Feminism

[annwfyn]

This is a random ponder.

What does feminism mean to you?

Is it possible to be a feminist and still expect men to open doors for you/pay for dates etc?

Is it possible to be a feminist and wear short skirts, lots of make up etc?

Is it possible to be a feminist and generally play 'the girl card'?

I'm also pondering people (such as myself) to be honest, who'd claim to 'not be a feminist' while still expecting equal job opportunities, equal pay, etc. Are we actually stealth feminists? Or just very spoilt people who are happy to take the good stuff that generations of feminism have brought up without being prepared to actually continue on the work or even acknowledge all that we owe to it?

Does feminism have a place in this day and age? After all, this is the 21st century. Maybe more specifically, does feminism really have a place in the comfortable middle class England/Scotland/Australia/America that I think all the readers of my journal live in. If you're a woman in Britain, do you really have that much to fight for? Or should we accept that the fight has been won and that the wrongs in our society aren't really often directed at anyone solely because of their gender.

Opinions?

Comments

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

True Feminism, equality for their gender, has happened.

Not so. To use the lowest common indicator, female graduates get paid 15% less, on average, than male counterparts immediately after leaving Uni. Equality, my arse.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

That does entirely miss out the fact that there's a stunning disparity between the subjects that men and women study. Vastly less women on science/tech/maths based courses, which tend to be where the most money is later on.

This is something you can't really blame on gender inequality, simply on the job economy not attaching the same sterling-value to English and Art graduates. To be honest, I think that's a pretty fair thing to do.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

This is why it's called structural oppression. "Girly" subjects are an example of it; both in terms of the pay difference attached, and also by their very existence.

[commlal.livejournal.com]

Going to have to change the mind set of ether alot of little girls or make arty subjects pay more! Personally I hated girly subjects and went and did pharmacy cos it seemed like a good idea at the time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Sturctural oppression? So paying people more to be brain surgeons and rocket scientists is opporessing who, exactly?

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

You know fine well that's nothing like what I'm saying.

Paying people more to be brain surgeons and rocket scientists is one thing; those same people then participating in creating a situation where they disempower a certain defined group of other people from ever being brain surgeons and rocket scientists in order to keep it "in the family" is quite another.

And, yes, of course, there are (a small number of) female brain surgeons, rocket scientists, etc. Tokenism is a particularly despicable thing, one demonstrated to discourage people from taking action against the injustice.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Actually, no, I didn't know that's what you were saying - read the initial exchange between you and Rick, because it certainly looks like it you're implying that 'girly' subjects are a part of some great 'structural oppression'. However, as you're not, that's by the by.

I object, once again, to the concept you're presenting here. Your original point was immediately after graduation people of group 'A' are paid less than people of group 'B'; Rik observed that the subjects those people choose at university are a major cause in that disparity. Now, I haven't seen brain surgeons and rocket scientists forming picket lines outside universities to stop girls getting into relevant courses.
Higher levels in many professional fields there still exists a glass ceiling which is diminishing as a younger/newer generation comes through. WHowever, what I am arguing against is your contention that some shadowy, ill-defined interest groups are in some way preventing people from taking career courses in the first place in order to 'keep it in the family'.

[raggedhalo.livejournal.com]

Basically, my contention is not that groups are doing this explicitly, whether through means subtle or otherwise, but rather that the combined weight of consensus conspires* to maintain the former status quo.

It's an informal, implicit thing that the people primarily involved probably don't even realise they're doing. Even if we decide to accept that females have a greater aptitude for one set of subjects, and males another (something I'm yet to totally accept as biological, although I can certainly see an argument in that direction), the relative value placed on those aptitudes and those subjects means that the status quo continues.

It's true that, over time, this issue is diminishing; and, of course, pregnancy is a factor in differences of long-term career progression. However, there is certainly much more that can and must be done to rectify the situation.


*: in the non-Icke sense

[puddingcat.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's the fault of the rocket scientists at all. I think (ok, I know from experience) that small girls look at their fathers' jobs and lifestyles, and decide they don't want to be like that - possibly just because of better bonding with their mothers through better maternity- than patrnity leave, or seeing their mums at home more, or similar.

I didn't want to be a rocket scientist (or guided weapons engineer, to be precise) because I wanted a better quality of life. I'm sure many other girls think the same, and so don't see the hard sciences as something that'll give them what they want.

Of course, if rocket scientists could make their jobs seem glamorous ad appealing and exciting, more girls might be interested & find it worth going though the training & qualification process. But most small girls don't see the cost and effort as being worth it.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

If I mock my housemate Anthony for studying English Literature at Uni and thus not being able to get a proper job, that's jovial and good humour. If there's much less of a market for people with English degrees, and they just so happen to be predominantly women, that's oppression?

I also feel compelled (perhaps by the power of Christ...we may never know) to point out that there's a direct correlation between the number of hours people study in a degree and the marketability/going salary value of that degree. People ultimately choose what it is they want to study, and people generally get what they work for. Who's at fault?