April 30, 2013

New Reader Alert – this blog is a sequential release of a longer written piece. Each segment works hard to ‘stand alone,’ but inevitably, they make more sense in context, which means reading from the beginning post through to the latest post, which is actually the current ‘end.’ Thank you for stopping by – please leave a comment; it would be great to hear what you think about these ideas.  With appreciation, Laurie

Serfdom in Modern America:

Forging Our Own Chains

On Feminism: From Equal to Angel to Workhorse

Equity Feminism is rooted in classic liberal Enlightenment doctrines and aims for full civil and legal (sociopolitical) equality for women. Equity Feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment with no reference to biology, and most efforts by first wave feminists can be safely included under the equity umbrella, rather than the more contemporary gender feminism umbrella.  (Great quick read on Equity v. Gender Feminism for quick contextualization here.) 

First Wave equity feminists were responsible for most of the reforms to working conditions that affected poor women and children who had no legal protections from abuses by employers. Unfortunately, suffrage had barely been won when a new and radical form of feminism, Gender feminism, would change the nature of feminism (which had evolved to be a flourishing and protective union of women demanding sociopolitical equality) to the forebearer of what we see today.

Gender feminism, the darling of the second wave feminist movement, by contrast, is the “genocentric and misandric branch of feminism,” according to Christine Sommers, a contemporary equity feminist who believes that “most American women subscribe philosophically to the older first wave feminism whose main goal was equity for women, especially in politics and education.” Sommers faults contemporary (gender) feminism for ‘its irrational hostility to men, its recklessness with facts and its inability to accept that the sexes are equal but different.” Sommers, of course, is viciously attacked by the majority of gender feminists who currently monopolize the academic field on this subject.

By the time women had won suffrage, Alice Paul (a radical early gender feminist), leading the Women’s Party engineered the first version of the ERA in 1926 and suffrage leaders were outraged. Carrie Chapman Catt, a key coordinator of the suffrage movement, claimed it would strike down much of the needed protective legislation which protected women and children from working conditions in factories. Obtaining this much-needed legislation had been a life-long struggle for many of these women, who believed women needed special consideration because of their role as mothers. The ideal of women’s rights recognizes and promotes the role of motherhood and family in the lives of women; "equal rights" do not.

Fifty years later, inspired by the rhetoric of civil rights, and encouraged by a market-place that courts them, the great majority of feminists now believe that women should be treated as individuals, not as a sex, and that free and open competition with men in the market place is the goal. Gender feminism is a competitive model which asks for no special favors. Unfortunately for the majority of women and their children, the fact is that women cannot, ever, earn as much as men do in a market place where male wages are the standard unit of currency - ie - it takes $1000 'male' dollars to rent an apartment, but takes $1300 'female' dollars (courtesy of the wage gap and how much more time it takes her to earn an equal amount of spending power). 

Until women take the reins and use the suffrage that their equity feminist fore-mothers fought for, they are doomed to earn 'female' wages. Until and unless that happens, and I do not believe it will, we need to honestly appraise the landscape of biology, personal choice and family necessities and arrive at strategies that will give women and children, and families, a better cultural model which embraces the necessity and rewards of a culture which supports homekeepers.

April 27, 2013

New Reader Alert – this blog is a sequential release of a longer written piece. Each segment works hard to ‘stand alone,’ but inevitably, they make more sense in context, which means reading from the beginning post through to the latest post, which is actually the current ‘end.’ Thank you for stopping by – please leave a comment; it would be great to hear what you think about these ideas.  With appreciation, Laurie

Serfdom in Modern America:

Forging Our Own Chains
On Feminism - From Equal to Angel to Workhorse

First Wave feminism, more aptly described as Equity Feminism, was a high-minded response to a need which grew out of the changing economy which allowed serious abuse of workers in factories. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, most work was done within the construct of the “Family Economy,” where all members of the family made their own contributions to the unit’s survival. Work in a Family Economy could be gendered, but not rigidly, and female work was not immediately devalued because it was done in the open and was ‘visible,’ as was all other work in this economy. 

In a Family Economy women’s work was often associated with the generation of cash, and with very high public visibility; in a barter society women developed streams of industry (raising poultry, selling excess butter, weaving cloth at home) which brought cash into the family economy. This work was often done communally, with many women working together, even occasionally to benefit one of the group at a particular time – such as would be the case with many women working together to construct a woman’s dowry or trousseau, those household items she would need to bring with her into a marriage in order to establish her new home. On the whole, women were seen in a far more positive light than they soon would be with the origin of a wage economy where they would forever and ever, amen, earn less than men (at least for the almost 200 years so far since this experiment  began).

With the emergence of wages and the transition from the Family Economy to the Wage Economy, during the IR we see an entirely different dynamic begin to control the perception of the value of ‘women’s work.’ Ironically, the emergence of a wage economy devalued female domestic contributions by making them invisible to society and to their families. Factory and mill owners needed the cheap labor these females represented, and lured them into low-paying jobs; however, female work was always considered temporary and was always done in addition to responsibilities for domestic work on behalf of their families. 

Even though women could go ‘out’ to earn a small wage, rather than produce a product or service at home for cash, that work took second place to their unpaid, unwaged domestic responsibilities at home, which were now done by women alone, rather than in concert with other family or community members (by now other women and most men had now entered factory work and domestic work became a solitary labor for the most part). At this point lower female wages, or lack of wages, ironically contributed to the devaluation of their efforts on behalf of the family, and their attendant loss of status,  as the new ‘wage’ mentality automatically devalued work for which no wage was earned, which now  meant the majority of all household work. Ominously, women had more access to cash in a barter economy than they would have in the new wage economy.

Another dynamic which emerged as the result of the new wage economy was a change in how wages were apportioned between men and women and how that structure reflected the changing nature and purpose of dowries. Traditionally, dowries were that portion that a woman brought into her marriage. Immediately prior to the IR that would have been possibly a small amount of cash, along with the household objects and items that were invariably provided by the new wife upon her marriage to her new household economy. As women began to enter the factories and earn wages their paychecks began to replace their dowries as they saved their earnings for future marriage.