Feminism is much more pro-family than 'traditional society'. The problem is that nobody has bothered to listened.
Oliver James on the Times this morning rightly identifies the benefits of flexible working practices. However, he fails to understand feminism entirely. Feminists have been campaigning for flexible working and ‘fatherhood’ for over twenty years. Whilst James would like to see “men becoming much more involved in caring for their small children”, he assigns the main responsibility of childrearing to the mother. There is no rational basis for this except a prescriptive differentiation of roles that has excluded women from society for millennia. It is not based on biology. Breastfeeding (as recommended by the latest medical research)should last up to 6 months, childrearing lasts for many years. This division of labour has discriminated women and put many in a situation where they must decide between a family and work.
Recent research has shown that women returning to work after starting a family are around 40% less likely than the average white, able-bodied man to be offered a post. As I argued on this blog and in my letter to the FT The industry’s reluctance to embrace the work/life balance agenda is myopic and ultimately counterproductive. Flexible working arrangements have been shown in several studies to reduce dramatically sickness absences (26%), increase savings (£5-6m for BT) and innovative thinking. If both parents worked flexibly,they would spend more time with their children and thus give them better care. However, as long as men and society at large see flexible working as a woman’s issue that comes with her ‘role’ as a mother, it will remain the second-class form of working that traps women into poverty and jobs for which they are overqualified. It is feminism that is promoting a family where children have finally both parents and the nation is not deprived of talented workers. The rest is nonsense! (and has forced me to create a new label!)
15 February 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"Breastfeeding should last up to 6 months, childrearing lasts for many years."
The World Health Organisation recommends breast feeding for ideally two years. Not that people should *have* to, but the above statement could be seen as excluding 'extended' breastfeeders.
If you choose to have a child, as a woman you must take time off work.
That will reduce your employment prospects, not least because a new employer will wonder whether you're going to have another child, which would make you a bad investment.
Apart from that, flexible working hours can be very good for all parties, although its obviously not practical in all cases (most prominently in low paid manual employment), but you point is a good one.
I assume you definition of feminism excludes the barmy end of the spectrum ;)
The mother needs to take some time off but she would have much more choice if homeworking and flexible working were available. But unless men press for homeworking/flexible working, the culture won't change. I've read of one top manager at Deutsche Bank starting to work part-time. The City is behind.
Aside from the fact that there've been a series of studying pointing to the disadvantages of prolongued breastfeeding, whoever recommended 2 years is absolutely barmy. It's seriously morbid. Ask yourself: 'if it's not needed, why are you doing it?'. It's quite sick actually, creates dependency and does not help growth. Children need to move to solid food to grow. The rest is ideology.
As a twenty five year old man and a potential father therefore I completely agree with you. The other aspect is that I want to have something to do with my kids if I have them- I want to be involved with them.
F, that's a pretty ferociously dogmatic position re breast feeding. Two years would not be seen as "barmy" or "seriously morbid" in many cultures. In many developing nations, breast feeding may be all that stands between an infant and malnutrition. What's wrong with a little tolerance towards other cultures and other women's choices? And there have been plenty of studies pointing to the advantages of breastfeeding for up to two years. The WHO didn't pick the number out of thin air.
In developing countries!!! not in the western world. Besides, shouldn't we work to end malnutrition and enable children in developing countries to have a better level of health care???
The post clearly made different points (discrimination against women and the public/private ideology) and was very eurocentric. It was not a survey on breastfeeding in countries where it's the only option. And, yes, for your information, prolongued breastfeeding is everything but healthy. The development of sexual responses, the need for solid foods for nutrition and health purposes are not confined by culture.
Post a Comment