Started by Sir Jessy of Anti, Dec 12, 2004, 12:33 AM
If men, on a large scale, did the work of caregiving, nurturing, caring for the sick, housework, they would insist on being paid for their labors via a paycheck, and not a meager one, either.
This is incorrect. I suggest you (not just you, TyphonBlue, rhetorical "you") do some research? Who, in fact, owns the world's money, land, property, houses, corporations, governments, religions? What are their names? Are they men or women? You will find that they are by and large men; women account for only a small percentage of the owners of the above.
I agree with you, Biscuit Queen and Floorpie, that the care of children is not, in and of itself, dirty work, that it can be satisfying and rewarding in its own right, and I should have been careful to be more clear as to what I meant.
The care of children, the elderly, the sick, and housework are what have been made to be the province of women historically and until today in most cultures.
This is work men have not wanted to do, and it's in that sense that it is dirty work-- it is "women's work" deemed unworthy of a paycheck.
The job description includes the requirement to procure or buy food, clothing and medicine-- the necessities of life-- and cleaning supplies.
But walking miles to buy rice or oil or clean water, as women in Third World countries do, buying medicines and clothing for one's children and family members, does not equal control or ownership of wealth. This is work delegated to women by men, work which is not compensated with a paycheck.
It is true that men do dirty work, but they earn a paycheck for it. Garbage men, ditch diggers, construction laborers, miners, all are doing dirty work, and they are all paid for it.
Women do the work of caregiving and nurturing as I've described-- without receiving a paycheck or for very low wages.
Again, most of the women in the world who do this work are not paid for it at all.
My additional point to TyphonBlue was, of course, that the fact that a woman buys medicine for her ailing relatives (or her husband's ailing relatives) or food for her family, while it makes her technically a "consumer," does not make her the owner of wealth and in no way means she controls wealth.
It makes her a woman, doing women's work, and usually receiving no compensation for it.
Heart, you're confusing private arrangements with the work world.If a woman makes an arrangement with her husband that he goes out and works and she takes care of the home, that's their arrangement.You don't have to have kids, you don't have to get married and you don't even have to clean your own house if you want (maybe until the neighbors and health department starts to complain). People who live alone clean their house too.In that sense, if you make a voluntary arrangement that the man works outside of the home, you ARE getting your rent or mortgage and all the rest paid for. That's the arrangement you or another woman made. I almost can't believe what I read from feminists. You want to make a choice and then take absolutely no responsibility for that choice. Aside from your flat-out stereotyping of "men always do this (bad thing)" and "women always do that (good thing)".If you personally don't like your arrangement with your husband or boyfriend, then change it or ditch him. Otherwise, feminists seem to want to stick their nose into every little nook and cranny of people's private business. Feminists complain about Conservative Christians doing this, but the feminists do it a whole lot more.
For now, I wanted to say that Erin Pizzey has a very, very bad case of founder's syndrome, and that, more than anything else, is what accounts for what she has to say about the DV movement.
This is work delegated to women by men, work which is not compensated with a paycheck.
Instead of all of you vexing your righteous souls from day to day now and doing all of your customary garment-rending, what say you actually do some research. --Heart, posting this for the benefit of those here who have never done the kind of research or analysis which is required to make proper analysis of gendered power in the world and who are interested in justice for all people
Do some simple google searches on what sex far and away controls Fortune 500 companies; i.e., what is the sex of the CEOs and boards of these companies?
Dr. Evil: Feminist says "Hey, we have worked hard to start and build these shelters for abused women if you want something for men build them yourself."Women's shelters exist because, beginning in the 60s in the U.S., feminist women created them-- from the ground up. We invited battered women into our homes, we listened to them, often we *were* them, we educated ourselves, we pooled our money and resources, we rented houses, started underground railroads to help women and children to safety, we organized, we educated the general public, we lobbied our legislators, we brought lawsuits, we created a revolution and have helped millions of women and children to make new lives for themselves.So yes, indeed, if men need shelters, I suggest you build a few. If you need some help with that, you might study feminist history; maybe you could pick up a few tips, and in the meantime, the study would do all of you a world of good.Hey, us whites have put a lot of effort into creating those water fountains. If you blacks want yourselfs some water fountains get off your ass and build them yourselves. Your analogy, Dr. Evil -- as is consistently true of your and others' posts to this and to similar forums -- fails because it omits any analysis of gendered power. In the pre-Civil Rights Era South, white people were the power elites; black people were disenfranchised and marginalized. White people had a duty to end discrimination including at public drinking fountains because they held the reins of governmental and civil and institutional power and because they had withheld equality from people of color. The same can not be said as to men and women anywhere, at any time in history. Women have never held the reins of governmental, civil and institutional power in society and were in no position to withhold any of the above from men. The proper comparison, in view of the disparities in gendered power which continue to exist in the world, is of whites with men and of blacks with women. Once again, for those who are having trouble following along, men, just as white people, hold the reins of power in the world; women, as with black people in the South, do not. Women do not owe men domestic violence shelters, although men did owe it to women to address the problem of men abusing their wives and children. But even though we were marginalized and disenfranchised, although we were second class citizens, we built our own movement and our own shelters. I participated myself in this work from the very beginning and have worked with DV survivors off and on for 30 years. Men have the money and the power, men should build their own shelters. [If, that is, they are really necessary. You frequently suggest in your posts here that women "batter" and "abuse" men as often as men abuse and batter women. This is incorrect. Accurate information is widely available and you should seek it and familiarize yourself with it. The study you most often seem to be citing to is faulty, in that, among other things, it counts self-defense as "abuse" and "battering," meaning if a woman attempts to defend herself against a man's violence, her self-defense is counted as "domestic violence" when it is no such thing. There are other holes in your analysis large enough to drive a truck through, as well; you really ought to do your homework.]Your point about heart disease was lost on me, Dr. E. Battering is not a "disease," like heart disease, battering is criminal violence, most of it is male violence against women, it is a problem worldwide and always has been. Feminist women got fed up with it 40 years ago, realized men were never going to do anything about it because it benefitted them to terrorize women, so we said, "Enough." Men did *not* help us in our efforts to deal with our own battered and abused; we educated and worked and lobbied and helped ourselves. There's nothing stopping you from addressing your own similar problems as men-- if, indeed, those problems exist (and I'm not convinced of that.). But again, you have the money, the power, the resources, go for it. We did it without all of the above, what's your excuse?Then lo and behold, someone discovers 30 years of research that says that women also suffer from heart disease! How about that! What do the men say to the women? They say, Quote: "Hey, we have worked hard to start and build these centers for men with heart disease if you want something for women build them yourself." Damn straight. Sounds just right to me.And that's the higher moral ground? You and others here often seem concerned about "higher moral ground" and who does and does not take it most often, but no feminists I know are much concerned about this. We are concerned about liberating women and bringing an end to male supremacy-- any way we can, full stop. Taking the "higher moral ground" is optional. Feminist women don't believe there is anything essential about maleness or femaleness that one sex is more "moral" than the other, and we could care less about whether or not in men's eyes what we do amounts to the "higher moral ground.". One sex *does* and *always has had* the power in the world-- and that would be men and it is correcting that imbalance of power that concerns us. Men have abused and misused their power and the world we now inhabit is evidence of this. So as feminist women, we aim to change that. Change begins, though, with acknowledging first who *has* the power in the world and who does *not* have the power in the world. And it is *men* who have had and who still, by and large, have the power. And this supremely relevant fact seems to have escaped pretty much every last one of you.Instead of all of you vexing your righteous souls from day to day now and doing all of your customary garment-rending, what say you actually do some research. Do some simple google searches on what sex far and away controls Fortune 500 companies; i.e., what is the sex of the CEOs and boards of these companies? What is the sex of the heads -- kings, presidents, prime ministers, premiers, chancellors -- of the nations of the world and their cabinets? What is the sex of the richest people in the world? What is the sex of the people who own the world's newspapers, television, radio and other media? What is the sex of the people who own land in the world? Who controls the great [sic] religious institutions of the world, men or women? After you've done that research, *then* come and explain how it is that women should be compared with white power elites in the pre-Civil Rights Era South while men are somehow disenfranchised and oppressed and should be compared with black people of that same period. That is just hogwash.Bigotry.Bigotry is a function of institutionalized power and class privilege. Men have it. Women do not. --Heart, posting this for the benefit of those here who have never done the kind of research or analysis which is required to make proper analysis of gendered power in the world and who are interested in justice for all people