Division of Labor

[A. Vulgarweed]

>I'd actually say that my preferred definition of "sexism" parallels
>the way the term racism is used, while the "gender division of labor"
>definition of sexism does not. When people talk about racism (at least
>in Western societies), they are almost always referring to racial
>minorities being treated worse than the White majority.  If there is a
>claim that whites are being treated worse (as is often made in debates
>over affirmative action), this is given a different name, such as
>"reverse discrimination."  In other words, the very term "racism"
>implies that some races are treated worse than others, not just that
>each race is treated differently.

Well, racism and sexism are different in some ways and have different
rationalizations, so can never be exactly paralleled. But "gender division
of labor" certainly _does_ parallel the way *racism* plays out in some
ways. Until fairly recently, in the US, blacks were barred from certain
jobs (usually the prestigious, interesting, well-paying ones) entirely, and
herded into others, such as service jobs, janitorial work and domestic
work, perhaps entertainment and athletics for the enjoyment of whites. Some
people at the time _did_ argue that this was a "separate but equal"
division of labor. And some people believed that it was only right and
natural because of black people's different capabilities and interests. It
is *definitely* a VERY MAJOR and important form that "some races being
treated worse than others" took. Not the only one, but a major one that had
great impact on the education, economic status, social status, and overall
hopes and dreams of many generations of people. I think a gender-based
division of labor has pretty much the same effect, because where in the
world does such a division exist in which things like economic power,
social status, education level, and influence *really are* divided equally
among different jobs? I *don't want* a drinking fountain of our very own,
thank you.

Frankly, changing white society's attitude about the capabilities of blacks
as a group proved easier than getting all people to respect and pay a
janitor as much as a lawyer (regardless of the race of either). And if you
use this as a parallel for the situation of women, well, a lawyer will
probably still always be paid better than a homemaker--unless the homemaker
has married for money very, very, well, in which case I'd say there's
another word that more accurately describes her profession. ;) Can't help
but think MLK Jr. would have been quite a bit less inspiring had his
platform been:, "Hey, blacks make great janitors, and we really shouldn't
bother fighting for our rights to be lawyers 'cause that's too
low-priority--but we should get more respect for our traditionally Black
roles! Let's honor janitors! We can hold our heads up high regardless of
the division of labor, 'cause that's just a side issue."

That would not have gone over. And women shouldn't settle for it either. As
I see it, the biggest problem with the traditional gender-based division of
labor is that women only get *one* choice -- well, okay, let's throw in
nurse, teacher, secretary and that ever-popular turn-of-the-century
standby, sweatshop worker. OK, that's five choices. Men get....*everything
else.* If you don't consider that mistreatment of women, then you must have
a very different definition of "mistreatment" than I do.



>
>If we use the term "sexism" to refer to any case where men and women
>are expected to act differently, then what term will we use to refer
>to women being treated worse than men are?

Let's see: Oppression is ever-popular. Plus, let's just talk about the
problem specifically, whatever it may be: job discrimination, female
infanticide, female genital mutilation, spousal abuse, honor killings,
forced marriage, trafficking in women, sexual slavery, education
discrimination....all these are *products* of sexism, but I think "sexism"
is already too general and watered-down a term to apply to, say, a woman
beaten to death because the wind blew her veil off.

If there is no term that
>specifically refers to mistreatment of women, then won't that problem
>become invisible?

Again, "mistreatment" is a term that I see as much broader (no pun
intended) than you're using it to mean. I would call what you're talking
about "oppression," which seems like a stronger word to me anyway, and it
can easily be modified with a "female" or "of women."

Also, this may be just an association I have, but "mistreatment" sounds
like what happens when you beat your cart-horse too hard--i.e., when you
overstep your bounds with this creature that you have a charge to be
responsible for. You know, sort of like the way marital rape used to be a
contradiction in terms, because after all, a husband has a *right*.

>It would be interesting to see if there is correlation between which
>definition of sexism a person adheres to, and whether that person
>believes mistreatment of women is a serious problem.  I suspect that
>there is; I can say right off the bat that radical feminists almost
>never define sexism as referring primarily to a gender division of
>labor.

??? First off, the two definitions of sexism you listed, as has been said,
don't contradict each other at all; I personally hold both of them.

And second, which schismatic sub-school of radical feminism do you mean?
Cause there are hundreds, and they sure all don't agree with each other on
much of anything.
>
>I want to point out another reason why I am unhappy with a focus on
>women achieving in traditionally male roles.  What does this say about
>the importance of traditionally female roles?  If there is a parallel
>emphasis on how great it is for men to take on traditionally female
>roles, fine.  But, that is almost never the case.

That's because it's pretty rare in real life.
Why? Partly *because* it's not rewarded, either economically or socially
(and is rewarded socially even less for men than it is for women).
And also partly because only a *relative few* people are temperamentally
suited at all to full-time caregiver occupations, IMHO. It's very demanding
work, it can be very draining and tedious, and only *some* people feel a
call to it or have a talent for it. That's why it's extremely wrong, IMO,
to force women who are not suited for it to do it, and also to keep men who
*are* suited for it from doing it. But as long as the traditional
_breadwinner_ onus rests on men, you'll see fewer men doing this type of
work because, well, it doesn't pay very well. And as long as it's harder
for women to get higher-paying work than men (which it is, still), you'll
find relatively few women who are able to bring home enough bacon to allow
Mr. Mom to stay at home. Were the economic pie more evenly divided, it
might not be so rare. As it is, I do have a few househusbands in my circle
of friends; without exception, their wives or partners are among the lucky
and smart and ambitious ones who rake in enough money to support a family!
So you can't improve the situation of one without taking up the cause of
the other.

And, as I said above, there IS a MUCH WIDER RANGE of fascinating,
compelling, risky, challenging, exciting, rewarding "traditionally male"
work to choose from. Almost all professions, with the exception of
caregiving ones, *are* "traditionally male." A music journalist (that's
what I do) doesn't have all that much in common with a fighter pilot, who
doesn't have much in common with an archaeological researcher, who doesn't
have much in common with a Senator...except that they're *all*
"traditionally male" occupations. I can understand wanting to celebrate the
fact that _almost every single realm of human endeavor, whether
intellectual, political, physical, and/or entrepreneurial_ is now at least
nominally open to women, whereas 50 years ago it was not.


Women who take on
>traditionally male occupations are lauded; men who take on
>traditionally female occupations are (at best) ignored.  Perhaps the
>intended message is "People of either gender can take on any role,"
>but the message people may perceive is "Traditionally male occupations
>are important; traditionally female occupations are unimportant."  If
>men and women still largely occupy different roles (which is the case
>in the US), then the net effect may be a reduction in the respect
>women receive.  I think one can easily make this criticism of JKR's
>work.  Yes, she has made sure to point out that women can be Quidditch
>players and that there have been Headmistresses of Hogwarts and female
>Ministers of Magic in the past.  But, when it comes to showing (human)
>men in traditionally female roles such as primary caregiver,
>secretary, nurse, food preparer, etc., she just doesn't do it

Well, Hagrid is primary caregiver to an array of creatures, and certainly
is as maternal as anyone else in the books anywhere with little
Norbert....And Dumbledore seems to spend as much time hovering over Harry's
hospital bed as Madam Pomfrey does....OK, that's stretching it...Remember,
she is trying to appeal to kids (including, probably first and foremost,
the kid in herself), and when it comes to fascination, Transfiguration
trumps cooking anyday.

Nevertheless, I'll betcha anything the Potions Master is a *great* cook. We
just don't get to see it 'cause he never has company. :)

>
> I said:
>>> I'd define a non-sexist society as one where the needs and desires
>of both genders are given equal weight. <<
>
>And Amy asked:
>> Such as the desire to be Chaser on a professional Quidditch team?<
>
>If men are allowed to do anything they want, while women are
>restricted to a limited number of occupations, then, yes, that is
>sexist and the N.O.W. (National Organization for Witches) should do
>something about it. (I actually doubt that there are any societies in
>which women are excluded from some professions, while all professions
>are open to men. It just doesn't seem to work that way.)


Huh?? Although women are not *legally* excluded from many professions in
the US (although there are some, notably combat positions in the Armed
Forces, which tend to be the ones that lead to high-ranking positions later
on if you survive), they are *de facto* excluded or barely represented in
many, from construction workers to Senators. We still have a long way to go
on that one. Meanwhile I can't think of anything that officially excludes
men, except maybe matron in a women's prison or Girl Scout troop leader.

>Moving from Hogwarts back to the real world, I'd say that fixing the
>gender-based division of labor is a good cause, but it's not something
>that I think women's organizations should be expected to do.  Women's
>organizations have their hands full with domestic violence, the
>feminization of poverty,

Naama made excellent points about how the feminization of poverty is in
part a *direct result* of unfair labor divisions regarding women. So, to
some extent, is domestic violence. And even FGM is often justified within
the cultures that practice it with the insistence that "if you're not cut
you won't get a good husband." Well, why is having a husband such a matter
of life and death? Rigid division of labor, that's why!


female infanticide in Asia, genital
>mutilation in Africa, and far too many other problems.  They just
>don't have the resources to also tackle problems where men and women
>are impacted equally.  In other words, if both men and women are being
>limited, why should fixing the problem be considered women's
>responsibility?

But where in the world does the division-of-labor issue impact men and
women EQUALLY? Has this *ever* happened?

AV