'Elite Women' : are they killing feminism?

Women and men are biologically different for obvious reasons. If we accept that we're animals, and descended from the common ancestor of primates then these differences become apparent. Females are designed to carry and nurture the young, that is their main biological purpose. Men on the other hand have evolved to be able to ensure that they can pass on their genes and that is their foremost drive, not to provide for their young, simply to fend of threats to their females so they can reproduce.

We have to keep in mind that biological function and gender roles are very different things, the former is the result of evolution, the latter a social construct, an interpretation of that function which may or may not be accurate.

As we evolve as a society, gender roles are becoming less significant, this is also evident. Gender roles are a tool of control or rather they've been used to control women by refusing to acknowledge the dynamics of evolving societies in regard to the role women have played in them. Men have always wanted to control women, this is not a social aspect, it is mainly biological. The fact that more educated women are reluctant to have children is maybe a backlash of their growing freedoms.

It is hard to say what impact this will have on us, in my opinion. I am not much into predicting the future because these predictions usually depend on trends remaining unchanged and can't encompass the development of variables which would change them.

I do believe, however, that this backlash that I mentioned will even out as new means for women to balance their lives are found. I am eager to see what new sides the next sixty decades will bring to this issue.

In hunter-gatherer societies women were as important as men because of the mutual need for the work that each gender did. Today, as we move away from the agrarian principles that gave men power over women because of their physical strength, women will be able to compete more evenly.

0 Replies

The feminists looks only to the financial aspects and thus become competitive. One has to look at the family as a whole and see that women have a great role as a mother and the difficult task of raising children. Women are closer to their children as they contribute more to their development viz. the 9-month labor. Also, there is positive proof who the mother is but until recent times with DNA testing one could not be sure who the father was. The other biological factor most feminists don't seem to know or ignore is that there is a real biological clock. After the age of 35 a woman will have difficulty bearing a first child. Women pursuing a career often cannot get into a financially secure position by 30 if she also went for the Master's degree. That is six years of university plus a few years climbing up the corporate ladder. She also has to take time finding a mate. So the severe time constrainsts are making life difficult for most women pursuing both career and motherhood.

0 Replies

Back when I was an executive director of a large YWCA, our emphasis was to eliminate all the 'isms (racism, sexism, etc.) As a result, I was a charter memer of the National Organization of Women in Kansas and was active in many local and national programs to improve the opportunities and status for women.

I withdrew from most of those organizations/programs when it became obvious (to me) that the real hidden agenda was to turn women into men or, failing that, turn men into women in order to achieve parity. The militant feminists of those days held a great deal of contempt for men and, as I think men are mostly pretty neat, I had a hard time buying into that.

My counsel for young women these days is that if they want a family and a career they can have both, but they might not necessarily have both all at the same time and achieve excellence in either. Those who choose to forego family/children and don't take time off or adopt the distraction of raising a family have opportunity for full parity with the men and, with some laws beneficial for women still on the books, can expect to do even better.

If she wants a family, she should finish her education, find a good solid dependable guy to love, let him support her and the kids while she does an excellent job of motherhood, nurture, etc. etc. and then, when she kicks them out into the world, she can put full force and effort into a full time career. She can even work part time, work at home, etc. without hurting her kids while they're still at home. Many entrepeneurial businesses were started out of such a necessity.

Others can effectively work out arrangements with husband and wife switching off parental duties while the other works--day job - night job--etc. but in my opinion, this unnecessarily strains the marriage itself when it goes on for years. I know many who have successfully done this however.

I think it is criminal to relegate women to second-class status who choose family over career. And we also have a way to go to help women who choose family early in adulthood to re-enter the work force later. But being a woman with the wonderful ability to bear and raise wonderful children is not something to be sneered at. And it in no way compromises true, honorable feminism to encourage and support that.

0 Replies

I actually agree with most of that. I was a women's studies major in the early '90's and was often the voice of dissension ("uh, no, all heterosexual sex is not rape",) so I know what you're getting at:

I don't quite agree with this, though:

Quote:

f she wants a family, she should finish her education, find a good solid dependable guy to love, let him support her and the kids while she does an excellent job of motherhood, nurture, etc. etc. and then, when she kicks them out into the world, she can put full force and effort into a full time career. She can even work part time, work at home, etc. without hurting her kids while they're still at home. Many entrepeneurial businesses were started out of such a necessity.

A few elements:

1.) If she wants a family, she can work first and save money to tide her over for the time she wants to stay at home, same as saving up for a college education or a house or anything else.

2.) If she wants a family, she can find a guy who wants to be a stay-at-home dad -- and there are more and more of them. They have, as a group, the ability to be every bit as good (and bad) of caretakers as women, and the social stigma of being a stay-at-home dad should be eradicated. It's in everyone's best interest.

3.) Both parents working outside the home doesn't necessarily "hurt" the child, at all, especially if there is a situation where there is good childcare and if the parents' respective employers are reasonable and flexible. That's another two areas that can be addressed -- good, affordable childcare, and family-friendly workplace policies.

0 Replies

Sorry sozobe, I disagree with point 3.
I for one believe that having one or two parents at home is very much preferable to child/daycare.
In todays society (I speak for the Netherlands now, but I reckon the same goes for the USA as well, due to the everlessening dissimilarities between our countries) I feel that some people decide to take children the same way they decide to take a puppy. Having kids is nothing less then taking care of another human life, while also playing a terribly important part in shaping his/her perceptions of this world.
IMHO having one parent at home to help in the rearing of a child is very important indeed.

Naj

0 Replies

There are just too many variables, though. For example, if the one parent who is at home is feeling unfulfilled and stifled because he or she is unable to work, he or she is not able to be as good of a parent. Some childcare is very, very good. Some childcare is provided by grandparents or other family members, so that the caretaker can remain in the child's life even after the period of childcare is over.

For the record, I am a stay-at-home mom, and since I always planned to be, I worked hard to make it happen -- saved a lot of money, made sure I had some professional accomplishments first, very purposefully charted out a transitional plan (consulting, being involved in the community), etc., etc.

But I'm not at all comfortable saying or implying that all children are hurt -- and note, that was how it was brought up and what I refuted -- by being in childcare. There are too many problematic implications, particularly in terms of couples who simply can't afford to live on one salary.

0 Replies

I think the studies show that full-time daycare is not the optimum solution for very young children. Part-time daycare, starting at around three, is beneficial to social development.

T was a preschool teacher for two-year-old children for a couple of years. It was a very nurturing preschool, and parents were required to coop in the school once every couple of weeks, but some of the kids still called her "mommy."

0 Replies

I would agree that "hurt" is probably too strong of a word. "Sub-optimum" might be better.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I actually agree with most of that. I was a women's studies major in the early '90's and was often the voice of dissension ("uh, no, all heterosexual sex is not rape",) so I know what you're getting at:

I don't quite agree with this, though:

Quote:
f she wants a family, she should finish her education, find a good solid dependable guy to love, let him support her and the kids while she does an excellent job of motherhood, nurture, etc. etc. and then, when she kicks them out into the world, she can put full force and effort into a full time career. She can even work part time, work at home, etc. without hurting her kids while they're still at home. Many entrepeneurial businesses were started out of such a necessity.

A few elements:

1.) If she wants a family, she can work first and save money to tide her over for the time she wants to stay at home, same as saving up for a college education or a house or anything else.

But then we have the problem of that ticking biological clock as described by others. If she does the family thing first, she won't have that problem and she won't have to interrupt her career later. It's not a matter of 'should' but a matter of practicality.

2.) If she wants a family, she can find a guy who wants to be a stay-at-home dad -- and there are more and more of them. They have, as a group, the ability to be every bit as good (and bad) of caretakers as women, and the social stigma of being a stay-at-home dad should be eradicated. It's in everyone's best interest.

Whatever works of course is fine. But she NEEDS to be with that baby during her recuperation from giving birth and during the nursing period. A dad, no matter how remarkable, can't do either of those things for her. So again, it is a matter of practicality. And of no importance whatsoever, I am one of the old fashioned types who think most women are inately uncomfortable being separated from their children for long periods, especially if the kids are sick or hurt, while men are more comfortable leaving these things in the hands of the mother. And I think most men are inately uncomfortable not going out to slay dragons and hunt giraffes and sooner or later will feel less like men unless they do some of that.

3.) Both parents working outside the home doesn't necessarily "hurt" the child, at all, especially if there is a situation where there is good childcare and if the parents' respective employers are reasonable and flexible. That's another two areas that can be addressed -- good, affordable childcare, and family-friendly workplace policies.

We cannot depend on employers being flexible for the benefit of child raising however. Too many occupations depend on the person being there, at their post, doing their job. I personally think it does benefit children a great deal to have the security of knowing a parent is on the job at home too, and they can count on that most hours of most days of their lives. My first concern is always for the kids. Those who don't put the welfare of the children first simply should not have children.

Even as I say that, I should mention that I was a working mom and the kids' dad and I were not always on duty at home. And the kids turned out great. But even though we raised them in very small towns where we were only a few minutes away and even though we could take care of school stuff, run scout troops, coach softball, and be home when they were sick, I wouldn't do that again. The kids deserve full time parenting and if I had it to do all over again, I would do my best to see that they had it. I would work part time or at home and be there for them when they were there. No matter how excellent the child care, it can't replace Mom and Dad.

None of this is engraved in granite of course and there are always exceptions to every rule. I am an absolutely passionate feminist when it comes to women's rights and opportunities for a shot at the brass ring. But in my older age, I have learned that men and women are not exactly the same creatures and a fulltime mother can be every bit as impressive, smart, talented, and important as a CEO. My own feminist activism extends toward extending dignity and appreciation to her because her legacy might be even greater than that of the CEO.

0 Replies

I just don't think it needs to be zero-sum. Sure, extend dignity and appreciation to the stay-at-home mom (I think all moms are fulltime moms, they don't stop being a mom when they go to work), but then also address other inequities and disadvantages for parents of both genders.

Nursing women CAN (and do, all the time) both work outside the home and remain nursing mothers, by expressing milk for another caretaker to provide to the baby. I've spoken before about a family we know where the dad is the stay-at-home parent and the mom works. She nursed (and is nursing) three kids while going back to work after I think 4 months each. (As in, she nursed each child for at least a year, but only stayed home for standard maternity leave before going back to work.)

The kids are great, the dad is an absolutely fantastic dad, and I think there should be plenty of room for him (and others like him) to do their thing.

The mother needs to recuperate, sure, but beyond that, there is a lot that a dad can do to be the primary caretaker while the mother goes back to work.

This is all very separate from whether women and men are the same. They aren't, sure. And? That doesn't mean that my friend the stay-at-home dad doesn't do a stupendous job, nor that there are a lot of other guys who would do an equally stupendous job given the opportunity.

0 Replies

I think we really aren't all that far apart Soz. I'm sure not fanatical enough on this to judge any women who chooses to work while raising her family even though I think I chose the less productive path when I did it. And I sure don't begrudge any Mr. Mom who enjoys that role.

And of course anybody can both work and parent effectively. I'm just not sure they can do both as effectively as doing one or the other. But sure, there are some super moms who seem to pull it off. Power to them. And also power to all the great moms who can't do it and know it.

Again, there are exceptions to every rule and thus there are no hard and fast rules on this one. For me, in any policy involving kids, the best interests of the kids should come first. But then none of us are perfect, so its wonderful that one of the marvels of creation is that kids usually survive imperfect parenting quite well. Smile

0 Replies

Indeed! :-)

0 Replies

Oh my goodness. This really gets my blood boiling - right off the top.

If anything this tells me: Feminism is still much needed!
Our work is not done yet.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

This is all very separate from whether women and men are the same. They aren't, sure. And? That doesn't mean that my friend the stay-at-home dad doesn't do a stupendous job, nor that there are a lot of other guys who would do an equally stupendous job given the opportunity.

great post, sozobe....

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

Women are closer to their children as they contribute more to their development viz. the 9-month labor. Also, there is positive proof who the mother is but until recent times with DNA testing one could not be sure who the father was. The other biological factor most feminists don't seem to know or ignore is that there is a real biological clock. After the age of 35 a woman will have difficulty bearing a first child. Women pursuing a career often cannot get into a financially secure position by 30 if she also went for the Master's degree. That is six years of university plus a few years climbing up the corporate ladder. She also has to take time finding a mate. So the severe time constrainsts are making life difficult for most women pursuing both career and motherhood.

A woman can certainly get into a secure financial before she turns 30....i dont think there are any hard and fast rules...

This post annoys me....a lot of Indian men also seem to share this view...

0 Replies

I think I'll have to go back and reread this thread,

0 Replies

Ack, no, I don't feel like rereading it. Perhaps next week.

0 Replies

Sorry eryemil, a few incorrect statements:

Quote:

Men on the other hand have evolved to be able to ensure that they can pass on their genes and that is their foremost drive

Nope, all males have this, it was not evolved.

Quote:

not to provide for their young, simply to fend of threats to their females so they can reproduce

Nope, being able to provide for their young is one of there aspects too. Men who dont provide for their young historically would have had very few offspring survive. The provider role is also why women prefer their husbands to be rich.

Also sozobe:

Quote:

This is all very separate from whether women and men are the same. They aren't, sure. And?

An engineer and a painter are not the same. You dont just say "so what" and get painters to build bridges, coz they should have "equal roles" or some nonsense like that.
Yes, women should not be rapped in black cloth and be imprisoned in their homes like in Arab countries. But we should not go to far in the opposite direction and say Women should do exactly what Men do. Thats like saying "because communism didnt work out for us, we'll try facism".

0 Replies

I see the future:
The expansion of the traditional monogamous pair bonding to embrace a female third party surrogate mother / homemaker. Perhaps associated with a specialized sort of adoption process whereby poor countries are provided this as an immigration option.

Already here in Canada we have special immigration privileges and other government support per the "The Live-in Caregiver Program".

0 Replies

What do women do that they shouldn't do, RaceDriver05?

What do men do that they shouldn't do?

I agree that there are some areas in which there is an absolute divide -- men aren't able to give birth and probably won't be able to in the forseeable future, for example.

But men can be excellent stay-at-home dads, sure.

And women can be excellent CEOs, sure.

0 Replies

'Elite Women' : are they killing feminism?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know