Women in the workplace and social networks

[schmi]

I read this interesting passage in a book I recently read:
The opening of the workplace to women has had a momentous impact on enabling women to fulfill their individual potential. However, as Putnam notes, women have historically played a larger role in creating the social fabric of society than men have played. Women have usually been more

Comments

[lazerbug]

The problem is that men are generally not expected to, and, as in the passage you've cited here, are often excused from being part of that "social fabric" generation. It's not whether women are choosing to work outside the home or not (whatever women choose to do in order to survive is a good, valid choice), it's whether men are "deigning" to be part of that micro-level change Beinhocker's talking about. Patriarchal forces will do everything they can to divide-and-conquer the masses -- and in this case, blaming women for the disintegration of supposedly formerly strong social fabrics because they choose to/must work outside the home is just an example of how the patriarchy has skewed our perceptions of choice, work, society, everything

[ladyvorkosigan]

I think the passage is not saying that women SHOULD be responsible, but only that they WERE. The point is not that women are wrong to work, but that if we, as a society, do value certain types of social interactions, than we need to think about how we can maintain them (and yes, it should involve both women and men) in a changing society. Or we can decide that the new social interactions formed by more gender equal work places are an adequate replacement. But I don't think pointing out that women working changes certain patterns that had existed in society is equivalent to blaming them for societal deterioration.

Actually, if anything, I think it's nice that this passage is valuing the contribution women who stay at home are making to society as a whole instead of the common "Oh, they're just sitting around eating bon bons while men go out and support them" views.

[schmi]

Thank you for putting that so eloquently. I tried to say the same thing rather badly in my comment below. :) I thought the author was non-judgmental and was commending women's contribution to society, and pointing out how this social change has affected us on a macro level.

I think I'll update the post with a small follow-up to what the author says can be done to fix this rift in social networks.

[lazerbug]

Okay, I see what you're saying. Thanks for the response.

[paigenotpage]

I find this an interesting conversation and don't have anything to add yet.

Except I think it's important to remember that the stats he is using compares a certain group of women - those of the same socioeconomic level and marital status. Does he somewhere in the chapter become more specific about the women he's choosing to base this point on? Because, this doesn't seem like a discussion where we should be using generalities or using the term "women" without classifiers.

[rosehiptea]

I was thinking of that too. Especially since I've been reading bell hooks' "From Margin to Center" where she talks about women who are not middle-class and may have always worked and have very different sentiments on work being optional and work being fulfilling.

And probably have different points of view on whether or how the contributed to the "social fabric" while working.

[celesteh]

me three.

I have a vague memory of reading in Zinn's _People's History of the US_ about women doing labor organizing. Which is certainly "social fabric" work. I've noted that NGOs, especially ones dealing with vital, life issues, seem to have more women than men doing their work. And that work is often paid, although not well. So what's the difference between a woman volunteering to help with some social issue and her getting paid for it? The major one that I can think of is that it empowers women from vulnerable communities to organize to help themselves. Which they would do anyway, but it's a lot easier when you can get health insurance while doing it.

The presence of women in these "social fabric" positions, like NGOs, btw, is why the intersections of technology and feminism are so important. NGOs need computers and the skills to keep them running and to use FLOSS. (This is my pet issue this week.)

[onlyonequestion]

So what's the difference between a woman volunteering to help with some social issue and her getting paid for it? The major one that I can think of is that it empowers women from vulnerable communities to organize to help themselves. Which they would do anyway, but it's a lot easier when you can get health insurance while doing it.

Exactly what I was thinking too.

[lavendersparkle]

I think that this is pointing to something that feminism and society is going to need to think about and tackle at some point

[schmi]

+1 on everything. Apparently some economists are in agreement, but we need to elect politicians into power who agree with these views and will take constructive action on them.

[lavendersparkle]

I think we need non-governmental change as well.

One really powerful thing we can do is set up our own companies with people-friendly work practices. Those of us with the privalege of being financially secure could also try to make choices that prioritise spending time outside of work above material consumption. I saw a documentary recently that said that the two biggest leisure activities in the US were watching TV and shopping.

[schmi]

two biggest leisure activities in the US were watching TV and shopping
That is depressing. :|

[spreadsothin]

His suggested reforms are my own opinions of what should happen- I've been making theatre to suggest those ends.

My biggest problem is that one-salary-households used to allow a middle class lifestyle. Now it's two-salary-and-credit-card-debt households.

Why did we allow capitalism to hand us the short stick?

[schmi]

That is a more complicated discussion. I think it is possible to live on one income if people prioritized their "needs" as opposed to wants.

[jocelynxheart]

And if said single income is high enough.

[schmi]

Oh, of course.