Working Girls: sister thesis sells us short

In 'Sister' Thesis Sells Us Short (TO Star, Apr 8, 2006), Jennifer Wells comments on Professor Alison Wolf's article Working Girls (Prospect, Apr issue, 2006.) Briefly mentioning the first point Professor Wolf makes in her article, Jennifer Wells reiterates the generally-known fact that women never were viewed as a homogenous group under feminism, turning to the unspoken notion of the goal of equality between the sexes, one must assume, to uphold her point. But, as Wolf claims, at one time women did have a more-or-less shared experience of life-as second-class citizens-and in that sense would have shared a sisterhood. In today's world, however, the lived experience of an increasing number of women is very different than the second-class experience, and different from the way most women once lived.

The emphasis in Wells's response is on female altruism, which Wolf sees as currently in decline. Many women of earlier eras really did see their lives in the service of others as vocations, as the natural order of things or because of their religious values. Any notion that they were second-class citizens may not have even entered their minds. Feminists have often complained that men were androcentric in their views of women's lives; in the same way, women of today might well have difficulty understanding the lives of women who came before, or of women unlike themselves. But this is the way it was, for many women, and for some, still is.

Working women's concerns in today's world often ends at the immediate family, as Wells herself has noticed, others outside of that small sphere being out of their realm of responsibility and altruism as working women - independent, with families. On this issue I think Wolf is for the most part right; female altruism has changed. In a society that claims to value individualism, and in which religious values are in decline, what seems to matter most is no longer one's neighbours or even one's country, or doing the right thing, but putting the family first.

Wells has yet to come to see how the idea of work has affected our lives, as women, in recent decades. Work - especially paid work - is a major source of a person's identity. It always was, for men, and feminism has made it so for women, in fact, has practically made it a requirement for women. Wells is critical of Wolf, seeing work not as self-actualisation but as "busyness," a slight on the very real power that having a career has on a person's ability to speak and be heard, to be granted recognition, and have one's views validated. Self-actualisation, in a way, is being able to put into practice what one believes is best. For many women, work is simply "busyness," but it may be that they are not working in the field that suits them best.

Wells raises one final point, though not on Wolf's third point, a concern with women's growing disincentives to bear children. Wells tells us that women talk about wanting to give back in some way, when they are older. But after years of proving themselves on the job, is volunteering really what the majority of working women of today will want to do in their later years? Even on that front there is competition. And ageism is another factor. Sometimes when individuals appear to have withdrawn it is in part due to being pushed.

For women who have chosen to pursue a career, and who find recognition and a certain sense of fulfilment through doing so, there may be benefits for themselves and their families, whether chosen or blood-related. But I'm not sure that society on the whole will benefit. It may be that some women have chosen work and family, and will stand to benefit, but at what cost to society, never mind the sisterhood? Women, and men, whose life experience falls outside of the ideal of having it all, may be left with less, or even nothing. In the long term, if there are greater benefits for some women and men, more than likely there will be greater losses for others.


`Sister' thesis sells us short
By Jennifer Wells
Toronto Star
Apr 8, 2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2006_Apr_SisterThesisSellsUsShort.doc

Working girls
By Alison Wolf
Prospect magazine
April, 2006 — Issue 121 (now listed as Apr 23, 2006)
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7398
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/04/rise-of-professional-women-decline-female-altriusm/


Added Apr 18, 2012

Blame the neoliberals – a reply to Alison Wolf
By Rosemary Crompton
Prospect magazine
May 20, 2006 — Issue 122
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/05/blametheneoliberals/

Response to Wells on Wolf (short version of blog entry)
By Sue McPherson
Submitted to TO Star
Apr 13, 2006
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2006_Apr_ShortResponseToWellsOnWolf.doc

Sisterhood reborn - a reply to Alison Wolf
By Pat Thane
Prospect magazine
May 20, 2006 — Issue 122
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/05/sisterhoodreborn/


Links updated Apr 18, 2012

Celebrity Big Brother's Banker Game

Britain’s 2006 Celebrity Big Brother TV programme (4^th) (UK)

The last session of Celebrity Big Brother ended on Friday, January 27, with Essex girl Chantelle Houghton being voted the winner. But several days before this happy ending, the house was in turmoil. Big Brother had set up a game to be played - the Banker Game - which would involve intrigue, betrayal, and deception.

Unwittingly, Preston and Chantelle came to be the head bankers, through answering the telephone that had been placed in the room, and being invited to take on this task. Along with their responsibility, of buying shares on the stock market, came a secret status of membership in a private social club, unknown to the rest of the housemates, who were ‘just a bunch of bankers’.

On different occasions, the two headed off through the dining room to the Private Members’ Club, to partake of champagne, chocolate, cigars, and scrumptious food. They were not permitted to share this secret, however, and hiding it became increasingly difficult as the other housemates became suspicious. But they not only had the luxury of their existence, they also had the responsibility of getting the housemates to perform two tasks successfully, in order to win a decent amount of food, drink, and cigarettes. The alternative would mean the housemates would be restricted in what they could have. Thus, Chantelle and Preston had to ensure that the housemates completed the tasks successfully.

But there was another side to Big Brother’s scheming. The housemates had been informed that they must lose the tasks the head bankers set for them in order to win the larger amount of food and treats. Furthermore, they were not permitted to tell Chantelle and Prescott. So while the two head bankers tried their best to get the housemates to complete the tasks, the housemates were attempting to undermine the efforts of the two, so that they could fail, thus win. The gameplaying that ensued, the contradictions leading to frustration, with each side working towards a different agenda, with Big Brother exerting its power to create even further havoc in the play, was captivating entertainment.

All this was the result of an ingenious setup by Big Brother. In this microcosm of our daily world, first came the withholding of information - the secrets - then the suspicion, the guilt, and the apparently contradictory agendas. Tensions building, secrets divulged, frustration and disbelief at the betrayals followed, while defensive behaviour and anger towards perceived wrongdoers had the House in turmoil. The housemates did win the extra large supplies, but in the final run of things, was that what really mattered? They were all working towards the same goal - more food and goodies, even though they didn’t seem to see that in the heat of accusations and defensive outbursts. This, indeed, was Big Brother, the way we understand he would be, and is.

Links updated April 2012



Added April 16, 2012

Videos of 2006 Celebrity Big Brother UK:
Highlights: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFvKZSU9hqA CBB 2006 highlights
Bankers private members club (15 Pt 2): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjFiGNJonxs&feature=relmfu
Further tasks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjYIVxl7mN0&feature=relmfu

Housemates: see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_Big_Brother_2006_(UK)
Chantelle Houghton (winner) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chantelle_Houghton
Michael Barrymore (runner-up) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0058214/bio
Dennis Rodman http://www.dennisrodman.com/
Faria Alam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faria_Alam  
George Galloway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway  
Jodie Marsh http://www.jodiemarshtv.com/
Andrew Major (Maggot) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggot_(rapper)
Pete Burns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Burns  
Preston http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Preston_(singer)  
Rula Lenska
                 http://www.rulalenska.co.uk/Rula_Lenska/The_Official_Rula_Lenska_Website.html  
Traci Bingham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traci_Bingham  
Guests
Jimmy Saville http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile  
Richard and Judy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_and_Judy

See also: Big Brother Celebrity George Galloway MP, Jan 13, 2006: http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2006/01/big-brother-celebrity-george-galloway.html

Big Brother Celebrity George Galloway MP

Britain’s 2006 Celebrity Big Brother TV programme (4^th) (UK)

George Galloway is causing quite a stir in Celebrity Big Brother on Channel 4. He entered the house, along with ten others, on the evening of thursday, January 5th. It was Day 8, a week later, on Jan 12, when, apparently following Big Brother’s orders, Galloway crawled up to actress Rula Lenska, while on prime-time television, pretending to be a cat lapping up imaginary milk from her cupped hands. This controversial display might have seemed erotic to some viewers; to others, it might have been considered disgusting or offensive. Either way, it couldn't be considered a worthy depiction of a cat lapping milk. But one has to admit, these antics do place him squarely into the realm of performance Big Brother seems to prefer; it is, after, all, people relating to one another in the diverse ways they do that makes it interesting. We would have to assume that this performance was spontaneous, and that Ruth Lenska was not responsible for the actions of George Galloway. In other words, it was not planned between the two of them. Galloway is already in trouble, for not being there for his constituents, although his office is still open.

As an MP, he has taken liberties, apparently, abandoning them while he goes off for up to three weeks to be with celebrities of various kinds, all willingly exposing their personalities, including quirks and flaws, in front of the camera. For these individuals to be together for up to three weeks, never knowing whether they will be voted out during the next round (by each other and the public) or be required to stay, is just part of the indignity of the situation.

Galloway doesn’t deserve either to be seen as a laughing stock or granted respect for his cat-antics. He is simply doing what a man does. George Galloway is the first member of Parliament - the Respect party - to take part in Celebrity Big Brother.


Added April 16, 2012

Videos
George Galloway plays the role of a cat (original) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1NIuCt72bU 
george galloway being a cat http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-D5XoNWFSQ

For more on the other housemates, see
Celebrity Big Brother’s Banker Game
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Jan 31, 2006
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2006/02/celebrity-big-brothers-banker-game.html

Terrorism and Murder in Canada and Britain: why no public investigations?

Not all suicide bombers are the same, but we did have such people in England, their roots being in Islam. That they were British citizens made matters more difficult to understand, than if they were from outside Britain. I can’t say if they all felt the same about it, but one possibility was that some of them didn’t feel a part of Britain, their values being different - their attitudes towards women, sexual freedom, etc., and on the other side, the attitudes of the British towards them - excluding them from participating fully. Briefly there had been mention of referring to them as Asian-Brits (as they would in the US use the term African-American to combine two nationalites or racial identities) but I haven’t heard more about it. I gather they found meaning in their religion.

Recently a young black man, Anthony Walker, was murdered - an axe landed in his head, in England. It was stated repeatedly by his family and the police that he was killed because of the colour of his skin, in which case I would suggest that anyone wearing black had better be extremely careful in that neighbourhood, since there are possibly quite a few people around who don’t like the colour black, or dark brown, and as we can see, reactions can be fierce.

There seems to be little effort to get to root causes, and while there may be little connection between suicide bombers and that individual killing, in each case, as far as I can see, no investigations were made into the real reasons these situations came about. In the first, re the suicide bombers, the police have announced that no investigation will be carried out into how it all happened. In the second, the fact that this young black man ‘had it all,’ from the appearance of things, including a white girlfriend, weren’t seen as relevant. It was just the colour of his skin that counted. So as long as things continue in this manner, with no investigations into the root causes, nothing will change.

Someone has asked, Why aren’t they being listened to before such things happen? Well, the same thing happened with Marc Lepine, who has been called by at least one person as Canada’s first Muslim terrorist. But it was a class issue too, and Lepine had his ambitions thwarted probably because he didn’t have the right support (proper family background, for one thing). There was nowhere for him to turn. If he had been middle class he probably would have had more support. Also, he was trained in the sciences and wouldn’t have had an understanding of the social forces that acted against him. He held Muslim ideals, but women of the day (1989) were just seeking out their own power (to decide over abortion for instance), so it was probably difficult for him to meet the traditional girl of his dreams. Lepine didn’t matter because there are likely quite a few like him, seeking to go farther in life, career-wise. That he was so frustrated that he decided to shoot women in the engineering school in Montreal is exceptional, but if he really were that capable, and he knew it, and he wanted to get his point across, how could he have done it. The police there prematurely ended their investigation too.

People and governments wonder how to stop terrorism and seemingly senseless murders. Preventing investigations from taking place is hardly the way to go about it. That should be a first step. Making that knowledge available to ordinary people is a second step. Encouraging them to use more up-to-date ways of interpreting such knowledge, so they are better able to comprehend the world around them, would be a third. Instead of relying on the government to stop terrorism and horrendous acts of violence, the people could do more on their part, not by using force but by beginning with the fundamental issues, which seem not to be understood.

Montreal Massacre -- more than violence against women

On December 6, 1989, a 25 year-old man walked into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal and shot to death 14 women, wounding 13 others. The Montreal Massacre was an appalling tragedy which has now taken its place in Canadian history, remembered mainly as an ultimate example of male violence against women. The lives of the women who died are remembered with sadness and pride. The realization of this injustice, that ruined the lives and promise these women had to offer that can never be recovered, will not go away.The gunman, Marc Lepine, a Quebecker born Gamil Gharbi in 1964, is not thought of by people so much any more, old memories portraying him as inhuman, a representation that is met by many with revulsion.

The reasons behind this atrocious event - including Marc Lepine’s life - have never been adequately explored. Lepine saw himself as a political activist, but unable to resolve his own personal dilemma or what he saw as political wrongs in society. Instead of accepting his fate or leaving quietly he chose to use a violent means of making a political statement-by killing feminists-before ending his own life.

Responses to his actions for the most part focused on apparent weaknesses in his personality and academic worth, together with the abuse he endured in childhood, to back up the idea that within himself, Marc Lepine was less than a human being. Against this image of monstrosity, the memory of the 14 women he killed have been idealized, as representing innocence and feminist breaking of tradition, for instance, or as women killed simply because they were women. The 14 women killed included 12 engineering students, a student in nursing, and a data processing worker at the Ecole Polytechnique.

Soon after the shootings, Lepine was labelled a mass murderer, although in one crucial respect his actions did not fit the stereotype. Rather than selecting a target group on the basis of religion, race, social class or ethnic group, he selected his victims on the basis of gender. Consequently,the fact that women were the victims became the focus of attention, leading to violence against women being seen as the main social issue ensuing from the tragedy.

However, exploring the significance of this tragedy must go beyond looking at it as being mainly about violence against women. The wider social significance of the Montreal Massacre relates to ideas about work, relationships, and the possibility of fulfilment of human potential. Alongside these, consider the influence of race and ethnicity, and of class differences, on opportunities for participation and fulfilment in today's world.

Lepine's victims were Genevieve Bergeron, aged 21; Helene Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22; Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Maria Klucznik, 31; Maryse Leclair, 23; Annie St.-Arneault, 23; Michele Richard, 21; Maryse Leclair, 25; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia Pelletier, 28; and Annie Turcotte, aged 21. Yet remaining fixed on the fact that it was women who were killed takes away from the social significance of the shootings at l'Ecole that day.

Memorials that commemorate the lives of the women who died are just one part of the multiple strands of memories of all those wounded within themselves by this tragedy. If something positive is to come out of the violence that Marc Lepine committed, it would involve a rethinking of how Lepine’s life is remembered, how the women are remembered, and recognition of changes brought about by feminism and its impact on the lives of the women and men of today. Now that time has passed, perhaps there will be a willingness to reconsider the lives of others involved, and how commemorations can be enhanced to reflect the lives of all those whose lives changed that day.

This article was originally published Dec 1st, 2005 in Western News: Comments. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
http://communications.uwo.ca/com/western_news/opinions/montreal_massacre_--_more_than_violence_against_women_20051201436450/


To read more:

Honouring victims of violence
Dowling, Karmen
Western News, UWO
Dec 5, 2005
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/story.html?listing_id=20358 broken link
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/stories/2005/December/honouring_victims_of_violence_flag_at_halfmast.html

Perspectives on the MontrealMassacre: Canada's Outrage Revisited
By Sue McPherson
Montreal Massacre website
2005
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/articlesandessays/PrspctvsMntrlMsscrSMcPherson.doc


Links updated April 16, 2012