babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Does equality start at home?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Does equality start at home?
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 23 August 2005 03:49 PM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I raised this issue, tangentially, on another thread but I think it’s an interesting question deserving a separate discussion:

Can there be equality in the workplace before there is equality at home?

It seems to me that there will never be the same number of women running corporations, being partners at law or accounting firms, being surgeons, etc. as there are men until there are as many men staying home with babies as there are women. Unless that social pattern is changed, it would appear that nothing that public laws or private business policies say that can create such equality.

Now, this is different than a question of: Can women successfully run corporations, be partners at law or accounting firms or be surgeons? Of course they can (and do and are). My question is, instead, can there ever be quantitative equality in the absence of a fundamental change in home roles?

And, if a social change must first occur at home before there will be quantitative equality in the workplace, then what is the best way to facilitate or catalyze that social change?

My significant other is a corporate attorney at a very “high powered” law firm. She is as tough as nails and is well-respected by her colleagues and clients. It would not be unusual for her to be in a room discussing a larger merger with fifteen men and zero other women. And, she is completely at ease in that environment (she’s super bright and very, very competitive). If there is a big deal that has a firm deadline and she needs to work until 3am, she does it. She effectively does everything that the guys do other than sling the sports page under her arm in the morning and head to the men’s room.

But, she has an “advantage” (by choice, by the way) over many women in that we are wonderfully child-free (as opposed to “childless”). And, she and I didn’t come from any homes with advantages (other than parents who really pushed education for us). Her mother was a stay-at-home mom and her dad was a janitor at a small-town courthouse who had an eight-grade education. There simply were no “professionals” in her family or extended family. Her example illustrates to me that the opportunity for her kind of job is clearly there for women.

The question for me is: Will there ever be an equal number of women as men in her position in the absence of a fundamental change in the social structure at home?


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 August 2005 04:03 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My guess: probably not.

On the other hand, I think it's reasonable — and reasonably accurate — to note that women moreso than men seem to want to have and raise children. I've met very few men who get excited at parenthood in all its "glory", but lots of women I know seem to really, really want a baby. Men might get torqued up at the idea of "being a dad", but I've never heard a young man express parenthood as a life-goal. As in, "well, I'll get a job for now, but in a few years I'm really hoping to have 4 kids, two boys and two girls", along with the implicit absence from the workforce.

So in that respect, I don't know how we "fix" the problem of more women than men staying home with the kids, other than to provide whatever resources we can for those women who'd rather have a career outside the home. Beyond that I think we have to recognize that for some women it's a choice, not a problem.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 23 August 2005 04:22 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
So in that respect, I don't know how we "fix" the problem of more women than men staying home with the kids

I don't see that as a problem at all, as long as it's the choice of the individuals involved rather than society dictating gender roles.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 23 August 2005 04:33 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe that there can be quantitative equality. There are more women in this country and I expect that we will eventually have a national day care program some day. This combined with the fact that men are increasingly more interested in caring for their children, leads me to believe that it can be achieved. I would contest your premise that change must first occur at home. IMO, change must occur at the level of the state.
From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 23 August 2005 04:36 PM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Will there ever be an equal number of women as men in her position in the absence of a fundamental change in the social structure at home?

Home isn't discrete from society; the change needs to occur in both places at once. It needs to be both acceptable for men to be the primary caregiver of infants and children and possible for families to survive on the female parent's income. That, more than anything else, I think, dictates why women stay at home to rear children while men work for wages to support the family. If the male parent earns the greater income (which tends to be the case, though perhaps not in the instance that the original post is describing) it doesn't make financial sense for the father to stay at home, even if he would prefer to do so.


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 August 2005 04:45 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm having a hard time relating to Samuel's opening post because I'm having a hard time relating to his notions of "equality."

Samuel seems to think that becoming a CEO or a senior partner is a Good Thing, and the thing that all bright people, including all bright women, would want. He seems to think that women's liberation would reside in that sort of equality -- half of all predatory, amoral, crooked CEOs would be women, half of all predatory, amoral, crooked senior partners, half of all predatory, amoral, crooked parliamentarians, etc.

Huh?

So anyway, I'm having a hard time getting past those assumptions, and I can't see at all how they connect logically to the stressful choices that most real people have to make about how to earn a buck and take care of their kids, have some kind of secure private life, at the same time.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 23 August 2005 04:49 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
no, skdadl, go with it. we're supposed to have a "constructive exchange" with conservatives. that's the purpose of babble, after all.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 August 2005 04:50 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
So anyway, I'm having a hard time getting past those assumptions

Uh, what about your assumption that being a CEO or a senior partner means being predatory, amoral and crooked?

As a child, were you forced to watch helplessly as a senior partner killed your family and burned your village?

Look at it backwards: if the law prohibited women from being CEOs, would you not be arguing that they deserved "equality"? I'd suggest that if you can see that as equality in that case, you should be able to see it in this.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 23 August 2005 04:51 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, now.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
kellis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8387

posted 23 August 2005 04:53 PM      Profile for kellis   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
...women moreso than men seem to want to have and raise children.

I think this is due to societal norms that have changed and will continue to change over time. Men embrace fatherhood and childcare much more than in the past.

SamuelC, your personal story notwithstanding, I would think the glass ceiling is mostly still well intact. I'm not so sure that if all else is equal women have the same opportunities for advancement. Conscious and subconscious bias still exists irrespective of child rearing. Bias, stereotypes, and societial expectations are all inter-related. As stereotypes dimish so will gender based expectations and subsequently gender bias (particularly subconscious biases such as leadership capabilities).

So I wouldn't put the cart before the horse, it is all part of one problem.


From: la la land most of the time | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 August 2005 04:58 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Uh, what about your assumption that being a CEO or a senior partner means being predatory, amoral and crooked?

As a child, were you forced to watch helplessly as a senior partner killed your family and burned your village?

Look at it backwards: if the law prohibited women from being CEOs, would you not be arguing that they deserved "equality"? I'd suggest that if you can see that as equality in that case, you should be able to see it in this.



Well, then, you would be wrong, Mr Magoo.

I have had a lot of years to take that opportunity, and I never have.

I have never ever in my life argued that the world would be a better place because a woman just became a predatory, amoral CEO. Like, never, Mr M. Never.

That was never my politics, never my view of women, never my view of human life. Never.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 August 2005 05:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well that certainly makes sense. Who of good conscience would argue that anyone's goal should be to become amoral or predatory?

But I wonder why you just take it as a foregone conclusion that being "successful" as the head of a company or a law firm entails being these things? Seems to me a bit of a stereotype.

So I'm not arguing that "amoral" = good. I'm just wondering why you're content to assume that CEO = amoral.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
flower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7965

posted 23 August 2005 05:05 PM      Profile for flower     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"My question is, instead, can there ever be quantitative equality in the absence of a fundamental change in home roles?"

Can you explain to me what the home roles are in your opinion?


From: victoria,b.c. | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 August 2005 05:11 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mr Magoo, there are two things that are not big secrets about me on babble.

One, I am a socialist, or at least I am happy to say that I am a socialist. More rigorously, I am a democrat who believes that if we actually ever got to democracy, we wouldn't need socialism because we'd already have it. I recognize, however, that I am a member of a teensy minority in holding that view. Luckily, I am old enough not to give a damn how teensy my minority is any more.

Two, I come from literature. For over three centuries, the biggest and easiest butts of all the best jokes in all the greatest literature have been ... you guessed it. I read Samuel's opening post, so bursting with pride about his ladder-climbing wife, and ... sorry, I can't help it. I have my loyalties.

I believe in real people. I feel sorry for some ladder-climbers, but mainly I think they are all absurd.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 23 August 2005 05:13 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cartman:
I believe that there can be quantitative equality. There are more women in this country and I expect that we will eventually have a national day care program some day. This combined with the fact that men are increasingly more interested in caring for their children, leads me to believe that it can be achieved. I would contest your premise that change must first occur at home. IMO, change must occur at the level of the state.

Ugh. Take all the children out of the home and have them raised by the state. Fantastic.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 23 August 2005 05:15 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The one great principle of the law is to make business for itself.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 23 August 2005 05:17 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ugh. Take all the children out of the home and have them raised by the state. Fantastic.

I take it you are opposed to public education then. How brilliant.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 August 2005 05:20 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I believe in real people. I feel sorry for some ladder-climbers, but mainly I think they are all absurd.

Ladder-climbers? You mean money-grubbers? Shallow individuals who worship filthy lucre?

Hee. You can't stop yourself, eh?

You don't suppose some people want to be successful at what they do? And that sometimes that leads to being the one in charge?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
MyNameisLeo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10172

posted 23 August 2005 05:24 PM      Profile for MyNameisLeo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks, Magoo, took the words right out of my mouth. God, babble seems ugly today. Sure, Mrs. C must be a "ladder climber" not, oh, I don't know, a successful businesswoman who beat the odds to get to the very top. No, no, clearly she's evil. Hey! Isn't this type of stereotyping exactly what those regressive types are always doing?

And, ronb, national daycare and the public school system are two completely different issues. One can be against the former while supporting the latter, as we do in our family.

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: MyNameisLeo ]


From: SWBC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 23 August 2005 06:16 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, how curious, in a site like Rabble, to find people opposed, in principle, to corporate culture. It is, after all, largely benign, benevolent really.

[ 23 August 2005: Message edited by: ronb ]


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 23 August 2005 06:46 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Should we go back to excluding women from the boardroom then? If it's all corrupt and eeeeevil, it would really just be for their own good, eh?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 23 August 2005 06:55 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Magoo, old darlin', there really is a difference between scratching your arse and ripping out great bleeding hunks.
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 23 August 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
I'm having a hard time relating to Samuel's opening post because I'm having a hard time relating to his notions of "equality."

Samuel seems to think that becoming a CEO or a senior partner is a Good Thing, and the thing that all bright people, including all bright women, would want. He seems to think that women's liberation would reside in that sort of equality -- half of all predatory, amoral, crooked CEOs would be women, half of all predatory, amoral, crooked senior partners, half of all predatory, amoral, crooked parliamentarians, etc.

Huh?

So anyway, I'm having a hard time getting past those assumptions, and I can't see at all how they connect logically to the stressful choices that most real people have to make about how to earn a buck and take care of their kids, have some kind of secure private life, at the same time.


If I understand your concern correctly, you’re saying: It’s really not relevant to most women whether or not there are women are in positions of power as long as there is gender equality in “real people” jobs.

In my opinion, having women on corporate boards, running universities, holding elective office, doing drug research, being surgeons, being editors-in-chief, being entrepreneurs, etc., etc. is important.

And, because those and similar occupations tend to require much more than a standard 40-hour work week, it seems to me that women are at a disadvantage if a disproportionate number of women are staying home with babies.


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 23 August 2005 07:14 PM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think some of you fellas -- so well-informed on so many issues -- are being a little disingenuous on this one.

The second wave of feminism was -- most certainly -- about women. But it was also about children, families, communities, and our political and economic structures. It was not about turning women into pretend-men and celebrating those women who embraced the status quo.

I used to write a column on feminist issues. When one of the big women execs was first appointed -- I can't remember which one -- I got a lot of mail from people who said, "Well, you must be satisfied now that one of your own has got this big job."

And yet, this particular exec had said, when she was asked about her role as a woman in an exalted position, that other women were not her concern -- she was hired to increase profits, make things comfortable for shareholders etc. See, she didn't even consider saying -- at the absolute minimum least, "Oh, I guess we could try to arrange child care for the secretaries."

That's what this discussion is about. Not whether women aspire to the boardroom or not -- surely, in our somewhat-free society, that's each individual woman's choice.

The discussion is about what true equality would really look like.


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 23 August 2005 07:15 PM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flower:
"My question is, instead, can there ever be quantitative equality in the absence of a fundamental change in home roles?"

Can you explain to me what the home roles are in your opinion?


By “home roles” I mean the activities necessary to keep up a home and family. If a woman has to take care of most of the child-rearing responsibilities, for example, it is damned near impossible to simultaneously excel at a career that requires 50-60 hours of your time every week. Some people can do it, but they are the exception.

So, until the disproportionate burden that women now have with home responsibilities is shared evenly, or at least more evenly, it will be difficult for women to have quantitative equality in the workplace.


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 23 August 2005 07:18 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Or until the workplace stops regularly expecting 60 hours - usually 20-25 of it unpaid - from its employees.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 23 August 2005 07:27 PM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sharon:
I think some of you fellas -- so well-informed on so many issues -- are being a little disingenuous on this one.

The second wave of feminism was -- most certainly -- about women. But it was also about children, families, communities, and our political and economic structures. It was not about turning women into pretend-men and celebrating those women who embraced the status quo.

I used to write a column on feminist issues. When one of the big women execs was first appointed -- I can't remember which one -- I got a lot of mail from people who said, "Well, you must be satisfied now that one of your own has got this big job."

And yet, this particular exec had said, when she was asked about her role as a woman in an exalted position, that other women were not her concern -- she was hired to increase profits, make things comfortable for shareholders etc. See, she didn't even consider saying -- at the absolute minimum least, "Oh, I guess we could try to arrange child care for the secretaries."

That's what this discussion is about. Not whether women aspire to the boardroom or not -- surely, in our somewhat-free society, that's each individual woman's choice.

The discussion is about what true equality would really look like.


It’s that kind of response that makes it worth while having discussions on babble.


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
flower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7965

posted 23 August 2005 08:46 PM      Profile for flower     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SamuelC:

So, until the disproportionate burden that women now have with home responsibilities is shared evenly, or at least more evenly, it will be difficult for women to have quantitative equality in the workplace.


I would say that in a lot of families today the home work load is shared. I can of course only speak for the families I know but a large portion of them share in all family life. A number of the males work at home and have the majority of child care which is quite easy as the only thing a man is incapable of is breastfeeding. I feel that if you are feeling so inadequate you should perhaps check your attitude.


From: victoria,b.c. | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 23 August 2005 09:17 PM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flower:
I feel that if you are feeling so inadequate you should perhaps check your attitude.

I don't feel inadequate...(where did that come from?!)

You mentioned that most families that you know do share home responsiblities pretty equally. That's cool. But, are you saying you think that is true generally? Maybe it's just the people I know who have an unusually high percentage of women (relative to men) who stay at home. Stay-at-home dads seem to be a rarity.


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 23 August 2005 09:26 PM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
Or until the workplace stops regularly expecting 60 hours - usually 20-25 of it unpaid - from its employees.

Often times "the workplace" is actually composed of the very people choosing to work the long hours. Most surgeons, for example, are not being "told" to work long hours. Nor are small business owners, for another example. I tend to work relatively long hours myself and I see the benefits of that effort. No one is making me do that (and I'm happy with my life...I have lots of outside interests and activities that I participate in and, unless I choose it, I don't have a lot of "vegging" time on my hands).

Obviously, not everyone can make that choice. But, I think that most professionals that work long hours make the decision to do so. For hourly wage earners, longer hours mean, by law, overtime pay. So, most hour wager earners are not put in a position of working 60 hour and not getting paid for 20-25 of them.


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 23 August 2005 09:46 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Often times "the workplace" is actually composed of the very people choosing to work the long hours.

That's interesting. In most workplaces I've been in, there is a not particularly subtle unspoken rule that if you expect to keep your job, you will put in the extra time and you will be available on your managers' whim to work weekends and you will not expect to be compensated for it. But then I'm not a surgeon. Who, if we're going to rely on stereotypes, seem to have a lot of time for golf. As do CEOs come to think of it.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 23 August 2005 10:04 PM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
That's interesting. In most workplaces I've been in, there is a not particularly subtle unspoken rule that if you expect to keep your job, you will put in the extra time and you will be available on your managers' whim to work weekends and you will not expect to be compensated for it. But then I'm not a surgeon. Who, if we're going to rely on stereotypes, seem to have a lot of time for golf. As do CEOs come to think of it.

And people who find the time to golf are, by definition, not hard workers? I happen to hate golf...to paraphrase Churchill: "Golf ruins a good walk."


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 23 August 2005 10:05 PM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
In most workplaces I've been in, there is a not particularly subtle unspoken rule that if you expect to keep your job, you will put in the extra time and you will be available on your managers' whim to work weekends and you will not expect to be compensated for it.

What kind of work do you do?


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 23 August 2005 10:14 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm a copywriter.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 23 August 2005 10:46 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And people who find the time to golf are, by definition, not hard workers?

No, they just have inordinate amounts of leisure time. Kinda like Dubya.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 23 August 2005 11:41 PM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
No, they just have inordinate amounts of leisure time.

I wouldn't think that you would believe that any amount of leisure time would be "inordinate".


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 23 August 2005 11:48 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see a big problem with dividing people up according to whether they are supposed to dedicate their souls to either being a member of the workforce or else to raising kids. Your significant other can have her big winner cookie Samuel, but, you know, I'm with skdadl on this one. I'm not a socialist - I'm a RAVING socialist.

I just don't see much that's really significant in what you've described as 'accomplishment' or 'equality', but that's just my opinion. I've seen it before, even as skdadl has described - a woman who has learned to play the work game with the boys and who reaches the same level of success. Like, so what? I was beating the boys at baseball and sprints when I was 10 years old, and as a grown-up I've worked in a non-traditional field which has required knowledge, strength and stamina (large animal vet practice - I'd add that I was surrounded by several skillfull and strong women in that field) but even there I say 'so what.' So what - not because I'm disillusioned or depressed about the work I've done - but because there is something fundamentally wrong out there, in society itself. In the way we've organized ourselves and in what we consider to be valuable. Yes, I know this is rather vague and leftish, but there is definitely something wrong when we are unable to adequately recognize, reward and care for the basis of our lives, i.e. childcare, healthcare (I'm talking overall well-being here, not just pills and scalpels - let's include the environment here, just for the fun of it) and agriculture. There may some other fundamentally important and poorly rewarded pursuits, but I can't think of them right now.

On the other hand, I know a lot of women who have stated that becoming a mother is their number one pursuit, but every one of them, once they've seen it through, admits that yeah, they'd like to be doing something else besides clean up messes, make meals and doing dishes every single friggin' day. If you're at home, that's what you get to do, besides watching Toy Story twice a day for months on end.

I'm on both ends of this - I love being a working mum, and I love being with my kids; I love cooking for them, shopping for them, reading to them, I love it all, even though there are days when my deepest desire is to chuck it all and move back in time to when life was less cluttered. But I don't think I'd like to measure my worth as a person either through my work or my kids. There's doing, there's being, and there's being with others. I enjoy it all.

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: brebis noire ]


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 24 August 2005 12:21 AM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I did not intend to create a black-n-white dichotomy (“all work” or “all home”), brebis noire. There is clearly a continuum that is a mixture of the two. People can be happy at any point along that continuum. Let’s at least agree on that.

I know there are exceptions, but most people who have really accomplished something lasting professionally (and that does not necessarily mean someone who is “successful” financially), such as a Nobel Prize winner for literature or physics, an accomplished writer, a world-class violinist or pianist, a successful research scientist, an entrepreneur, a film director, a leading academic, a dedicated human rights lawyer, a small-town physician, etc., etc., put enormous amounts of time and effort into their work. This is true whether we are talking about a capitalist or socialist society, because in any human endeavor very few things of lasting value come easy and without great sacrifice.

Now, my point is that the opportunity to put that kind of energy into ones life work, should one chose to do that, is significant smaller if one must be the primary caretaker of children. Men are more likely to have that professional opportunity if their spouse or partner principally focuses on caring for children at home. I simply posit that women will not have that same degree of professional opportunity until there are as many men staying at home as women.


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 24 August 2005 12:28 AM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What I think people get hung up on when they think of long work hours is one of two things: Either the person is engaging in selfish "ladder climbing" or is being exploited. For many people, one or the other description fits nicely. But, there are significant numbers of people who do not fit neatly into those slots. People who work long hours and obtain great professional, intellectual and emotional satisfaction from that work. It is that latter group of people that I am primarily thinking of.

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: SamuelC ]


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 August 2005 12:35 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now, my point is that the opportunity to put that kind of energy into ones life work, should one chose to do that, is significant smaller if one must be the primary caretaker of children. Men are more likely to have that professional opportunity if their spouse or partner principally focuses on caring for children at home. I simply posit that women will not have that same degree of professional opportunity until there are as many men staying at home as women.

The vast majority of men who DO have the opportunity to promote career while their wives remain home to raise the children don't actually take advantage of it, anyway.

I'm not sure why anyone would advocate seeking such opportunity -- it strikes me as a fundamentally unbalanced and ultimately unhealthy life. I think we will have equality when both partners share equally in their domestic lives, whether they have children or not, and are able to pursue their professional goals as well.

Personally, I think a life's work is not well done if you have not fully participated in the lives of your children.

It can work, you know, even for film directors.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 24 August 2005 12:39 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Significant? I highly doubt it. I enjoy what I do most days - except on days like today when I struggle to finish something on an unreasonable deadline and find myself babbling at ungodly hours to relieve the tedium - but would I do it if I weren't getting paid to? Not a chance. Something tells me most working people are a lot more like me,and not simply because I'm a raging egomaniac, which I am.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 24 August 2005 12:40 AM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:
Personally, I think a life's work is not well done if you have not fully participated in the lives of your children.

Unless, of course, one does not have children.


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 August 2005 12:48 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, of course.

However, most people do. And if, as you've posited, one spouse is "staying home with babies", then, of course, you DO have children. Or are these people merely seriously doting on Pekingese dogs? Cats, perhaps?

Anyway, if one spouse is staying home tending to children while the other takes the opportunity to hotly pursue career goals, then they are both, in my opinion, missing out. And the "life's work" that is accomplished is not a life well lived in that case.

But if this works for a couple, then who am I to argue? It wouldn't, however, work for me. Equal partners means equal parents, in my opinion.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 24 August 2005 12:54 AM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
I enjoy what I do most days - except on days like today when I struggle to finish something on an unreasonable deadline and find myself babbling at ungodly hours to relieve the tedium - but would I do it if I weren't getting paid to? Not a chance.

Life's too short for that. I'd rather work for peanuts at something I like than to work for any amount of money doing something day in and day out that I hated (or didn't affirmatively and, on balance, enjoy).


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 24 August 2005 12:58 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or are these people merely seriously doting on Pekingese dogs?

I know them! I used to work with one of them. A little creepy, frankly, all the baby talk and the carrying the little feller around in a litle basket purse thingie all the time.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 August 2005 01:01 AM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ronb --
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 24 August 2005 01:04 AM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zoot:
Anyway, if one spouse is staying home tending to children while the other takes the opportunity to hotly pursue career goals, then they are both, in my opinion, missing out. And the "life's work" that is accomplished is not a life well lived in that case.

I think that's wonderful. It sounds like you have carved out a lovely life for you and your family. And, I suspect that people like you are the happiest...which is all that really counts anyway.

But, a lot of young women who would otherwise love to pursue a time-intensive career (regardless if that would be your choice or or mine) cannot do so if they want a family, too, because most men simply will not be stay-at-home parents. So, that is choice young women too often don't have.


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 24 August 2005 01:07 AM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
I know them! I used to work with one of them. A little creepy, frankly, all the baby talk and the carrying the little feller around in a litle basket purse thingie all the time.

I have two Bichons that we dote on along with two stray cats who have long become part of our family. I know that's creepy, but what can I say?!


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Skeezer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10118

posted 24 August 2005 01:08 AM      Profile for Skeezer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps the answer to equality here lies in affordable and quality day care for all, we could ask our government to create it as a payback for all those missing Laurier’s. The sacrifice would be on both partners to acquire day jobs. Then both parents’ would handle any domestic or child rearing duties. I realize this doesn’t answer for the first six years prior to school but if both parents could get a year each of maternity leave than the crucial years from four to six the child could have both parents constant influence and guidance. I think it is up to our government and employers to make this realistic.
From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 24 August 2005 01:10 AM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But we do not...I repeat, not...tote them around in little basket purse thingies. No, they each have their own solar-powered cars that they tool around the yard in.

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: SamuelC ]


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 24 August 2005 01:13 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd rather work for peanuts at something I like than to work for any amount of money doing something day in and day out that I hated (or didn't affirmatively and, on balance, enjoy).

I've done that too. It sucks. Grinds the joy out of your passion, in my experience. Extremely stressful if you have a family. And I don't hate what I do - I make a very decent living writing, I have very little to complain about on balance - I simply wouldn't do it if I weren't paid to do it.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 24 August 2005 01:24 AM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:

I've done that too. It sucks. Grinds the joy out of your passion, in my experience. Extremely stressful if you have a family. And I don't hate what I do - I make a very decent living writing, I have very little to complain about on balance - I simply wouldn't do it if I weren't paid to do it.


I suppose most people wouldn't. I wouldn't do exactly what I'm doing now if I didn't get paid for it. Although I like what I do very much, I'd rather spend my time handling interesting and gnarly cases for truly needy people who are being screwed by someone. My greatest satisfactions, professionally, have been working on a death penalty case (and successfully getting the individual released from a Louisiana state prison--not just off of death row, but out of prison entirely) and helping a poor Laotian successfully fight a citizenship denial by the INS here in the States.


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 24 August 2005 01:44 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There you go - that's exactly what I mean. For most of us, it is extremely difficult to get our life's passions and our livelihoods to match up perfectly. Ah well, life is compromise, as my step-mom used to say.

I work with a woman who is a graphic artist and deeply into yoga. She teaches yoga a little bit on the side, and she just comes to life whenever she talks about yoga. One day I told her about a friend of mine who had recently opened her own yoga studio, and she was so interested that I asked her why she didn't pursue yoga instruction as a career and she just burst into tears. She is really caught in a dilemma, she wants all the clothes and gadgets and status symbols and material things that can go with the career she is in, but her yoga experience seems to have given her an underlying taste of how useless those things really are.

quote:
My greatest satisfactions, professionally, have been working on a death penalty case (and successfully getting the individual released from a Louisiana state prison--not just off of death row, but out of prison entirely) and helping a poor Laotian successfully fight a citizenship denial by the INS here in the States.

I can see why that would be satisfying. You have good reason to be proud. You wouldn't happen to be Errol Morris would you?


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 24 August 2005 02:04 AM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
You wouldn't happen to be Errol Morris would you?

Nope. 'Fraid not.

The dilemma your colleague has regarding yoga is a difficult one. Mixing a passion with a profession can be risky.

In his book “Life on the Mississippi”, Mark Twain spent the first nine chapters talking about the boyhood romance he had with the Mississippi River and the steamboats that ran up and down along its length and then about his process of learning the difficult trade of being a riverboat pilot (which he did for about four years). He realized that by “professionalizing” his passion for the river, the river lost its romance and its emotional appeal….

“It turned out to be true. The face of the water, in time, became a wonderful book--a book that was a dead language to the uneducated passenger, but which told its mind to me without reserve, delivering its most cherished secrets as clearly as if it uttered them with a voice. And it was not a book to be read once and thrown aside, for it had a new story to tell every day. Throughout the long twelve hundred miles there was never a page that was void of interest, never one that you could leave unread without loss, never one that you would want to skip, thinking you could find higher enjoyment in some other thing. There never was so wonderful a book written by man; never one whose interest was so absorbing, so unflagging, so sparkingly?renewed with every re-perusal. The passenger who could not read it was charmed with a peculiar sort of faint dimple on its surface?(on the rare occasions when he did not overlook it altogether);?but to the pilot that was an ITALICIZED passage; indeed, it was more than that, it was a legend of the largest capitals, with a string of shouting exclamation points at the end of it; for it meant that a wreck or a rock was buried there that could tear the life out of the strongest vessel that ever floated. It is the faintest and simplest expression the water ever makes, and the most hideous to a pilot's eye. In truth, the passenger who could not read this book saw nothing but all manner of pretty pictures in it painted by the sun and shaded by the clouds, whereas to the trained eye these were not pictures at all, but the grimmest and most dead-earnest of reading-matter. now when I had mastered the language of this water and had come to know every trifling feature that bordered the great river as familiarly as I knew the letters of the alphabet, I had made a valuable acquisition. But I had lost something, too. I had lost something which could never be restored to me while I lived. All the grace, the beauty, the poetry had gone out of the majestic river! I still keep in mind a certain wonderful sunset which I witnessed when steam boating was new to me. A broad expanse of the river was turned to blood; in the middle distance the red hue brightened into gold, through which a solitary log came floating, black and conspicuous; in one place a long, slanting mark lay sparkling upon the water; in another the surface was broken by boiling, tumbling rings, that were as many-tinted as an opal; where the ruddy flush was faintest, was a smooth spot that was covered with graceful circles and radiating lines, ever so delicately traced; the shore on our left was densely wooded, and the somber shadow that fell from this forest was broken in one place by a long, ruffled trail that shone like silver; and high above the forest wall a clean-stemmed dead tree waved a single leafy bough that glowed like a flame in the unobstructed splendor that was flowing from the sun. There were graceful curves, reflected images, woody heights, soft distances; and over the whole scene, far and near, the dissolving lights drifted steadily, enriching it, every passing moment, with new marvels of coloring. I stood like one bewitched. I drank it in, in a speechless rapture. The world was new to me, and I had never seen anything like this at home. But as I have said, a day came when I began to cease from noting the glories and the charms which the moon and the sun and the twilight wrought upon the river's face; another day came when I ceased altogether to note them. Then, if that sunset scene had been repeated, I should have looked upon it without rapture, and should have commented upon it, inwardly, after this fashion: This sun means that we are going to have wind to-morrow; that floating log means that the river is rising, small thanks to it; that slanting mark on the water refers to a bluff reef which is going to kill somebody's steamboat one of these nights, if it keeps on stretching out like that; those tumbling 'boils' show a dissolving bar and a changing channel there; the lines and circles in the slick water over yonder are a warning that that troublesome place is shoaling up dangerously; that silver streak in the shadow of the forest is the 'break' from a new snag, and he has located himself in the very best place he could have found to fish for steamboats; that tall dead tree, with a single living branch, is not going to last long, and then how is a body ever going to get through this blind place at night without the friendly old landmark. no, the romance and the beauty were all gone from the river. All the value any feature of it had for me now was the amount of usefulness it could furnish toward compassing the safe piloting of a steamboat. Since those days, I have pitied doctors from my heart. What does the lovely flush in a beauty's cheek mean to a doctor but a 'break' that ripples above some deadly disease. Are not all her visible charms sown thick with what are to him the signs and symbols of hidden decay? Does he ever see her beauty at all, or doesn't he simply view her professionally, and comment upon her unwholesome condition all to himself? And doesn't he sometimes wonder whether he has gained most or lost most by learning his trade?"


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 24 August 2005 02:12 AM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I loved that book when I was younger. I assumed that he was your moniker, but I wasn't sure based on your politics. He was pretty radical, after all.

It's quite true. I was a professional musician for awhile - those'd be the peanut days - and the professional side of the equation really destroyed my joy in playing just to play. Now I play for fun and to put my daughter to sleep at night. Way more satisfying.


From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
SamuelC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10196

posted 24 August 2005 02:56 AM      Profile for SamuelC     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ronb:
I loved that book when I was younger. I assumed that he was your moniker, but I wasn't sure based on your politics. He was pretty radical, after all.

It's quite true. I was a professional musician for awhile - those'd be the peanut days - and the professional side of the equation really destroyed my joy in playing just to play. Now I play for fun and to put my daughter to sleep at night. Way more satisfying.


I love his politics and his writing about religion ("Thoughts of God" is one of the best concise critiques of Christianty ever written, IMHO). And, yes, my SammyC moniker is for SLC!! I first read him for the humor (which I still very much enjoy) but I really have my deepest attachment to the social essays of the last several years of his life. He had one of the sharpest pens for satire.

Okay...I must log off and get to sleep....


From: USofA | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 24 August 2005 09:42 AM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This thread has really got me thinking, which is a sign of a good thread.

Often I have been so frustrated in the work-life balance arena, and my wife even more so. She's truly in a professional career (architecture) and works extremely long hours not because she wants to but because the job demands it. The last few nights she has been home around Midnight. I feel for her, but what can one do? This is the frustration. Our son is 16 so he can take care of himself. But I think a lot of people who have jobs really get burned out trying to do the best for their family which means providing for them.

What gets lost in that is finding fulfilling work. I used to think that being a mainstream journalist would be the be all and end of my life. It wasn't and isn't and now I find myself in a position I would have never dreamed I would enjoy. But I don't have to take this job home with me and I cannot tell you what a relief that is.

But should it be that way? Should we not want to eat, sleep and breath what we do ideally? Or, as we were young and working anything to get ahead, remember our friends saying "all jobs suck?"

It's the old adage - do we work to live or live to work. It can be a fine line.

I think that couples do what is best for their own particular situation. I have come to see that companies really don't care how you run your family just as long as they don't interfere with the job. So either partner can devote time to the office or the kids or both can strive to achieve a balance. Many of the high powered professions demand so much from people that having families, even in healthy relationships, becomes problematic. I wish we would do better in career counseling of our students to tell them that although the popular culture says "you can have it all," that becomes a meaningless slogan for most that makes many miserable trying to achieve.

So if more men stayed home with the babies that would change things for women? OK, but merely tipping the scales back to the other side does nothing for the underlying problem - especially in the US we give a lot of lip service to "family" - family time, family life, being there for kids, etc. etc. But we speak out of both sides of our mouths. Yes, family is ok, until it interfers with the corporate bottom line.

In the end we all have to make indidividual choices about what we will derive satisfaction out of. The high power career that seemed so exciting at 25 may look like hell at 40 because things change. If you held off on family until then, what did you miss? Can you ever get it back? That's what I mean.

If we value family than we have to show it by having more family friendly workplaces and flexible schedules and NOT punishing people's careers for taking that time. This is not a womens or mens issue as much any more - its an "all of us" issue. If we value families and childen we need to put our money and our values where our mouths are. If you choose to remain childless because you want other things in life - you've probably made a very smart choice for yourself. But while there will always be folks who make that choice, most of us really want and need a balance for work and life and family. I think we'd be a lot saner as a society if we had that.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2005 09:49 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
But should it be that way? Should we not want to eat, sleep and breath what we do ideally? Or, as we were young and working anything to get ahead, remember our friends saying "all jobs suck?"

I don't know, AE. I think there is too much emphasis on everyone finding a job that expresses their very favorite thing to do in the whole world. And that probably contributes to the "all jobs suck" mentality, strangely enough.

My job is not ME. I like my job because I like the people and the environment and even the work is okay. But is the work me? No, not really - I push paper. I'm very good at pushing paper, but it is not really an outlet for creative expression or anything.

I work for money and do my creative stuff on the side, for the love of it. I think there's something to be said for that. If my creative stuff became my job, I have a feeling that there would be a lot of pressure to create in order to eat. I'm not sure I would like that as much as being creative for the sheer joy of it.

I think that people can be happy doing relatively mundane jobs. Work to live, live to pursue hobbies. That's my motto, and it seems to be working for me all right.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 24 August 2005 10:04 AM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

I don't know, AE. I think there is too much emphasis on everyone finding a job that expresses their very favorite thing to do in the whole world. And that probably contributes to the "all jobs suck" mentality, strangely enough.

My job is not ME. I like my job because I like the people and the environment and even the work is okay. But is the work me? No, not really - I push paper. I'm very good at pushing paper, but it is not really an outlet for creative expression or anything.

I work for money and do my creative stuff on the side, for the love of it. I think there's something to be said for that. If my creative stuff became my job, I have a feeling that there would be a lot of pressure to create in order to eat. I'm not sure I would like that as much as being creative for the sheer joy of it.

I think that people can be happy doing relatively mundane jobs. Work to live, live to pursue hobbies. That's my motto, and it seems to be working for me all right.



You are absolutely right, I think. We are now in the same boat in a way. Writing for me became a chore with copy to be cranked out weekly. Now I write for the sheer joy as you say. Not that would ever be adverse to being paid for it again someday. But you raise the point that Samuel touched on before with Mark Twain - when we start doing what we love for money, does it kill the romance associated with it? After awhile it did with me in a newsroom environment.

I never wanted to get into the "work to live and pursue what you love in your spare time" mode. But I'm finding it liberating NOT having to take the job home with me. And I think I write better when I write what really moves me.

Perhaps if we lived in an ideal world where we were paid for, in this case, writing exactly what we wanted and when we wanted, it would be fulfilling.

Which reminds me about that novel I'm intending to write now. Um, in all that spare time!


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 24 August 2005 10:16 AM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

So in that respect, I don't know how we "fix" the problem of more women than men staying home with the kids

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

I don't see that as a problem at all, as long as it's the choice of the individuals involved rather than society dictating gender roles.


I do see that as a problem. It's not a problem for the individuals but it's a problem for the rest of us. When dad wants to be home with the kids but is out working long hours at a job he hates and won't succeed at, and mom is at home realizing she's not well suited to caring for little kids and chomping at the bit to go back to work and kick corporate ass, everyone loses.

Employers are losing out on a lot of great women employees if women are usually the ones to stay home with the kids. I'd like to see the best possible candidate hired, out of the largest possible pool. More importantly, I think children often lose out on great parenting when it's assumed the caregiver is the mother. Sometimes the father would be the better carer, either from predisposition or desire.

The choice presented is usually a false one. Nominally the family "chooses" that the father work, usually because he has the better job with more money and a better shot at advancement. But generally that job was possible because he wasn't on the mommy track. It's chicken and egg. The fathers tend to have the better paying jobs because the men tend to have the better paying jobs, which all goes back to child care (and care of parents and other family members but that's another story...). It's an individual choice that's pretty heavily influenced by societal factors that can be changed.

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 24 August 2005 10:33 AM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And now my more cranky take on it: society's been running on the unpaid labor of women for an awfully long time.

Employers have reaped the benefits of women staying home with the kids, allowing the [usually male] workers to work long hours and on short notice with no need to accommodate family responsibilities. So yeah, with no children (as in the OP's post) a woman can kick butt up there. But I can't help but wonder -- what happens when someone else in the family needs care, perhaps even the OP himself? Will his partner be able to reconcile that care with her job, or will she be forced to resign? Is that right? Or is it assumed that someone else will take over that care, either another family member with less professional responsibilities or a worker who won't be making nearly the wage Ms. Corporate Lawyer makes? Is that right?

To my mind, the problem is not just kids. The problem is that the silent labor of women has been the engine for corporate growth for a long time, allowing workers to work hard and long. Now that men seek to share family responsibilities and women seek to remain in the workforce we're seeing the fatal flaw in these sharing schemes -- that "taking care of the home" is a lot more than a 40 hour week at times and can't be neatly exchanged with work hours.

It's not just 40 hours of child care we're talking about. It's being first call when mom is sick or the neighbor needs a ride to the hospital or the grandchild runs away from home. It's that permanent on-call state, and the necessity to once in a while drop everything to take care of something at home, that is really hard to share.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 24 August 2005 10:56 AM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
She's truly in a professional career (architecture) and works extremely long hours not because she wants to but because the job demands it.

But that's the culture of that profession. From your first days at architectural school right up to the last tender call you're taught that clocks are meaningless and you need to do whatever it takes to not just get the job done but to do a good job.

And I'm not disagreeing with your or other posts in this thread. I'm just noting that architecture is perhaps the worst professional working environment there is. People are chronically underpaid, they work excessive hours, there is little chance for advancement, and it can be hell on anyone wanting a normal family life.

As an example, my first job opportunity involved an interview with a famous Canadian architect, and I thought, here I am, great. He suggested that I'd be getting 8 bucks an hour for 40hrs, even though I'd put in on average 70 or 80 a week. He also suggested that "to prove myself" I'd best work a 6 month internship for free. I turned that job down. And the next bunch over a year that involved the same type of commitment.

You (or your parents) either have to be independently wealthy or architects themselves for someone to be really successful in that field.

So to return (tangentially) to the topic of this thread, a career which obviously burdens one partner over the other is not the best recipe for a life outside.

Edit: Too early, bad speling and grammmer.

[ 24 August 2005: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854

posted 24 August 2005 11:03 AM      Profile for Tehanu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks vmichel, for articulating what was bugging me about this thread!

Certainly there's the permanent on-call aspect of (mostly) women's work in the home. Then there's the all-too-common scenario of both partners in a heterosexual relationship working their 40 hours, then the woman coming home and doing the majority of the housework. And we all know it happens.

I don't have a partner (sigh), I don't have kids, and I do have one of those jobs-that-I-love, on which I probably spend more time than I have to. Life would certainly be easier for me if my house was magically clean, laundry done and ironed (always the biggest stumbling block, ironing), food bought and cooked, dishes washed, etc., etc.

And yes, especially if I were in the private sector, I suspect that having all of this provided to me would certainly help me climb corporate ladders galore.

We don't value housework, we don't pay people properly for childcare. Which is why I think this thread's original question is a bit odd. OF COURSE a woman who is also assuming the major share of childrearing and housework is going to be disadvantaged! As would a man. But I'm betting that we haven't got to the point where we would assume that household tasks are equally divided when both partners work.


From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 24 August 2005 11:38 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
And now my more cranky take on it: society's been running on the unpaid labor of women for an awfully long time.


There's a lot of stuff I'd like to respond to on this thread, but this pretty much cuts to the heart of a big part of the problem.

But I'd like to take it a step further and point out that women have historically contributed enormous amounts to progress in scientific knowledge and artistic endeavors, and not just from supporting roles.

Any hard-working and talented graduate student will be able to point to instances where their own hard slogging in research and writing has led to discoveries or insights that were subsequently 'borrowed' by their director or mentor. Research 'team leaders' often get credit for work and ideas that aren't even theirs, and I've seen it happen with women and men. This happens all the time in academia, in the corporate world, in law, and pretty much everywhere. What about the times when doctors claim to have cured patients, without fully realizing that it was the nursing care that actually made the most significant difference?

In the history of medicine, a concrete example of this is midwifery. Up to about the 16th century, only midwives knew what constituted normal childbirth, because doctors (who massaged their fragile egos by simply barring women from the profession) were only called in to service desperate cases, where either the mother or the baby, or both, weren't going to make it (think lots of blood, a scene resembling a butcher shop and occasional heroics...) When midwives finally put their knowledge and experience into written form, all of a sudden the tables turned, and their carefully acquired knowledge was essentially plagiarized, claimed and colonized by doctors.

There are other examples of this as well, such as Rosalind Franklin who deserves at least as much credit as Watson, Crick and Wilkins for the discovery of the DNA structure.

I guess my short response to the question of this thread is that equality can't start at home until it's fully achieved in society. Otherwise, we'll always be collectively backtracking and making the same mistakes, again and again. Childcare responsibilities are a part of that equality, but they aren't the whole story.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 August 2005 11:48 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lots of great rants above.

In that opening image that Samuel gave us, there is something else going on that I always react to, react against, that I think has very little to do with equality considerations or anyone's liberation, much less valuable work.

There are other confusions here, between work (often creating) and jobs (often uncreating -- Pope's usage, btw).

What's bothering me is the language of celebrity culture. It bothers me for two reasons: first, because it is, necessarily, for most people a chimera; and second, because it has little to do with achievement, much rather with ego.

I suspect that lots of young people, male and female, have been seduced by the TV and film images (usually utterly unrealistic) of "high-powered corporate lawyers" and other such mythical beasts, and believe that they should put their noses to the grindstone so that one day they can live that life. But it's not the work that is attracting them -- it is ... that life.

And I guess for a few people such a life exists, or something like it, although I am at a loss to understand why anyone would want it. I would much rather do real work, and I think most people would.

Especially most accomplished people would. I suspect that most Nobel-winning scientists and great artists and humanitarian heros would snort at the idea of being called "high-powered" in the way that your local Style section uses that term. I doubt that many such achievers were moved to do what they do by watching Sex in the City.

Few of us are Einstein, however, and just as well. The problem isn't us; it's the jobs that are available to us, the misuse of so much human capability that the current job market causes, the utterly screwy nature of the job market itself and certainly of remuneration, and all that silent female labour that vmichel refers to.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
marcella
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9772

posted 24 August 2005 12:03 PM      Profile for marcella     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
These last posts have gotten to what I want to post...but I will continue.
I think there is a certain reality that needs to set in, you cannot do what you LOVE all the time. But, you can feel satisfied with what you do. There are certain things in society that need to get done in order to function and live, every aspect (every person) has a role and should be equally valued.
While a doctor will save a life or make you better (less and less these days), a good housekeeping job every week will do the same, in the long run.
We need to stop acting as though capitalist jobs and the "professional world" are so great.
I think this is the major flaw in the original argument. I think people will be able to become equal when the main housemaker will earn the same as the working parent and that partners will choose who does what in an equal manner.
If both parents want to work, we need child care then.
I am often so offended when we say that peole just need to climb the corporate ladder to become successful (or question whether or not to)...the problem is not that wymyn need to work to become equal, or that men need to stay home...that needs to be an open and free decision between the partners, BUT we must also value todays paid and unpaid labour equally. Until then, there will never be equality because someone will always be doing work that is undervalued by society.

From: ottawa | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 August 2005 12:13 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
we must also value todays paid and unpaid labour equally. Until then, there will never be equality because someone will always be doing work that is undervalued by society.

Standing ovation, marcella!


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tehanu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9854

posted 24 August 2005 12:14 PM      Profile for Tehanu     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[stands and ovates too]
From: Desperately trying to stop procrastinating | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 August 2005 12:42 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think that's wonderful. It sounds like you have carved out a lovely life for you and your family. And, I suspect that people like you are the happiest...which is all that really counts anyway.

But, a lot of young women who would otherwise love to pursue a time-intensive career (regardless if that would be your choice or or mine) cannot do so if they want a family, too, because most men simply will not be stay-at-home parents. So, that is choice young women too often don't have.


My point is that men who follow that path are rarely happy, anyway. It doesn't make sense to me that women (or other men, for that matter) should want to emulate it. I wouldn't promote it as equality, in any case.

What I see happening is this: More men are taking more active roles in child-rearing, while their spouses are taking more active roles in the work force. An example that springs to mind is a couple I know well -- he is a university professor and filmmaker, and became department head this year. Lots of administrative duties on top of teaching and producing his own work. He has managed to organize his work so that he spends time at home with his son while his wife works. Between the two of them, they have both managed to be career-people and active parents. This is not an impossibility. Flexible working arrangements are something that will create equality in both professional and domestic settings much more quickly than promoting the idea that anybody, male or female, should focus on one side of life to the exclusion of the other.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7440

posted 24 August 2005 01:36 PM      Profile for Cartman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think there is a certain reality that needs to set in, you cannot do what you LOVE all the time.

We may be on the same page, I am not sure. As an instructor, I generally do what I love. I enjoy the creative writing I get/have to do, I love lecturing (which makes me self-indulgent I guess) and I like to read other people's work. I suppose this explains why I like to babble!

Granted, when I get a huge stack of papers, I feel rather intimidated and there are times when I feel a little too lethargic to speak dramatically. Although I put in way more than 40 hours a week, I get to control how I spend much of my time so I can enjoy other things such as cooking, gardening or working out. While every job has its less than exciting tasks/moments, not everyone has to feel as though they are sacrificing. I think the key is to vary life tasks and to seek out a career that suits you.


From: Bring back Audra!!!!! | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 24 August 2005 01:44 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
there is a not particularly subtle unspoken rule that if you expect to keep your job, you will put in the extra time and you will be available on your managers' whim to work weekends and you will not expect to be compensated for it.

Geez ronb, my bosses came right out and said it

They also said (after terminating a long time employee) that the longer a person works for them, the more dangerous they are and must be gotten rid of (which means 4years or more)


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 August 2005 01:54 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In his book “Life on the Mississippi”, Mark Twain spent the first nine chapters talking about the boyhood romance he had with the Mississippi River and the steamboats that ran up and down along its length and then about his process of learning the difficult trade of being a riverboat pilot (which he did for about four years). He realized that by “professionalizing” his passion for the river, the river lost its romance and its emotional appeal….

I suppose that can happen. Or perhaps you find that the romanticization of something isn't the reality at all.

On the other hand, I do what I love professionally. I've tried doing other things, was good at them and liked them well enough. But for me, doing what I do is where I belong, regardless of the down side. I've had people I know say they think my career must be exciting, but at 11:00pm in the edit suite and I can't get the cut quite right and I'm tired and have a deadline, I don't think it is. All things have the negative and positive aspects, to expect that they won't is naive. I feel very fortunate to be able to do something creative for a living, even if the accounting still has to be done and the paycheques aren't regular.


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
belva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8098

posted 24 August 2005 03:51 PM      Profile for belva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As usual, bravo! bravo! bravo! bravo! & bravo, yet again! to:
Tehanu, brebis noire, skdadl & the dear AE!

Well done, all!

If only YOU could be hired to solve problems!
Well, the good part is that the mavericks like you keep doing good & making change, inch-by-inch! Thanks for sharing your wisdom.

Now, AE, about that novel . . . when can I expect to see you at a book-signing?


From: bliss | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca