Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!gateway
From: ST9@jane.uh.edu (Rich Bainter AKA Pug)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: How feminism has failed me
Message-ID: <5064@jane.uh.edu>
Date: 29 Nov 89 19:57:21 GMT
References: <48390@bbn.COM> <8911212350.AA24980@hop.toad.com>
Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle)
Organization: University of Houston
Lines: 104
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu

[This is a combination of the original post and a followup, as I
requested a clarification of some details.  If the posting is a 
little choppy, it is probably my fault.  I changed no words, simply
tried to order the various parts.  --clt]

> Modern feminism considers child care an extremely important issue, and
> politically has pushed throughout the eighties for child care that
> would let people raise families and pursue careers.  That feminism has
> not so far succeeded is hardly something you can blame on feminism; the
> fault lies in the inertia of patriarchal society.  Things proceed in
> stages, generally small stages, and it's unrealistic to blame feminism
> for not delivering all desirable social change at once.  If feminism
> were not trying, and trying hard, to resolve the kinds of problems Ms.
> Bonesteel related so well, then it would be to blame.  But it *is*
> trying to allow self-determination for women in this regard and others.

a) When Germany is on the line at 9pm on Thanksgiving, *Someone* has
to sacrifice family for job.  The rest of the world doesn't
particularly care about our quaint social customs.  If your company
doesn't stay on the ball, the other companies will (and they will get
the business).  Some people point out that this causes employees to
burn out faster.  My reply is that the people who burn out quickly in
such a fashion obviously are not qualified for the high standards/high
paying jobs where greater greater stamina is required.  As an aside: I
know I do not have the stamina to work these kind of jobs.  But I do
recognize that all the chief officers in my company (who make 75k and
up) do work 12 hour days frequently.  And if they are needed in New
York or in Boston then they go.  Businesses have deadlines.  If they
are not met the business can fail, or at least lose lots of money.
Sometimes the deadlines are loose.  Sometimes they are okay.  But
sometimes they are tight and fatal.  If you do not file certain forms
by certain dates your company can be fined huge amounts of money.  If
this means you work 30 hours straight then that is what you have to
do.  I choose not to.  I work smaller hours.  This means I will not
have a mansion, a rolls, and a trip to Europe every year.

b) Companies pay people large amounts of money to sacrifice huge
amounts of their personal time.  An executive that works 14 hour days
is a lot more valuable than 2 executives (or even 3) who work 8 hour
days.  Even more so for one who puts in the time when it is really
needed.  Like doing tax work during the Xmas and New Years holidays.

c) Any feminism that causes a dearth in babies among proponents of
that brand of feminism is probably doomed to failure.

d) Business can't afford the changes being asked for.  Already we are
losing jobs because workers in general expect excessive wages and
benefits in return for the work they do.  (This applies to the leaders
especially.)  Remember, we no longer have a monopoly on production as
we did in the 1950's.  We are competing economically with people
making 1% of what we do.
  The reason the birth rate is low right now is that there is no
incentive to have children in the US.  The standard deduction has
grown much slower per child than inflation (It should be around
5,000).  Add food, extra rent, and child care and you have strong
disincentives.
  As a result, required child care seems like an okay idea.  However,
ignoring the fact that a government managed child care system would
most likely be an expensive mess after 10 years in operation, once
incentives to have children rise the birth rate will also rise.
  This means businesses will have to give more pregnancy leaves than
currently.  I have heard the argument that no person should be so
important that they can't take 6 weeks (months) off to be with their
child.  But, that is exactly what *leaders* are for.  They are
essential.  The troops may not be but they are paid accordingly.  Case
in point: Company I know of is completely the same except for the
president.  This position has no obvious responsibilities.  However, 6
months after the new officer comes in business is down 30%.  Morale is
down.  Productivity is down.  The industrial side has walked out twice
now.  Can a woman in this position sacrifice the rest of the company
because she wants to have a baby?  Or worse, finds she is suddenly
going to have one?
  In a capitalist society the business with the lowest labor costs
survives longer and makes higher profits.  The effects of pregnancy
leave on a large company are hidden by its size.  But a majority of
employees work for small businesses.  Can a 10 person shop afford for
2 people to be gone with pay for 6 months?  Six weeks?  Maybe if it is
an I/O clerk but what if it is a leader?

How to work it out?  I don't know.  I don't think women should be
treated any different than men.  But, I think that in the long run
women will not desire equality and the responsibilities and sacrifices
that it brings.  I think that at least 50% of the female population
strongly does not wish to be assigned to combat duty.  I do not think
that a majority of women wish to give up their stranglehold on the
children in divorce settlements.  I do not think women wish to give up
their implied right to *not work*.  I.e. I know of women who have quit
working when they had a boyfriend or husband.  They were not viewed as
"bums" or "wastrels."  Though I know of no men personally I am aware
of men who have done the same thing and they *are* expected to work.
I do not think that women are willing to make the sacrifices required
by business of men with regards to family.  So... change business?
Won't work.
  Conclusion: In the long run most women never be equals.  But, why
not try.  It may work for a while.  It doesn't seem fair not to.  All
I'm saying is that I think that eventually societies in which women
are mother/breeders will outbreed the societies in which they are not.
So a majority of men and women will be raised by mother/breeders and
expect to be or to marry mother/breeders.


---
Stephen McLeod (aka Bandolar)
So... what do you wanna be when YOU grow up?


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com