|
Author
|
Topic: Cultural sexism and persistent political/economic inequities
|
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136
|
posted 26 January 2006 09:04 AM
quote:
Because this wider picture has got lost, the struggles women face in their daily lives are seen by and large as private, not collective. The language of choice - women choosing to get plastic surgery, women choosing to stay home with their kids - is spoken without any feminist analysis of the forces that drive these so-called choices. Even when people do recognise the economic, political and social inequality that still prevents women from making free choices, they tend to shrug their shoulders, to slip into cynicism and inertia. The language of biological determinism is often lazily used to excuse this inertia.
Fromthe Guardian (where else?) Edited to fix link (as usual.) [ 26 January 2006: Message edited by: brebis noire ]
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136
|
posted 26 January 2006 10:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Choice is now understood in largely personalized or private terms, as Walter says, and perhaps it is an easy notion to personalize if people have no broader political context in which to see how unfree so many of women's choices really are.That still leaves us lacking a direction and some practical tasks, though.
Yup. And we can say that 'huge gains have been made', that's undeniable, especially when we look at the historical picture and compare our lives and choices with that of our mothers and grandmothers. Part of what's missing, I think, is a history curriculum in public schools that includes an analysis of social conditions; not one based on ideology, rather, based on actual conditions that people endured as workers, immigrants, children, women, etc. The disenfranchised, quoi? Unless there are thoughtful people in our immediate environment, many of us don't get that kind of analysis and information until we're much older, and many of our choices are already made. What's left is to 'work on ourselves', to make our selves as palatable as possible in order to get an education, a job, a partner, etc. Of course I'm not saying that those goals are suspect in themselves, I'm just saying that the overall political and economic framework that we aim for them in isn't what most of us would choose for our children (and not just our girl children) in an ideal world.
From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 26 January 2006 10:40 AM
It's certainly more broadly true that most working people are constrained in their "choices" - the disingenuous right-wing use of that term cuts across gender lines (and some other lines). But there are particular patterns for the constraints on women, the ways their lives are predetermined, and particular ways in which their labour and their social roles are undervalued or simply defined out of social significance by being personalized or privatized. I'm just looking this morning, eg, at what has happened to my CPP because of the time I have spent as a caregiver. My fault, though, eh? For choosing to do work the state won't recognize ... instead of keeping my nose to the "professional" grindstone. 
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
