, all of them would have lived below the poverty line. Before they emmigrated from Italy in the 1950’s, my great-grandparents and grandparents had no running water, no toilets no yard, My grandfather lived with 6 siblings and his parents in a 2-bedroom house of less than 600 square feet. My great-grandfather was a shoemaker, and my grandfather a stone mason — well paid tradesmen. I have some (hand made from flax) linens from my great-grandmother’s dowry.
Do you have a refriderator? A cell phone? Running water? A computer? Internet access?
If you can’t make ends meat living like that, then complain. The fact is, we’re a spoiled society.
Kevin,
I could sort of give you half-credit for Siberia, if you’d (a) allow as how maybe you understand how it might have come across, and (b) actually try to reply substantively.
Let me know when you’re ready to argue, rather than sneer.
peace,
Oh, I see. Now you’re calling Aaron an atheist! The economic system “just happened”, just like the evolution of life on earth, huh? Aaron is no better than Richard Dawkins?
THis is a child’s taunt, not an argument!!!
Kevin - 2 things:
1. Zach is a preferred commenter here. Why? Because this blog is my own little dictatorship, in which I get to exercise my own capricious whims, and Zach has made positive contributions here for long enough to earn a place. You haven’t. Watch that line you cross between debate and personal insult.
2. Read what he said, again. It’s the opposite of what you interpreted it to mean. Slow down, take a breath, and make sure you’re getting the point before you go off half-cocked.
Just in case, I’ll lay it out for you:
“it’s … not consistent with history and reality to pretend that our social and legal structures that we work within “just happened”,”
It’s not consistent to pretend that these structures “just happened” means that they didn’t “just happen”.
Got it? Good.
Do you have a refriderator? A cell phone? Running water? A computer? Internet access?
If you can’t make ends meat living like that, then complain. The fact is, we’re a spoiled society.
Aaron,
I don’t see the value in this line of argument. I can only imagine that this comparison between living standards of the past and those of one’s contemporaries can suffer through virtually infinite regression.
At some point, the question becomes, “Do you have fire? A cave? A spear? If you can’t make ends meet living like that, then complain. The fact is, we’re a spoiled society.”
Aaron,
That makes it no less true. The individual responsibility to charity has nothing to do with the corporate desire for money. We regrettably do not live in a confessional state, and as such why do you expect corporations to have some sort of responsibility to the family?
Aha! Now we’re on to something substantial.
First of all, you’re calling this a matter of charity. However, keep in mind that there’s also a matter of justice here. I agree that we can’t expect corporations to be held to a standard of charity, but they can and should be held to standards of justice.
Secondly, I don’t believe this is a confessional matter. The goods of the family and of just and dignified compensation for labor, it seems to me, are comprehensible outside of Catholic (or even Christian) confessional teaching. We are talking about matters which should be accessible to natural reason (Natural Law, if you will). So “imposing” a confessional State is a red herring.
What is the business case?
It’s not a business case, it’s a human case. “You can’t degrade other people, even if you profit from it” isn’t a business case, but it’s elementary morality.
To elevate profit-making over human dignity, to make it limitless, is nothing less than to enthrone Mammon as an idol.
My whole point is that the family CAN profit from the type of system we are in. We are in a far richer society than our ancestors. If you were to go back to living the way my grandparents lived with a modern salary, you’d be able to save enormous amounts of money.
I would argue (but later and elsewhere, since it would take more time than I have now) that a system which demands the separation of work and family does make us worse off than our ancestors, even if we have access to more “stuff”. You are correct, though, that to make a modern salary and to live poorly allows one to save money.
peace,
Zach
Steve, I was purposefully taking Zach out of context in order to make a sarcastic point.
Steve,
Actually, that IS the point. The point is: what do you really need for a wage to be considered just. My position is that you need the bare minimum: food, clothing, shelter, and whatever else is necessary to maintain your income source. For me, if I am to stay in my profession, I need Internet access. I’m a software engineer. I don’t own a TV or a cell phone, however. If at some point the cost of internet access and a decent computer became so high that it was a financial detriment for me to stay in my profession, I could at any time change profession.
A cave, fire, and a spear IS enough, assuming one has the means of procuring fuel for the fire and animals to hunt. That, regrettably, wouldn’t be a winning proposition in today’s society because of the high cost of land ownership and taxation. On these fronts, Kevin and I would certainly agree with you. Neither income nor property taxes should exist, as both prevent self-sustainance and retirement after a life of such. One cannot live “off the grid”.
I may not sound it, but I’m a traditional Catholic monarchist. Being in a minority of minorities, I just don’t see capitalism as incompatible with the monarchy.
Steve, I was purposefully taking Zach out of context in order to make a sarcastic point.
Well, then you need to work on your presentation because that didn’t come across.
First of all, you’re calling this a matter of charity. However, keep in mind that there’s also a matter of justice here. I agree that we can’t expect corporations to be held to a standard of charity, but they can and should be held to standards of justice.
But what, exactly, is a just wage? What does justice demand? I posit that it is BETTER to live poorly, than have all the luxuries that modern life entails. This is one of the reasons I want to move; my wife is around lots of people that have lots of nice things, go on expensive vacations every year, etc. and that makes her believe that this is normal and want these things.
It’s not a business case, it’s a human case. “You can’t degrade other people, even if you profit from it” isn’t a business case, but it’s elementary morality.
How is it degrading to pay a person a wage they can live on, that they agree to? My first programming job was $6/hour back in 1995. I was a college student. It was enough for me to live on — barely. I could have made more elsewhere in food service, but I took a hit specifically so I could learn and build my resume. Was that an unjust wage?
Interesting post. I mostly agree with your analysis. I do think that the industrial revolution is one of the factors that led to feminism, and I do think feminism has had a whole host of negative effects on women, children and families.
I think it’s interesting that it took thousands of years of human history for the feminist movement to happen. I think it’s because the 1950s was an aberration in human history. For the first time, men and women were spending most of their days completely separately. For the first time, most men had jobs that were not dangerous, and many of those jobs could be described as interesting or fulfilling. For the first time, modern household appliances greatly reduced the amount of work that goes into running a home. Women, understandably, were bored and frustrated, and this led to the women’s movement.
I think that these modern inventions – industrialization, household appliances, the suburbs – have unquestionably led to a higher quality of life overall. But I also think that the fruits of the women’s movement – daycare, the increasing necessity of two incomes – has been very bad for women, children and families.
It would not be possible, nor would it be desirable, to return to the pre-industrial way of life. Nor to I think the solution is going “back to the 50s,” as conservatives are often accused of wanting to do. There were obviously a lot of problems with the 50s, since it led to the feminist movement.
I propose that we try something new altogether. I do believe that all career fields benefit from women’s influence, has Pope John Paul II himself said in his letter to women. The problem is not women having careers. The problem is women being expected to have careers the same way that men do, which leads to them having careers at the expense of their children. The typical male career path (graduate, get a job, work for 30 years, retire) does not work very well for women. The years men typically spent trying to get ahead are the years when women are most fertile and have the most energy for raising children. The conventional wisdom is to spend several years building your career before marrying and having children. I don’t think this is necessarily a good idea, especially for women.
Rather, we need to make it both more economically feasible and more socially acceptable for people to marry younger and to have children at younger ages. It needs to be easier for young couples to live on one income so that mom can stay home with the kids. It also needs to be easier and more socially acceptable for older women to re-enter the workforce or to enter for the first time.
Let’s say a women married and started having children in her late teens or early 20s. Her children would be grown up by the time she was in her 40s. She could start working then and still have a 20 or 30-year career. This is especially feasible nowadays, when people are living longer and are healthier for longer. There’s no reason to retire at 55 anymore; most people will have many more productive years. Women with school-age children could take college courses while their children were at school in preparation for entering the workforce once the kids are grown up. The conventional wisdom is career first, then kids; I think kids first, then career makes much more sense, especially for women.
Interestingly, Feminism has an impact on the corporation itself. Speaking from my current situation, the company for which I work is VERY tech-savvy. Seventy-five per cent of the employees are Engineers, while the other 25% are support staff and infrastructure support. Our revenue has been record-breaking for every year of our existence (11 years).
As such, the Company is very generous to the employee: free snacks & beverages, no-cost healthcare, 11% 401k contribs, company-paid trips.
However, the Company is not visible in the public arena. The Company does not participate in the community, does not support any kind of charity, and will not make matching contributions for those charities/organizations supported by the employees.
Feminism has made some in corporate Amerika afraid of it’s own shadow. The mentality is that a Company cannot be seen to be supporting the “wrong” charity/organization, so the Company will not support ANY charity/organization.
So, even though this particular Company is responsible (even solicitous) to the employee, the Company is in no way responsible or supportive of the local community (except indirectly through the employee).
Corporate responsibility does not end with the employee.
Aaron,
In brief: I agree that determining what is a Just Wage is a difficult matter.
That doesn’t (a) prove that there is no such thing, or (b) absolve employers from needing to attempt to act justly.
If we agree on those points, then the rest is quibbling over details.
But I understood you to be arguing before that you believe that employers have no responsibility of justice — which is problematic, to say the least (and utterly contrary to what I understand Catholic teaching to be).
peace,
Zach,
No… you misunderstand, but I can understand why you would have come to that conclusion. My position is that the requirements of justice will always be met in a healthy capitalist economy. Now, the health of economy is a prerequisite.
My premise is that every wage in such a society is a voluntary wage, that the employee agrees to accept from the employer. If an economy is healthy, almost no one will work for an unjust wage.
I apologize for the misunderstanding.
The point is: what do you really need for a wage to be considered just. My position is that you need the bare minimum: food, clothing, shelter, and whatever else is necessary to maintain your income source.
This is what Kevin and I went round and round about earlier in the week. I’ve not studied Catholic social teaching enough to give a Catholic answer, but it strikes me that basic needs obviously have to be qualified, and that means a standard must be set. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that society has long since decided that a cave, a spear and a fire aren’t enough.
After that, things get dicey. I believe a just wage should be concerned with more than the bare minimum, but we haven’t even been able to decide on that. What is the bare minimum? How is it determined? If you’re talking about a wage on which someone can only subsist, how is that defined? Wouldn’t it be fair for an employer to say, “But you don’t need to live in a place with four walls. A tent will do! It keeps the rain off! You don’t require more income than it takes to keep up your tent. Firewood is free. You can get food from the government. I’ll pay you $10 a week.”
Would that be unjust? At some point, there must be parameters.
I think societal standards are a decent place to start. What is generally considered adequate housing, adequate food, adequate clothing, etc. It’s only a rough outline, but it’s something. Then, a just wage should provide enough above the basics that a man can better himself and his family. If he can’t, then he’s a slave to the enterprise. There’s no guarantee in most places that if you work harder you’ll “climb the ladder” or get better pay. I’ve had too many jobs where that simply didn’t happen. They were happy to heap on additional responsibility, and they gave no thought to whether they should compensate you more for it.
The problem is that in the capitalist system, the worker is a commodity. The business seeks to maximize profits while minimizing expenses (ie., labor costs) and that puts the good of the worker and the good of the business fundamentally at odds. The company is always trying to pay as little as they can, and the worker is always trying to get as much as they can.
Look at the disparity between mid-level-management salaries and CEO pay. It’s enormous. Is it just? Well, if capitalism is the right system, then we can argue that it certainly is - because the CEO has more responsibility, has to make more influential decisions, and if he is an owner, takes more risk.
But it is often the case that the managers do as much or more work than the CEO. They make the company run, but they do not get a commensurate share of the profits. The CEO makes $2 million a year, and they make $50,000. Both do the same amount of work, but the system places arbitrary value on the labor of the CEO that is exponentially higher than that of his employee.
I struggle to see the justice in much of the way an unfettered free market works. Small businesses tend to have much less distance between the top and bottom ranks, and that’s one of the appealing things about Distributism’s advocacy of them in lieu of large corporations.
Certainly, we can operate within a free market system, and some of us, if we have the right skills, will prosper. But in the eyes of the system we operate in, we are disposable, at-will employees; commodities, not persons. We are, as Chesterton and Belloc have put it, part of The Servile State - wage slaves incapable of appropriating the means of production by which financial independence is generated. Though there are exceptions to this in a free market, they are exceptions, not the rule.
I do have a problem with that. I’m just not certain yet of what I would advocate as the solution.
Let’s say a women married and started having children in her late teens or early 20s. Her children would be grown up by the time she was in her 40s. She could start working then and still have a 20 or 30-year career. This is especially feasible nowadays, when people are living longer and are healthier for longer. There’s no reason to retire at 55 anymore; most people will have many more productive years. Women with school-age children could take college courses while their children were at school in preparation for entering the workforce once the kids are grown up.
Sarah,
Not to be picky, but even this scenario is unrealistic. My situation is almost exactly as you described, but with some very significant differences.
We started having children in our early 20’s. And 13 years later, we are still having children. Even if this is our last one — probably not — my wife will be 50 by the time our youngest will be ready to leave the home.
Also, we homeschool for many of the reasons described elsewhere. Therefore, mom getting a job while the kids are in school is not possible.
As Mark has indicated above, trying to jump start a career after 40 can be a challenging task. Also, what would be the benefit of mom entering the workforce after age 50? All of the resource-eating ankle-biters
are out of the house, and the financial expenditures should have dropped drastically by this time.
I think societal standards are a decent place to start.
Here is where we must sharply disagree. Society is, currently, just plain wrong. Society demands that you have a McMansion filled with all the latest toys, your 2.3 children have their own rooms, TV’s, computers, toys, and designer jeans, that you should be able to eat out several times a month, that everyone in the family have their own car and cell phone with expensive plans, $100+ a month cable TV with all the premium channels. Society is downright decadent.
I have a friend who used to work for Catholic Charities in Paterson, NJ. Most of the people that came in for financial assistance had cable TV, air conditioning, expensive cell phones, etc. If people are stupid with their money, that doesn’t affect the demands of justice.
Real poverty in the US is relatively rare. The only experiences with real poverty, real exploitation, real concerns of justice was on a mission trip to Mexico. We visited a waste processing facility where people were given housing (a family of up to 8 in a 8′ x 11′ cinder block cell), and just a little less than enough money for food, so they had to work a second job elsewhere to barely put food on the table, and were trapped there. They couldn’t leave, because their wages were adjusted by the owner of the facility so they would have not a peso left over at the end of the month to save and thus move out. The living conditions are horrifically unsanitary.
That is a situation that demands justice.
Aaron,
I’m not talking about absurd standards. I’m talking about the basics: reasonable accommodation, food, transportation to get to and from work, clothing, utilities, etc.
Not McMansions. Not at all. If you want to lowball, maybe we should look at military base housing. It’s adequate, at best.
The point is, you disagree, but won’t put your finger on what justice demands. You can point to that situation in Mexico and say, “that’s not just” and that’s great, but what is? What lies between the Mexico situation and the McMansion that fits your concept of justice, and how do you define it?
The reason that justice was not accomodated for in my scenario was not the living conditions; if through foolish squandering of wealth a person forced themselves into such abject poverty, there is no justice.
The injustice was in the treatment of the workers. It was the intent of owner to exploit the workers, and keep them as slaves. THIS is the type of wage slavery talked about in Rerum Novarum. They cannot meet their immediate needs well enough in order to leave, due to the unjust actions from another (actions that cry to heaven for vengeance, I might add).
I, for one, find no problem with below-sustinece level wages in the correct context. For instance, kids that get jobs at McDonald’s. I did it. If a man who wishes to support his family applies at McDonald’s, does the franchisee owe that man the privelege of working as a cashier for $25 an hour, because that is what the man requires to pay his mortgage and put his children through Catholic school? No. The franchisee is within his rights to offer the man his $6 an hour, and the man is free to take it or leave it. If the man chooses to accept the position, there is no debt of justice that the franchisee owes the man.
Also, what would be the benefit of mom entering the workforce after age 50? All of the resource-eating ankle-biters are out of the house, and the financial expenditures should have dropped drastically by this time.
Personal fulfillment and the ability to make a mark in the wider world. (And yes, raising kids absolutely makes a mark on the wider world; I just think, at the same time, that the workplace benefits from women’s influence.) There’s more to work than money. If the kids are grown up, there’s absolutely no reason for mom not to work, if she so chooses. What else would she do? I absolutely think it’s best for mothers to be home with their children when they’re young. But there are different seasons of life, and different activities are appropriate for each season.
You’re right that the more children you have, the longer it will take until they’re all grown up. I also wasn’t thinking about homeschooling, since I am not planning on homeschooling. It was just a hypothetical situation. The main point was that, generally speaking, it makes more sense to focus on children first in life and then the career later, though the career part may come later for some than others.
Also, part of the point of my post was that we should make it easier for mothers to jump-start a career after 40. I think it would be better for both mothers and children if early childbearing/later careers were the norm.
I just think, at the same time, that the workplace benefits from women’s influence.
Here I must sharply disagree… I know I’m going to come off very un-PC here, but I think women have no place in the workplace, except in lower clerical work, such as secretaries.
Women are the less rational sex. They are typically poor team players. They complicate the workplace (anyone who’s ever gone through mandatory annual sexual harassment training or been scolded for holding the door for a woman at work knows what I’m talking about). Worst of all, they take everything personal. The women in my office all hate working with all of the other women in my office. They almost universally have poor managerial skills, and working under one is always painful.
A woman’s gifts are different from those of men. They tend to be better at keeping track of multiple unrelated tasks or data simultaneously than men. They are more nurturing, more empathetic. They are certainly suited to home-making.
Finally, other than eliminating all contraception, pornography, and abortion from society, the next biggest thing to cut down on infidelity would be to remove women from the workplace. It’s never been a temptation for me, but I know plenty of men who have struggled with it.
Sarah,
Why in the world should any worker make it easier to for previous 40 year old mom’s to “jump into the work place”? As a previous female worker in the workforce who had to work her tale off in the work place I didn’t belong in, in the first place. NO ONE gives handouts. What entitlement are you expecting? Businesses need to function. There are no exceptions for any woman that because you’ve raised children and now you’re done that there is some kind of leniency to simply enter the work force to fulfill some late life crisis. You would still have a vocation at home to your husband. Maybe you could make your garden work more efficiently, or write a book. Maybe sell rosaries or help out with your kids dilemmas, Lord knows that never will end.
I’m jumping in a little late here, and I apologise ahead of time this is a little hard to follow. I don’t claim to be anywhere near a decent writer.
But I think we’re missing the point of the blog post.
At the time that the family wage was instituted, men worked in their stations as they were called for.
Bakers were Bakers.
Farmers were Farmers
Accountants were Accountants.
Each made a different level of money and was compensated as such. Just as their compensation was paid as their different occupations paid, so was their housing, some had nicer housing than others.
If we took that and tried to make it analogous to how the work force functions now, a McDonalds burger flipper is still going to make less than the sales rep. Just as the small business owner is going to make what he makes, and so forth and so on. Of course you also have the “new guy” analogous to the apprentice who also had to earn their way up to mastering the trade and weren’t compensated until they had.
The point is that with the influx of workers available (yes, due to women in the work force); the franchise, the corporation, and the small business owners all are allowed to pay less because there is an influx of help available.
Feminism changed that dynamic and allowed
1: the influx of help available
2: the ability to hire for less
3: split up of the home
and a whole list of other problems that resulted from it.
I would also have to disagree that McMansions are the social standard. Those are more of what society would like to have. The luxury housing market only makes up about 13% of the housing across the nation. Most middle to low class people in AMERICA are living in bread and butter homes, 1800 - 2400 sq ft. homes three-four bedroom, two bath homes some townhomes and some single family detached depending on where you are in the country. After all, unless I’m missing something, we are talking about the American Work force and the American standard of living and being able to afford it.
So putting aside the 8×11 cinder block huts in Mexico, let’s stick to THIS nations “standard”. Many can’t buy homes due to the lack of money or the lack of knowledge on how to obtain a mortgage with 100% financing. But regardless of paying a mortgage or rent the average person is going to pay roughly around $900-$1300 for something like this. The home is still broken, moms are out trying to make up what dad isn’t bringing home and children are left wandering the streets of our immoral corrupt society. But hypothetically what if, the dynamic changed and women stopped working and stayed home. What if they remembered they are the glue that keeps a home together? What if the idea of the family wage came back, the family started to function again? Could it work? How would it hurt today’s companies and hurt the capitalist idea if all of a sudden there weren’t as many workers to choose from and man could once again take over the workforce to provide? After all if we are talking about only the companies bottom line, then what would it hurt to pay him what it used to cost for the two workers if he did both jobs? Not only he be earning it, but it would help the family and society as a whole.
I agree with the ideas that if a man isn’t making enough, change it. But still if a family wage was instituted, then bonuses or raises would still be applied appropriately- even if it meant giving raises when the man had a new baby. It would benefit the company as the company has a valued worker. It behooves the employer to give the raise to keep the worker. The worker is taken care of, undistracted, happy and able to produce more. In turn, the company does better it’s stock goes up and makes more money. In turn, the women are contributing by raising more children for the society and there are no more broken homes. Children are actually parented and have good examples.
Now, because all the men are able to function the way they should they aren’t distracted over office politics. The new woman supervisor who wears her skirt too high, and her blouse too low is not a factor any more–businesses function as business. No more sex politics. Men can focus on mastering their trades. They wouldn’t need to job hunt so frequently. Men could, from the get go, find what they want and do well with it finding not only mastery but self satisfaction.
Again just hypothetical…. But so is the family wage being instituted again.
Aaron, that’s crazy talk. Most women are not married when they finish school. What are they supposed to do with themselves?
And I don’t think its ok to just put them in clerical work. That kind of unfairness inflames anti-patriarchy sentiment. Some women are very bright. Some very bright women are even called to the single life!
J, I’m not expecting any sort of “handout.” I was just saying that there should be more social acceptance for both early childbearing and later entry into the workforce. If I took 20 years off to raise my kids I certainly wouldn’t expect a high-level job right away. It takes time to work your way up. Women who wanted to re-enter the workforce might have to go back to school or go to school for the first time, but a lot of people already do this. When I was in college there were some older adults in my classes, most of them women. I wasn’t expecting that colleges or workplaces do anything differently than they do now, except that workplaces should not discriminate against older job applicants for entry-level positions. Let’s say you had two applicants for an entry-level position, both right out of college, except one was 22 and the other was 42 and had already raised her kids. You would decide between them the same way you decide between any two applicants – based on the interview, GPA, references, etc. No one is “entitled” to anything.
Wow, Aaron, generalize much? I do not consider myself a feminist, but you sound awfully sexist to me. Women are “less rational” and “poor team players”?!?! Read JPII’s letter to women some time. He actually thanks women who work, believe it or not. And for the record, I’m a woman who sucks at multitasking.
Wow, Aaron, generalize much?
Actually, yes. I was generalizing. Hence language I used like “typically” and “tend to”. BTW: my wife (not a doormat by any means) shares these opinions, and actually convinced me of a few points in this case.
Women are “less rational” and “poor team players”?!?!
Yes. Absolutely. Women take virtually all criticism personally — as an attack on the person, rather than on the behavior. I’ve observed this without a single exception. When my own wife worked, she took every minor criticism from her boss to be intensely personal, and believed that he would fire her. Never mind that she received many small raises and bonuses in her short term there, and her boss told her that she was the best at her job that he’s ever had, and that he wished it were in the budget to pay her more.
At my job, I work with a large number of people, both technical and creative. When a guy screws up, I can just go over and say “dude, you messed up. Here’s how not to next time.” Our workflow is complicated and has a sharp learning curve, and we’re taking on new personel all the time. Women, however, are a different story; I’ve learned that I have to tiptoe around it, and explain in depth why we do things the way we do things, so they can figure it out that they did something wrong. Before I started doing this, I’ve faced so many temper tantrums and hissy fits, and bad attitudes for weeks.
Read JPII’s letter to women some time. He actually thanks women who work, believe it or not.
Thanking women who work is far from a dogmatic statement that requires assent. This will have to be one of those pastoral stances of JPII that he (may God grant him eternal rest) and I will have to politely disagree.
And I don’t think its ok to just put them in clerical work. That kind of unfairness inflames anti-patriarchy sentiment. Some women are very bright. Some very bright women are even called to the single life!
Some men are very caring. Does that mean they should breast-feed? (and yes, this is possible)
Ok… perhaps clerical work is a bit narrow. I’m mostly worried about women in creative, engineering, management, etc. type roles. I.e. roles where collaborative work is heavy. A woman should also rarely, if ever, be in charge of a man. But yeah.. women in HR, customer service… that could work too.
And if a woman (or man) is called to the single life, how much money does she really need?
I’ve been staying out of this one on purpose, but I think I can help with the last comment from Sarah.
Since I know that one of the irrational tenets of feminism is that only women can have valid opinions about women, I can confirm that women, in my experience of 42 years interaction with them are less rational and are not team players.
And generalisations are actually useful ways of conveying what feminists so love to call ‘lived experience’.
And forgive me, but JPII’s gave us nearly all the bishops around the world who have covered up the Church’s homosexual sex scandals. I’m not all that impressed with his deep inights into people.
But still if a family wage was instituted, then bonuses or raises would still be applied appropriately- even if it meant giving raises when the man had a new baby.
How exactly does this in particular benefit the employer? Compensation is usually given to high-performers and/or talented butt-kissers. A corporation does not really care whether its employer has another child; it only cares about ROI. If it is a good investment to give a high-performer a raise, then the corporation who sees this will do so. If a low or average performing employee gets a raise based on having a child, how does that encourage people to perform well?
Sarah,
I don’t believe that there really is a distinction between what is socially accepted for either childbearing or workforce. I’ve been there. When I got pregnant, the entire company threw a baby shower for me. They were happy. When I made the decision to leave the workforce to be a stay at home it was considered to be a great decision and was supported by my co-workers. Most women I have talked to in the work force (Catholic or non-catholic) wish they could. But circumstances are they can’t. Either they are single mothers, or just don’t have enough family income to meet the bills and aren’t willing to make the sacrifice.
Anyway, employers hire based on experience it is illegal to discriminate based on age, sex or race.
Either you have it or you don’t. I have been on all sides of it here. I’ve been an employee, I’ve been a manager (yes Aaron in the tech field I was used to be the Provisioning manager for an Internet service company and also worked in circuit design and implementation working primarily on WAN’s) and I’m now a Catholic home schooling mom. I worked my way up the ladder and gained experience from the bottom up. I have to say because of this experience, progressing in this field for the first eight years in life before I was married also changed me. I’m not joking it’s extremely competitive and to be a good female manager you have to put emotion aside. Working with tech geeks adds a level of difficulty because of the intelligence level you need to deal with. I often had to tell guys older than me they were doing something wrong. I was twenty. I was not an ugly or obese woman either. Do you know how much push back I got? Pretty, young women managers don’t get much respect. It’s earned.
I had to turn into, excuse my language, a little bit of a no-nonsense B** to get to where I was and be good at it. Emotions had no place in my feminine, non-nurturing professional life. Now, I’m not saying all women need to do this…I’m not saying that in your 40’s you need to try to gain a profession. But then again, what is the point of entering the workforce? I think the need for women to find fulfillment comes from the horrible idea that somehow got into our heads that the work we do in the home is less valid than the contributions we can give in the workforce. It just simply isn’t true.
So, as a manager, when I had two applicants in front of me, one 22 year old and one 40 something — If they had the same knowledge and were equally qualified, I leaned toward the older one because with age comes maturity. I wanted reliable mature employees. That wasn’t always the case every scenario is different. But regardless, I’m just not one who cares what is socially accepted. If I choose to take my first twenty years off to raise kids (it takes longer but say hypothetically for some reason I was limited to twenty years) and then wanted to enter the work force, I can’t just expect someone to take pity on me. You’re right, you would have to gain experience and or education to fit the position you’re going after. But when you stated:
“…part of the point of my post was that we should make it easier for mothers to jump-start a career after 40.”
In what way do you want it to be “easier”? It would be nice if everything in life were “easier” but again, the work force is the work force and I’m either going to work my tail off and earn the right to be there or I’m not going to get the position—entry level or not. It’s a competitive world out there and not all women are capable of handling it. There isn’t anything easy about it. Even those who take non managerial positions and remain secretaries provide a level of distraction for the men in the workforce. No man wants to have to go to work to deal with gossip, and emotions that he has to go home to. Man shouldn’t have to deal with tip-toeing around any employee to avoid hurting her feelings…nor should the work place be distracted by sexual harassment seminars. It takes away from the production. All the dealings with women in the workforce are distractions.
This is why I have to agree with Aaron, generally speaking, women DO NOT belong in the work force. The fact still remains, women are less rational. It’s natural for us to get hormonal and emotional. Every woman, short of having undergone a hysterectomy, struggles with having to deal with emotions. Emotions tend to affect our logic, our thinking and thus our decision making ability. When emotion clouds thought…thoughts get muddled. It’s not a putdown… it’s just what it IS. Yes, I’ll also agree that many women are poor team players, again they get their feelings hurt when they are excluded, or feel that so and so is “being mean”, most women are in general passive nurturers…none of it belongs in the work place.
See this is part of the problem of feminism. Women want equal pay and equal treatment…except when it comes to the actual work. They want sympathy, breaks and handouts. They use manipulative feminine tactics to get their way and expect equality. I’m not saying you’re a feminist. I’m not even accusing you to be manipulative; however it does exist and just doesn’t belong. But my point of this is that feminism is so ingrained into us women from the beginning years that even those of us who are spoon fed Catholic women and who make the claim not to be feminists have feminist tendencies and no, I’m not an exception to that.