"You've Come a Long Way Baby", or, the Evolution of Women

This is not precisely on target, but, I recall too that a woman of those times was, among other things, a servant in many marriages: "Honey, make us some coffee." "Honey, clean up the table so we can play cards on it." Translation: "I don't do menial jobs here; I expect you to do it."

Re: "You've Come a Long Way Baby", or, the Evoluti
Hmmm.

First of all, this one:



Sure hasn't gone away.

The main issue I see, but am not sure how to deal with, is motherhood and career. It sucks that women are repeatedly passed over for positions because they will just have babies and a) quit, b) need to take time off to chauffeur 'em to doctors appointments and stuff, and c) not work as much as male/ single/ childless peers. (A friend of mine, a physicist, was explicitly told that she wasn't hired as a professor because she was just gonna have babies in a couple of years. )

However, it also sucks that in counteracting that all of that, women work way too hard and try to do way too much and the kids are shortchanged.

I have a friend who is a stay-at-home dad, and that's an encouraging trend. I definitely see a lot of dads who are intimately involved in raising their kids.

Still, it's quite a conundrum.

edgarblythe- I agree. And I believe that many women internalized the idea of being servants themselves. I remember a friend of mine, who, after the rise of feminism, worked. One day she proudly told me that she had a "modern marriage". She then went on and on how her husband always "helped" her with the housework. What she didn't realize, was that although they both worked, by saying that her husband "helped", she was acknowledging that she believed that the housework was HER job.

Soz- I can really feel compassion for your friend. It sounds to me though, that she has grounds for a discrimination suit. (If she has proof, which is often impossible to get, in these sorts of scenarios)

I have read that a number of companies offer incentives such as job sharing, or variable workdays, so that mothers may work, and still be there for their children. Some big corporations even offer day care at their place of business.

Like my "modern marriage" story, many women put in as long days as their husband, and are still expected to run the house, and be the children's primary caregiver.

Yeah, I was all het up about it and told her to sue, but she thought it would do too much damage to her professional prospects, and she didn't WANT to work there with such idiots.

Hmph.

soz- AARGH- Your friend is a perfect example about how discrimination happens, but the person discriminated against is between a rock and a hard place. What was said to her was definitely illegal, but I supposed the community of physicists is small enough that if she had sued, people in the field would perceive her as a troublemaker.

Ah, yes, pigeonholes by gender.

When I was in Junior High (um, '73 - '76 or so), in 8th grade we were required to take Art for half a year. Fine. But, for the other half of the year, the girls were required to take Home Ec. and the boys were required to take Shop. That was the last year that that rule was in effect.

Jes- In my Junior High, there was an apartment. The girls learned all sorts of neat stuff like cleaning toilets, making beds, etc. The boys took shop.

When my son went to school, things had improved somewhat, and he took an optional home ec. course for boys, called, "bachelor living"(or, how to survive until you bag a woman who will do these things for you). If you think about it, the implication was sexist.

I guess India was ahead of times !!! When I was at school, I had to take a compulsary course in Home Science for two years - learing abt cooking, stitching (I still can do a mean cross stitch and stain removal)

Gautam- The US could learn from India. I think that it is a wonderful idea that boys and girls learn how to be independent in the home sphere.

It is such a pity. I know that there are many widowed men in my retirement community who can't boil water. They are lost without their wives, and you see them in the fast food restaurants all the time.

Re: "You've Come a Long Way Baby", or, the Evoluti


This is a really tough issue. Up front let me just say that is it just plain stupid for anyone to assume that just because a candidate for a position is a woman she is going to choose to have a child or even be the primary care provider for a child she may already have.

The other side of this is that there are women who expect the employer to make exceptional accomodations for them because of these things.

So where exactly does one draw the fine line around all of this? If I were interviewing people for a position and a woman told me that she intended to have a child relatively soon and then stay at home with that child would it color my decision making? Probably... Is that discrimination though? If the candidate was male and told me that they were planning on heading off to graduate school next year it would probably color my decisions too. As an employer, I'd want to hire the best candidate that plans on sticking around - not someone looking for a temporary job until they go off to do whatever lies in their life's ambitions.

The whole issue of pregnancy/child rearing is fraught to hard choices by the woman and the employer. Much of it is complicated because women themselves don't agree on how the entire issue should be handled.

I think that if a woman is going for a job, there should be NO expectation of exceptional treatment. It is up to the woman to deal with her situation. If she brings up the subject, and the employer will go along with her requests, fine. If not, she needs to find a place of employment that is more "mommy friendly". I think that special arrangements for mothers are thoughtful, and probably in the best interests of a company, but women, IMO, have no right to demand them.

Before 1970, at my elementary school, girls could only wear pants (under our dresses) if the temperature in the morning was below 40 degrees (which doesn't happen that often in south Louisiana). I remember some very chilly mornings at the bus stop.

I recall this one too: In the late 60s, the only reason coeds at Louisiana State Univ. could wear pants outside of the dorm was if they were going bowling. When they signed out of the dorms in the evening, bowling was a very popular activity listed! (For that matter, let's consider that these young women had to sign in and out and write down where they were going!)

mac11- Were the boys required to sign out too?

I don't know, Phoenix. But I'd be surprised if that were the case.

When I went to Uni - the girls were not allowed out of their hostels after 0000 hrs. There was no such restriction for boyz !! And yeah, even boyz were not allowed inside the girls hostel after 0000 hrs and neither were the girls in the boyz hostels.

Didn't stop us though !

fishin - I think part of the problem is the lack of leave time for fathers. It is assumed, again, that the woman is the primary care giver because she is a mother. There is really no consideration for fathers. I think this lends itself to less parental responsibility by fathers and puts pressure on women to get as much time off as possible because, if there is a male parent in the house, he's not going to get time off to care for the child anyway. There should be a minimum amount given to everyone, and if they want more time that burden (and those decisions) fall on the individual.

I think men and women should get equal time off for child leave. For me personally, I don't want to stay home and raise kids, but the implication is that I do because I'm a woman. The boy would probably be happier doing it, but the implication is he wouldn't want to because he's a man.


And so it goes.

Yeah.

Actually, FMLA (the Family and Medical Leave Act) is pretty much "a minimum amount given to everyone."



http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/fmla/s1.asp

There are restrictions, like how long you've worked there and the size of your employer, but it's a cool thing.

Agreed Sugar! I got a lot of flack after my divorce. Since I was divorced it was just expected that I was available to work longer hours or "off" shifts. When I'd mention that I had a kid to be concerned with I'd get the "but you only have the kid on weekends right??" routine.

Ummm.. no...

The father having custody of the kid still isn't "normal" and most people just assume that the father is only a father every other weekend (if even then).

Yeah. I was thinking of you, among others, when I mentioned knowing a lot of dads who are intimately involved in their kids' lives.