Sexism, division of labor

[A. Vulgarweed]

JudySerenity:

>I've certainly gotten the message that other women here believe that
>division of labor is the key to problems facing women.   What I don't
>understand is why other women here feel that way.

Well, I think you're oversimplifying some other peoples' positions here. I
certainly do not believe division of labor is *the* key. I think there are
many keys, and that is one of them.

Can anyone point to
>any society, now or in the past, where abolishing the division of
>labor ended the oppression of women? Can anyone think of any society
>where the gender division of labor has been abolished *at all*,
>regardless of whether this fixed the problem of oppression of women?

Well, exactly. It never has happened to my knowledge, so we can't tell if
it would "fix the problem" or not. Do I think it would, all by itself? Of
course not. But I do think it is one of SEVERAL necessary conditions that
must be changed to have a truly non-oppressive society.

>So, in regards to women moving into male-dominated professions - I've
>been there, I've done that, and it was a total disaster for me.

I'm sorry to hear that, but it's certainly not the case all the time or for
everyone. I'm pretty happy with my "male-dominated" gig - something I
notice mostly when I'm interacting with others in my field but not my
workplace. At the newspaper where I work, both my immediate supervisor (the
music editor) and my department's overall supervisor (the editor-in-chief)
are also women, and I haven't seen any significant drop in prestige or pay
for those roles. None of us make a lot of money, but then, going into arts
reporting in the first place, we never really expected to - that's a field
hazard, not a gender one. And the E-I-C makes enough for her husband to
stay home with their two toddlers. I realize this is not a common
situation. But it's not as uncommon as some people think - a lot of the
publishing world is female-driven nowadays, and has not lost significant
prestige as a result. It doesn't pay particularly well, but then it never
did!

>3) Most high-prestige occupations require long hours, and there is a
>great deal of competition to succeed in them.   This means that if
>women are still doing the bulk of the childcare and the housework,
>they will be at an extreme disadvantage.   <snip>  So,
>focusing on making men's work available to women, without reducing the
>share of "women's work" that men do, will have only limited success.

Well, this is something I see the "division of labor" question as
addressing: why *should* women necessarily do the bulk of the childcare and
the housework? In my notions of a more equitable division of labor, this
too would be divided far more evenly.

>AV said:
>>And even FGM [female genital mutilation] 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!<
>
>Really? Do you think that without a rigid division of labor, girls
>would stop caring about their popularity with boys?  I don't.  I think
>a desire to be popular with the opposite sex is instinctive (except
>for a few people who want to be popular with their own sex.)   <snip> "Do
>this, or you won't be desirable," is going to
>be a very compelling argument, no matter how labor gets divided.

Yes, but forced clitoridectomy of a child by her relatives is rather a
different matter than an adult woman stressing out over Cosmo, isn't it?
FGM is usually done when the girls are too young to have much concept of
this, and they don't _choose_ it.

There is a *vast* difference between _wanting_ a romantic partner and
_being unable to survive without one_ (though, frankly, plenty of Western
women seem a little confused on this).

>So, if Molly Weasley is so great, why do I think JKR's portrayal of
>women could be better?  Well, because there's only one of her.  Of
>course, there's Hermione, who is also a strong female character.  But
>that's about it for interesting, substantive female characters, in
>1500-plus pages.

I like Molly, but I actually find Minerva McGonagall far more compelling as
a character. She has an element of mystery; we know very little about her
past, but what we do know is very interesting. What was *her* role in the
last WWar? Did she fight? Did she do any spying in her kitty form or
otherwise? What's her relationship with Dumbledore and the other teachers
really like when there are no students around? (We've had tantalizing
glimpses: I think Dumbledore was once her mentor - I think she has a
more-or-less friendly rivalry with Snape - I think she is contemptuous of
Trelawney in the exact same way that Hermione is contemptuous of the
melodramatic girly-girls of her own generation). Was she ever in love? Did
she have children? Was there a Tragedy? Is she happy with her place in
life, did she once have other ambitions? Will she be Headmistress? Has she
done important Transfiguration research? Has she published in professional
journals? Has she invented techniques? I wanna KNOW, dammit! (If JKR won't
tell us, there's always fanfic!)

See, I was born without the "maternal instinct" gene. Never felt it as a
child (never had or wanted any baby or child dolls), have never felt it
since, and at 33, I think if it was ever going to kick in, it would have
started by now. I'm part of a small but significant minority that way--not
all women *should* be mothers, trust me!--and I think if the Strong Mother
archetype is seen as the *only* or *most important* archetype for girls,
how is that any kind of improvement over that Victorian "angel in the
kitchen" bill of goods?

None of this is to imply that Molly isn't a great *character* (and mind
you, a great character in the _literary_ sense is NOT the same thing as a
"good role model," _not at all_, nope!, not even close) but her archetype
is not a rare or, to me, a terribly compelling one. I'm glad she's there,
but I also want to see some kickass female Aurors (future-tense Hermione?)
and some bloodthirsty female Death Eaters (Mrs. LeStrange?) as well as
female Quidditch stars (Hooch? Was she ever pro?) and female
magical-scientists and researchers and writers (McGonagall? Sprout? Vector?
Sinistra?). Because how else do girls like *me* feel valuable and capable?
;)

>Now, consider the Quidditch World Cup.  <snip>But, if JKR wants to use her
>books as a way to
>raise girls' self-esteem, or motivate them to go out and make a
>difference in the world, throwing in a couple of female Quidditch
>players will at best have no effect.

See, I disagree. I think the co-ed World Cup Quidditch games might make
some kids (boys, even - gasp!) who hadn't really thought about it before
wonder *why* the real-world equivalent is men-only, when clearly it doesn't
*have* to be.

I think it's significant that JKR invented a sport in which quick reflexes,
balance, eye-hand coordination, and strategy are the key points, because
the physical differences between men and women aren't really an issue:
indeed, the fact that the Seeker should be small and light would tend to
*favor* women in that role (and indeed, we have a female Seeker in Cho
Chang, who seems to do the job quite well). Even the speed factor doesn't
involve running, so longer legs aren't an issue. There's really no excuse
for Quidditch not being co-ed, and so the fact that the Slytherin team
isn't stands out - it's seen as an abberation, a typical prejudiced nasty
Slytherin eccentricity. (I realize the Celluloid Thing "corrected" this - I
think maybe it shouldn't've.)

Quoting a lot of Cindy's post here, cause I think she said this so well:

>You know what I think might be going on here?  It seems that your
>argument is focusing quite a bit on achieving equality and
>fundamental fairness *between groups.*  In other words, it sounds
>like you're saying that policies should be evaluated based on how
>they positively or negatively impact women *as a group* instead of
>women *as individuals.*  Or in the case of race, how policies affect
>a minority group *as a group* instead of minorities as individuals.
>
>If I'm reading your remarks correctly, I think this focus on group
>advancement could be where we have a difference of opinion.  If all
>women are directed to law and all men are directed to medicine, and
>the career prospects in these fields are identical, I would see a
>*big* problem there, whereas I gather that you would not.  IMHO,
>whether women *as a group* and men *as a group* wind up equally well-
>off is *not* the issue.  Restrictions like the one I just outlined
>violate *individual* liberties.  That is what causes them to be so
>offensive.

<snip>
>Second, I am using a different definition of "women's status" than
>you are, I think.  When I say I hope that women's status will equal
>men's, I mean that both genders will have a choice of all careers
>unencumbered by societal expectations or arbitrary restrictions.  I
>actually think there is plenty of room for improvement in this
>area.

YES!

<snip>
>Whoa!  "If we want equal respect for women, we need respect for
>childbearing"?  I don't get this at all.  Many women do not have
>children.  How is their lot in life improved if there is increased
>respect for childbearing?

I've seen  this argument around a lot, and I don't get it either, Cindy. I
think there *is* respect for childbearing and always has been. It's respect
for the *woman herself*, independent of the children she may or may not
bear, that's the issue.

>I do know some women who are the primary breadwinners in their
>families.  Some have stay-at-home husbands.  And I feel quite
>certain that the thing that has made this possible is the removal of
>arbitrary barriers to the women's career choices.  <snip> It is simple
>economics -- economics made possible by
>the reduction in arbitrary gender divisions of labor in the
>workplace.

Hear hear! Like I said, I know a few "househusbands" too. They all seem to
love it and be happy and do as good a job as any woman. Many of them also
work at home in various ways: I know a musician and two photographers who
have taken this path. And again, why is it possible? Because their wives
can afford it! Inevitably this delves into class and pay issues that aren't
strictly gender-based too - I also know some women who would love to be
stay-at-home moms for a while, but their husbands just don't make enough.
*Somebody* has to be able to make an income that can support the family,
and among many of my acquaintances, this is the far bigger concern than
*who* should be the one to do it.

Judy:
Since many girls identify strongly with the
>>maternal role, and with their own mothers, I think reading about Molly
>>Weasley helps girls to see themselves in a positive light.

Jennifer B.R.(boggles):
>
>Lovely.  What about those women and girls who are reading the books
>who are infertile, such as myself?  To establish the entire worth of
>a female character in her childbearing and nurturing abilities is
>hardly encouraging to us!  And no woman spends her entire lifetime as
>a childbearer, even if she remains a mother; we all become crones
>sooner or later.  We need our Minerva McGonagalls in there, in
>support of non-maternal roles, as well.  Otherwise, we could end up
>modelling a society that cherishes women as long as they're fertile -
>and discards tehm the moment they're not.

Hear hear! And never gives those of us who are physically or
psychologically "infertile" the time of day at all! I don't think it's
demeaning to motherhood to say that we are also capable of SO MANY other
things as well or in some cases instead, and some of us find our power in
other ways.
>
>>Thinking of oneself
>>as valuable and capable is more important than seeing particular
>>careers as appropriate for women.
>
>Except that you are associating Molly with a career, or at least a
>lifeswork - you're positioning her as a career mother and caregiver.
>That simply isn't a lifeswork open to all women.  It is a
>traditionally female role, yes - and when it was pretty much the only
>one open to women, those of us who were not suited to it suffered
>even more than the average woman.  I would not want us to return to
>that.

Exactly. Thank you.


>You have very carefully omitted McGonagall, Sprout, Hooch, and the
>other female teachers.  Of those, one (Trelawney) is portrayed as
>unappealing, and the others are - well - there.  In our culture,
>teacher is a traditionally female role, as well - one that happens to
>be open to those of us who cannot or should not bear children.  Is
>there a reason you are choosing to devalue that role?

I'd also point out that what Hooch teaches is not a traditional "female"
subject, nor is McGonagall's (I wouldn't think - hard to know about
Transfiguration, right? But it was also Dumbledore's subject.)

I would also point out that not only were two of the four Founders female,
but also two of the four current Heads of House are female (and not the
same as the Founders' breakdown). Because Gryffindor and Slytherin are the
two most "active" houses from the point of view of the HP narrative, those
are the two more well-developed House Heads *as characters* - and sure,
enough, we get one of each. And as Deputy Headmistress and the one with
obvious seniority, McGonagall outranks Snape. He gets more attention
fanwise and Harry's-eyes-wise because he's *a nasty piece of work*, and
negatives are always more memorable. Say you go to a party, and almost
everyone you talk to is perfectly pleasant. Who do you remember most? You
remember the one who said something nasty, regardless of gender....(Well,
Snape's a special case cause he's arguably Dead Sexy too - but then so is
McGonagall, dammit, in her way!). Of the "less-relevants" I wouldn't say
Sprout is developed any less than Flitwick. JKR's not as bad at the
boy/girl/boy/girl seating thing as some folks seem to think.

>In fact, Arthur Weasley is depicted as rather hopeless as a
>disciplinarian.  Do you see that as reinforcing Molly's power in the
>household, or as Arthur abdicating his responsibility towards his
>children?  I'll admit, I saw it as the latter.

A bit of both. Sure, it gives Molly more power in her little queendom, but
it also sticks her with more work, which is the last thing she needs.

AV