Another was the idea that feminism somehow made all choices any woman made into feminist ones or at least immune from feminist criticism. If a woman chose to stay at home, that was a feminist choice. If a woman chose to be employed, that was a feminist choice. If a woman chose to relinquish all her rights and to subject herself to her husband's authority, well, even that was a feminist choice! (No, I'm not making that last one up.) The very definition of "feminist" became identical with "some woman has chosen it" and that "some woman had chosen it" became identical with "feminist." This is circular thinking, but what is worse is the usual addition that these choices cannot therefore be criticized or discussed. After all, wasn't feminism all about giving women more choices?Women are humans, and as humans, we sometimes make stupid choices. Somehow, feminism has become tied to unconditional support of women's choices no matter what. But how is that any better than the old thinking that women shouldn't get into politics because they were too good for it? Both cases make us into things that are not quite human, on one hand we shouldn't get involved in politics because we're too ethical and pure, on the other hand our choices should not be questioned because we are women. If a man made a choice to do something stupid that drastically impacted the welfare of himself and his family, we would have no problem calling him a tool. If we really want equality, we need to stop patting ourselves on the head for making any choice, regardless of how stupid it is.
Echidne also goes on to say that:
My own observations suggest that feminists criticizing housewives or strippers for their occupational choices are less common than non-feminists criticizing employed mothers, say. But in any case feminism never promised the total lack of any questioning about the choices people make.Here's where I bite. I'm one of those feminists who will criticize women for choosing to be housewives. By choosing to be housewives, women choose to do a very difficult job for no pay, and by not getting paid for it, they devalue the work that they do (and that the rest of us have to do even if we work full time outside of the house).
The work of caring for children and the home is no less difficult than being a garbage man, yet garbage men are paid reasonably well and generally receive benefits and retirement packages. And they get time off, housewives don't. But because of how we idealize motherhood, mothers do not receive payment for their services. They are expected to satisfied with being paid in kisses and love and their children's accomplishments.
Yet all the services that housewives provide are vital to the continuation of society. If no one ever cooked a meal or did laundry or read bedtime stories or even just had babies, society would literally end. And we have ways of paying for these services. Even housewives use dry cleaners and restaurants. There are nannies and daycares that will read to children and house cleaning services that will scrub your toilets. Hell, you can now even outsource your pregnancy to an Indian surrogate. All of these things are jobs that pay you for your time and effort.
By doing all of these jobs for no pay, housewives set the bar very low for the wages of the people who do those jobs for pay. The job of the housewife is idealized so that we can continue to get vital services without paying for them. And they should be paid for. All we need to do is look at Germany to see what happens when women realize that the costs of having children outweigh the benefits. Birthrates drop, drastically.
So I will criticize women for being SAHMs. You're bringing us all down. Either get work or start demanding to be compensated for your time and energy in something more tangible than sentimental fluff.
No comments:
Post a Comment