Radio Free Patriarchy, broadcasting daily
I was flipping through the Observer's women magazine when I saw the following headline:
"Worth $100m, runs a hedge fund, has two sets of twins and four nannies - Meet Karen Finerman, one of the few women to conquer the cut-throat, male-dominated world of hedge funds. She's very rich - and she's very normal."
Right, class, what's wrong with this headline? Is it:
Poll
I showed Matt the headline and asked what he thought of it. He shrugged, so I brought up problem e) from above, which was the thing which struck me first. I asked why the journalists who write this kind of profile feel the need emphasise the 'normal' or 'human' nature of successful women. For example, they might note their reaction to being photographed -'"Oh God, my hair's a mess," she said, laughing as she shook her perfectly-groomed mane,' that sort of thing. And you can be darn sure they'll mention her family life, will probably even ask her about the "choices" she's made. By contrast, if they're profiling a man, they're just as likely to write about how unusual the guy is, how his extra-specialness has turned his company around, or whatever. And if they ask about his home life at all, it'll be brief.
I guess I sometimes feel like there's this whole world of...well...subtext out there. One of my English professors used to talk about subtext in Paradise Lost by saying that it was like a "Radio Free Milton" broadcasting messages just under the radar of the established church, audible only if you were listening for it, and seeping into your brain even if you weren't. Well, sometimes I feel like there's a "Radio Free Patriarchy" out there doing exactly the same thing.
Matt didn't see it. It's Observer Woman magazine, he said. If the article were on the business pages, you'd have a point - but actually, they hardly ever run individual profiles of businesspeople, it's usually about the company. Comparing an interview in the financial pages with a personal profile in Observer Woman is apples and oranges territory. Plus, they have to consider their audience, and most people who read Observer Woman are going to be way more interested in how she manages her life than they are in her hedge fund.
This was a fair objection to make, but it led to deeper questions. Why is there a readership for articles about businesswomen juggling careers and family? Why isn't there a similar readership for businessmen doing the same? Aren't men in high-powered careers making choices, too?
Eventually, we agreed that when it comes to careers and family, both men and women have more choices now than they used to - but there's a huge difference in the way society regards those choices.
Both men and women can:
1. Have a career, and no family at all
2. Have a career and a family, with someone else taking care of the kids
3. Be a stay-at-home parent
4. Do some combination of the above, e.g. take a few years off/work part time while the kids are young
If a woman chooses 1, there are now far fewer barriers than there used to be. However, she will spend her entire life having her decision questioned by well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning people, who will regard her variously as odd, mentally unstable, threatening, or an object of pity.
If a woman chooses 2, she'll spend her life as the subject of an infinite number of hysterical media articles blaming the decline of society on women who leave their kids to be raised by strangers. She may herself feel guilty for doing so. If she doesn't, see above comments re: odd, mentally unstable, etc. She may also be subject to employment discrimination (legal or otherwise) if she refuses to work ridiculous hours, or habitually needs to take off work when childcare arrangements fall through.
If a woman chooses 3, the traditionalists may be happy, but if she's a single mother from a lower social class, she'll be stereotyped as a selfish welfare queen who's too lazy to get a job, and whose kids are going to grow up just as bad woman 2's. If she's a highly talented university-educated type, the government (at least in the UK) will be pushing her to go back to work, so that she contributes her skills to the economy. Plus, the more unreconstructed advocates of the patriarchy will point to her and say that educating women is a waste of taxpayer money, since they're clearly only there to get Mrs. degrees.
And if a woman chooses 4, she'll get all of the above. Sequentially. Plus, if she works part-time or in family-friendly fields (e.g. teaching) then she'll be providing excuses for the pay-gap apologists, who claim that the 20% gap between male and female salaries is still there not because of deep-seated institutionalised discrimination, but because women work part time more, and in lower-paid fields. Never mind that they're lower-paid because women work in them, and therefore the work isn't valued as much...but I digress.
And now for the men. If a man chooses 1, maybe some people are going to wonder about his sexuality, but there's a lot of admiration out there for a man who "marries his work" and achieves great things. As for option 3, unfortunately stay-at-home dads catch a lot of flack, and a lot of men don't feel like they even have the option. This is a great shame. In many families, this would be the best way to go, and if there are regulations or social pressures preventing it, then it's well worth fighting them.
However, if a man chooses 2, nobody, but nobody, is going to criticise him for it.
For men, there is a "right" choice, a default. There is no such thing for women.
And therein lies the heart of the problem, for men and women, and for families of all kinds.
"Worth $100m, runs a hedge fund, has two sets of twins and four nannies - Meet Karen Finerman, one of the few women to conquer the cut-throat, male-dominated world of hedge funds. She's very rich - and she's very normal."
Right, class, what's wrong with this headline? Is it:
Poll
I showed Matt the headline and asked what he thought of it. He shrugged, so I brought up problem e) from above, which was the thing which struck me first. I asked why the journalists who write this kind of profile feel the need emphasise the 'normal' or 'human' nature of successful women. For example, they might note their reaction to being photographed -'"Oh God, my hair's a mess," she said, laughing as she shook her perfectly-groomed mane,' that sort of thing. And you can be darn sure they'll mention her family life, will probably even ask her about the "choices" she's made. By contrast, if they're profiling a man, they're just as likely to write about how unusual the guy is, how his extra-specialness has turned his company around, or whatever. And if they ask about his home life at all, it'll be brief.
I guess I sometimes feel like there's this whole world of...well...subtext out there. One of my English professors used to talk about subtext in Paradise Lost by saying that it was like a "Radio Free Milton" broadcasting messages just under the radar of the established church, audible only if you were listening for it, and seeping into your brain even if you weren't. Well, sometimes I feel like there's a "Radio Free Patriarchy" out there doing exactly the same thing.
Matt didn't see it. It's Observer Woman magazine, he said. If the article were on the business pages, you'd have a point - but actually, they hardly ever run individual profiles of businesspeople, it's usually about the company. Comparing an interview in the financial pages with a personal profile in Observer Woman is apples and oranges territory. Plus, they have to consider their audience, and most people who read Observer Woman are going to be way more interested in how she manages her life than they are in her hedge fund.
This was a fair objection to make, but it led to deeper questions. Why is there a readership for articles about businesswomen juggling careers and family? Why isn't there a similar readership for businessmen doing the same? Aren't men in high-powered careers making choices, too?
Eventually, we agreed that when it comes to careers and family, both men and women have more choices now than they used to - but there's a huge difference in the way society regards those choices.
Both men and women can:
1. Have a career, and no family at all
2. Have a career and a family, with someone else taking care of the kids
3. Be a stay-at-home parent
4. Do some combination of the above, e.g. take a few years off/work part time while the kids are young
If a woman chooses 1, there are now far fewer barriers than there used to be. However, she will spend her entire life having her decision questioned by well-meaning and not-so-well-meaning people, who will regard her variously as odd, mentally unstable, threatening, or an object of pity.
If a woman chooses 2, she'll spend her life as the subject of an infinite number of hysterical media articles blaming the decline of society on women who leave their kids to be raised by strangers. She may herself feel guilty for doing so. If she doesn't, see above comments re: odd, mentally unstable, etc. She may also be subject to employment discrimination (legal or otherwise) if she refuses to work ridiculous hours, or habitually needs to take off work when childcare arrangements fall through.
If a woman chooses 3, the traditionalists may be happy, but if she's a single mother from a lower social class, she'll be stereotyped as a selfish welfare queen who's too lazy to get a job, and whose kids are going to grow up just as bad woman 2's. If she's a highly talented university-educated type, the government (at least in the UK) will be pushing her to go back to work, so that she contributes her skills to the economy. Plus, the more unreconstructed advocates of the patriarchy will point to her and say that educating women is a waste of taxpayer money, since they're clearly only there to get Mrs. degrees.
And if a woman chooses 4, she'll get all of the above. Sequentially. Plus, if she works part-time or in family-friendly fields (e.g. teaching) then she'll be providing excuses for the pay-gap apologists, who claim that the 20% gap between male and female salaries is still there not because of deep-seated institutionalised discrimination, but because women work part time more, and in lower-paid fields. Never mind that they're lower-paid because women work in them, and therefore the work isn't valued as much...but I digress.
And now for the men. If a man chooses 1, maybe some people are going to wonder about his sexuality, but there's a lot of admiration out there for a man who "marries his work" and achieves great things. As for option 3, unfortunately stay-at-home dads catch a lot of flack, and a lot of men don't feel like they even have the option. This is a great shame. In many families, this would be the best way to go, and if there are regulations or social pressures preventing it, then it's well worth fighting them.
However, if a man chooses 2, nobody, but nobody, is going to criticise him for it.
For men, there is a "right" choice, a default. There is no such thing for women.
And therein lies the heart of the problem, for men and women, and for families of all kinds.