This is why we need a new feminism that does not ignore motherhood and other family care work. Early feminists had a choice, to focus on women getting into paid work outside the home, or focus on women getting pay for the (home) work they already did, otherwise they would always be dependent on a man. They chose the former, rightly, because women had to prove that they can be as able as men financially - men were not going to hand them a 'housewife's wage'. But now we need to say, hold on, we can do what men do (ie. we've proved our 'worth' in male terms), but should we always? Many people, especially women, prefer to care for their own family, though there is a role for professional carers too. And what about all the support that the partner at home provides to allow the 'working' partner to have an outside job and contribute to GDP without distractions? Current work and school hours were designed for families with one working parent, so where both parents work, there is little time to care for the home (unless you earn enough to outsource). The problem here is that the tail, the economic system, is wagging the dog, and it should be the other way round. We need to campaign to alter current ideas about GDP etc and change the economic system to include contributions to society made by those who work in the home.
Whole heartedly agree. I think it's hard for some people who live in the policy world to grasp that not everyone wants to work all the time. I know the excuse here is GDP, but I think there's also an underlying assumption that people can't live full/fulfilled lives without a formal profession.
This is why we need a new feminism that does not ignore motherhood and other family care work. Early feminists had a choice, to focus on women getting into paid work outside the home, or focus on women getting pay for the (home) work they already did, otherwise they would always be dependent on a man. They chose the former, rightly, because women had to prove that they can be as able as men financially - men were not going to hand them a 'housewife's wage'. But now we need to say, hold on, we can do what men do (ie. we've proved our 'worth' in male terms), but should we always? Many people, especially women, prefer to care for their own family, though there is a role for professional carers too. And what about all the support that the partner at home provides to allow the 'working' partner to have an outside job and contribute to GDP without distractions? Current work and school hours were designed for families with one working parent, so where both parents work, there is little time to care for the home (unless you earn enough to outsource). The problem here is that the tail, the economic system, is wagging the dog, and it should be the other way round. We need to campaign to alter current ideas about GDP etc and change the economic system to include contributions to society made by those who work in the home.
Whole heartedly agree. I think it's hard for some people who live in the policy world to grasp that not everyone wants to work all the time. I know the excuse here is GDP, but I think there's also an underlying assumption that people can't live full/fulfilled lives without a formal profession.
This is amazing. Love this!!
Great thoughts - reminds me of this piece from Mere Orthodoxy!
https://mereorthodoxy.com/the-world-that-money-makes-go-round/