100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Feminism turned women into miserable 'wage slaves' | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Atlantis75
on
Sat 12/05/09 09:01 PM
|
|
Feminism turned women into miserable 'wage slaves' , just like men. Women have been turned into unhappy 'wage-slaves' by the march of feminism, according to one of the movement's pioneers, the author Fay Weldon. The novelist, 78, believes only the better-off are able to cope with the exhausting nature of modern life. Weldon told a literature festival that while the sexual revolution of the Sixties had ended the requirement for women to provide 'sexual, childcare and cooking services', the 'downside' of feminism was a new breed of women. These women, she claimed, are like their male office colleagues and intent only on scaling the salary ladder. She said: 'The downside of feminism is that women are now expected to go out to work, which some women would rather do than looking after the children anyway. 'Once it was only the men who were wage-slaves, and now it's the men and the women too. You know, I'd really rather blame capitalism. 'Probably 20 per cent of women are worse off and the enormous number are better off. 'You do feel some qualms for these women who actually have to shove their children's arms into clothes at five o'clock in the morning and get them off to the nursery.' But Weldon, who has four grown up sons and has been married three times, insisted that feminism was the 'least worst' option for women. 'If you're an intelligent, competent and healthy person it's the most wonderful thing,' she said. 'If you have no aspirations and don't want to do anything except exist, than perhaps the pre-feminist world was better. There's never a perfect solution. There's just the least worst. 'And least worst is feminist society, which is more or less what we're getting now. And people are on the whole happier than they were before Although everybody's much more tired.' The author, best known for The Lives and Loves of a She-Devil, was speaking at the Richmond Book Now Festival over the weekend, where she was promoting her 29th novel, Chalcot Crescent. She also said Katie Price, the former glamour model also known as Jordan, was a positive role model according to certain people's expectations about how women should 'function'. Weldon said of the celebrity: 'If it's to look good, then she's fine. If it's to make a lot of money, then she's fine. 'So I suppose she must be empowering for women because one wants them to be prosperous and they like to look good. 'She drinks too much and sleeps with too many people and talks about it too much for common decency, but who of us is perfect?' It is not the first time Weldon has described modern women as wage-slaves. In an interview ten years ago, she said capitalism crept in 'under the cloak of feminism' and 'cunningly turned women as well as men into wage slaves, so that 'the employer' not 'the man' is woman's new enemy'. In 2004, in an essay on the newly-released Briget Jones film The Edge of Reason, she described the main character as a 'wage slave' for whom the feminist revolution had passed by. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1232086/Feminism-turned-women-miserable-wage-slaves-just-like-men-says-Fay-Weldon.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 I don't agree with the author... but I am going to bed.. so not going to debate it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a bit of truth in the actual statement which is the title of this topic; but I disagree with the implications: 'That women were happier before' or 'That things were better before' or 'That feminism has caused more harm than good to women'.
I would much rather have the choice to be a miserable wage slave than not. I remember back in the mid-90s I was reading the state law books (out of curiosity) and found a law that was added, I think, in the mid-80s, which, in essence, made it illegal for men to rape their wives. Presumably, it was legal before. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a bit of truth in the actual statement which is the title of this topic; but I disagree with the implications: 'That women were happier before' or 'That things were better before' or 'That feminism has caused more harm than good to women'. I would much rather have the choice to be a miserable wage slave than not. I remember back in the mid-90s I was reading the state law books (out of curiosity) and found a law that was added, I think, in the mid-80s, which, in essence, made it illegal for men to rape their wives. Presumably, it was legal before. Yep! It was legal before... just like domestic violence was legal. Because the laws on the books deemed that a family matter... and was still linger ideals that women were property. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism turned women into miserable 'wage slaves' , just like men. Women have been turned into unhappy 'wage-slaves' by the march of feminism, according to one of the movement's pioneers, the author Fay Weldon. The novelist, 78, believes only the better-off are able to cope with the exhausting nature of modern life. Weldon told a literature festival that while the sexual revolution of the Sixties had ended the requirement for women to provide 'sexual, childcare and cooking services', the 'downside' of feminism was a new breed of women. These women, she claimed, are like their male office colleagues and intent only on scaling the salary ladder. She said: 'The downside of feminism is that women are now expected to go out to work, which some women would rather do than looking after the children anyway. 'Once it was only the men who were wage-slaves, and now it's the men and the women too. You know, I'd really rather blame capitalism. 'Probably 20 per cent of women are worse off and the enormous number are better off. 'You do feel some qualms for these women who actually have to shove their children's arms into clothes at five o'clock in the morning and get them off to the nursery.' But Weldon, who has four grown up sons and has been married three times, insisted that feminism was the 'least worst' option for women. 'If you're an intelligent, competent and healthy person it's the most wonderful thing,' she said. 'If you have no aspirations and don't want to do anything except exist, than perhaps the pre-feminist world was better. There's never a perfect solution. There's just the least worst. 'And least worst is feminist society, which is more or less what we're getting now. And people are on the whole happier than they were before Although everybody's much more tired.' The author, best known for The Lives and Loves of a She-Devil, was speaking at the Richmond Book Now Festival over the weekend, where she was promoting her 29th novel, Chalcot Crescent. She also said Katie Price, the former glamour model also known as Jordan, was a positive role model according to certain people's expectations about how women should 'function'. Weldon said of the celebrity: 'If it's to look good, then she's fine. If it's to make a lot of money, then she's fine. 'So I suppose she must be empowering for women because one wants them to be prosperous and they like to look good. 'She drinks too much and sleeps with too many people and talks about it too much for common decency, but who of us is perfect?' It is not the first time Weldon has described modern women as wage-slaves. In an interview ten years ago, she said capitalism crept in 'under the cloak of feminism' and 'cunningly turned women as well as men into wage slaves, so that 'the employer' not 'the man' is woman's new enemy'. In 2004, in an essay on the newly-released Briget Jones film The Edge of Reason, she described the main character as a 'wage slave' for whom the feminist revolution had passed by. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1232086/Feminism-turned-women-miserable-wage-slaves-just-like-men-says-Fay-Weldon.html  I totally disagree with the author.  Wage-slaves? As opposed to just being mens property before?  At least now they get a wage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone who lives in a free society is responsible for creating their own life.
To blame anything on social standards, stereotypes, or social expectations, or even on the expectations of a spouse or family, is to do nothing more than play the role of a victim. In a free society no one is forced to do much of anything. What typically 'forces' them into the situations that they complain about almost always stems from their own lust live a particular lifestyle. First off, today many people are single. For a single woman femininism is basically a non-issue. She'd be expected to provide her own income in any case. If anything it might have helped single women to gain a more balance pay scale with men. Whether a married woman would be expected to go to work, or stay home and raise a family ultimately depends on her choice of a husband.  Truly! It might also depend on her expectations to live at a particular class-level, or whatever. I think that's truly the bottom line. People who complain about social conditions and wages are typically the ones who want to be 'better off' than they currently are.  It's a "keep-up-with-the-Jones" mentality. Give that up and just accept the simple things in life, and feminism shouldn't be a problem. Also, if a woman wants to stay home and raise kids just choose a like-mindeded husband, and be prepared to live a frugal simple lifestyle. It's that simple. I wouldn't ask my wife to work unless she was bitching about money all the time. Then hell ya. If a woman wants the Rolls Royce let her get her butt to work and be glad that feminism movements paved the way. Owl gladly take a homebody woman. But she better be prepared to ride around in a 20-year-old car. Don't be expecting expensive stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, its hard to qualify whether or not women on a whole are HAPPIER. I do think the womens movement had ups and downs much like segregation did, but at least it was a STEP in the right direction even if it did end up backfiring in some situations. The idea was to give women the right to work outside and earn a living, but what happened was there became an EXPECTATION that women should so that full time motherhood became stigmatized and hardly anyone wants to or can afford to do it anymore,,leaving the kids much worse off. What was overlooked, was in most cases, men ONLY had to work outside the home, and women didnt get afforded that same expectation with the movement. They STILL were primarily responsible for looking after the home AND working on top of it. It was a losing proposition for our families,, in my opinion. but I respect the intent behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone who lives in a free society is responsible for creating their own life. To blame anything on social standards, stereotypes, or social expectations, or even on the expectations of a spouse or family, is to do nothing more than play the role of a victim. In a free society no one is forced to do much of anything. What typically 'forces' them into the situations that they complain about almost always stems from their own lust live a particular lifestyle. First off, today many people are single. For a single woman femininism is basically a non-issue. She'd be expected to provide her own income in any case. If anything it might have helped single women to gain a more balance pay scale with men. Whether a married woman would be expected to go to work, or stay home and raise a family ultimately depends on her choice of a husband. Truly! It might also depend on her expectations to live at a particular class-level, or whatever. I think that's truly the bottom line. People who complain about social conditions and wages are typically the ones who want to be 'better off' than they currently are. It's a "keep-up-with-the-Jones" mentality. Give that up and just accept the simple things in life, and feminism shouldn't be a problem. Also, if a woman wants to stay home and raise kids just choose a like-mindeded husband, and be prepared to live a frugal simple lifestyle. It's that simple. I wouldn't ask my wife to work unless she was bitching about money all the time. Then hell ya. If a woman wants the Rolls Royce let her get her butt to work and be glad that feminism movements paved the way. Owl gladly take a homebody woman. But she better be prepared to ride around in a 20-year-old car. Don't be expecting expensive stuff. You're joking right? You're not a woman, nor worked in a woman's shoes, nor worked with people. The poorest of the poor cannot even afford one child, a place to live, a car or food these days if only one person is working. How would one fix said 20 year old car? Am presuming that it runs, which it probally won't be for long. So fix one part and it blows out 2 by the power of the new one (been there, done that) You fix those and then you don't have the rent money. I see you are a teacher...you really can support 2 on your salary? Your mortgage must be paid. And what about medical bills, one time, you get sick, need medicine or surgery? You must be still living in your parents generation.. And as for equal rights, equal pay...nope. Have you looked at prices of food? 1.50 (walmart mind you) for a can of soup- Progresso. Campbells-1.00.. Women working did backfire alot. 2 people working in a household- economy raises prices. Women no longer have the decision wheather to work or not. Prices- ie gas went up. Last summer before our crash...gas was 4.79 a gallon. Do you remember that or are you a quaker with a horse and carriage? Luxuries are none existant in many homes. Everything is a need. It's the rich vs. the poor. You said you'd take a homebody woman, but you're alone. This is the 21st century. My mom went to work in the 60's before it became what should have been. Mine was the only working woman in the neighborhood. Our grandmother moved in..there was no such thing as daycare nor could we afford it. BUT she was able to survive on her salary and my grandmothers SS. Think about it. Today with 5 kids, no welfare...until my younger sister got ill and died. We took it just for hospital bills only and even while my ma worked- and got off of it. No one can get a decent job- without at least a bach. The job I had in the 80's you need a masters for...in 20 years it'll be a PH.d. No one can even afford college. Or clothes, kidsand people need clothes. I could go on and on but I REALLY hope you were joking... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're joking right? You're not a woman, nor worked in a woman's shoes, nor worked with people. The poorest of the poor cannot even afford one child, a place to live, a car or food these days if only one person is working. Well, I got news for you. A lot of people have to live like that because they are SINGLE. So they don't truly have a choice. Besides, I don't need to be a woman. I didn't say anything against the femininst movement. I simply said that it could not possibly have hurt anyone. No one needs to do anything they don't want to do. Today's economy is not the result of the feminist movement. It's just a result of over-population, greed, and criminal (or stupid) bankers and CEOs. You even mention having kids. Well, with all due repsect, chosing to have and raise a child is already a WANT. Nobody has to have children unless they WANT to. (or unless they have no control over themselves or no responsiblity) I purposefully chose not to bring anyone into this godforsaken world. In fact, I even refuse to allow my genes to be used for that purpose. At least not with my consent anyway. I would have accepted a woman who already had kids though, if that would have come to pass. I could enjoy being a parent and raising a human being. I disagree with the need for a college degree to get by. All the kids truly need are some smarts, not a degree. If I had kids I would take care of their education myself. They'd put college kids to shame. I guarantee it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feminist movement, the sexual revolution which included birth control,
gays coming out of the closet, watergate, Vietnam, Richard Pryor, George Carlin....all what some call "The Decade of Nightmares". There were some needed changes, men were legally abusing their wives and children. Maybe we did get carried away. As a woman who has worked since 15, have had 90% of my parenting being alone in every sense of the word, including no child support, I would say that I choose the most difficult and challenging way to do it. I was taught the freedom and independence was mine, that I was a strong woman and didn't need a man. Looking back over the last 30 years, I have not served myself or my children the very best in some ways. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well said ladylid. since the first humans women have been fighting for equality when the reality is that women have not only the same powers as men but much power that men don't enjoy. the agression inherant in men has led to a male dominated society it's true but that never had to come to pass. men are very simple minded creatures. our jobs have always been nothing more than to provide for the family and protect them. women must be highly capable of multitasking in accomplishing their varied roles as homemaker, mother, wife, lover and often as is the case now a contributing bread winner.
i've no idea how to bring women the equality that they have not been afforded throughout the generations. i agree that it's unfair. so all any woman can do is to utilize the strengths that she has. i'd be delving into an entirely different topic if i were to repeat some posts i made on the 50+ forum but you pretty things really do have a power over us men that many of you don't see, especially in a man/woman relationship. suffice it to say that the playing field is not level but your battle for equality is actually working to your detriment. your power over men greatly slants the battlefield in your favor and here you are fighting to level it. think of it as an army men sitting on horses with spears and arrows facing a woman army equiped with tanks, artillery and automatic weapons. but the lady force cannot see how pitifully the men are armed. and you want equality? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are all wage slaves. But, it has nothing to do with feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are all wage slaves. But, it has nothing to do with feminism. Exactly. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bra burning and such focused on the wrong thing. "Throw off the shackles of oppression" took the shackles a bit too literally thinking that things like sewing were lesser skills- no, men started knitting and all of that as sailors because ropes were damn important but then when the activity was handed off to women we just said it was nothing.
Feminism has focused too much on getting numbers close to 50/50 and as that happened people got complacent enough to let the actual progress slide back down the slope. It's not what you do that matters but that you get the same recognition for the same levels of importance instead of just some space in the margins of this story. The truth is that is you don't make a fuss people will welcome you right in to central society... as a doormat to wipe their feet on. As humans we've got a strong tendency towards being the least we can possibly be because it's expensive and risky to do more but if you're sitting around waiting for a better chance as if you expect to win the lottery you've fallen right into the oppressive trap that's kept these social constructs held together for so long. Ultimately nobody gets better rights except when they make it known that what they have is unacceptable and demand better treatment. If you ever want to be respected you can't let these things not be a big deal- that's exactly how they continue forever. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bra burning and such focused on the wrong thing. Truly. They should have been burning bibles! That's where all the male-chauvinism stems from in the first place. But instead they get naked revealing that they love to be treated as sex symbols. Then after the protest they go to church on Sunday and worship the book that tells them to shut-up and be subordinate slaves to their husbands and the other males in society, as if that book is the 'Word of God'.  It's a real irony if you stop and think about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But instead they get naked revealing that they love to be treated as sex symbols. One of the problems I have with feminism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bra burning and such focused on the wrong thing. Truly. They should have been burning bibles! That's where all the male-chauvinism stems from in the first place. But instead they get naked revealing that they love to be treated as sex symbols. Then after the protest they go to church on Sunday and worship the book that tells them to shut-up and be subordinate slaves to their husbands and the other males in society, as if that book is the 'Word of God'. It's a real irony if you stop and think about it. what book told them to shut up and be slaves? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what book told them to shut up and be slaves? The same book that claimed that God created them as an afterthought to be a "helpmate". That's a subordinate role right there, and certainly not an implication of equality. Many clergy have taken the story of Eve having been created from Adam's rib, to actually imply that Eve is then Adam's "Property" because she was created from HIS rib. Of course, I'll grant you that this is just the interpretations of some clergy. The book is open to all sort of interpretations I suppose. But the book does have God placing a monetary value on women as being only worth half as many sheckles as a man. Clearly I'm talking about the Bible here, as I've already stated this this is what the women should have been burning instead of their bras. It states in the Bible that women are not to speak out in public on important social matters and should only speak of these things with their husbands directly. I guess this means that single women are to remain silent altogether since they would have no husband to speak with. It would take a real stretch of extremely distorted interpretations to suggest that the Bible doesn't demand male-chauvinism and male-superiority in almost all social matters. Even in the New Testament Paul's writings are extremely male-chauvinistic. The idea that the Bible could be used to support feminism, or even gender equality in social or family matters, is a real stretch. The Bible clearly has the man as being in charge and having the final say in everything. And women are only worth half as many sheckles as men. That alone could easily be interpreted to mean that women should only be paid half as much pay for the same work. You can suggest that the Bible doesn't support male-chauvinism until the cows come home. As far as I'm concerned it's the source of male chauvinism. To each their own.  I won't argue about it. But if I were a woman I'd just burn the Bible and be done with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, though it gets difficult to explain to non believers. The bible is a collection of historical truths and Gods words directly. There is nowhere that God says that women have a lesser value,, that is all up to interpretation. There were LAWS however, that MAN had made during that time which are mentioned in the bible which did put women as secondary, but when Jesus came he actually brought with him laws that contradicted the laws at that time. Women were also not to talk to men in public but Jesus himself kept the company of and made conversation with plenty of women. To say that because the bible recorded history it should be burned,,is a bit like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
As far as the bible putting the man in charge, this is also false and taken from context. There are SEVERAL places in the bible that the man is meant to submit to others, including Christ, ,and in the context of a man who is submitting to christ,, so is his wife to submit to him. It is a mutual relationship not one of one way servitude and not one extended to all women and all men,,just husbands and wives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bra burning and such focused on the wrong thing. Truly. They should have been burning bibles! That's where all the male-chauvinism stems from in the first place. Well sort of. It's the biggest instrument for that europe-wise but basically all around the world men took the power positions and made women dirty or in some way said they weren't generally fit for the big leadership roles that ultimately end up making the decisions about how rights get applied to people. Everywhere men took the big gambles and women sat around safely using what they had. If you look around you can see that being a woman doesn't cut someone off from being strong as a politician or artist, or whatever but we still marginalize them for no reason other than their gender. And when I say we I'm not only talking about men. This is a wider reaching issue in the way we think than that. |
|
|
|
|
