You can tell it's summer. Magazines are running their usual stories, the ones that have been sitting in drawers all year, waiting for the slow news season.
You can also tell it's summer because once again, women have been proclaimed to be the superior sex, and headlines flacidly proclaim the "end of men".
For The Atlantic's Hannah Rosin, author of "The End of Men," the magazines #1 "big idea" of the year, the proof is summarized in her opening paragraph:
Earlier this year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. And for every two men who get a college degree this year, three women will do the same. For years, women’s progress has been cast as a struggle for equality. But what if equality isn’t the end point? What if modern, postindustrial society is simply better suited to women? A report on the unprecedented role reversal now under way— and its vast cultural consequences.
We've actually been watching this trend for years--the number of women at college has been steadily rising, and it's men now who are having to fight for a place in the elite classes. Combine this (and Rosin's other evidence) along with results from Tuesday's elections, and voila!, suddenly everyone's talking about the triumph of feminism, the shattering of glass ceilings, and that women's troubles are over.
Forgive me if I'm wiping up the pieces of brain matter from my living room where my brain exploded.
AYFKM?
Granted. For certain classes of women, life is hunky-dory. Money can pretty much take care of anything you might need in this life--from expensive college preparatory courses to specialized medical care to the right clothes for a job interview to being able to afford to get your teeth fixed.
That's actually one of the points of Rosin's article: issues of class and wages. As our manufacturing base has all but disappeared, the men who benefitted from those high-paying, benefit-imbued jobs were kings of the hill. Now they're in the unemployment line, and women--long shut out of many of those industries--have climbed other corporate ladders to find career success.
I don't want to spend this piece summarizing Rosin's article. I would recommend reading it.
What caused me to write this was yet another reminder about why women can never be on top in this culture. In a Salon Broadsheet article, we are reminded, yet again, that the "abortion wars" are not over. This time, Michigan is debating requiring pregnant women to look at state-of-the-art ultrasounds of the fetus within them. The idea being that once you've seen that shadow on the screen and realized that you carry a human life within you, you'll back down from your decision to abort, and choose to carry to term a child that you obviously feel you could not carry. When all else fails, try guilt.
Guilt has been big in the arsenel of the anti-choicers. They want pregnant women to feel the shame of being murderers, of knowing that they are killing human life. Apparently, anti-choicers really do believe women are that stupid. That if I'm told "you're pregnant," it doesn't dawn on me that I'm not carrying a fish or a squid, but a human fetus. "Oh, that's different," I would say. "I'd abort a squid. But not my baby."
This must be the fantasy under which they operate. A fantasy in which every pregnancy is conceived, both partners wearing wedding bands, soft candlelight in the background (no full lighting---that's brazen), music to get pregnant by playing on the cd player, clean sheets on the bed.
But pregnancy occurs as the result of sex. Sex is an inherently pleasurable act (most of the time), and people do it for all kinds of reasons. Yes. Some have sex because they want to get pregnant. But you can have sex just for the sheer fun of it, and being physically capable of having sex does not qualify you to be a parent. It just doesn't. Some women are smart enough to know this--they know, for whatever reason, that this is not the right time for them to have a baby. And no matter how cute the fetus inside of them, that fact is not going to change.
As the anti-choicers become both more hysterical and crafty in their attempts to make all abortion illegal, many women, who consider themselves pro-choice, sit idly by. (Something about frogs in increasingly heating water.)
They love the arguments that women may finally be achieving equality with men. And hey, if we get to be superior in some areas, well, we were held down long enough, weren't we? (Smirk.)
But I'm watching what's going on with reproductive rights. You see, it doesn't make any difference if you're supposedly superior. If you don't have control over your own fertility, you've essentially got nothing. You may be studying for the Bar, but get pregnant? Oh well. About to start a Fulbright? Pregnant? Oh well. About to climb Mt. Everest?
Yes. You can do things with children that you can do without. I know this--I went to graduate school and worked with two children--but I had help. What about the women who have no help in their lives, who are trying to make something better of their lives, who now suddenly have another life for whom they're responsible?
As the anti-choice side makes it increasingly difficult to not only get an abortion, but to even get birth control, I find myself wondering just how far away we are from situations in the former Romania, or in fictional situations like The Handmaid's Tale.
How long do you think it will take for women--with no access to birth control--to remain "on top?"
About nine months, I'd say.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
emma peel 2
Donald Manns
The Flylooper
Vivian Henoch
Lydieth A
Sean Murphy
Salon.com
Comments
The ideal place is not for women to be on top, or men to be on top. It is where we are given reasonable options, and supported and respected in those choices. Not an either/or. This isn't going to happen in our capitalist and radically religious society any time soon.
Handmaid's Tale -- I got into an argument with a prof over this book. He asked if we thought such could come true. I said yes. He disagreed. So in my most smartass voice, I said well if you believe women have equality now I can see where you may find this untenable for the future. He refused to write me a letter for grad school, said I would not earn an A from his class. I did earn an A. And one of my thesis advisors trumped him academically. Hey wait this is clearly one story where the woman is on top, me.
Thanks for posting this.
And I think the problem for women is the same for everybody. Most people have forgotten the "good old day" when women were treated more as property to be traded for goods and services. Decent historical education would do this nation some good.
If you will permit me a tangential to the start of your article, I think the only reason women are more prevalent in the US workforce today is that the flat-earthers who want to make wages equivalent across the entire planetary work force find that women in the US are closer to the wager earners of Sumatra and Thailand that US men are. They are starting from a lower position and therefore jobs here more quickly go to women who are used to earning 65-75% of what men do for the same job. Further proof that the current "dawning of the age of women" is simply further evidence of the age of corporatism.
I also agree that a flood of women into the workplace doesn't mean power--it means that the low-paying job explosion has put a lot of women to work.
Sorry this is so truncated. Writing with a cluster headache, so I'll try to hold off to responding until I feel better.
But yeah. Silly season is upon us.
Seriously, tho, you make an excellent argument overriding the misleading implications of the no-longer frightening Atlantic cover.
Should nurses and teachers really be paid less than engineers, just because they deal with people and not parts? People are far more complicated than machines.
But how can one Get to those well-educated young professional women until it affects them directly? I'm not sure you can. And even Before, when abortion was illegal, the daughter of a wealthy man could get a private, quiet, safe abortion. It is a class issue, amongst so may others today in the U.S. And it's a crying shame.
If men had to deal with pregnancy and health issues, birth control, sterilization and abortion would all be readily available. R
With that said, however, the chorus of "You're all a bunch of misandronic man haters!" starts in 3..2..1..
While we're waiting, here's a little song for us to listen to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIuR2ujRbbw
The Right is all for gvt out of family life except to shove women about.
I know people who are managers responsible for a staff of over 10 people who make less than $30k per year. Women in real high-pay management positions are still rare; I agree with Nikki that those who make it there can play a role in politics, news, business etc that they couldn't years ago though.
And if abortion does get outlawed again the daughters of the well-to-do won't miss a beat. It's the rest of US womankind that will find their options limited.
Everybody who is mad at Obama better think about one thing: The Supremes. If we go back to a Republican party, what do you think will happen next?
I have my new Atlantic waiting for me, I will digest this article this weekend. More later, wanderer. Excellent writing. R.
People with power rarely feel like they have enough. This includes women.
If women are subject to laws involving another life or non-life, or however you feel, then men should also be subjected to the same.
If this sound loony, think about PSDT. The reason for this syndrome is that killing 24-7 is not good for the human or humane psyche. So viewing ultrasounding may not be also.
I am not for or against abortion. I am for women and their rights and for life in general. Women can not depend on men to treat them fairly under law or otherwise. But as women, we are too quick to feel guilty about our bodies and our lives.
Thinks, I will read the article.
I don't believe women are victims. In fact, I believe that this paranoia that "women are taking over" is partially true. Women have made tremendous strides, especially since when I was a kid. And yet, I stick by what I said. You do not have power--neither as a man or a woman--if you do not control your own body. I have stated many times that the body is the source of my politics. When governments put restrictions on what you may do with your body--who you may love, for example--then how can you claim to have power?
And I think that it's no longer abortion that states are restricting, but various forms of birth control, that points to an increasing fear that a woman who does have control over her body is a fearsome creature. (I apologize for this not quite making sense--my head is throbbing.)
It's funny that one of the commenters says that women will never be satisfied with the power they have. It's one of the most ancient complaints against women--that they are insatiable, that as a result of that insatiability they commit evil and present danger to men. The historian in me is endlessly fascinated how these tropes keep coming up--different forms maybe, but the same message. Powerful women cannot be trusted. Best to keep them pregnant and under the control of men.
I long to live in a world where men and women are equal, that our respective strengths and weaknesses are honored, that we feel safe in supporting one another. Why does writing these things down make it sound like I long for Utopia? (Utopia meaning "no place.")
I don't think that women are inherently superior to men. I don't believe men are inherently superior to women. I believe that we need one another, even if we're not sexual partners, because I believe that people were put on this earth to help one another out. We need each other.
Men benefit when women have equal rights. A society that feels secure enough to guarantee to women full human rights (and I'm including the right to control your own fertility) is a society that feels secure enough to guarantee that all of its people have enough to eat, have shelter, medical care, etc. My rights as a woman do not have to come at the expense of you as a man. Those who continue to promote that canard are either frightened or deeply cynical in their hopes to continue manipulating us. Keep us divided. They do it to us along class lines. Along racial lines. Along gender lines. National lines. Religious lines. The more they divide us, the less collective power we have, the more controllable we are.
And yes. I wish that this issue had been settled. I wish Roe v Wade had been the last word on all of this, and that we had moved on. Because the Gulf needs to be cleaned. Parts of Africa have to be fed. Global warming needs to be dealt with. Etc. Instead, I'm still having to fight laws that would define women as simply walking uterii.
Overall, women and men seem to have similar views on the subject. Therefore, it is simply not the case that men, as a voting bloc, are forcing these changes on women.
Women in MD/DO land have years of residencies that they have to complete, and surgical ones are the hardest for anyone to get into. It is a minimum of 7 additional years on low salary and on call 80-100 hours a week. That wipes out marriage options, reasonable chance of pregnancy, or childrearing. If you start med school immediately after college and don't want to have children before 35, that might be a good choice. Yes, a few do it, but that is why it is rare. Med school rotations are still very much the good ole boy network. Once you have your kids, it's not like someone else is going to raise them for you, even if you are married. Family practice and dermatology usually end at the end of the day.
I agree though, women pick a lot of soft degrees that are useless in the real world but that has a lot to do with lack of parenting or mentoring, and too easy access to unlimited student loans (or used to). I am a little more fond of the European model. BTW, I totally love math and science, but didn't go into that because I was encouraged to pick softer stuff that were woman appropriate (my family it not scientific, but are educated), not because it was hard.
Oryoki--when I got pregnant in graduate school, it was made clear to me that I was a "less serious" intellectual than those who were not pregnant. And this view came from female professors, not just men.
A highly respected female historian told me a story over dinner one night while visiting my graduate school. Seems that when she got pregnant as an assistant professor, she was banned from teaching until after she had given birth. The chair of her department felt it would "embarrass" undergraduates to have a pregnant woman teaching them. This happened in the early 1970's.
Given how many people want to take us back to a "simpler" time, perhaps this, too, will be one of those things we return to. They didn't call the last months of a woman's pregnancy "confinement" for nothing.
At twenty, my plan was to study until I finished my PhD. Then I would go on to be a professor. At twenty-eight I had a kid and the plan was getting my teacher's certification so I could have a tenured job that could bring a steady income. Two more kids later the PhD thing starts to look like a joke.
I don't regret the kids. I regret that I didn't have the opportunity to study because I couldn't afford help.
If pro-choice voters are SERIOUS about giving women choices -- how about funding daycare for single women who are in college. How about funding for daycare for any woman in college for that matter?
Peace and love be with you.
Nick, thanks for the fascinating report from the folks at Pew. I hadn't seen that.
The thing is -- lots of money is being raised by the pro-choice folks in our town for Planned Parenthood. For many years running (until last year due to the recession when the budget would simply not allow it even though the commissioners supported it) our County Commission gave $60,000 to Planned Parenthood. I think that money would have been MUCH better spent on daycare for women who want to continue their educations. To me, that is really pro-choice thinking. But when people I know have suggested that at a County Commission meeting they are looked at as radicals and crazy right-wing enemies.
But this was a Christian Nation. There was Christian prayer in our classroom every morning, along with the Pledge of Allegiance and a Bible reading. The teachers and principal were quick to grab the paddle to discipline anyone who broke a rule--and there were plenty of rules. We were graded on attitude, deportment and industry along with the subject matter. By the time I entered high school I knew what "good girls" did--and didn't. It was a small town--everyone knew who the "bad girls" were. Peer pressure was strong. Church attendance was assumed.
And yet. And yet there seemed to be a double standard: boys weren't treated the same as girls; men weren't treated the same as women; adults weren't treated the same as teenagers. I often thought I could sense a dark undercurrent roiling just beneath the idyllic surface. Hypocrites seemed to be everywhere, especially in places of power.
If the American Christian Taliban has its way, I hope, from a purely selfish stance, that I don't live to see it. The "good old days"--weren't.
Thank you for this, Lorraine. I hope people think about what you've written. And I especially hope your headache goes away very soon! Take care of you, please. You're the only you we have! Rated. D
Those of us who are pro-choice support a woman's right to choose--that also means to have a baby, and in the comments, several of us have noted that having babies without support is incredibly difficult. I used student loans to pay for childcare when I went to school because I ran into the same difficulty. No support for student parents, which seemed stupid because how else are young parents going to get the education they need to support a family?
As to supporting Planned Parenthood: in many small towns, PP is the only place where young women can get contraceptives and/or OB/GYN exams. It is a false idea that the only PP does is to perform abortions--many of them do not. They are a health services organization that provide low-cost reproductive health care to many poor women who otherwise cannot afford it. I don't think the answer to the problem is to stop funding PP. I think the answer to the problem is to honor parenthood AND to to honor the choice not to become a parent. Fund PP and fund daycare programs for low-income parents. We have the resources to do so: we just choose to spend our money on war rather than our people.
It's yet another example of a non-trend trend story. But I won't beat that dead horse at the moment.
I will point out that the home page of the Wellesley College Centers for Women, an umbrella organization in which many scholars are working on a variety of international project, carries this headline: Sixty percent of the world's working poor are women."
No way have any glass ceilings been broken yet. No way is the post-industrial economy a boon to women, unless you consider service jobs a rise up the ranks. No way do right-to-lifers show even a scrap of consistency when they argue against abortion and vote down welfare or job-training subsidies for the many single moms struggling to make it.
No way, no way, no way. You can argue the end of feminism all you want, but the need for it sure hasn't gone away. Rated.
True.
Just like convenience is to pro-choicers.
This is a wonderful post, succinct and thought-provoking. ~R
And the question I always ask is, why is it necessary for women to be on top in this culture? Why has it become a race for 'who's on top'? I'm grateful for the women who went before me - who's incredible sacrifices and fights allow me to pursue a career, vote and all the other niceties that we now take for granted. But I wonder how many of them who fought for 'equality' would stand in line for the fight to 'the top'? I have no need or desire to beat out men - in anything. To have the same opportunities is just fine with me, thanks...
In the end, is there *anything* more frightening than a society trying to enforce their interpretation of the will of an entity that frankly, they couldn't possibly understand, even if He/She/It existed?
On the bottom is good...but...BEHIND...now we're talking! ;)
Beyond that...this article is just BS...and childish...my mom can beat up your mom mentality.
Women have a lot to be proud of, by installing republican women,
meg-nut nit- whit-man and carly- hair brain- forina on the California ballot!
If this is progress..we all lose!
If anyone needs to feel guilty, it's the anti-choice activists that try to paint pregnant women seeking abortions as women throwing a child away as casually as they'd go to a mini-mart to buy a candy bar.
All children are a lifelong investment, and they deserve to be. As you so elegantly point out, a pregnancy changes the course of a woman's life. A child is not an "inconvenience," they are a 24/7 commitment.
And as far as "The End of Men"...I have three sons, so I probably read it a little more skeptically than average bear (a great deal of the the "evidence" presented seemed awfully anecdotal).
I was also surprised that the article didn't mention what is one of the biggest threats to young men right now. I can sum it up in two words: video games.
And by the way, I love the last line of your post.