Friday, June 18, 2010

The Triumph of Feminism

A conservative blog for peace links to Hanna Rosin's "report on the unprecedented role reversal now under way— and its vast cultural consequences" — The End of Men.

"Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history," she reports. "Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality."

Then she asks, "But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women?" But the question remains, is "modern, postindustrial society" desirable and if it is, is it even sustainable?

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

23 Comments:

Anonymous Steven P. Cornett said...

The problem with the "liberated woman" who works all day is that she is not liberated. She is not free to simply to pursue the calling to introduce a new life to the world as her ancestors were; often she must work along with her husband just to live the lifestyle similar to that of her parents.

What sort of freedom is that? It seems rather that fiat currency degradation (known as inflation) has created a slavery to the workplace that has been sold to women as "liberation." It goes hand-in-hand with the "freedom" to engage in perverse relationships as a substitute for marriage and the "right" to kill any children (properly termed abortion, but nowadays called "reproductive health" as if begetting children is the disease and not the proper function) one does has because such a child will ruin the life of a "upward seeking" woman.

Since of course we know the source of the errors, we can rightly surmise that the moral and physical downfall of man is indeed the goal.

7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This bodes ill indeed.

All too many women vote with their emotions and not over facts.

10:24 PM  
Blogger Enbrethiliel said...

+JMJ+

I read the whole bloody thing and now I'm depressed.

5:52 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Wolfe said...

The cutesy little video the article came with is even more depressing. No wonder Rosin thinks men are done. She's married to a pantywaist.

2:19 AM  
Blogger Lucille said...

Women are, usually, free to pursue motherhood.

A lot of them prefer, however, the financial and other benefits of having additional employment.

11:27 PM  
Blogger The Western Confucian said...

Lucille, Korea is at the bottom of the OECD for "womyn empowerment" or whatever they call it, but I see the housewives enjoying lots of free time social activities, such as taking classes, hiking up mountains, going to coffee shops, etc. To me, that's far more liberating than becoming a wage slave.

9:39 AM  
Blogger Lucille said...

If hiking up mountains is liberating, what's inherently bad about being paid to be a park ranger or guide?

If going to classes is liberating, what's undesirable about being paid to teach a subject that interests you?

And could you define what you mean by "wage slavery"? Do you consider all paid employment or just some fields to comprise "wage slavery"?

11:27 PM  
Blogger The Western Confucian said...

But what if wimmin only want to hike up mountains or take classes an hour or so a day, and devote the rest of their time to their families? Amerikkkan wimmin are denied such opportunities.

My own housewife just today taught Korean grandmothers the art of Korean paper-making on a volunteer basis, something she enjoyed but wouldn't want to do on a full-time basis. Were she a wage-slave she would not have had such an opportunity, denied to me, the breadwinner (and wage-slave). She's far freer than me.

The distributivist in me would say all paid employment is wage-slavery.

12:02 AM  
Blogger Lucille said...

But what if wimmin only want to hike up mountains or take classes an hour or so a day, and devote the rest of their time to their families?

What if she wanted to do it full time and earn money doing so? I repeat my question: what is inherently bad about doing an activity you are skilled at for a paycheck?

Amerikkkan wimmin are denied such opportunities.

Really?

Can you explain how they are denied such opportunities, as opposed to choosing not to pursue them?

The distributivist in me would say all paid employment is wage-slavery.

So when are you going to quit your job and go into business for yourself?

2:46 AM  
Blogger Lucille said...

Working women, by the way, also have the opportunity for such leisure activities. My mother, who a couple years ago went back to being a schoolteacher, participates in church groups, fitness classes, and several other activities.

2:47 AM  
Blogger The Western Confucian said...

Lucille asks, "What if she wanted to do it full time and earn money doing so?"

Fine. Just think twice about being a mother. You can't have it all, baby.

"Amerikkkan wimmin are denied such opportunities" culturally and socially, although some are radical and counter-cultural enough to noncomform.

"So when are you going to quit your job and go into business for yourself?"

When I save enough to buy freedom, just as some did during the days of chattel slavery.

11:11 AM  
Blogger Lucille said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8:58 PM  
Blogger Lucille said...

You can't have it all, baby.

Yes, you can. Millions of women around the globe "have it all," if that means being able to both raise children and maintain paid employment.

"Amerikkkan wimmin are denied such opportunities" culturally and socially, although some are radical and counter-cultural enough to noncomform.

That isn't a denial of opportunity. The opportunities are still there. Social pressures always exist, towards some direction or other, but the fact remains that a huge percentage of these women are making choices. They are not coerced. Calling this denial of opportunity is silly.

When I save enough to buy freedom, just as some did during the days of chattel slavery.

Have you researched available business opportunities? Have you calculated the amount of capital you need to start a business?

9:00 PM  
Blogger Lucille said...

Other people will have opinions on the choices you make. That's a fact of life, and always has been. But to say that because people disagree with you you're not free to make your own choices is silly.

9:03 PM  
Blogger S.M. Stirling said...

Mr. Cornett apparently thinks that in the "good old days" the average woman didn't have to "work", apart from childcare.

That sound you hear? It's bitter laughter from beyond the grave. Countless generations of farmwives and servant drudges are howling ironic mirth.

The idea of the man "going out" to work and the woman staying home and consuming and doing a little one-on-one light childcare is a product of the last couple of centuries, and originally was an upper-middle-class status marker.

Most women have always "worked" -- churning, spinning, weaving, smoking, plucking, picking, preserving, or just carrying endless 90-pound yokes of water or milk back and forth. One New England farm-woman whose diary I've read calculated that by 1832 (her 37th birthday) she'd walked something like seven thousand miles with that white-oak yoke over her shoulders and full buckets on the ends.

And of course among -our- ancestors, women usually had to work for a decade or more as servants (or servants-in-husbandry) to accumulate enough to get married in the first place. That's why the average age of marriage was 26 or so in the 17th century.

(You didn't know?)

11:05 AM  
Blogger S.M. Stirling said...

Oh, and with respect to Korea: the total fertility rate there is 1.2 children per woman.

(It's 2.09 in the United States).

11:08 AM  
Blogger The Western Confucian said...

Lucille, it's a delicate balance. Some succeed, many fail, and the children suffer. About whether I have "researched available business opportunities" and "calculated the amount of capital you need to start a business," let me just say I am blessed with an old school Korean housewife who knows how to save.

Mr. Stirling, of course I'm aware that women worked. That's why the Vatican newspaper rightly called the washing machine the greatest invention for women's liberation. You're right about the birth rate discrepancy between S. Korea and the USA, but factors like educational competition and Mexican immigrants need to be taken in for the full picture.

11:06 PM  
Blogger Lucille said...

let me just say I am blessed with an old school Korean housewife who knows how to save.

Fine by me... although that doesn't really answer the question to my satisfaction.

but factors like educational competition and Mexican immigrants need to be taken in for the full picture.

What does Mexican immigration have do with the issue at hand? Do Mexican women seek employment at a lesser rate than other women?

12:50 AM  
Anonymous S.M. Stirling said...

"Mr. Stirling, of course I'm aware that women worked. That's why the Vatican newspaper rightly called the washing machine the greatest invention for women's liberation."

-- you're missing the point. Women worked because if they didn't, they and their families wouldn't have food, clothing or shelter. They worked producing food and making clothes and so forth. Child-care got squeezed in where they had time, or delegated to the older children where possible.

Which is to say, they worked for the same reasons they do now. The "housewife" in the modern sense was a temporary abberation, a product of the Industrial Revolution and middle-class status competition.

Women have always done well over half of humanity's basic labor.

They just generally don't get paid much for it, or get much status or respect for what they do.

For example, we -pretend- to value child-care highly.

However, note that every class in human history which could shove most of it off on the servants has done so.

And we, being a capitalistic society, show what we -really- think a specific type of work is worth by how much money we pay for it.

Which is to say, we pay bank CEO's highly... but as for child care, when it's fully monetized we hire Rosita from Guatemala to do it at minimum wage.

"You're right about the birth rate discrepancy between S. Korea and the USA, but factors like educational competition and Mexican immigrants need to be taken in for the full picture."

-- immigration accounts for about 1/3 of the increase of US birth-rates over the past generation.

The point, however, was that South Korean women don't have more leisure because of a lower rate of paid employment, they have more because so many of them have no children, or only one.

Children are labor-intensive, particularly if you have high expectations for their future and don't put them to work in the fields as soon as they can walk.

3:12 AM  
Blogger The Western Confucian said...

"... that doesn't really answer the question to my satisfaction."

Sorry, but my personal finances are none of your business.

Mexicans were mentioned for the birthrate.

"Children are labor-intensive, particularly if you have high expectations for their future..."

Wrong. Read this — The Breeders' Cup. "Parents' sacrifice is much smaller than it looks, and much larger than it has to be."

7:43 AM  
Blogger Lucille said...

Then it's a good thing I wasn't asking about your personal finances.

Mexicans were mentioned for the birthrate.

Yes, I know. What you fail to explain is how the birth rate is germane to the question of women in the workplace. Are Mexican women less likely to seek employment outside the home?

8:08 AM  
Blogger The Western Confucian said...

Mr. Stirling brought up a comparison of the Korean and American birthrates, rightly implying that Korean women are not performing their primary duty.

9:08 AM  
Blogger Lucille said...

Mr. Stirling brought up a comparison of the Korean and American birthrates...

Sorry, but that's still not an explanation of why the higher birth rates of Mexican women are relevant to the question of women in the workplace.

11:22 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Omnes Sancti et Sanctæ Coreæ, orate pro nobis.