Once, educated women could only be teachers. Now they can have any career they like, and society is suffering, says Alison WolfMark Alexander
In 1945 the British public sector abandoned the marriage bar, which required female teachers and civil servants to stay single or resign in favour of male breadwinners. In the 60 years since, women’s lives have been transformed and, with them, the family and community.
You might not think it, given the focus on pay gaps and glass ceilings, but for the first time women, at least in developed societies, have virtually no career or occupation barred to them. Women used to enter the elite as daughters, mothers and wives. Now they do so as individuals.
This has brought enormous benefits to many women, but its repercussions are not all positive: we need to understand what the new female labour market means for all our lives.
Gender politics still encourages us to talk about women as a group with common interests and demands. Yet this is far less true today than when, as Kipling observed, the “Colonel’s lady an’ Judy O’Grady” really were sisters under the skin. Read it all here: The decline and fall of the caring woman
Sunday, April 02, 2006
When women don't care anymore
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Mark,
I'm dropping you this link. Sorry that it's off topic.
Go here.
Thanks for the link, Always.
I see the problem, but I want to resist thinking of women collectively. Looking around and having lived through "feminism," I find that women sort themselves into so many sorts of subpopulations that it becomes impossible to talk collectively about "women." That leads me to what I think is a flaw in the article, one that is pretty common and really confuses folks.
That flaw is the use of "individual" as an opprobrium. In any free society, the smallest human social unit should be the individual, not the family, not the group, not the ummah, not any collective. Men and women alike possess rights and make choices--and all of this comes from their nature as humans. Obviously, some choices we will disagree with.
As individuals women still retain all that good stuff of being daughters, wives, mothers, etc. Men and women alike, all wear many hats in life.
I survived the so called "feminist era" and have endured a lot of "uncaring" women getting their consciousnesses raised. I still see evidence of some really obnoxious and frankly peculiar women in academia, and I am so glad they have careers and not children.
Still, we have transitted the feminist era. True, some just can't get over it, but, then, I still see liberals driving around with "Vote for Kerry" bumper stickers still on.
I think we are witnessing a slow settling out of the liberated woman, from Suffragettes to now. More and I more I see women choosing family vs career, or career vs family. They are getting happier because they are doing the choosing, and we will see a lot more goodness coming.
All of life boils down to risk management, for men and for women. It is very hard for many women to fulfill their desires for motherhood and still be careerists. Some try to do both, but there's that risk--it costs them psychically, if not physically. Those women who must toil to earn a living and keep a brood have become trapped into a grind. The semi-socialist-fascist economies of today have forced some women behind the power curve. The cure for that is long and hard, but well worth doing.
Those women chosing to be single mothers, well, that is part of their risk management, and my heart does not go out to them.
I am seeing more caring women as the day goes on, and fewer "caring" guys. I think we may be on the verge of getting better as a civilization with regard to women. We have a very long way to go, but, then, look how far we have come in such a short time.
Women's needs have not changed since the last evolutionary leap, and these needs are beginning to cry out to be met. They must be free individuals to choose and to act to do what each determines to be best for her, and only a few women will choose to be uncaring hard-asses.
George Mason (PBUH):
This is a very profound comment. I shall have to mull over it before commenting in depth.
I didn't see any commentary about the need for both parents to work. It did mention the cost of raising children but failed to mention the fact that a single paycheck isn't always enough. As far as not "caring", that's a pretty hard factor to weigh. Instead of volunteering time, you send money, does that mean you care less? Maybe I missed the point. Would not be the first time.
American Crusader:
I'll take a rain check. It's dinner time here. I also need time to think about all these profound comments! :-)
Here's an option 5 Saudi women made:
Tired of male domination, 5 Saudi women change sex
Heather:
That's one way out of the problem; but a rather extreme one!
Muslims have a lot to learn! Their date isn't 1400 and something for nothing!
George Mason (PBUH):
I see the problem, but I want to resist thinking of women collectively. Looking around and having lived through "feminism," I find that women sort themselves into so many sorts of subpopulations that it becomes impossible to talk collectively about "women." That leads me to what I think is a flaw in the article, one that is pretty common and really confuses folks.
That flaw is the use of "individual" as an opprobrium. In any free society, the smallest human social unit should be the individual, not the family, not the group, not the ummah, not any collective. Men and women alike possess rights and make choices--and all of this comes from their nature as humans. Obviously, some choices we will disagree with.
As individuals women still retain all that good stuff of being daughters, wives, mothers, etc. Men and women alike, all wear many hats in life.
It's funny, but I didn't pick up the same things from this article as you must have.
I saw the article as being one of observations and a few warnings. I don't think there was very much opprobrium there. Not as far as I can remember anyway.
I survived the so called "feminist era" and have endured a lot of "uncaring" women getting their consciousnesses raised. I still see evidence of some really obnoxious and frankly peculiar women in academia, and I am so glad they have careers and not children.
Maybe having a few kids would have made them a tad less obnoxious!
Because so few women are choosing to have children these days, or at least enough of them, the Muslims might well walk away with the crown! Many people seem to forget this. We are being outbred.
It used to be a woman's duty to have children: Lie back and think of England, was the old saying! Not any more, it seems.
Still, we have transitted the feminist era. True, some just can't get over it, but, then, I still see liberals driving around with "Vote for Kerry" bumper stickers still on.
Yes, and it seems all those boisterous women are now willing to demean themselves and take to the burqah. It's quite incredible!
I think we are witnessing a slow settling out of the liberated woman, from Suffragettes to now. More and I more I see women choosing family vs career, or career vs family. They are getting happier because they are doing the choosing, and we will see a lot more goodness coming.
We'll see how much of the choosing they'll be doing when Islam grows ever stronger.
All of life boils down to risk management, for men and for women. It is very hard for many women to fulfill their desires for motherhood and still be careerists.
Very difficult indeed. Personally, as a result of 'women's liberation', I think women have drawn the short straw. I don't see that they have been truly liberated at all. Many have exchanged one form of bondage for another.
Some try to do both, but there's that risk--it costs them psychically, if not physically. Those women who must toil to earn a living and keep a brood have become trapped into a grind.
Exactly! I can't see what they're getting out of it, especially in terms of quality of life.
Those women chosing to be single mothers, well, that is part of their risk management, and my heart does not go out to them.
Mine doesn't. They've chosen the hard path for themselves. They should have been more careful, if they couldn't have been more moral.
I am seeing more caring women as the day goes on, and fewer "caring" guys.
Really? But that's exactly the opposite of what we have seen here in Europe. Men have become more caring: their feminine side has come to the fore, and it has become far more obvious; women, by contrast, have become less caring: their masculine side has come to the fore, and that has become far more obvious. Look at fashions: men now often wear what was always reserved for women, and women are wearing the things which were traditionally reserved for men. There has been a rôle reversal to a great degree.
Fathers are changing nappies (diapers) and pushing strollers, etc. Years ago, they were the preserve of the mother.
I observe the opposite from you. Perhaps this is a cultural thing.
I think we may be on the verge of getting better as a civilization with regard to women. We have a very long way to go, but, then, look how far we have come in such a short time.
I think we're in danger of slipping backward myself. As a society, we can't afford all these changes. Take a look at the demographics! They are unnerving.
Women's needs have not changed since the last evolutionary leap, and these needs are beginning to cry out to be met. They must be free individuals to choose and to act to do what each determines to be best for her, and only a few women will choose to be uncaring hard-asses.
This is a view which I don't really share. Women, like all others, need to become less selfish. This is one of the problems of society today: everybody wants to do his/her own thing, regardless of the needs of others. I'm going to do what I want to do, and sod everybody else!
But I would say that this has come about because of the declining influence of Christianity in the West. I know that you wouldn't agree with that assessment at all.
American Crusader:
I didn't see any commentary about the need for both parents to work.
I don't recall seeing that mentioned either. But if there is a need, and in many cases there is, women have brought this on themselves in large part.
It did mention the cost of raising children but failed to mention the fact that a single paycheck isn't always enough.
It isn't always enough. Funny how it used to be, though, isn't it?
As far as not "caring", that's a pretty hard factor to weigh.
I think people generally have become less caring. It's because of the selfishness of today's society. Everybody is out for him/herself these days.
Instead of volunteering time, you send money, does that mean you care less?
I think that in some cases it does. If one has a pocketful of money, it's pretty easy to send money and let other people do the caring. But the big question is this: How much time are WE prepared to give in order to do the actual caring.
Take the example of old people being shunted off to old people's homes. It's a far easier option to let the others do the caring, isn't it?
Post a Comment