![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
usuallyhats
Apparently there is a new report out which urges us to "focus on women's work needs" with more family friendly policies and the like. (Do not click on the "send us your comments" link, I did and the very first one I saw was from Mike in Dundee who says: "Not an issue for me; I decided long ago women of child-bearing age were too much of problem for me to employ. I expect if this latest round of 'pandering to parents' happens, more and more employers will choose the same path." THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT, MIKE.) Hurray, thought I! But then I listened to the discussion about it on the Today program this morning. First of all, the report is titled "What Woman Want" - you know, women, that homogenous mass of people whose goals and desires are all identical - and then Christina Odone, the report's author, clarified that she was only talking about "real women", by which she meant "the majority of women". HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE. So now there is some majority Woman Opinion to which we must conform, lest we be considered fake women? As far as I am know, there is only one way of determining if one is a "real" woman, and that involves one's answer to the question "do you consider yourself female?" If the answer is yes, then congratulations! You are a bona fide ladyperson. Your certificate and badge are in the post.
Back to the article. You know, I thought the bit on the Today program was infuriating, but at least they brought in Harriet Harman (♥) for a bit of balance. The web version is full of lovely statements like "most women realise themselves in their other roles as carers, partners, community members and above all mothers" and "The writer and broadcaster, [...] said notions of women's progress over the past decade have been measured by the "wrong" things, such as more women in top jobs, a shrinking earnings gap and better state-funded childcare". Yes, equal pay for equal work is a terrible thing and we should put a stop to it at once. *headdesk* Goodness knows I am not criticising women for finding fulfillment in being carers, just because it's traditionally a female role doesn't mean it's in any way one less deserving of respect, but to suggest that it is and should be the only way women can "realise themselves" is incredibly limiting. The thing is, I agree with a lot of the report's conclusions and I think more support for women and men who end up caring for children or other relatives instead of or as well as working is definitely needed, I just disagree with a the framing. It purports to be about what women want, but it excludes women who are childless, either by choice or circumstance, and women who do want to work, who "realise themselves" to a greater or lesser degree through their jobs. Oh, but I forgot. Those women aren't "real" women, are they?
(On a somewhat less rageful note, I am off to Cheltenham tonight! It is the first weekend of the Literature Festival and the Mother and I are going to see Michael Palin tomorrow lunchtime. Tonight we are meeting up with Jess and Vanky and going to see Shappi Khorsandi. Yay!)
Back to the article. You know, I thought the bit on the Today program was infuriating, but at least they brought in Harriet Harman (♥) for a bit of balance. The web version is full of lovely statements like "most women realise themselves in their other roles as carers, partners, community members and above all mothers" and "The writer and broadcaster, [...] said notions of women's progress over the past decade have been measured by the "wrong" things, such as more women in top jobs, a shrinking earnings gap and better state-funded childcare". Yes, equal pay for equal work is a terrible thing and we should put a stop to it at once. *headdesk* Goodness knows I am not criticising women for finding fulfillment in being carers, just because it's traditionally a female role doesn't mean it's in any way one less deserving of respect, but to suggest that it is and should be the only way women can "realise themselves" is incredibly limiting. The thing is, I agree with a lot of the report's conclusions and I think more support for women and men who end up caring for children or other relatives instead of or as well as working is definitely needed, I just disagree with a the framing. It purports to be about what women want, but it excludes women who are childless, either by choice or circumstance, and women who do want to work, who "realise themselves" to a greater or lesser degree through their jobs. Oh, but I forgot. Those women aren't "real" women, are they?
(On a somewhat less rageful note, I am off to Cheltenham tonight! It is the first weekend of the Literature Festival and the Mother and I are going to see Michael Palin tomorrow lunchtime. Tonight we are meeting up with Jess and Vanky and going to see Shappi Khorsandi. Yay!)