Wow: Linda Hirshman on the wage gap
Wow, I am not sure exactly where to start with her analysis, other than yet again, the fault for gender discrimination, according to her, is laid at women's feet.
--
You're Not Earning as Much as the Guys? Here's Why.
By Linda Hirshman Sunday, June 3, 2007; Page B01
Ah, graduation -- that time of optimism, of looking to the future and its ( Read more... )
--
You're Not Earning as Much as the Guys? Here's Why.
By Linda Hirshman Sunday, June 3, 2007; Page B01
Ah, graduation -- that time of optimism, of looking to the future and its ( Read more... )
I haven't read the book, but from what I've read about it, isn't that exactly what she's doing - arguing that women should assess the potential implications of taking a career break from the point of view of statistical probability? That she's focussing on a privileged few is a valid criticism, but to be honest, pretty much any mainstream feminist book is going to focus on a privileged group one way or another, and I'm unconvinced that it's a reason to discount the argument entirely.
I do agree that Hirshman's article assumes that not reaching one's "true potential" is a Bad Thing without examining the reasons why it might be a Bad Thing, and doesn't entertain any possibilities that there might be other value systems in play. But it's a short article. As far as I'm aware, that's precisely what Leslie Bennett is trying to do. I think it's really important to discuss the ways in which those other value systems - putting family first, putting job satisfaction first, putting social good first - might be contributing to women's lower earnings (and ultimately women's poverty), no matter how good and beneficial they may appear. I believe that pretty much every ideology should be examined regularly to see whether it is supporting or opposing patriarchal values, and there probably isn't a way of doing that that's guaranteed 100% inoffensive.
If Elementary Behaviour Change states that you don't get very far by berating your target group, it surely also states that you need to establish why the behaviour under discussion is potentially detrimental before it's even worth discussing why it's happening?
Reply
Leslie Bennetts and Linda Hirshman both have the same problem - they are sharing relevant facts and issues but their tone and content of their analysis is "women, you are soooo STUPID! Look at your STUPID choices!"
I have not read either Bennetts nor Hirshman's books; however, I have read plenty of interviews of Bennetts, plus several of Hirshman's articles and some interviews with her. Both have said unequivocally that being a SAHM is not only a bad choice, PERIOD, but that being a SAHM is bad for women everywhere. Heck, they both even said going part time or going on the "mommy track" is always bad.
This is what I take issue with -the "blame the victim" approach that is far too often used (though usually not with such vitriol) in any discussion of why women are not running the world (yet).
If it isn't our management styles (not assertive enough!), or our networking inabilities (we sabatogue our juniors instead of grooming them!), it is our choices over which jobs to seek or how on earth we are possibly going to combine motherhood with working. And all this in a culture where sick leave is only available to 1/3rd of workers, quality childcare is exceedingly expensive and hard to come by, maternity leave is unpaid and often only lasts 6 weeks, and professionals are expected to work 50 - 60 hours a week, plus average commute of an hour a day.
The other issue that they both fail to address is that many women want more time with their kids. I know I do. I don't want to be a full time SAHM. But I also don't want to be away from my kids 60 - 70 hours a week. I want to be able to breastfeed my boys for as long as they like. I'd like to be around in their early years, and not feel overwhelmed and stressed because I feel like i don't have enough time nor energy to meet everyones needs.
But I feel that according to Bennetts and Hirshman, I am a bad feminist. Which is what pisses me off.
it surely also states that you need to establish why the behaviour under discussion is potentially detrimental before it's even worth discussing why it's happening?
Heh, you'd think that'd be self evident, though of course some of the behavior change stuff I have seen... yes, a thorough discussion has to happen on what the problem is before you can determine what you want to see changed. This also requires an analysis of what the positive outcome of that change should be and what are the potential negative repercussions of the change attempt. And identifying a problem isn't enough - you actually have to dig to see what concrete steps you want targeted individuals to make in order to address the problem.
Reply
Leave a comment