Make it stop. An article by a British academic Alison Wolf in Prospect Magazine has people's heads spinning. It is about what she calls "elite women" and their ability to get whatever they want in a high-paying, high-power career. Her basic thesis, these women are ruining society because talent is leaving jobs that need women, such as teaching and other social services.
Someone, stop me now.
Three consequences get far less attention than they deserve. The first is the death of sisterhood: an end to the millennia during which women of all classes shared the same major life experiences to a far greater degree than did their men. The second is the erosion of "female altruism," the service ethos which has been profoundly important to modern industrial societies—particularly in the education of their young, and the care of their old and sick. The third is the impact of employment change on childbearing. We are familiar with the prospect of demographic decline, yet we ignore, sometimes wilfully, the extent to which educated women face disincentives to bear children.
When has there ever been a real universal sisterhood?
As in the Lisa Jervis article quoted in the post before this, if Wolf was talking about how feminism should not be centered around women being able to enter the commodity fetishism/corporate culture sucking the world dry, that would be one thing. But she is not, she asks for an innately "female altruism" that she thinks has disappeared due to the advancement of women in work.
Yikes. I agree that there are fewer incentives for *successful* women to have children, but why the blame on women for not living up to there role of childbearer.
'Families remain central to the care of the old and sick, as well as raising the next generation, and yet our economy and society steer ever more educated women away from marriage or childbearing,' she writes. 'The repercussions for our future are enormous, and we should at least recognise the fact.' The growth, Wolf argues, of the 'because I'm worth it' generation has led to the end of 'female altruism', where women would see the caring part of their life as normal.
Oh dear. Thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: I am left confused..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/1785
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Yep, that's right, women will stop doing all the shit work for free. And hey, that means it'll have to become paid work, or else govt-subsidized so people don't lose out on their careers to take care of others. The horror! Who would want to live in such a world???
((raises hand))
"Sisterhood" will be a lot more powerful when sisters are allowed to choose when and if they will nurture the rest of society.
It's awful how women are stopping doing scut work for free and demanding to be treated and paid as if their time, effort, and lives were as valuable as other peoples'. And when I say 'other peoples'', I mean 'men's'.
I agree - it sounds more like the death of women doing work for little pay and little respect than the death of altruism. Wolf's piece is an economic analysis that recognises class just long enough to say that it doesn't matter and instead that all women have the same 'universal experiences,' regardless of tricksy details of social history.
The Guardian actually ran their story under the headline 'Young, successful, well paid: are they killing feminism?'
*sigh*
Somehow enlightened self-interest is good when men do it, but bad when women do it. Women are supposed to engage in enlightened lack of self-interest.
Is anyone else really tired of hearing about how we're causing the downfall of society by doing what makes us happy? Yes, I'm a selfish bitch because I'm an entomologist.
Did anyone complain about the "death of altruism" of black people when the Emancipation Proclaimation was signed?
Damn fine point Kyra.