Or, to put it more succinctly, the rich and powerful create propaganda which confuses and perverts the thinking of the everyday man, propaganda that appeals to our respect for the law and desire (need?) for money when they defend their immoral acts, or demonize those who look, worship, or love, differently from us.
Along that line were two essays I just read. Both were written in the 19th century.
The first was written by Maria Edgeworth and was taken from her novel "The Grateful Negro". The excerpt in question relates a conversation between two plantation owners, one whom was expressing sadness to the other who had just lost one his best slaves, arrested by the local sheriff.
Along that line were two essays I just read. Both were written in the 19th century.
The first was written by Maria Edgeworth and was taken from her novel "The Grateful Negro". The excerpt in question relates a conversation between two plantation owners, one whom was expressing sadness to the other who had just lost one his best slaves, arrested by the local sheriff.
As they discuss the plight of the slave, it is clear that the plantation owner who did not own the slave has been questioning his participation in owning slaves, whereas the other man accepts their existence as not only an economic necessity but as a reflection of the "natural" order (black men being inferior to whites), and of the current laws which allow their existence.
Regardless of the arguments put forth by the hesitant plantation owner, arguments which question the assertion that slaves in America are "happier" than those in Africa, and that question why the economic need for "free" labor justifies the enslavement of a race and disintegration of the families of that race, the second plantation owner has little interest in changing his thinking or the current status quo.
Even when the hesitant plantation owner purchases the offending Negro from the sheriff's office (a situation in itself that causes concern), the original owner of the slave accedes to the request, not out of any concern for the slave but as deference to the "gentleman" for whom he had great esteem.
The second excerpt comes from Charlotte Perkins Gilman from Women and Economics, and is more directly related to the title of my post. (Although it is not all that far-fetched to suggest that for the vast majority of history, a woman's worth was valued in much the same way as a slave's).
Gilman's excerpt begins in a backwards fashion as she begins by questioning the economic value of a wife as part of the partnership within the marriage. Gilman logically defeats the rationalizations that, in terms of a business partnership, the wife is of any value via the comfort she provides her husband, or the contributions she makes by running the household or raising the children.
The second excerpt comes from Charlotte Perkins Gilman from Women and Economics, and is more directly related to the title of my post. (Although it is not all that far-fetched to suggest that for the vast majority of history, a woman's worth was valued in much the same way as a slave's).
Gilman's excerpt begins in a backwards fashion as she begins by questioning the economic value of a wife as part of the partnership within the marriage. Gilman logically defeats the rationalizations that, in terms of a business partnership, the wife is of any value via the comfort she provides her husband, or the contributions she makes by running the household or raising the children.
She somewhat easily replaces the wife with other people, not married to the husband, who could provide those same services, for free or for a fee and then dismisses the notion that the husband "saves" any monies that he might have to pay for the house service of his wife, and that therefore she helps him in a business fashion by reminding the reader that he does not pay his wife. That her value, while certainly important, is not part of the man's business worth.
At this point, it seems that Gilman might have been a man with a woman's nom de plume. But this is where she applies the knife. Her point is not that women can be easily replaced in the home, but that "whatever the economic value of the domestic industry of women is, they do not get it." Further, that "the women who do the most work get the least money" in reference to women who have married a man of modest or low economic fortune, and that "the women who have the most money do the least work", in reference to those who "manage" a household of servants. Gilman further reminds us that even those women with the most money, are claimed as such because of their connection with their husbands, not because they are paid for their management of the house servants. That nowhere on earth would there be a "rich woman" by those means.
Which brings us to the conundrum of a woman's worth. (I know, just referring to it is a bit misogynist, but give me the benefit of the doubt from a strictly economic viewpoint).
We hear talk all the time of family values, the decline of the family, the effect of feminism on the family unit, the role of a woman in today's society, etc, etc. Of course, much of it is hogwash! Frequently family "values" arguments are made by (especially) men who prefer women to be barefoot and pregnant, leaving the manly chores of running the world of politics and business to the gender best suited to do so.
No, you say, we are evolving past that! Perhaps, slowly, but one just only needs to review the percentage of women CEO's and women in politics, or to review the white male backlash that is emboldening laws governing women's reproductive rights and their bodies, and the antics of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who, at best is a three time philanderer and unapologetic pu$$y grabber, and it is clear that we have a long way to go.
But if you still believe that the gender pay gap is non-existent, and that equal rights, like civil rights, is a battle already past, suggest the proposal that women be paid for their house services. That a universal basic income be set for women who maintain the home and raise our children. You most likely won't see people behind this idea who had been the most vocal against women in the workplace, and the decline of our family values.
Or, if that is too far-fetched, that once a women who performs such activities for 12, 15, 20 years, she is granted free training, via college or some type of certificate program, so she does not have to face the prospect of retail or service industry or childcare work (a natural extension of what she has been doing, maintaining the home and raising our children, and yes, Virginia, a good indicator of how we actually value her contributions, and by extension, "family values").
Get on board with that concept, and I might grant you that we value a woman's contribution for her "house service" years. Otherwise you reflect the general assumption of history, that a woman's place is in the home where she performs inestimable duties, but rather than actually determining the value of those duties we give only flowery words and compliments, condemning the very people that we laud on TV as the backbone of our culture to dead-end jobs when they finish their "duty". Or much worse, poverty and suffering when their husbands jettison them for a newer model, leaving them with the valueless titles of mother and ex-wife along with the reduced income producing skills that are really important in our materialistic, wealth-driven culture.
At this point, it seems that Gilman might have been a man with a woman's nom de plume. But this is where she applies the knife. Her point is not that women can be easily replaced in the home, but that "whatever the economic value of the domestic industry of women is, they do not get it." Further, that "the women who do the most work get the least money" in reference to women who have married a man of modest or low economic fortune, and that "the women who have the most money do the least work", in reference to those who "manage" a household of servants. Gilman further reminds us that even those women with the most money, are claimed as such because of their connection with their husbands, not because they are paid for their management of the house servants. That nowhere on earth would there be a "rich woman" by those means.
Which brings us to the conundrum of a woman's worth. (I know, just referring to it is a bit misogynist, but give me the benefit of the doubt from a strictly economic viewpoint).
We hear talk all the time of family values, the decline of the family, the effect of feminism on the family unit, the role of a woman in today's society, etc, etc. Of course, much of it is hogwash! Frequently family "values" arguments are made by (especially) men who prefer women to be barefoot and pregnant, leaving the manly chores of running the world of politics and business to the gender best suited to do so.
No, you say, we are evolving past that! Perhaps, slowly, but one just only needs to review the percentage of women CEO's and women in politics, or to review the white male backlash that is emboldening laws governing women's reproductive rights and their bodies, and the antics of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who, at best is a three time philanderer and unapologetic pu$$y grabber, and it is clear that we have a long way to go.
But if you still believe that the gender pay gap is non-existent, and that equal rights, like civil rights, is a battle already past, suggest the proposal that women be paid for their house services. That a universal basic income be set for women who maintain the home and raise our children. You most likely won't see people behind this idea who had been the most vocal against women in the workplace, and the decline of our family values.
Or, if that is too far-fetched, that once a women who performs such activities for 12, 15, 20 years, she is granted free training, via college or some type of certificate program, so she does not have to face the prospect of retail or service industry or childcare work (a natural extension of what she has been doing, maintaining the home and raising our children, and yes, Virginia, a good indicator of how we actually value her contributions, and by extension, "family values").
Get on board with that concept, and I might grant you that we value a woman's contribution for her "house service" years. Otherwise you reflect the general assumption of history, that a woman's place is in the home where she performs inestimable duties, but rather than actually determining the value of those duties we give only flowery words and compliments, condemning the very people that we laud on TV as the backbone of our culture to dead-end jobs when they finish their "duty". Or much worse, poverty and suffering when their husbands jettison them for a newer model, leaving them with the valueless titles of mother and ex-wife along with the reduced income producing skills that are really important in our materialistic, wealth-driven culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment