Feminism, Childcare, and the Workplace

Oct 24, 2005 13:58

Feminists have many different perspectives on child-raising and motherhood - some of us want it, and some of us don't. Some of us want full-time careers, some of us want part-time careers, and some of us don't want to have a career and would rather stay home. In short - we're different and have different wants/needs. I worry that the workforce at ( Read more... )

feminist mvmt general, gender roles, stay at home parents, parenting, family, workplace

Leave a comment

chreebomb October 24 2005, 18:14:44 UTC
well, i can't see it changing until there's a fundamental shift toward equality, period. you know? i mean, it's still true that most women have children and most women are left with most of the responsibility for child-rearing.

i don't mean to ignore your point about non-mothers who are judged as potential mothers. i think that's a valid point.

i'm a single mother and all the child responsibilities fall on me. my child's father lives more than an hour away so it's impossible to rely on him for sick days, etc. i believe the answer is to provide parental rights to employees. it shouldn't be gender-specific, but it would in fact end up benefitting women as they tend to have more childrearing responsibilities.

i think part of the answer is to stop devaluing motherhood as a society, too. we send mixed messages: if you're wealthy enough, the best thing you can do is to stay at home to raise your children. but if you DO stay at home, you're lazy and a nonproductive member of society. and you won't get any governmental help for doing it, that's for sure! and if you're poor, you'd better be working your ass off. but at the same time, you'll be criticized for putting your kid in daycare too young and not spending enough time with him.

ah, i have no solution. just ramblings. :)

Reply

dragovianknight October 24 2005, 18:37:24 UTC
i believe the answer is to provide parental rights to employees.

I would rather see something that didn't specifically exclude the childfree from the benefits (not that I think you specifically were intending that). We still have families, even if those families aren't children, and may be taking care of parents/spouses/adult siblings. I think most employees would benefit from some sort of flex time that would allow them to take care of emergencies.

Word about the mixed messages on motherhood.

Reply

chreebomb October 24 2005, 18:40:38 UTC
yes, i completely agree with you about family/children. i know caring for aging parents is a real concern.

Reply

bestdaywelived October 24 2005, 18:41:16 UTC
I think more generalized "personal/family" time would be ideal for men and women alike. As a non-childed person who never wants to be a mother, I feel completely lost in the system of feminism vs. the workplace.

Reply

crafting_change October 24 2005, 21:21:16 UTC
I think most employees would benefit from some sort of flex time that would allow them to take care of emergencies.

Within the United States there is the 'family medical leave act' which not only covers children, but the taking care of parents, siblings, and spouses'
This is of course hetero centric, but it is a start.

Reply

jaralith October 25 2005, 04:04:29 UTC
It also doesn't cover people who work in small business, and is completely unpaid. But, yes, it is a start.

Reply

crafting_change October 25 2005, 04:09:44 UTC
definitely...next person who kvetches about how the 'small business' is screwed is getting my boot in their tuckus.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up