1
   

'Elite Women' : are they killing feminism?

 
 
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 02:19 am
A controversial article in the latest edition of Prospect magazine argues that a new breed of 'elite women' is dividing the ranks of women and changing society for the worse.

The thesis, broadly speaking, is that the meteoric rise of a culture of 'go-getting' women, who want high-powered, well-paid jobs, has diverted talent away from 'caring' professions such as teaching. It has, argues the author Alison Wolf, a professor at Kings College, damaged the concept of 'female altruism' and has put women off having children.


Quote:
Young, successful, well paid: are they killing feminism?

A controversial article by an academic argues that a new breed of 'elite women' is creating rifts in female ranks and fundamentally changing society.


Anushka Asthana and Denis Campbell report

Sunday March 26, 2006
The Observer

Chiara Cargnel wants to have it all: a high-flying career and a successful marriage. So far she is halfway there. At 26, she is an investment banker in London working over 70 hours a week and earning more than £80,000 a year. Cargnel, like many other young women, is excelling in a world many thought governed not by their rules, but by rules set and enforced by men.
For the first time in history these 'elite women' can succeed in any career they want. According to a remarkable thesis that has blown open the debate around feminism, sexism and the future role of women, a new generation of bright, rich professionals have broken through the glass ceiling and have nothing to fear from the men around them. They will be just as successful.

The thesis was expounded in a highly controversial article for Prospect magazine by Alison Wolf, a professor at Kings College London and author of Does Education Matter? She argues that the meteoric rise of this new generation of 'go-getting women' who want high-powered, well-paid jobs has dire consequences for society. Wolf says it has diverted the most talented away from the caring professions such as teaching, stopped them volunteering, is in danger of ending the notion of 'female altruism', has turned many women off having children - and has effectively killed off feminism.

'[It is] the death of the sisterhood,' Wolf writes. 'An end to the millennia during which women of all classes shared the same major life experiences to a far greater degree than men.

'In the past, women of all classes shared lives centred on explicitly female concerns. Now it makes little sense to discuss women in general. The statistics are clear: among young, educated, full-time professionals, being female is no longer a drag on earnings or progress.'

The article argues that the most educated women will now earn as much as men over a lifetime if they have no children. Even with children, the gap will be small. The desire to be successful acts as a major disincentive to women starting a family, Wolf argues.

'Families remain central to the care of the old and sick, as well as raising the next generation, and yet our economy and society steer ever more educated women away from marriage or childbearing,' she writes. 'The repercussions for our future are enormous, and we should at least recognise the fact.' The growth, Wolf argues, of the 'because I'm worth it' generation has led to the end of 'female altruism', where women would see the caring part of their life as normal.

'If you give 100 per cent to the job - if you behave like a man - the fact that you are a woman will not stop you,' Wolf told The Observer

Wolf insisted her argument was not that the workplace revolution had been a 'terrible mistake' and admitted she had gained from it herself: 'I am not saying we should be driven back into the homes and not be allowed to work. I am not suggesting we reintroduce the marriage bar [which required female teachers and civil servants to stay single or resign in favour of male workers]. I am just saying there have been consequences.'

Wolf's views will ignite fierce debate. It is a topic that is discussed at breakfast and dinner tables, and in restaurants and pubs across the country. Many women face the difficult decision of how to strike a balance between pursuing ambitious careers and focusing on motherhood. In that setting, Wolf's two main arguments will be met both with empathy and anger.

She is wrong on one point, according to Katherine Rake, director of women's equality group the Fawcett Society. Rake argues that 'the sisterhood' is very much alive and rejects Wolf's thesis that women of all classes no longer share the same major life experiences. 'Women are not a homogeneous group, but we never have been,' said Rake. 'We are a diverse group, but we still share experiences.'

Rake dismissed as 'an unfair portrayal' the idea that feminism focused overly on getting women into employment. She argued: 'The most interesting and radical strands of feminism value a whole variety of roles. It is about working on a balance between men and women and valuing unpaid work such as looking after the children.' She said women did not have a true choice about whether to take the larger burden of childcare because the pay gap meant it was often more economical for the woman to do it. She highlighted the fact that part-time work was often not available in the professions chosen by 'elite women'.

Others argued that there was still a glass ceiling blocking the path of young professionals. Jenny Watson, chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, accused Wolf of 'painting a rosier view than exists of the realities of women's lives' and ignoring the difficulties many women face when trying to resume their careers after a break to give birth.

'Wolf completely misses the point on several key issues,' said Watson. 'She does not reflect the fact that this whole debate about work and family is no longer only about women and these days involves, for example, fathers' increasing desire to be more involved at home. Women experience a thin veneer of equality, but that veneer often cracks once they take on a caring role.'

continued
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,263 • Replies: 58
No top replies

 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 02:19 am
Part 2
Quote:
Watson said many women with children faced difficulties finding flexible work and often ended up with poor pay, reduced promotion prospects and a lack of senior posts available on a job-share basis. It was the archaic rules on parental leave, she argued, rather than some high-flying women's desire to have a successful career, that were responsible for the declining birth rate. More leave for new fathers could address the imbalance.

The decline in child birth rates is one of the 'grave consequences' of the rise of career-focused women that Wolf highlights. She points to a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research that tracks the trend. But Julia Margo, co-author of the report, said that 'elite women' who wanted to have more children were forced not to because they would lose too much income. Margo said the pay gap would be closed only if women could have children early on and still maintain their income.

'[The present system] is deeply unfair for women,' she said. 'We will not close the pay gap until men take time out to look after children. Then employers will not think they cannot employ a woman in her late twenties or early thirties because they cannot afford maternity leave. As a society we have not caught up yet with the consequences of women in the labour market. Women manage by holding off one thing or another; they sacrifice children or they sacrifice their career.'

It is a decision that is already haunting Cargnel, an archetypal 'elite woman'. From a young age she knew she wanted to go far in her career and until recently had no desire for children - but that is changing. 'I want to have a child eventually, but I will postpone the decision until the hours become more manageable as I advance in my career. You can't work from 8.30am till 11pm and look after a child.'

She admitted that the ideal would be a husband in a more flexible job who would be prepared to take on above average responsibilities. 'But does such a man exist?' she said.

Finding and keeping a partner is difficult because of her long hours. She is seeing a man who lives 200 miles away and admits that makes life easier. 'It would not last if he lived here. What man in the same city is happy to see you four days a month, and then when he sees you, you are tired?'

It is a high price for success - Cargnel works six days a week and always faces being called in. Once she was called back from a holiday in Italy after just one day. Nevertheless, she finds time for charity and dismisses the idea that women like her fail to show their altruistic side by doing things like volunteering. Cargnel takes disadvantaged young people on week-long trips out of London.

Being an 'elite woman' was not about acting like a man, she said, but about being a 'more complete individual' who no longer worries about finding a partner with enough money to look after her. 'I can choose a partner on affinity and love rather than money,' she said. Brought up to believe her sex did not matter, she was no longer sure. 'I always thought that gender would not matter if I was good at what I did. But I wanted to be in the diplomatic service back home in Italy and I went to see them and a senior diplomatic officer said to me - "You are a woman, why don't you just marry a diplomat?" '

Cargnel said in principle she would do as well as any man if she stayed single and childless. But she said a woman was still expected to be the main carer, and if she had children she would have to work harder than a father to get ahead.

As such, she did believe society discriminated against elite women. 'There is a conception shared by women and men alike that you can be a good professional and have a career or a good woman and have a family. My ex-boyfriend had a mother who was educated but stayed at home and thought I was inappropriate because I wanted to travel the world and study at Cambridge.'

But men, she argued, were allowed to have careers and families. 'Women are given up to a year off in maternity leave and men are given two weeks - that is intrinsically discriminatory, and an assumption that women should stay at home. I believe it should say men and women can take the same leave, so it is a true choice that we face.'
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 02:25 am
http://i2.tinypic.com/sbhi4p.jpg

http://i2.tinypic.com/sbhira.jpg

Link to full report in Prospect Magazine
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 02:30 am
bm

Interesting, Walter.
I'll be back.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 06:46 am
Very interesting Walter. As a feminist myself, I am concerned about one thing. As the more highly educated, more intelligent women opt for career over motherhood, it will be the less educated, less intelligent women who will be in the forefront of producing the next generations. We have been hearing (in other contexts) about the "dumbing down" of society. I am concerned that this trend may escalate.

One might remark that it was the lower classes who traditionally produced greater numbers of children. I think that the divergence will widen, as some of the "cream" of the brighter women, fail to reproduce at all.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 09:58 am
This is simply a live by the sword/ die by the sword thing. Two sides of the same coin. There is a lot of it in feminism (and in abolition of slavery and in a lot of other rightings of wrongs that had been wrong long enough for aspects of society to be dependent on them...)

Quote:
'I am not saying we should be driven back into the homes and not be allowed to work. I am not suggesting we reintroduce the marriage bar [which required female teachers and civil servants to stay single or resign in favour of male workers].


Well, that's sure good to know! Rolling Eyes Yes, consequences, of course, but this is way too alarmist for my tastes.

This ballyhooed "thesis" is actually exactly in keeping with other stuff I have been seeing about how, in recent years at least, the "glass ceiling" has really been that more (MORE -- not all) women place a greater emphasis on balance in their lives than men do. Women (as a group) would rather have time to spend with their family than have the position of highest power + highest paycheck. So it's not that they can't, per se, it's that they choose not to.

But not all of them do. This article is about the ones who don't.

I don't believe the "major disincentive" bit for a minute. There are many, many, MANY 26-year-olds who say they don't want a child who are undergoing fertility treatments 10 years later. Was just reading an article in the NYT about the number of successful single women who, rather than waiting for Mr. Right, go ahead with articificial inseminations so they can have the child(ren) they want so much. (Wrote that before I saw that this one -- Cargnel -- is changing her mind, too.)

I DO agree with this:

Quote:
Watson said many women with children faced difficulties finding flexible work and often ended up with poor pay, reduced promotion prospects and a lack of senior posts available on a job-share basis. It was the archaic rules on parental leave, she argued, rather than some high-flying women's desire to have a successful career, that were responsible for the declining birth rate. More leave for new fathers could address the imbalance.


The "involvement of fathers" note is the one I keep hitting. It's win-win.

Quote:
Cargnel said in principle she would do as well as any man if she stayed single and childless. But she said a woman was still expected to be the main carer, and if she had children she would have to work harder than a father to get ahead.


So, great, let's change THAT.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 10:07 am
As you can probably tell from my tone, I think articles like this (or at least titles like this, which got my blood boiling before I even started reading) are as detrimental to feminism as anything else. Why all this either/ or, this competition?

I much prefer to see something like, "New initiative to give fathers more opportunities to be involved in parenting gets backing from feminists," or something. With all of this same information, just in a different context. I heartily dislike the demonization (strong word, not quite it) of "elite women" inherent in this article. If they want to be successful, let's help them be successful. If they don't want kids, that's their perogative. If they do want kids, let's help them (and the kids) however we can -- like making both institutional and social changes in how we view the role of fathers.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 12:15 pm
Soz--

Well said.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 12:31 pm
I agree, Noddy: well said, soz.
0 Replies
 
Eretiq
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 05:47 pm
I find that article a bit paranoid, or if you were to believe in conspirancy theories you would say that the men side of the barricade intentionatly did this after coming up with the genius idea to pull the alarm cause "who the heck is gonna take care of our kids".
It doesn't really make sense because women who truely want kids will have kids, and the ones that think that their career is most important will do that. From my point of view the ability to choose allows the women who truely want to be mothers, the ones who feel that void in their souls that only kids can fill, to do it, and not have a kid only because they haven't got anything better to do.

Phoenix32890 : "As the more highly educated, more intelligent women opt for career over motherhood, it will be the less educated, less intelligent women who will be in the forefront of producing the next generations. We have been hearing (in other contexts) about the "dumbing down" of society." I must say i can't believe you're serious about that. I mean, i can honestly say that most geniuses have come from modest backgrounds, and very bright people have parents that aren't even half as bright as they are. Human DNA is a lottery after all and inteligence might be something that you have a predisposition for but it is mostly something that is developed.

And as for women teachers, my personal opinion is that you DON'T want geniuses to be teachers, and the reason is very simple : being a teacher is about something else. You need to have the compasion, the ability to link to your students and transmit the message that they should recieve. If you have the knowledge it doesn't mean you'll be able to pass it on to other people. I've known people that knew all kinds off stuff but weren't able to make me understand it. Also, very bright people don't have the patience and the calm to put up with the fact that students are so much dumber then they are. Other abilities are required to be a teacher and women who have them and who like being a teacher will be teachers, and again, being able to choose assures us that people doing it are doing it because they want to and not because they haven't got anything better to do.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 06:01 pm
Quote:
Phoenix32890 : "As the more highly educated, more intelligent women opt for career over motherhood, it will be the less educated, less intelligent women who will be in the forefront of producing the next generations. We have been hearing (in other contexts) about the "dumbing down" of society."



Eretiq wrote:

I must say i can't believe you're serious about that. I mean, i can honestly say that most geniuses have come from modest backgrounds, and very bright people have parents that aren't even half as bright as they are. Human DNA is a lottery after all and inteligence might be something that you have a predisposition for but it is mostly something that is developed.


There is no doubt that the way genetics works, bright people can produce dull children, and vice versa. That is the nature part of the equation, and it can be a crapshoot. The difference is, that bright, educated parents are much more likely to nurture their children in terms of exposing them to culture, and allowing them to experience those things that will challenge their intellectual curiosity.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 06:08 pm
My first reaction as I skimmed it was "oh, good grief!"

I'll try to reread it calmly later to see if their are any nuggets I agree with, and try to verbalize where I differ.

I agree with Soz' comments at this point, will probably have some of my own later.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 10:28 pm
When I first read the title of this thread, I thought "elite women" meant women who are very rich and snobby (not that rich women are snobby), like in those old fashioned movies, but apparently the article used the word "elite women" to invoke a negative connotation to working women (as soz mentioned).
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 11:40 pm
There are only so many hours in a day and one can accomplish just so much before burning out. Juggling high-powered career and raising kids seems at loggerheads. If the kids are left to their own devices they may grow up to be chickenhawk Republicans.
0 Replies
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 08:56 am
Quote:
One might remark that it was the lower classes who traditionally produced greater numbers of children. I think that the divergence will widen, as some of the "cream" of the brighter women, fail to reproduce at all.


Unfortunately, yes, this is a negative feedback effect. A lot of women who stick to their career and say 'oh ill have kids later' get handed the box of tissues when they reach 'later' and find they are no longer fertile. Fertility treatments have limited success. I should remind people that there is a reason that men fancy young women (and women rich men).
I dont have an issue with women having careers, but I sure as hell wouldnt want to marry a women obssessed with her career.

Genders are not equal. Their 'roles' are there for a reason.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:26 am
Just came across this quote:

«If anything remains more or less unchanged, it will be the role of women.» Harvard sociologist David Riesman in Time magazine on July 21, 1967. :wink:
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:37 am
It is the strident and controversial positions that get coverage, so writers pander to the tastes of the consumer.





Another, even more cynical side, says that true equality between the sexes will be the end of feminism (and of feminist writers).
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 10:43 am
oh good grief....now maybe some men will get into caring professions, and we can all benefit from the salaries going up for those career choices.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 08:01 pm
Chai Tea, interesting Catch 22 this one.

Our government has just approved a large increase in pay for childcare workers....so our Kindergarten has informed us fees will be going up, which will defeat the purpose of my wife finally going back to work after nearly four years at home.

I'm thinking the answer to this problem is more complicated than you are perhaps suggesting?
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Apr, 2006 08:13 am
We live in interesting times. Without implying in any way I am an antifeminist, I think it is safe to say that women and men are not equal. And since they are not equal (without assigning any sort of value to their different positions!) by nature, why should they be equal in culture?

I think it has to do with changed moral values. In ancient times, as much as a century ago, the woman took care of the children she had give birth to, trying to raise them. Meanwhile, the man worked in order to provide the family with the food and other necessities needed in order to live in decent conditions.
I for one find nothing dishonorable in that. What was problematic, however, was that women were TREATED as being inferior to men, which showed particularly in the fact they weren't allowed to vote or to follow university studies.
Under pressure of enlightenment and liberal pressures, women (justly so!) became more vocal and protested against their culturally imposed inferiority. Having to fill in for the men during WWI helped, because it showed that women were just as capable as men in that aspect as well.
And it seems the pendulum was set loose, and it has moved from a culture where the difference between women and men was not only recognized, but used to 'force' women into an inferior position of nurturer and housekeeper, to a society which does it's utmost best to ignore ALL differences between men and women.
I don't think either is healthy.

Najmelliw
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » 'Elite Women' : are they killing feminism?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 09:18:53