Feminism - where are the threads?

[Edie]

Why is a banker paid more than a foster carer. That’s what we’ve got to ask ourselves. Cos let me tell you, sat there in your air conditioned office with your spreadsheet and your Pret A Manger sandwich doing numbers and negotiation, is that REALLY more difficult than a 24/7 role managing minute to minute the emotional, physical, and developmental needs of an emotionally damaged child? Is it more difficult, let alone more important. Is it fuck, and that’s the rub.

 

[Edie]

There are a lot of structural issues standing in the way of this, but yes, it's ludicrous that being a "brand vision consultant" or some such hoofwankery is so highly prized when actually looking after actual people is seen as some of the lowest-valued work available in the sphere of legal employment.

Re: the economics - it's not a strong point for me either, but our current economic voodoo is not the only economics available.

Exactly. Hoofwankery. Get out.

 

[JudithB]

Won’t somebody please think about the crab fishermen.

 

[mojo pixy]

Is the answer to de-feminise care work? And what does the de-feminisation of care work look like?

Yes.

It is happening IMO, but slowly. And not evenly. General nursing is increasingly attracting men, caring for say old people in homes perhaps less so. My sector, learning disability, has quite a few men at the bottom level but we're definitely the minority.

As an additional point, in my last job my line manager, her senior manager, the finance manager, HR manager and CEO were all women.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are a lot of structural issues standing in the way of this, but yes, it's ludicrous that being a "brand vision consultant" or some such hoofwankery is so highly prized when actually looking after actual people is seen as some of the lowest-valued work available in the sphere of legal employment.

Re: the economics - it's not a strong point for me either, but our current economic voodoo is not the only economics available.

Part of it, I think, is going to come down to our economy being based on the conversion of resources into exchange commodities, and the industries based around extracting profit from that, and the concomitant "making money from money" derivations. Looking after people doesn't fit too well into it. There are clever folk around here that will have far more to say on this.

The Abolition of Work

where i start from on the issue of work

 

[8ball]

The Abolition of Work

where i start from on the issue of work

I like that essay, though I think it works better as a guiding star rather than anything that helps with practical strategies.

 

[Pickman's model]

I like that essay, though I think it works better as a guiding star rather than anything that helps with practical strategies.

You have to have something to start with, it's not, as you say, a practical how-to

 

[JudithB]

Now I’m shit at economics, so I don’t know if this would work, but I would like to suggest that the increase in their wages- and therefore social position- comes from other industries and I would hazard a guess that this would have to be taxation. Unless someone better at economics has a better idea.

But I do absolutely think that these people- vastly, predominantly women- do literally the most important job in society and that it’s about time that was recognised.

There are a lot of structural issues standing in the way of this, but yes, it's ludicrous that being a "brand vision consultant" or some such hoofwankery is so highly prized when actually looking after actual people is seen as some of the lowest-valued work available in the sphere of legal employment.

Re: the economics - it's not a strong point for me either, but our current economic voodoo is not the only economics available.

Part of it, I think, is going to come down to our economy being based on the conversion of resources into exchange commodities, and the industries based around extracting profit from that, and the concomitant "making money from money" derivations. Looking after people doesn't fit too well into it. There are clever folk around here that will have far more to say on this.

Our economy is based on patriarchal capitalism. Sovereignty over dominion and resources, including women.

The doughnut economic system seems interesting iirc.

Finally, a breakthrough alternative to growth economics – the doughnut | George Monbiot

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanplh/PIIS2542-5196(17)30028-1.pdf

But do we really expect those who benefit from the subjugation of women and the current economic system to give it all up?

 

[8ball]

Sovereignty over dominion and resources, including women.

Can you expand on that a little?

edit: that business with the doughnut intrigues me

edit2: might just be that I'm hungry

 

[JudithB]

The Abolition of Work

where i start from on the issue of work

Good to see women's work gets a WHOLE PARAGRAPH!

"Finally, we must do away with far and away the largest occupation, the one with the longest hours, the lowest pay and some of the most tedious tasks around. I refer to housewives doing housework and child-rearing. By abolishing wage-labor and achieving full unemployment we undermine the sexual division of labor. The nuclear family as we know it is an inevitable adaptation to the division of labor imposed by modern wage-work. Like it or not, as things have been for the last century or two it is economically rational for the man to bring home the bacon, for the woman to do the shitwork to provide him with a haven in a heartless world, and for the children to be marched off to youth concentration camps called “schools,” primarily to keep them out of Mom’s hair but still under control, but incidentally to acquire the habits of obedience and punctuality so necessary for workers. If you would be rid of patriarchy, get rid of the nuclear family whose unpaid “shadow work,” as Ivan Illich says, makes possible the work-system that makes it necessary."

 

[Pickman's model]

Good to see women's work gets a WHOLE PARAGRAPH!

"Finally, we must do away with far and away the largest occupation, the one with the longest hours, the lowest pay and some of the most tedious tasks around. I refer to housewives doing housework and child-rearing. By abolishing wage-labor and achieving full unemployment we undermine the sexual division of labor. The nuclear family as we know it is an inevitable adaptation to the division of labor imposed by modern wage-work. Like it or not, as things have been for the last century or two it is economically rational for the man to bring home the bacon, for the woman to do the shitwork to provide him with a haven in a heartless world, and for the children to be marched off to youth concentration camps called “schools,” primarily to keep them out of Mom’s hair but still under control, but incidentally to acquire the habits of obedience and punctuality so necessary for workers. If you would be rid of patriarchy, get rid of the nuclear family whose unpaid “shadow work,” as Ivan Illich says, makes possible the work-system that makes it necessary."

yeh, i said it was a starting point. i thought that suggested it wasn't perfect or a blueprint but something to begin with.

 

[Edie]

yeh, i said it was a starting point. i thought that suggested it wasn't perfect or a blueprint but something to begin with.

Maybe this thread is an attempt to BEGIN from the woman’s perspective.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe this thread is an attempt to BEGIN from the woman’s perspective.

yeh which is why i introduced the link as a starting point, where you (pl.) go with it, up to you.

 

[8ball]

Maybe this thread is an attempt to BEGIN from the woman’s perspective.

I'm not too sure what this thread is tbh.

 

[JudithB]

I'm not too sure what this thread is tbh.

It's just as Edie says, an attempt to look at work and society from the perspective of women

I don't get how this is hard to understand?

 

[8ball]

It's just as Edie says, an attempt to look at work and society from the perspective of women

I don't get how this is hard to understand?

Well, you actually started with "WHERE THE FEMINISM AT?!?".
As was explained in post #10 (by a poster who is always worth listening to on such matters), it's in a lot of places, just generally embedded into threads.

But there is *loads* of it, so getting specific is really handy with such a big subject, plus anything that looks too 'knockabout' can be a bit prone to shitposting.

We did discuss a "feminism" forum a while back, but in the end I think didn't go with it because it overlaps so many other topics.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well, you actually started with "WHERE THE FEMINISM AT?!?".
As was explained in post #10 (by a poster who is always worth listening to on such matters), it's in a lot of places, just generally embedded into threads.

But there is *loads* of it, so getting specific is really handy with such a big subject, plus anything that looks too 'knockabout' can be a bit prone to shitposting.

We did discuss a "feminism" forum a while back, but in the end I think didn't go with it because it overlaps so many other topics.

also it would tend to place discussion in a sort of ghetto

 

[8ball]

also it would tend to place discussion in a sort of ghetto

Yep, I remember that being raised too now.

 

[Edie]

Well, you actually started with "WHERE THE FEMINISM AT?!?".
As was explained in post #10 (by a poster who is always worth listening to on such matters), it's in a lot of places, just generally embedded into threads.

But there is *loads* of it, so getting specific is really handy with such a big subject, plus anything that looks too 'knockabout' can be a bit prone to shitposting.

We did discuss a "feminism" forum a while back, but in the end I think didn't go with it because it overlaps so many other topics.

Well you gotta start somewhere, and personally I think Jude plunging in and going ‘let’s discuss it all and see’ is very welcome

 

[Poot]

Well, you actually started with "WHERE THE FEMINISM AT?!?".
As was explained in post #10 (by a poster who is always worth listening to on such matters), it's in a lot of places, just generally embedded into threads.

But there is *loads* of it, so getting specific is really handy with such a big subject, plus anything that looks too 'knockabout' can be a bit prone to shitposting.

We did discuss a "feminism" forum a while back, but in the end I think didn't go with it because it overlaps so many other topics.

Yep. No one wants to hear the words 'maybe if you think it's sexist you should take it to the feminism forum'. Because that would be shit.

 

[dessiato]

Why is a banker paid more than a foster carer. That’s what we’ve got to ask ourselves. Cos let me tell you, sat there in your air conditioned office with your spreadsheet and your Pret A Manger sandwich doing numbers and negotiation, is that REALLY more difficult than a 24/7 role managing minute to minute the emotional, physical, and developmental needs of an emotionally damaged child? Is it more difficult, let alone more important. Is it fuck, and that’s the rub.

The answer is simple. We live in a society where greed is considered far more acceptable than caring.

I don't see that changing while we live in this capitalist world.

Basic economics means that ultimately it cannot continue to grow. The market is not infinitely expandable, even though many seem to think it is.

Hopefully, hopefully, when this is more generally understood and accepted people will start to realise that there's other more important things in life than being immeasurably wealthy.

 

[Poot]

Well you gotta start somewhere, and personally I think Jude plunging in and going ‘let’s discuss it all and see’ is very welcome

Of course it's always good to have discussion. Frustrating, inevitably (fucking fishermen?! Wtf?!!) but definitely good. Welcome, Jude.

 

[8ball]

Well you gotta start somewhere, and personally I think Jude plunging in and going ‘let’s discuss it all and see’ is very welcome

You must admit we've had some... interesting experiences in the past with posters who thunder on in without an apparent phase of reconnaisance and getting a feel for the lay of the land, though.

 

[dessiato]

Even if this turns out to be a banned returner, and I hope they aren't, the subject does merit discussion. I hope the thread continues regardless.

 

[Edie]

I couldn’t give a rats arse who Jude is or isn’t, honestly who cares, I’m interested in what they have to say and so far her contribution has been quality. So back on topic...

Equal paternal leave when a baby is born, that’s another Good Thing.

So is increased amounts of flexi-working for everyone without having to overly justify it. Cos it’s disproportionately the woman who takes the part time, low paid, or cash in hand work to ‘fit round’ childcare cos the man with the ‘real job’ can’t leave early or start late. Heave-ho with that one, with ALL jobs being open to LTFT or job sharing.

I have other suggestions...

 

[8ball]

So is increased amounts of flexi-working for everyone without having to overly justify it.

Does "everyone" include non-parents?

 

[Edie]

Does "everyone" include non-parents?

Everyone.

 

[8ball]

Everyone.

Count me in.

 

[kabbes]

In the specific subject of why some work gets paid more than others: a major part of that is because capital is willing to pay for labour on the basis of the profit it generates, not social value. It’s also keen to let somebody else pay for necessary costs if it can at all get away with it (eg paying for the work that has to be done in a household to sustain it). Bankers don’t get paid more than nurses because anybody seriously thinks they are more “worthwhile”. It’s purely because the value nurses create is diffused across society whereas a banker directly provides a particular somebody with a £ amount, and so that somebody will pay 1% for the privilege.

The answer, as ever, starts with the elimination of capitalism.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I couldn’t give a rats arse who Jude is or isn’t, honestly who cares, I’m interested in what they have to say and so far her contribution has been quality. So back on topic...

Equal paternal leave when a baby is born, that’s another Good Thing.

So is increased amounts of flexi-working for everyone without having to overly justify it. Cos it’s disproportionately the woman who takes the part time, low paid, or cash in hand work to ‘fit round’ childcare cos the man with the ‘real job’ can’t leave early or start late. Heave-ho with that one, with ALL jobs being open to LTFT or job sharing.

I have other suggestions...

Yep, these are all good and right, and yes, for parents and non-parents is also key. Glad you said that. Universal rights and expectations - a society-wide change in attitudes. I don't see mothers being the primary carers in a child's early years in a majority of cases going away any time soon, and I'm not even sure if it should go away. It is the structure of society that needs to change, rather than some kind of a denial or obliteration of difference.

The above is key to the gender pay gap. It annoys me a little when this stuff gets discussed in ways that ignore this obvious point, as it was over the pay of extremely rich television presenters recently. Women and men are paid roughly the same before they have children - in fact, in the UK women under 30 narrowly edge men now in pay, reflecting much higher educational achievement among girls. After that, a gap widens, and the higher up the pay scale you get the wider the gap tends to be. It's pretty obvious why this is, imo. (A separate concern, the underachievement of boys, is also worthy of discussion, but not really relevant to this, except to show how strong the effect of motherhood is in holding back careers contrasted with the much weaker effect of fatherhood.)

Best thing about this solution is that we all win - women, men, children.