This is why I struggle to rally behind most "feminist organizations."
For some reason, to be concerned about women's rights in America, you also have to be radically against the idea of traditional families. Supposedly, a real advocate for women fights for her right to have the job she wants, to have as many children as she wants, to have her own house, etc.
But to suggest the need for a partner to accomplish these goals is anti-feminist.
Some highlights from the above article:
-"the government shouldn't promote marriage."
-"children should be considered a public expense."
-Lives would improve if pay for women went up "much more than if people simply got married and stayed married."
On the other hand, of course, it's okay to promote reliance on the government. We're supposed to offer childcare assistance, housing assistance, and welfare/food stamps when necessary. That's only logical, since life is expensive and everyone needs help sometimes. But, don't suggest that help should come from a loving, supportive life partner.
(sigh) when will women realize that the overall condition of their gender has NOT improved since the adoption of a selfish, "I don't need a man" mentality?
I agree its these kind of independent women i tried to avoid. There is a fine line of being independent and a fine line of Feminism. Right Wing Feminism is extremely sexist and makes me not like the GOP.
ReplyDeleteMy point is these women are NOT independent, if they require government assistance for housing, food, and childcare. (By the way, the woman quoted in the article is touting LEFT-wing ideas. And most feminist organizations are heavily Liberal. Married women tend to vote Republican.)
ReplyDeleteYou're qualified to say these things, Peach. I can't say them because I'm male. Keep up the honest evaluations and then prepare to be abused and misunderstood...that's what comes from speaking truth :)
ReplyDeleteOf course they aren't independent, Amanda--because they don't receive equal pay.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with their argument is that they say equal pay will solve everything, but it won't because most single moms aren't the managers and executives and whatnot who make enough money to support their families. Most single moms had their kids before they could get an education and/or start in on a good career, so they're stuck doing lame-o jobs.
The cry for equal pay is just a distraction. They know the average Jane (and a chunk of Joes) agrees with this sentiment, so that's what they use to pull us in. But because the real problem comes from bad decisions (like, I don't know, having sex before you're married) they sneak in the thing about subsidized childcare. The latter is their actual goal because, guess what, it's not going to make that big a difference if a woman gets a five cent raise for flipping burgers.
I think you all are missing the logic behind promoting equal pay.
ReplyDeleteIt will always be better (financially) to have two incomes instead of one. It provides better financial stability, for one. If the wife can bring home more money, that benefits her family. If the emphasis is on the woman getting married, then even if she does and that works out, the family income will be limited by the pay gap. So this would benefit both single and married women.
Now let's talk childcare subsidy. Lots of married women don't go back to work after having children because they want to work part time, and quality childcare is too expensive to justify them going back. It's cheaper to stay at home. This is also because of the pay gap. Women are paid less overall, and then on top of that they are penalized for wanting to provide quality (costly) childcare. Childcare should not be cheap anyway! I'm sure Amanda will agree that we should value the people who care for children.
This brings me to the point of children as a "Public expense." Children grow up to be the adults who comprise our society/economy/community. They become leaders, professionals, and voters. We need to invest in them as a community so that our society prospers. I think that's all they mean by public expense. In a lot of ways, public education is like national security: We all need to invest in it for our own good.
(PS: REALLY BETHANY? Your burger flipping commentary is incredibly offensive. Plenty of single mothers do not work fast food. Great stereotype.)
Let's hear it for childcare workers! ha.
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't disagree with 99.9% of your post. And you make a pretty good case that children are the future and we should invest in them. That's what I'm trying to do in my personal life, even though I'm not making millions doing it. But, it's not fair for me to MAKE you or anyone else invest in the lives of children if you don't want to--especially if any of them just happen to be the illegitimate children of women who are too stubborn or proud to find a team-mate to help her out. Government mandates make all-encompassing decisions about what's most important and then use our money to "invest." We can't possibly vote on each, individual decision made by government organizations, so we're basically stuck with their choices once blanket policies are in place.
I say donate to the nonprofits (please!) and put your own money where your values are, leaving Uncle Sam out.
Finally, if it's really true that pay between men and women is so significant, women have the power to bargain with their employers the same way an athlete can say to a coach "If you want me to keep playing for your team, I'll need another $3million." Competition and bargaining help determine a person's payscale. The government just messes things up.
By the same logic, it's not fair for everyone in our country to benefit from the investment in young people (economy, etc) but not pay into it. We don't and can't live in a bubble.
ReplyDeleteYou don't vote on every decision a non-profit makes either. Same logic. Sure, you can just stop donating to that non-profit if you come to disagree with their practices, but politicians get a lot more press and devote more time to listening to constituents than non-profits do to listening to donors (especially small-scale donors). So do you think that rich people (who can donate the most money and therefore would logically get more attention) should have more of a say about what happens in our country? Because at least when it comes to elections, you (theoretically) cannot buy votes. And as someone who does not seem to plan to make large sums of money in her life, do you feel comfortable with having less of a voice? Certainly makes me uncomfortable.
Have you read studies on the pay gap? I don't think women just magically suck at bargaining. I think there are bigger things at play. The government sure doesn't mess everything up by enforcing a minimum wage. What about safety standards? If people are really that good at bargaining, we don't really need any protective policies. That didn't work out so well during the Industrial Revolution.
By all means, the government is VERY VERY imperfect. I just think other institutions are more imperfect when it comes to these issues.
Now we have arrived at a classic socialism vs. capitalism debate. Which form of government is better? One in which the people drive supply and demand by making their own decisions as much as possible, or one in which the government regulates as much as possible? All it takes for socialism to prevail is for people to believe the government can do a better job taking care of people than they can take care of themselves and each other...
ReplyDeleteThe point of this particular post was to highlight that traditional, family values eliminate a good junk of the struggle that single women are facing. Their financial problems could be alleviated if they were educated about the benefits of solid families, so I'm not sure I want to dive into economics at this time. But I'm sure the free market/government mandate topic will come up again in future posts, and I expect to hear from you!
Meanwhile, I'll leave you with this thought: Was this country established to allow people the freedom to choose their own paths, or is it enough "freedom" simply to elect those who tell us what to do? (And, for what I Think is a pretty good description of big government, check out this article. Some of the comments are pretty good, too.) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41803&s=rcmp#
Or, read my post Feminist for the Rest of Us to hear Star Parker talk about the tragedy of single-mother-government-dependence from somebody who has been there.
You didn't really answer my question, though. As someone who probably isn't going to make millions in her lifetime (just based on your career choice... who knows what can happen), does it make you feel uncomfortable that capitalists with more money have more of a say and therefore more power? What makes a wealthy person more informed or more capable of making choices?
ReplyDeletePlus, you're incorrect in labeling any kind of government oversight as socialism. I work for a non-profit and hope to continue this work for the rest of my life. I definitely see the value in competition. But I also want there to be a governing body that isn't entirely swayed by money (and I support all efforts to take money out of politics).
How is it different for a company (your job, the bank, etc) to make decisions for you than the government? The only difference I see is that we have more power over government (at least people who don't make millions of dollars).
The simple answer is, no, I'm not concerned about the wealthy class. Capitalism, unlike government control, does not create a zero-sum game. It's possible for BOTH the wealthy AND the middle class to get what they want at the same time.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism allows multiple markets to operate at once, which means the demands of the wealthy are being met by one group of businessmen while my own are met by another. Everybody makes decisions regarding their own self-interest, and the fact is, most of my interests are completely different from those of the rich. That's why it doesn't make sense for the government to step in and try to "call a truce." Somebody is going to win and somebody is going to lose every time, and that's when power struggles happen.
But, as long as I can make decisions wholly apart from yours, we have no reason to be suspicious of eachother. Through capitalism, the rich can be self-surving, which will drive the markets targeted toward them, while I simultaneously use my voice to drive markets aimed at ME. Our worlds rarely intersect.
I believe in American businessmen--that they are creative and opportunistic. Some may choose to answer the call of the wealthy who say, "We need more luxury cars and private jets" because they have lots of money to spend. But, recognizing that there are others who can't afford luxury cars and private jets, another businessman will come along and make HIS money by selling cheap-o, used cars. The wealthy have no "power" over him because they don't belong to his market. He'll be listening to me.
The government's job is to step back and make sure we're free to decide what works in our own interest--whether we're rich or poor--and then entrepreneurs meet the demands. Most of the time the middle class only conflicts with the wealthy when they feel they "deserve" that luxury car but haven't earned it... And, instead of taking greater risks for greater reward, to amass some money and become a member of the wealthy market, they petition the government to regulate, redistribute, and "fix things." That shoots capitalism right in the heart, and eventually, it proves fatal.
I really recommend this article about the root of conflict in our society. It talks about the zero-sum game. http://cnsnews.com/commentary/article/why-were-divided-nation#
If you really think that the wealthy are divorced from your reality, I wonder where you think funding for political campaigns comes from. $ = power. $ = prime-time ads = advantage.
ReplyDeletePractically speaking, when a wealthy person offers $10,000 to a non-profit and you offer $100, the non-profit would be crazy to listen to you over the wealthy person. That's just common sense.
What about the food you eat (unless you can afford to eat all local)? Producing low-quality food and settling lawsuits is far cheaper than producing healthy food. Are you planning to test all your food for chemicals? I think it's pretty outrageous to say that the middle class want the luxury of safe food but haven't earned it.
What about prescription drugs? Do you think that only wealthy people deserve medicine when they are sick? What about sick children? What about when drug companies spend huge amounts of money getting eye lashes to grow thicker (fact) instead of investing money in drugs to cure epidemics in "3rd world" countries?
Sure, you're going to have some kind of power because you have some money, but in the end a company's goal is to make money, and if your interests don't align with their bottom line, then what other options do you have?
PS: This is incredibly on-point for the original topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/opinion/03collins.html?hp
You're a good thinker, Nony. So I think you could come up with a private-sector solution to replace things like the FDA, if you wanted. But if not, I promise there's a businessman somewhere who can!
ReplyDeleteRecently a coworker sent me a link to a news story about breast milk banks in Somewhere USA. Apparently, through FACEBOOK (yes, really), lactating mothers are connecting with women who can't breastfeed and doing business. Most milk-producing women can sell their commodity for $4.25/oz.
Now, however you feel about the exchange. (I say...um, that's pretty weird), apparently there's a market for it. Here's the kicker: the article's last line says, "The milk exchange has become so popular that the FDA is questioning whether to regulate it." (Sigh) of course they are. They don't trust us to do anything ourselves.
The FDA's reasoning is the same as yours: this milk isn't being tested for diseases. It could be contaminated and cause harm to babies. And they're right. It could. But what exactly is the FDA going to do about it besides hire a whole team of taxpaid workers to force a bunch of paperwork and hoop-jumping? This causes the price to go even higher, despite the fact that current customers are perfectly happy to take the contamination risk in exchange for the "bargain" price of $4.25/oz.
IF there is a need to have pasteurized, tested, or otherwise "healthier" options for breastmilk, let's propose the idea to an entrepreneur. He can offer competition for the Facebook Milk Bank by saying, "Buy my safer, tested product for your bundle of joy." He'll have more overhead, because he has to pay lab techs, safety inspectors, etc. But, if he puts the word "organic" on his packaging, he might be okay. Americans pay more for the word organic. Then he could get away with selling HIS commodity for--say--$5.25/oz. Those willing to pay more for security will buy from person B. Those willing to take the risk will keep buying breastmilk cheaply from Facebook.
(continued on next post)
(Continued from previous post)
ReplyDeleteIf kids start getting sick, informed consumers spread the word and encourage others to stop buying the contaminated products. But, those who bought the stuff have to recognize sometimes you "get what you pay for" and the only problem happens when they start expecting the government to step in and save them from their own decisions. (Another example: I bought minimum coverage car insurance to save a few bucks a month. But then, I was injured and discovered my policy doesn't allow a rental car or fat compensation check. I need a lawyer to help me "get what I deserved." Sorry, but you get what you pay for. Suing people or otherwise involving the government to "fix it" when your risk proves bad doesn't work. And, it drives costs up, too.)
The idea of making and living with choices actually pertains to the article you sent, too. Gernally, I liked what the author said. "[Pay for women] no longer is a women's issue--these are family issues." And she says the discrepancy of pay between men and women usually comes when deciding whether to continue building their career or stay home with kids. The problem is, she suggests subsidized childcare as a solution, as if having to choose between careers and raising your own children is unjust. But, that's the nature of life! In my original post, I made the point that we--the tax payers--are supporting women who want EVERYTHING. They want the house, the cars, the two incomes, AND to be mommies. Some of them want EVERYTHING before they've even found a partner to help. They rely on the charity of others to bail them out of their bad decisions. This is not a "woman's issue" of inequality. It's a family issue of what's more important: money or off-spring? Can I afford to quit my job? And, if not, can I have children at all? Can we pay daycare costs? What if one of us gets laid off? It's not the government's job to make sure you get it all.
(To speak to your question about elections, I would point out that wealthy-class money being spent on ads is NOT where the monopoly lies. With all of our ways to get informed--bloggers, newspapers, social media--propoganda is a non-issue. The truth is available to those who search. The problem happens when money is used to BUY VOTES, and this is much more common among Liberal politicians than privately wealthy citizens. Liberals can make promises of "social justice" and "subsidies" all they want because they are the wealthiest members of society of all: they can create money where there is a $14 trillion hole. (Here's an article about it http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/your_money_belongs_to_politici.html)
There is a lot to comment on here.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I could come up with a private-sector solution, which is my point. A private company always has it's bottom line as a motivating factor. People are motivated to get paid off, cheat, etc. Certainly, the government can be inefficient, but I think its the better deal.
Who says that the "organic" milk you propose being sold for $5.25 is actually organic? Unless there is a respected, official body that tests things (and does not have profit as a motive), we have to take their word for it and hope we don't get sick. They could charge $10 and call it pure gold, but that wouldn't prove anything. Sure, they'd go out of business soon, but there would be tons of people everywhere running the same scheme because there would be no government to fine them or jail them. There would be no real consequences, and we would never know what to trust. The FDA is plenty imperfect, but I prefer SOME kind of recourse as opposed to a free market. I get spoiled food every once and a while, but in general I know there is some quality oversight before I start vomiting. (Or my kids die.)
I don't think you have much evidence that wealthy-class money doesn't heavily influence elections.
Here's one quick example I could find:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202428441399&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
It also just makes sense. Yes, there are bloggers. But a better website ($$$) will attract more attention. You talk all the time about how empty TV news is these days. Yet MILLIONS of people watch it (and believe every word). I agree with you that plenty of people are not motivated to search for good information that exists... but they are voters nonetheless! It's pretty irrelevant what's out there if the people who vote and make decisions don't use it. I think we need to figure out how to empower people to think instead of blaming them for acting like idiots, mostly because we can all benefit from thinking voters who challenge their leaders and make imperfect government better.
I found your comment, "But, that's the nature of life!" to be very telling. It's how YOU see life. For me, in a better world, my husband I would both work and both share childcare responsibilities equally. That way neither career would be put on hold, and women would not have a pay gap. We would also get help paying for quality childcare because it's smart to invest in the next generation (regardless of whether or not you have kids, because regardless those kids will be doctors and nurses and presidents). We certainly have to make sacrifices in life, but there are some that are avoidable if we decide to value community, children, and our futures. (Notice that more liberal rhetoric can easily parallel conservative rhetoric... and both can be sincerely felt.)
Finally: Conservatives are just as manipulative as liberals. Scare tactics about national security. The "downfall" of our society. God's will (my favorite... as if a politician magically knows what God wants us to do... that's really convenient). I'm sure you agree with some of this, but I believe in social justice --- my point is just that of course politicians sell themselves and their ideas, and it's not just liberals who do it.
By "I'm sure you agree with some of this" I meant that I'm sure you are sympathetic to some of those conservative arguments, not that you agree with my criticism of them. My point was that you agree with some conservative arguments, I agree with some liberal arguments, but in the end both can be manipulative. Just to clarify. :)
ReplyDeleteI think it un-posted my first post because of length. It doesn't tell me when I've gone on too long, so I'm not sure when to just divide into 2 separate posts. Oh technology.
ReplyDeleteActually, I figured out the deleted post thing! Sometimes, if I post is really long, it just wants me to check if it's spam. But if I click "allow," then it publishes. So there shouldn't be any disappearances now...
ReplyDeleteI'm sure I'll respond to the things you actually said a little later. Right now, it's 6:45am. Time for work.
Okay, now to address some of your statements through a series of questions. (They could be considered rhetorical, or they may need answers. Whatever seems best.)
ReplyDeleteWhat's so bad about having profit as a motive? Is it possible that private businesses have MORE than profit as a motive (like, perhaps, reputation, pride in success, etc.) Do you believe government officials do NOT have profit as a motive? And, though we know politicians are paid for their service, do you believe "desire for re-election" is a more trust-worthy motivator than profit?
Regardless of your answers to these questions, I assure you that big government control is not the foundation upon which the country was built. Americans declared liberty from the King based on the idea that individuals can do a better job caring for themselves than any establishment.
When I picture the pioneers--heading West though they were warned about violent Indians, extreme winters, and back-breaking labor--I wonder: what motivated THEM? I think it was freedom. They knew they could get sick or hurt. They knew food would be scarce. They knew wild animals were a threat. But it never occurred to them to run back to Philedelphia and demand support from the Feds. They were happy to decide what was best for their families, with no interference, even though it required risk.
Freedom is risky. But THAT'S the foundation upon which the country was built.
Actually, that reminds me of one of my favorite Ben Franklin quotes: "Any society that would give up liberty to earn a little safety deserves neither and will lose both." Safety is an illusion. "Bad things" could happen no matter who you put in charge. But, the upside of a small government--though it provides no guarantees of safety--is that you make the decisions about your own life. That's true, risky, unsafe freedom.
The thing is, I'm not proposing a Communist state here. I'm saying I don't want to be sold pills that do not contain what the bottle says they do. It seems like it would be hard for our society to exist if we're afraid of all medicines, foods, etc. In fact, that's the entire point of a government. This does not keep you from deciding your life. It keeps you alive. Similar to why we have a military.
ReplyDeleteDo you really think the FDA shouldn't exist? (I'm sincerely asking that because it's unclear to me when you're making a point and when you're talking in specifics about policy issues.)
We have a lot more freedom than the people who were not allowed to practice their religion. Also, I don't really care what the forefathers intended. It's not the 1700's anymore. I think they did a decent job putting together a constitution and I respect that they dared to think outside the box. I don't think they were perfect or had perfect ideas. They were doing the best they could. We should do the best we can now.
The concept of getting re-elected is that you don't make your voters unhappy, which is the point of government (you pick who is in charge). If we took the money out of elections (to make things equal so that it would be based on ideas and not $) and made sure voters were actually representative of our population (instead of few poor people voting), then our elected officials would be held accountable to the people. Imagine if we actually educated everyone, too! Then we would have thinking voters deciding who makes policy decisions! That way we could all have discussions like this instead of watching idiotic news shows that boil everything down into a soundbyte.
We can both cite historic leaders in support of our ideas. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
I think some people in the world would not take advantage of a capitalistic environment, but then I think survival instincts kick in. Think about all the corporate scandals that happen because businesses weren't regulated. Example: the Industrial Revolution. Regulations did not keep up with the economy, monopolies formed, workers were treated horribly, etc.