The reality of Canadian society today is that there aren't enough decent jobs to go around. What can we expect - riots, sit-ins, Occupiers camping in the park? Another reality, related to the first, is that more men are staying home to take care of the kids while women focus on their careers. Thus gender roles are sometimes becoming blurred, as men and women attempt to put their lives together in ways that accomplish what needs to be done - with a few exceptions of course, mostly among those who have more choices in life.
Imagine a world in which some men stay home to take care of the children, and where women too, can do the caring work, without being made to feel less of a person. Some families are already doing it, in what can be called role reversal, alternative ways of handling the parenting and housework, or the blurring of gender roles. The traditional model of parenting and engaging in paid work no longer suits our society, and hasn't for quite a while. Yet society has had a hard time catching up with reality. The flexibility and cooperation needed to carry this off successfully is the challenge to be met.
The influence of feminism has resulted in many dual-career families, some of whom must be quite well off, as one professional married to another. On the other side, couples and singletons in less well-off curcumstances end up having to manage with less, or even struggling for their survival, as fewer jobs and careers remain open to them.
From news articles and blogs, and comments on these in online newspapers, it is plain to see that not everyone recognizes that there is a problem within society. But it is there for anyone to view, if they are ready to take the blinders off. I have included links to three pieces here from online newpapers, that discuss current dilemmas within the modern family and how that ties in with paid work. The key theme is gender, as men and women seek ways to pursue their own interests and desires, hopefully but not always without subordinating or diminishing the other, or others who have different aims.
Women have always tried to find ways of subverting the traditional female gender role, as they discovered that being a housewife and stay-at-home mother was not as fulfilling or often not as respected a role as working for pay outside the home. In fact, a research essay that I wrote several years ago now, was on this subject. It was about my grandmother, in the early 20th century, complete with gender-bending and containing references to other tactics she used to pass on her views on relationships and work, and to let us know how she felt about it all (see Gertrude McPherson and the Grey Cottage).
In society today, women work at the same kind of careers men have, earning almost as much, so they say. So much is taken for granted, as women now have the right to do these jobs, whereas in the not-so-distant past, they didn't have that right. What these women don't seem to recognize is that many of them are now in privileged positions, just as men used to be, making decisions for the family and sometimes not seeing that just as men used to perceive themselves to be superior to women and some men, they are doing it also - by virtue of the fact they have a good job and are earning a living. Certainly, this buys them respect from others, in a way that caring for home and children often does not. It gives them - career women - the freedom to be independent financially, again, in ways most women of earlier eras could not hope to be.
It's one thing for couples, or members of the middle classes, to help one another attain their goals, but what we need is more recognition of the needs of the younger generation who don't have a secure future to look forward to. As can be seen in the article, 'Graduating into a job market that isn't there,' the plight of young people today is not looking all that secure. In one of the articles listed below, (My hubby does housework), comments covered the spectrum from one extreme to the other, from insulting to acceptance and gratitude for men's accommodating role in the home. 'Women as the breadwinners' provided the opportunity for readers to comment once more on how they saw the situation of women earning more than men, again, through a wide variety of responses.
Could it be possible that the riot and vandalism in London, Ontario just last night ('Hooligans and Idiots'), marking not just St Patrick's Day but the end of March Break and the return to college, was a reflection of the disillusionment of youth. One woman whose home neighboured on the site of the riot said that the vandals were singing O Canada as they watched the CTV news vehicle go up in flames, while others heaped fencing and other materials onto the fire. Was it partly the warm temperatures that led to this event? Was it an accumulative process starting several years ago in this area of the city, always on St Patrick's day? Did the Occupy Movement last summer contribute to social unrest. Could social media have one of the culprits, firing up particpants, as mentioned in reports? Or was it just coincincidence, all these factors contributing to a lesser or greater degree to the riot that ensued. From pictures shown the day after, it appeared to be mainly males - youthful males, in attendance, although the first video offered up by the London Free Press showed the image of a young woman dancing across in front of the flames, her image a shadow figure against the flames (see 'Fleming Drive in flames'). The police, of course, are more concerned with the damage done, the lawbreakers, and the image of London that has been broadcast to the nation (see Chief Duncan's statement).
If it can be recognized and acknowledged that feminism has played a large part in the widening of the gap between rich and poor, there might be the possibility of beneficial changes within society, in personal relationships as well as in the workplace - not to mention in the streets and parks. Putting people down because they are poor or because they don't fit the traditional patriarchal model of work (held in today's world by either a male or a female), or are unemployed, isn't going to improve society for most people, and it may actually lead to more harm done to individuals and to society.
Chief Duncan's statement
By London Chief of Police Brad Duncan
March 18, 2012
London Free Press
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/03/18/19518106.html
Fleming Drive in flames (video)
By Scott Taylor
The London Free Press
March 18, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/03/18/19517661.html
Gertrude McPherson and the Grey Cottage: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2001
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/GMcPhersonGryCttgLifeCycleSMcPherson.doc
Graduating into a job market that isn’t there
By Gary Mason, Columnist
Globe and Mail
Mar 15, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/gary_mason/graduating-into-a-job-market-that-isnt-there/article2369414/
Comments: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/gary_mason/graduating-into-a-job-market-that-isnt-there/article2369414/comments/
'Hooligans and idiots'
By Scott Taylor
London Free Press
March 18, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/03/18/19518906.html
My hubby does housework but only works part-time. Is that fair?
By Zarqa Nawaz
Globe and Mail, Relationships
Mar 15, 2012
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/relationship-advice/zarqa-nawaz/my-hubby-does-housework-but-only-works-part-time-is-that-fair/article2370518/
Comments: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/relationship-advice/zarqa-nawaz/my-hubby-does-housework-but-only-works-part-time-is-that-fair/article2370518/comments/
Women as the breadwinners: Turning the traditional model of gender roles in marriage on its head
By Sarah Boesveld
National Post News
Feb 25, 2012
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/25/womean-as-the-breadwinners-turning-the-traditional-model-of-gender-roles-in-marriage-on-its-head/
18 March 2012
6 March 2012
The decriminalization of prostitution: two women talking
Susan Davis, a Vancouver, BC, activist working for the rights of prostitutes, and me, Sue McPherson, from London, Ontario, not so keen on having prostitution activities decriminalized, had a discussion recently on the pages of rabble.ca (see excerpt below), in response to the March 2 article by Joyce Arthur (see link to article and comments in list of references).
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 4:38pm.
What is a 'prostitution abolitionist' and who describes themselves thus?
Prostitution is not going to end. The selling of sex is never going to stop. But let's not equate working as a cashier with selling time to men during which they insert their penis into women's bodies. Let's not ever make the laws such that some women who cannot get other kinds of work will be encouraged, legally, or perseuaded, or forced into prostitution.
This topic - and the efforts of women to decriminalize it, cannot be rationalized. The world is a not a rational place but is filled with contradictions, especially where sex is concerned. Unfortunately, or should that be fortunately, prostitution has to stay exactly where it is. If anyone wants to introduce more health benefits, fine. But don't make this act of male penetration (and whatever else) into what might be an unwilling participant, legal.
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 5:01pm.
Do you know that anyone who contributes towards easier access of sex for men will problaby do better in this world?
You say, "the abolitionist myth that 'prostituted women' are all passive victims of violent predators and pimps leads to an almost-hilarious contradiction when it confronts the realities of sex workers' lives.
I don't know what that is either - "abolitionist myth." I do know that women who have little or nothing are more likely to be the ones who get men coming on to them as though it is their right, as though all women have to contribute something "worthwhile" to the world, and as they see it, sex is it if they have no other means of support, or no one in their lives. Know why women seek out the best possible marriage partner they can - it's because all women must have a man in their lives, if not one, then share many with other women. What a choice! Circumstances play a great part in how one's life will turn out. But sex is always part of it. So, "almost hilarious contractions" is it? Not for everyone.
susan davis on March 2, 2012 - 9:27pm.
thankyou joyce for continuing to fight the mis information campaigns of the abolitionists. the complete disgregard abolitionists have for the facts is the biggest contributing factor to the on going degradation of the safety of sex workers in canada.
people listen, people believe them, policy is written based on these mis representations...
we have to move forward based on the facts and reality of working in the sex industry. i for one need no rescue and have not experienced any violence in years. yes it happens, no one is saying it doesn't. but how is criminalizing people in the sex industry going to help that? it's not. only with sound planning and implementation of industry wide standards will we see improvement in the working conditions of sex workers.
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 9:57pm.
I doubt very much that policy is written based solely on what you call "misrepresentations," Susan. Unless we know your circumstances, how can we come to understand why you haven't experienced violence while on the job. If you have women siding with you, as protection, perhaps that's what it takes. You're asking the wrong Q when you say, "how is criminalizing people in the sex industry going to help that?" There really isn't an alternative solution to this problem, without putting all female children potentially at risk. I'm sure most people don't want to see prostitutes arrested, but there just isn't another way for police to keep the peace. Prostitution simply cannot be legitimized in the way that you want, without it leading to all sorts of problems within society for other women, especially women who live in poverty.
The problem is, you are only thinking of yourselves, not other women and young girl children learning about the world.
susan davis on March 3, 2012 - 11:10am.
perhaps if you read the reports we wrote on the experiences of 100's of sex workers and didn't subscribe to the idea that sex workers are either victims or greedy gold diggers you could see past your morality based arguements.
i live in total poverty, why is it that it's always the assumption that we are making boat loads of money and that we're so self centered that we are blind to the fate of our sisters in the sex industry?
i have dedicated the last 10 years of my life to the fight for equality, equal access to support services and police protection and improved safety and stability for sex working people in this country.
i have worked for 25 years in an industry with no labour standards or even protection of law. i have been in prison, worked on the street, survived 4 overdoses and numerous assaults and attempts on my life.
who are you? you clearly have not bothered to tkae the time to listen to sex workers from all over canada and to hear that we DO have altneratives, there is a better way to protect us. give us our equality and decriminalize us now.
the only path is to implement occupational health and safety programs and to work towards unweaving the tangled web of mainstream systems biases, not one of which does not affect our lives, and to give sex working people the same rights as every other canadian citizen enjoy.
i am not some lone profiteering exploitative self centered prostitute with only an eye for cash and other people's husbands. i resent the implcation as well. you don't know me.
www.wccsip.ca
www.bccec.wordpress.com
www.tradesecretsguide.blogspot.com read this occupational health and safety training and tell me if you think it will encourage people to enter the sex industry? information about abusive pimps and what happens when you are the victim of an assault and the way the police may treat you is hardly normalizing or encouraging anyone. or how about the extensive lists of health risks? sounds glamourous.
Sue McPherson on March 3, 2012 - 2:33pm.
Is it a question of morality when a person says they would rather their daughter did not become a prostitute? I consider myself fairly open-minded but I still wouldn't want that occupation for my daughter. But if she went into it, it wouldn't make any difference to our relationship, I'm sure. People have different beliefs and ways of perceiving the world and of acting in it, and it can become a problem when different interests collide, as they do over the decriminalization of prostitution. People might like to say "live and let live" as their way of dealing with difference, which is fine unless someone's toes get stepped on. You can do what you like, as long as it doesn't affect me or mine, or society (just because I am interested in how society goes). But what you are asking for - decriminalization, and the right to negoitate legally, does affect me, or could. and it would affect society, as I mentioned in one of my other posts.
You can't talk about sex work as though it is the same as being a cashier, or a firefighter, or a gardener. It - sex - is an act of intimacy, or at least is often considered to be by many people. If not an act of emotional intimacy, then at least it is an act of physical intimacy. Where does one person's individual personal sense of privacy start? Some people don't like to be touched on the arm. But I think there's more who would object to having to let a stranger engage in sexual intercourse with them. I don't see it as being about morality when a person wants the right not to have to argue that they don't want their privacy interfered with on this level. It's bad enough when landlord or maintenance man decides to enter your home without asking first. But one can let that slide. So if prostitution loses its 'criminal" edge, I should think it would make many men more willing to see how far they can take it - and not with the rich and powerful or women with husbands. It will be with the most vulnerable in society. Just because it's your choice doesn't mean that all women want to subjected to the behaviours that will crop up if it is decriminalized.
This is my blog: /http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com . I have written quite a bit about sexual politics and other forms of social inequality, not so much on prostitution per se.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 12:57pm.
sue, your privelged upbringing and higher education, your international migrations and lack of experience with poverty, being racialized or marginalized doesn't allow you to understnad the choices made by people who do face those experiences.
it is easy to say sex work is bad, abolish prostitution for the betterment of society because you will not be affected. you comment that you would not want your daughter or grand daughter to engage in sex work. the point is that you will not be there when your child makes a decision about sex work...would you not rather they could make that decision in safety? or would you be willing to see your child go missing? go to prison?be found murdered?fed to the pigs? be cast out of society because of your ideals?
how would that help them? it wouldn't. my parents and the other parents of sex workers feel the same way you do. no one imagines their child becoming a sex worker or dumpster diver or drug dealer, toiletter scrubber, or grave digger...
but it happens, its a fact. continuing to complicate the situation by basing policy on biased and discriminatory ideals rather than fact will cost people, women their lives. are you prepared to own your ideals even if it means the murder of women, and children ...or their incarcaration and humiliation?
there are laws to protect people from assault, slavery, abuse, extortion, debt servitude and labour laws to guarantee safe working conditions. there is the international charter of human rights guarnteeing us equal access to justice and safety.
or is it your belief that only those deemed "good" or "moral" are human and deserving of rights? sex workers were only classifed as human beings in vancouver in 1973. is this the approach you prefer?
we need rights and decriminalization in order to take control of our collective destinies and safety and what we don't need is people trying to impose their tired old ethics at the expense of our lives and safety.it's been 100 years of prohibition, it's over. the social experiment failed miserably, people are dead.
can we please move on and try something new?
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 2:25pm.
I'm not so secure financially that I don't have to worry about things like that in my own life. I'm living on the edge, so to speak, not from month to month, but wondering how long I can last. All my resources went towards my education (at midlife), leaving me with nothing when there was no career to follow. I hadn't realized that the right relationships, with men and/or women, and conforming (not writing about what I do), were all essential to being accepted and rewarded for all my hard work. Susan, it seems you haven't read anything of mine or you might have realized that. Here's my life story, for additional info: http://samcpherson.homestead.com/StoryofMyLife.html .
So, yes, I do understand the experience of being marginalized and in poverty. And one thing I noticed, in case I didn't make that clear, was the first thing that happens is that men start to close in, figuring it's only a matter of time until you submit sexually, in order to survive.
That's an odd remark about motherhood that you make. Perhaps becoming a prostitute was a one-time decision for you, but I spent much of my time when married making sure my children had every opportunity available, to pursue their interests and learn new ones. It worked for my daughter, who followed our family's interest in swimming to her life's work. My ideals helped that happen. I know life isn't always that straightforward, but my ideals certainly didn't do her harm. As far as my views about sex are concerned, that's up to her what she does.
It's you , Susan, who is putting on this subject the condemnation of religion and saying that is my moral compass too, which it isn't. There can be a kind of 'morality,' if you insist on using that term, that doesn't include the notions of sin or God. I've already said to you that our world is not as rational a place as you would like to think it is. this isn't only about you having your rights. It's also about the rights of others to live in peace, without having to put up with men who start to think even more strongly about their apparent right to have sex with any woman they like. And there are men like that.
If you can address some of these concerns it might do your cause more good than simply demanding the decriminalization of prostitution and the right to negotiate freely with your customers. I don't want to be subjected to men who think that, because the law has changed, that they have the right to offer money to any woman who is vulnerable and isolated, for sex. You have to say how you are going to control men who take this as a new freedom in their lives. I don't want to see young women sent to the local brothel by the job agency because there is no other work avaiable for her.
I haven't actually noticed that laws protect me from illegal and harmful behaviours I have been subjected to. But I have seen women siding with men who do them, and men not wanting to cause offence towards the source of their joy. This is as much about sex as it is about prostitution, the work. I know feminists are fond of saying men and women are equal or should be, and some will work with you towards getting what you want, but their lives aren't going to be affected. Furthermore, when it comes to sexual desires and physical needs, they're not the same at all. I would want to know that world won't be a worse place for the vulnerable if decriminalization were to take place.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 2:40pm.
have you read anything we've written ...or the sex worker rights forum here? we have written plenty and people are listening. you seem to be a bit behind the times if you think sex workers aren't speking out.
about your daughter you say "it is up to her what she does" but what if that included sex work? no one is saying people should be forced to do sex work as an alternative to social assistance or that the government should force women into sex work. that is not decriminalization.
as it stands no one can be "forced to work" at any profession, even by the government. why would sex work be any different? why would the government force people into sex work when it does not force people into any other profession? your fears there are unfounded.
however, beauty bias does come into play when now for people trying to access finacial support and are told to become escorts or exotic dancers because they are pretty. some people are denied finacial support because they are a sex worker, whether they want to exit or not.
so how does continuing to criminalize us help with that? it doesn't. it means that anything people do to us is accepteable, we are criminals and get what we deserve.
decriminalization has NOT produced the effect you are describing in any of the countries where it has taken place. in fact the opposite. you are basing your position on moral panic, mis information and a lack of knowledge of the facts. the "vulnerable" are the ones criminalized. the workers on the street bare the brunt of police enforcement actions and as brothels and show lounges are closed due to criminalization, more and more workers are forced onto the street. more and more workers die also. we can see that in the mortality rate of vancouver sex workers escalating over a number decades as a result of uniformed actions taken against our industry. please read the history of sex work thread in the sex worker rights forum.
take a little time to educate yourself on the facts, your position has no backbone in reality. do you care about sex worker safety or not?
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 4:48pm.
Hey, lady, we all do sex work (or have done). It's what women were born to do! Didn't you know that? Some people are just more open about what they get in return - money, careers, a home with hubby! Most women wouldn't say that about themselves, as it is a norm in society. We are simply raised to be that way. Some are quite knowing and use their feminine wiles in practical ways to get what they want.
It's not the govt who does the persuading, when it comes to what kind of work a person will do. The clerks at the job centre, or the personnel office at the place of work gets to choose who will get accepted and who will not. So anything done to poor people is acceptable - as you seem to already know - unless they are actually doing sex work, then they have worth.
No, I have not seen any facts on how decrimilaization has affected other countries. I don't know how easy it would be to get hold of. I just know what men are like now, and it doesn't take too much effort to see how decriminalizing the negotiation of sex will lead to all sorts of social 'misunderstandings'. Having already been a victim of similar kinds of misunderstandings, where intentions or behaviour were misunderstood, and in situations where such behaviour was regulated against, I can only surmise that it will get worse, if there is no fear of reprisal among men for their bad behaviour.
I have always heard about prostitutes struggles for healthcare, etc, but that also is something many other women and men are not getting in this society. Yes, I'm sure your work is dangerous to your safety. Men can be like that. You may experience more of that, because of your job, but many women have also experienced violence, at the hands of stronger men or men who control them.
I don't see that the ones doing work that is criminalized are the more vulnerable. It's because it is sex work, and men who find themselves in need of sex, or wanting to punish someone for what some other woman has done to them will seek out the most vulnerable - the one isolated, or lacking money, homeless, or without a man in her life.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 7:24pm.
the men who purchase sex are not "bad men" nor are all men prone to violence....this seems like you are unwilling to step outside of your comfort zone and actually look up the facts.
why can't men be vulnerable? why do we as a society assume all men are only out for themselves and self gratification? a man whose penis has been amputated to prevent the spread of cancer is vulnerable and in need of care. he is not a "bad" person nor is his lonliess "bad behaviour". he is suffering. why does he not deserve to be comforted and if a sex worker chooses to do so, why should she not comfort him? how is this "bad"?
can you imagine if suddenly being a nurse was illegal? how easy would it be for nurses to work if they were deemed criminals? or how about milk? what if milk was sudeenly illegal and milk producers had to operate in dark isolated areas risking their lives to sell their wares?
i mean criminalizing alcohol didn't "harm" anyone did it? or criminalizing drugs? or abortion? how can you be so blind to the impacts of being deemed criminal and the impact of being the victim of police violence during raids?
you have created a seperate set of rules for sex workers. that is discrimination and is illegal under the international charter of human rights.
please at least have the respect enough if not for us but yourself to actually read up on this a bit and discover perhaps where you may have yourself discriminated against sex workers and ways in which you could better embrace government of canada policies governing research and understand which "facts ' you are being mislead with.
those rules are in place for a reason... to inform canadians about the ethics and reliability of the research findings they are considering. try to understnad from our perspective, being a criminal is a huge barrier as is a criminal record. how is arresting women helping them?
these laws are completely ineffective, its time to protect people not punish them and to try something new.
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 9:56pm.
But we were talking about the men who made your life less secure - the ones who commit acts of violence? I know from doing research on sexual harassment that not all men who do this are nasty men either - many are husbands and fathers and otherwise good, hardworking, intelligent men.
Oh right - nurses. This entire issue has nothing to sex, is that what you're saying. However, speaking of nurses, read Dutch man sees it his right to have nurses serve his sexual needs: http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/03/dutch-man-sees-it-his-right-to-have.html ... . I hope you see my point of view.
I do realize that prostitutes are hard done by. So are people in the lower classes picked on more than they deserve. After all, it isn't ALL sex workers who get arrested, is it. eg Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the prostitutes he was involved with. He was so important he didn't even have to admit they were. But sex work is still not the same as being a cashier, much as you would like the Human Rights Commission to say it is. It's pointless for me to simply repeat what I've already said, but that's about it - selling sexual intercourse is not the same as any other job.
No discrimination doesn't apply in the case of prostitution because it's about sex. It's a sensitive topic and we simply cannot have an act of sex for money made legal because of the implications this would have for society. Don't worry about the criminal record. Everyone knows it's unfair and if it's used against you it's because they don't like the colour of your hair or your views on football. Perhaps some lawkeepers want to punish you - just as some of your clients do. But working within the law, if it were changed, won't keep you much safer. The men who would have abused you will have to find other ways of dealing with their frustrations; instead, going after other vulnerable and isolated women. Decriminalizing prostitution isn't going to make the abusive men go away completely. It might make you into an ordinary citizen, just like everyone else, but that won't keep you safe.
Susan, what I can do, with your permission, is publish this discussion we've had on my blog, including a link to the original article on rabble.ca by Joyce Arthur. It's another outlet for people to read your views, and mine.
susan davis on March 5, 2012 - 10:26am.
won't make it "much safer"....based on what research or other countries expeireinces? it will make it safer and the sex workers used by dominque strauss-kahn are not immune. in the US, i watched on "sex slaves in detriot" last night, they arrest women to "rescue" girls. i also commincate with US workers through the social justice work i do...they arrested 100 women in 1 episode, showed their faced, filmed them naked, broadcast it on television....total humiliation, in my opinion it's violence when police to these kinds of degrading things. they were all indoor workers in highend hotels. the sting was police in the hotel baiting the workers. in the end the had "leads" on 3 pimps and 5 "girls" no arrests in that area but had comprimised the safety, confidentiality and dignity of over 100 women.... arresting them all in the name of "rescue".
just becuase you don't hear about sex workers being charged doesn't mean it doesn't happen. thst show was on back to back to back last night....how many women were comprimised throughout the 3 episodes...?
and sure, if you would like to repost this to your blog, i am good with that.
(continued at http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/how-prostitution-abolitionists-substitute-ideologies-facts )
Any changes to prostitution laws not coming soon
By Sam Pazzano
Toronto Sun
June 19, 2011
Ottawa Sun
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/19/any-changes-to-prostitution-lawsnot-coming-soon
How prostitution abolitionists substitute ideologies for facts
By Joyce Arthur
rabble.ca
March 2, 2012
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/how-prostitution-abolitionists-substitute-ideologies-facts
The mistaken logic of 'asymmetrical criminalization' -- aka the Nordic model of prostitution
By Joyce Arthur
rabble.ca
February 3, 2012
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/02/crazy-logic-asymmetrical-criminalization-aka-nordic-model-prostitution
Ontario Appeal Court decriminalizes brothels (article added Sept 2012)
CTVNews.ca Staff
Mar 26, 2012
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120326/appeal-court-decision-canada-sex-trade-laws-120326/
Prostitution ‘not a constitutionally-protected right,’ Crown argues in landmark case
By Kirk Makin
Globe and Mail
June 13, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prostitution-not-a-constitutionally-protected-right-crown-argues-in-landmark-case/article2058348/
Who does decriminalization leave out?
By Meghan Murphy
The F Word, and Feminist Current
Jan 30, 2012
http://www.feminisms.org/4346/who-does-decriminalization-leave-out/
http://feministcurrent.com/4346/who-does-decriminalization-leave-out/
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 4:38pm.
What is a 'prostitution abolitionist' and who describes themselves thus?
Prostitution is not going to end. The selling of sex is never going to stop. But let's not equate working as a cashier with selling time to men during which they insert their penis into women's bodies. Let's not ever make the laws such that some women who cannot get other kinds of work will be encouraged, legally, or perseuaded, or forced into prostitution.
This topic - and the efforts of women to decriminalize it, cannot be rationalized. The world is a not a rational place but is filled with contradictions, especially where sex is concerned. Unfortunately, or should that be fortunately, prostitution has to stay exactly where it is. If anyone wants to introduce more health benefits, fine. But don't make this act of male penetration (and whatever else) into what might be an unwilling participant, legal.
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 5:01pm.
Do you know that anyone who contributes towards easier access of sex for men will problaby do better in this world?
You say, "the abolitionist myth that 'prostituted women' are all passive victims of violent predators and pimps leads to an almost-hilarious contradiction when it confronts the realities of sex workers' lives.
I don't know what that is either - "abolitionist myth." I do know that women who have little or nothing are more likely to be the ones who get men coming on to them as though it is their right, as though all women have to contribute something "worthwhile" to the world, and as they see it, sex is it if they have no other means of support, or no one in their lives. Know why women seek out the best possible marriage partner they can - it's because all women must have a man in their lives, if not one, then share many with other women. What a choice! Circumstances play a great part in how one's life will turn out. But sex is always part of it. So, "almost hilarious contractions" is it? Not for everyone.
susan davis on March 2, 2012 - 9:27pm.
thankyou joyce for continuing to fight the mis information campaigns of the abolitionists. the complete disgregard abolitionists have for the facts is the biggest contributing factor to the on going degradation of the safety of sex workers in canada.
people listen, people believe them, policy is written based on these mis representations...
we have to move forward based on the facts and reality of working in the sex industry. i for one need no rescue and have not experienced any violence in years. yes it happens, no one is saying it doesn't. but how is criminalizing people in the sex industry going to help that? it's not. only with sound planning and implementation of industry wide standards will we see improvement in the working conditions of sex workers.
Sue McPherson on March 2, 2012 - 9:57pm.
I doubt very much that policy is written based solely on what you call "misrepresentations," Susan. Unless we know your circumstances, how can we come to understand why you haven't experienced violence while on the job. If you have women siding with you, as protection, perhaps that's what it takes. You're asking the wrong Q when you say, "how is criminalizing people in the sex industry going to help that?" There really isn't an alternative solution to this problem, without putting all female children potentially at risk. I'm sure most people don't want to see prostitutes arrested, but there just isn't another way for police to keep the peace. Prostitution simply cannot be legitimized in the way that you want, without it leading to all sorts of problems within society for other women, especially women who live in poverty.
The problem is, you are only thinking of yourselves, not other women and young girl children learning about the world.
susan davis on March 3, 2012 - 11:10am.
perhaps if you read the reports we wrote on the experiences of 100's of sex workers and didn't subscribe to the idea that sex workers are either victims or greedy gold diggers you could see past your morality based arguements.
i live in total poverty, why is it that it's always the assumption that we are making boat loads of money and that we're so self centered that we are blind to the fate of our sisters in the sex industry?
i have dedicated the last 10 years of my life to the fight for equality, equal access to support services and police protection and improved safety and stability for sex working people in this country.
i have worked for 25 years in an industry with no labour standards or even protection of law. i have been in prison, worked on the street, survived 4 overdoses and numerous assaults and attempts on my life.
who are you? you clearly have not bothered to tkae the time to listen to sex workers from all over canada and to hear that we DO have altneratives, there is a better way to protect us. give us our equality and decriminalize us now.
the only path is to implement occupational health and safety programs and to work towards unweaving the tangled web of mainstream systems biases, not one of which does not affect our lives, and to give sex working people the same rights as every other canadian citizen enjoy.
i am not some lone profiteering exploitative self centered prostitute with only an eye for cash and other people's husbands. i resent the implcation as well. you don't know me.
www.wccsip.ca
www.bccec.wordpress.com
www.tradesecretsguide.blogspot.com read this occupational health and safety training and tell me if you think it will encourage people to enter the sex industry? information about abusive pimps and what happens when you are the victim of an assault and the way the police may treat you is hardly normalizing or encouraging anyone. or how about the extensive lists of health risks? sounds glamourous.
Sue McPherson on March 3, 2012 - 2:33pm.
Is it a question of morality when a person says they would rather their daughter did not become a prostitute? I consider myself fairly open-minded but I still wouldn't want that occupation for my daughter. But if she went into it, it wouldn't make any difference to our relationship, I'm sure. People have different beliefs and ways of perceiving the world and of acting in it, and it can become a problem when different interests collide, as they do over the decriminalization of prostitution. People might like to say "live and let live" as their way of dealing with difference, which is fine unless someone's toes get stepped on. You can do what you like, as long as it doesn't affect me or mine, or society (just because I am interested in how society goes). But what you are asking for - decriminalization, and the right to negoitate legally, does affect me, or could. and it would affect society, as I mentioned in one of my other posts.
You can't talk about sex work as though it is the same as being a cashier, or a firefighter, or a gardener. It - sex - is an act of intimacy, or at least is often considered to be by many people. If not an act of emotional intimacy, then at least it is an act of physical intimacy. Where does one person's individual personal sense of privacy start? Some people don't like to be touched on the arm. But I think there's more who would object to having to let a stranger engage in sexual intercourse with them. I don't see it as being about morality when a person wants the right not to have to argue that they don't want their privacy interfered with on this level. It's bad enough when landlord or maintenance man decides to enter your home without asking first. But one can let that slide. So if prostitution loses its 'criminal" edge, I should think it would make many men more willing to see how far they can take it - and not with the rich and powerful or women with husbands. It will be with the most vulnerable in society. Just because it's your choice doesn't mean that all women want to subjected to the behaviours that will crop up if it is decriminalized.
This is my blog: /http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com . I have written quite a bit about sexual politics and other forms of social inequality, not so much on prostitution per se.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 12:57pm.
sue, your privelged upbringing and higher education, your international migrations and lack of experience with poverty, being racialized or marginalized doesn't allow you to understnad the choices made by people who do face those experiences.
it is easy to say sex work is bad, abolish prostitution for the betterment of society because you will not be affected. you comment that you would not want your daughter or grand daughter to engage in sex work. the point is that you will not be there when your child makes a decision about sex work...would you not rather they could make that decision in safety? or would you be willing to see your child go missing? go to prison?be found murdered?fed to the pigs? be cast out of society because of your ideals?
how would that help them? it wouldn't. my parents and the other parents of sex workers feel the same way you do. no one imagines their child becoming a sex worker or dumpster diver or drug dealer, toiletter scrubber, or grave digger...
but it happens, its a fact. continuing to complicate the situation by basing policy on biased and discriminatory ideals rather than fact will cost people, women their lives. are you prepared to own your ideals even if it means the murder of women, and children ...or their incarcaration and humiliation?
there are laws to protect people from assault, slavery, abuse, extortion, debt servitude and labour laws to guarantee safe working conditions. there is the international charter of human rights guarnteeing us equal access to justice and safety.
or is it your belief that only those deemed "good" or "moral" are human and deserving of rights? sex workers were only classifed as human beings in vancouver in 1973. is this the approach you prefer?
we need rights and decriminalization in order to take control of our collective destinies and safety and what we don't need is people trying to impose their tired old ethics at the expense of our lives and safety.it's been 100 years of prohibition, it's over. the social experiment failed miserably, people are dead.
can we please move on and try something new?
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 2:25pm.
I'm not so secure financially that I don't have to worry about things like that in my own life. I'm living on the edge, so to speak, not from month to month, but wondering how long I can last. All my resources went towards my education (at midlife), leaving me with nothing when there was no career to follow. I hadn't realized that the right relationships, with men and/or women, and conforming (not writing about what I do), were all essential to being accepted and rewarded for all my hard work. Susan, it seems you haven't read anything of mine or you might have realized that. Here's my life story, for additional info: http://samcpherson.homestead.com/StoryofMyLife.html .
So, yes, I do understand the experience of being marginalized and in poverty. And one thing I noticed, in case I didn't make that clear, was the first thing that happens is that men start to close in, figuring it's only a matter of time until you submit sexually, in order to survive.
That's an odd remark about motherhood that you make. Perhaps becoming a prostitute was a one-time decision for you, but I spent much of my time when married making sure my children had every opportunity available, to pursue their interests and learn new ones. It worked for my daughter, who followed our family's interest in swimming to her life's work. My ideals helped that happen. I know life isn't always that straightforward, but my ideals certainly didn't do her harm. As far as my views about sex are concerned, that's up to her what she does.
It's you , Susan, who is putting on this subject the condemnation of religion and saying that is my moral compass too, which it isn't. There can be a kind of 'morality,' if you insist on using that term, that doesn't include the notions of sin or God. I've already said to you that our world is not as rational a place as you would like to think it is. this isn't only about you having your rights. It's also about the rights of others to live in peace, without having to put up with men who start to think even more strongly about their apparent right to have sex with any woman they like. And there are men like that.
If you can address some of these concerns it might do your cause more good than simply demanding the decriminalization of prostitution and the right to negotiate freely with your customers. I don't want to be subjected to men who think that, because the law has changed, that they have the right to offer money to any woman who is vulnerable and isolated, for sex. You have to say how you are going to control men who take this as a new freedom in their lives. I don't want to see young women sent to the local brothel by the job agency because there is no other work avaiable for her.
I haven't actually noticed that laws protect me from illegal and harmful behaviours I have been subjected to. But I have seen women siding with men who do them, and men not wanting to cause offence towards the source of their joy. This is as much about sex as it is about prostitution, the work. I know feminists are fond of saying men and women are equal or should be, and some will work with you towards getting what you want, but their lives aren't going to be affected. Furthermore, when it comes to sexual desires and physical needs, they're not the same at all. I would want to know that world won't be a worse place for the vulnerable if decriminalization were to take place.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 2:40pm.
have you read anything we've written ...or the sex worker rights forum here? we have written plenty and people are listening. you seem to be a bit behind the times if you think sex workers aren't speking out.
about your daughter you say "it is up to her what she does" but what if that included sex work? no one is saying people should be forced to do sex work as an alternative to social assistance or that the government should force women into sex work. that is not decriminalization.
as it stands no one can be "forced to work" at any profession, even by the government. why would sex work be any different? why would the government force people into sex work when it does not force people into any other profession? your fears there are unfounded.
however, beauty bias does come into play when now for people trying to access finacial support and are told to become escorts or exotic dancers because they are pretty. some people are denied finacial support because they are a sex worker, whether they want to exit or not.
so how does continuing to criminalize us help with that? it doesn't. it means that anything people do to us is accepteable, we are criminals and get what we deserve.
decriminalization has NOT produced the effect you are describing in any of the countries where it has taken place. in fact the opposite. you are basing your position on moral panic, mis information and a lack of knowledge of the facts. the "vulnerable" are the ones criminalized. the workers on the street bare the brunt of police enforcement actions and as brothels and show lounges are closed due to criminalization, more and more workers are forced onto the street. more and more workers die also. we can see that in the mortality rate of vancouver sex workers escalating over a number decades as a result of uniformed actions taken against our industry. please read the history of sex work thread in the sex worker rights forum.
take a little time to educate yourself on the facts, your position has no backbone in reality. do you care about sex worker safety or not?
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 4:48pm.
Hey, lady, we all do sex work (or have done). It's what women were born to do! Didn't you know that? Some people are just more open about what they get in return - money, careers, a home with hubby! Most women wouldn't say that about themselves, as it is a norm in society. We are simply raised to be that way. Some are quite knowing and use their feminine wiles in practical ways to get what they want.
It's not the govt who does the persuading, when it comes to what kind of work a person will do. The clerks at the job centre, or the personnel office at the place of work gets to choose who will get accepted and who will not. So anything done to poor people is acceptable - as you seem to already know - unless they are actually doing sex work, then they have worth.
No, I have not seen any facts on how decrimilaization has affected other countries. I don't know how easy it would be to get hold of. I just know what men are like now, and it doesn't take too much effort to see how decriminalizing the negotiation of sex will lead to all sorts of social 'misunderstandings'. Having already been a victim of similar kinds of misunderstandings, where intentions or behaviour were misunderstood, and in situations where such behaviour was regulated against, I can only surmise that it will get worse, if there is no fear of reprisal among men for their bad behaviour.
I have always heard about prostitutes struggles for healthcare, etc, but that also is something many other women and men are not getting in this society. Yes, I'm sure your work is dangerous to your safety. Men can be like that. You may experience more of that, because of your job, but many women have also experienced violence, at the hands of stronger men or men who control them.
I don't see that the ones doing work that is criminalized are the more vulnerable. It's because it is sex work, and men who find themselves in need of sex, or wanting to punish someone for what some other woman has done to them will seek out the most vulnerable - the one isolated, or lacking money, homeless, or without a man in her life.
susan davis on March 4, 2012 - 7:24pm.
the men who purchase sex are not "bad men" nor are all men prone to violence....this seems like you are unwilling to step outside of your comfort zone and actually look up the facts.
why can't men be vulnerable? why do we as a society assume all men are only out for themselves and self gratification? a man whose penis has been amputated to prevent the spread of cancer is vulnerable and in need of care. he is not a "bad" person nor is his lonliess "bad behaviour". he is suffering. why does he not deserve to be comforted and if a sex worker chooses to do so, why should she not comfort him? how is this "bad"?
can you imagine if suddenly being a nurse was illegal? how easy would it be for nurses to work if they were deemed criminals? or how about milk? what if milk was sudeenly illegal and milk producers had to operate in dark isolated areas risking their lives to sell their wares?
i mean criminalizing alcohol didn't "harm" anyone did it? or criminalizing drugs? or abortion? how can you be so blind to the impacts of being deemed criminal and the impact of being the victim of police violence during raids?
you have created a seperate set of rules for sex workers. that is discrimination and is illegal under the international charter of human rights.
please at least have the respect enough if not for us but yourself to actually read up on this a bit and discover perhaps where you may have yourself discriminated against sex workers and ways in which you could better embrace government of canada policies governing research and understand which "facts ' you are being mislead with.
those rules are in place for a reason... to inform canadians about the ethics and reliability of the research findings they are considering. try to understnad from our perspective, being a criminal is a huge barrier as is a criminal record. how is arresting women helping them?
these laws are completely ineffective, its time to protect people not punish them and to try something new.
Sue McPherson on March 4, 2012 - 9:56pm.
But we were talking about the men who made your life less secure - the ones who commit acts of violence? I know from doing research on sexual harassment that not all men who do this are nasty men either - many are husbands and fathers and otherwise good, hardworking, intelligent men.
Oh right - nurses. This entire issue has nothing to sex, is that what you're saying. However, speaking of nurses, read Dutch man sees it his right to have nurses serve his sexual needs: http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/03/dutch-man-sees-it-his-right-to-have.html ... . I hope you see my point of view.
I do realize that prostitutes are hard done by. So are people in the lower classes picked on more than they deserve. After all, it isn't ALL sex workers who get arrested, is it. eg Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the prostitutes he was involved with. He was so important he didn't even have to admit they were. But sex work is still not the same as being a cashier, much as you would like the Human Rights Commission to say it is. It's pointless for me to simply repeat what I've already said, but that's about it - selling sexual intercourse is not the same as any other job.
No discrimination doesn't apply in the case of prostitution because it's about sex. It's a sensitive topic and we simply cannot have an act of sex for money made legal because of the implications this would have for society. Don't worry about the criminal record. Everyone knows it's unfair and if it's used against you it's because they don't like the colour of your hair or your views on football. Perhaps some lawkeepers want to punish you - just as some of your clients do. But working within the law, if it were changed, won't keep you much safer. The men who would have abused you will have to find other ways of dealing with their frustrations; instead, going after other vulnerable and isolated women. Decriminalizing prostitution isn't going to make the abusive men go away completely. It might make you into an ordinary citizen, just like everyone else, but that won't keep you safe.
Susan, what I can do, with your permission, is publish this discussion we've had on my blog, including a link to the original article on rabble.ca by Joyce Arthur. It's another outlet for people to read your views, and mine.
susan davis on March 5, 2012 - 10:26am.
won't make it "much safer"....based on what research or other countries expeireinces? it will make it safer and the sex workers used by dominque strauss-kahn are not immune. in the US, i watched on "sex slaves in detriot" last night, they arrest women to "rescue" girls. i also commincate with US workers through the social justice work i do...they arrested 100 women in 1 episode, showed their faced, filmed them naked, broadcast it on television....total humiliation, in my opinion it's violence when police to these kinds of degrading things. they were all indoor workers in highend hotels. the sting was police in the hotel baiting the workers. in the end the had "leads" on 3 pimps and 5 "girls" no arrests in that area but had comprimised the safety, confidentiality and dignity of over 100 women.... arresting them all in the name of "rescue".
just becuase you don't hear about sex workers being charged doesn't mean it doesn't happen. thst show was on back to back to back last night....how many women were comprimised throughout the 3 episodes...?
and sure, if you would like to repost this to your blog, i am good with that.
(continued at http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/how-prostitution-abolitionists-substitute-ideologies-facts )
Any changes to prostitution laws not coming soon
By Sam Pazzano
Toronto Sun
June 19, 2011
Ottawa Sun
http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/06/19/any-changes-to-prostitution-lawsnot-coming-soon
How prostitution abolitionists substitute ideologies for facts
By Joyce Arthur
rabble.ca
March 2, 2012
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/03/how-prostitution-abolitionists-substitute-ideologies-facts
The mistaken logic of 'asymmetrical criminalization' -- aka the Nordic model of prostitution
By Joyce Arthur
rabble.ca
February 3, 2012
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2012/02/crazy-logic-asymmetrical-criminalization-aka-nordic-model-prostitution
Ontario Appeal Court decriminalizes brothels (article added Sept 2012)
CTVNews.ca Staff
Mar 26, 2012
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120326/appeal-court-decision-canada-sex-trade-laws-120326/
Prostitution ‘not a constitutionally-protected right,’ Crown argues in landmark case
By Kirk Makin
Globe and Mail
June 13, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prostitution-not-a-constitutionally-protected-right-crown-argues-in-landmark-case/article2058348/
Who does decriminalization leave out?
By Meghan Murphy
The F Word, and Feminist Current
Jan 30, 2012
http://www.feminisms.org/4346/who-does-decriminalization-leave-out/
http://feministcurrent.com/4346/who-does-decriminalization-leave-out/
5 February 2012
Feminism's legacy: contributing towards social inequality
updated Sept 9, 2012
While feminism has changed the lives for many women in a positive way, it has left many other women, as well as men, in not such happy or positive circumstances. One legacy of feminism is the dual career, dual income family, a way of life that benefits only a certain segment of society. This also raises the feminist notion of 'having it all,' a phrase that refers to women having the 'choice' (a favourite word among those who have benefited from feminism and take it for granted), of having both a career and family if they wish, with the money and security to ensure they can live 'the good life'.
The way relationships come together has changed, enough to say here about modern values smply that professional men and women are more likely to join forces, than the earlier ideals of coupledom. In previous eras, a professional man might team up with a non-working woman, possibly educated, perhaps not, but providing him with a good woman to care for the family and look after his home, while also being able to entertain him and his business associates with her grace and wit. Most of us have seen ‘Mad Men’ on tv. In today’s world, however, that scenario is usually very different.
Having it all
‘Having it all’ could not possibly be the bliss implied by the term (see Have it All? Yeah, right!, 2012). Women enter the public sphere alongside men in the hopes of being as free as men seemed to be, to have the power, status and prestige, and the money to keep them safe and secure in this world. But most have to make hard choices about motherhood and work, and struggle to maintain the power they have achieved, at work and in the political arena.
One thing that does come fairly easily for many, however, is how they choose a mate. It looks as though many choose the best they can find, among their associates, friends, and family connections, and perhaps the internet. That may seem obvious, except that today’s world is different than it used to be, prefeminism. Instead of finding a mate and settling down to work part-time or not at all, in the traditional fashion, a woman may well be seeking the best she can while keeping in mind her career goals. That’s to be expected. But if the practice becomes a cultural norm, whereby women who do this become successful, then insist on women they mentor becoming like them, the result could be the closing of ranks on anyone who is different.
Gold diggers
That brings us to the meaning of the term ‘gold digger,’ another phrase that used to have a certain meaning, directed towards non-working women. Among the defintions of gold digger, see these that give no indication that the working status of the woman counts: ‘a woman who associates with or marries a man chiefly for material gain’ (Reference Dictionary), and ‘a woman who only wants relationships with men who are rich’ (Macmillan Dictionary). These definitions suggest that it is not women who marry wealthy men for their money only who are gold diggers. The resources the relationship offers is also important. See also Keli Goff’s piece on Justin Bieber, gold diggers, and feminism, and the blog that I wrote in response.
All in all, it’s a matter of perspective, attitudes, and definitions. Traditionally, women married men who became the breadwinners, while they raised a family. We wouldn't call them gold diggers. But society has changed. Due to feminism, or even though we have feminism, more than ever, women will still seek out the best male they can, and not to be supported and spend their money. It’s the career they’re after, and security in a world filled with insecurity.
Under what circumstances is it fair to apply the term ‘gold digger’ to women who seek wealthy men to marry. The money is what is important to gold diggers, although raising children and keeping a home, or having a career oneself seems to make the term nonapplicable. Perhaps the term is a bit harsh for women who only want what’s best for their family and themselves – or a career. But taking the label out of context or applying it to some situations but not others, and not including the effect it has on the rest of society, may be unconscionable.
Today's world is different. Instead of growing up with specific rules of behaviour, it seems that anything goes. If women act as though they have no fear - of limitations or doing the wrong thing - it's because they have been told for so long they are exceptional people (and that anything that comes out of their mouths is right). Just as it did for men, 50 years ago, the world revolves around them – some of them, depending on social and family background for starters.
When my Dr puts on my referral for a pulmonary test that I "fear cancer', she is not only making a value judgement about me but is placing me squarely within a generation that feared the big C, that couldn't cope with life or death, and that preferred to block out negativity rather than deal with it. And now I have to try to get a specialist to treat me seriously, not as a non-contributing citizen with no reason to make helping me worthwhile.
Social Inequality
Feminism has enabled some women to join the ranks of the well-employed and fulfilled, but left out far too many. Similarities in education between men and women aren't the main marrying point, it seems. Wealth is, or other indicators, as mentioned. Too many educated people are unemployed or underemployed, lacking the relationships or whatever it takes to get on the path to success or fulfilment and wellbeing.
In my blog (see ‘Occupy Movement,’ Dec 10, 2011), I have written about how the Occupiers have been encouraged to blame the top 1% for the world’s economic problems, while those in the top 30% or so must surely be enjoying economic security, well-established in their career, married also to professionals in many cases, living a life of entitlement while denying the real circumstances of those farther down the ladder. As I said there, “Many in the middle classes comprehend (or perhaps would rather not admit) that there are many capable people out there being pushed out, while they edge their way upwards.” Bernie Hammond (‘Don’t shrug off,’ 2011), may be right after all. In order to understand the lives of the poor we do need to study the structure of society, especially how the wealthy got where they did. I hope this piece I am writing will contribute towards that.
A commenter on a piece in the Huffington Post recently made me aware of a term I was unfamiliar with - hypergamy, meaning ‘marrying up’ – while explaining that “hypergamy as a theory has been all but debunked and is not taken seriously.” Yet I found an article about this in Time magazine (The truth about women, 2009), though not naming it hypergamy, stating that this subject – of women, money, and relationships, is taboo.
Traditional femininity
There's something going on behind this view that 'women can have it all.' And I think it might be this that distorts the significance of the phrase and leads to inequality and discord in society. Even though women are told they can have the career, the husband and the kids, there are still aspects of traditional femininity they don't manage to lose. And I'm not talking about being sexy or feminine. That’s just part of how many women are. What many of them might be unable to do, or don't want to, is marry a man with less then themselves and in this way, not only help him to achieve fulfilment and thus success, in this way, but on a larger scale contribute towards lessening social inequality and achieving a more balanced society.
If men and women with money and great careers wouldn’t be so reluctant to form intimate partnerships with those with less money but similar interests and personalities, then the result could be a more blanced society. Otherwise, what we have is the rich marrying the rich and the rest left to struggle.
Conclusion
At the beginning of this piece, I wrote that feminism had changed the world, and not always for the best. In my own life, not knowing anything about feminism until I was approaching midlife, I only knew earlier on that one married someone one felt close to, for whatever reason, and that money or potential had little or nothing to do with it. It was just something women did. In the 17 interviews with women that I did, several told me that they never gave marriage much thought before jumping into it. The interviews were intended to be for a PhD (see ‘Intimacy and Sexuality, 2009), but the university couldn’t/didn’t fund me and I was pushed out. That must have been at about the same time that my ex-husband was pushing for divorce, and I was pressured into signing off on any further claims, despite my situation being so insecure. I guess he wanted to secure his situation and find a new wife, his sister having fortunately been a good-size lottery winner a few years earlier. I was still naive enough to believe in a just world, and my financial situation was so complex, being part of both the UK and Canada, it seemed the best decision (uninformed) at the time. Naïve, yes, in a different world. But no worse, in its own way, than the world today.
Instead of women being suppressed and oppressed, now it’s both men and women who are being pushed down the economic ladder, due to their luck running out, or talents going unnoticed, or not having the money to get an education, or not having the talent or knowledge, or enough ability. Not all the oppressed are the same, just as not all of the well-off are.
Social inequality refers, to a large extent, to people without money being treated as lesser human beings, in so many ways – health care, housing, education, job-seeking, and practically any way you can think of, including not being given credit for contributions they make to their community or society in general. Feminism hasn’t helped in changing that. In fact, feminism has probably made it worse, as women seek power and security in their lives.
Added Sept 9, 2012
Another aspect of feminism and its legacy is the hiring of spouses within the same university While it may be seen as beneficial to the university (see Universities see benefits, Feb 16, 2010) I can’t see that using the excuse of ‘diversity’ to uphold the policy of hiring of academic couples makes any sense at all. Rather, hiring couples simply promotes the idea of coupledom, already an established mainstream norm. According to Professors Anabel Quan-Haase and J. Bruce Morton, the reason for such hiring is "an improved understanding of the needs of women and families." But dual-income academic families aren’t helping society adapt to a poor economy, and the problem of some men and women excluded and unable to find work, or left without meaningful work. Two salaries two health plans, two sets of pension benefits when the time comes – while others struggles. This is the legacy of feminism.
Before I realized that feminism was the fundamental cause of this social inequality I had already written a piece about the hiring of spouses at universities (see The two-career family, Feb 18, 2010). If universities continue to close ranks against unattached individuals with no powerful social network, and if feminists – or women academics – use their relationships with men to secure their own future with no consideration for others, how is this helping the ordinary person, including the unattached ones and the educated ones who wish to pursue a career within academia?
List of sources, by title
Don't shrug off the power of the Occupy movement
By Bernie Hammond
Opinion, Western news
November 17, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/hammond_dont_shrug_off__the_power_of_the_occupy_movement.html
Gold digger: Informal definition
- a woman who associates with or marries a man chiefly for material gain
Reference dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gold+digger
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
Gold digger: definition
- a woman who only wants relationships with men who are rich
Macmillan Dictionary
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/gold-digger -
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
Have it all? Yeah, right!
By Barbara and Shannon Kelley
Jan 27, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-kelley/have-it-all_b_1225945.html
‘Intimacy and Sexuality: single-again older women’
Summary of proposed PhD thesis topic
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2009
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/IntimacySexualityOlderWomen.doc
Occupy movement may be most vapid of all
By Heinz Klatt
Opinions, Western News
November 24, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/klatt_occupy_movement_may_be_most_vapid_of_all_.html
The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives
By Sue (Fulham) McPherson
Western News
Dec 10, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/12/occupy-movement-uwos-klatt-and-hammond.html
The Truth About Women, Money and Relationships
By Andrea Sachs
Time magazine
Jan. 07, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870066,00.html
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
The two-career family - profs in the ivory tower (added Sept, 2012)
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Feb 18, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2010/02/two-career-family-profs-in-ivory-tower.html
Universities see benefits to hiring spouses as profs (added Sept, 2012)
By Misty Harris, Canwest News Service
Montreal Gazette
Feb 16, 2010
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Universities+benefits+hiring+spouses+profs/2571425/story.html
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
by Keli Goff
Huffington Post - Culture
Nov 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/what-justin-bieber-and-go_b_1094032.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111511&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
Nov 19, 2011
Sue’s Views on the News
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-justin-bieber-and-feminism-can.html
While feminism has changed the lives for many women in a positive way, it has left many other women, as well as men, in not such happy or positive circumstances. One legacy of feminism is the dual career, dual income family, a way of life that benefits only a certain segment of society. This also raises the feminist notion of 'having it all,' a phrase that refers to women having the 'choice' (a favourite word among those who have benefited from feminism and take it for granted), of having both a career and family if they wish, with the money and security to ensure they can live 'the good life'.
The way relationships come together has changed, enough to say here about modern values smply that professional men and women are more likely to join forces, than the earlier ideals of coupledom. In previous eras, a professional man might team up with a non-working woman, possibly educated, perhaps not, but providing him with a good woman to care for the family and look after his home, while also being able to entertain him and his business associates with her grace and wit. Most of us have seen ‘Mad Men’ on tv. In today’s world, however, that scenario is usually very different.
Having it all
‘Having it all’ could not possibly be the bliss implied by the term (see Have it All? Yeah, right!, 2012). Women enter the public sphere alongside men in the hopes of being as free as men seemed to be, to have the power, status and prestige, and the money to keep them safe and secure in this world. But most have to make hard choices about motherhood and work, and struggle to maintain the power they have achieved, at work and in the political arena.
One thing that does come fairly easily for many, however, is how they choose a mate. It looks as though many choose the best they can find, among their associates, friends, and family connections, and perhaps the internet. That may seem obvious, except that today’s world is different than it used to be, prefeminism. Instead of finding a mate and settling down to work part-time or not at all, in the traditional fashion, a woman may well be seeking the best she can while keeping in mind her career goals. That’s to be expected. But if the practice becomes a cultural norm, whereby women who do this become successful, then insist on women they mentor becoming like them, the result could be the closing of ranks on anyone who is different.
Gold diggers
That brings us to the meaning of the term ‘gold digger,’ another phrase that used to have a certain meaning, directed towards non-working women. Among the defintions of gold digger, see these that give no indication that the working status of the woman counts: ‘a woman who associates with or marries a man chiefly for material gain’ (Reference Dictionary), and ‘a woman who only wants relationships with men who are rich’ (Macmillan Dictionary). These definitions suggest that it is not women who marry wealthy men for their money only who are gold diggers. The resources the relationship offers is also important. See also Keli Goff’s piece on Justin Bieber, gold diggers, and feminism, and the blog that I wrote in response.
All in all, it’s a matter of perspective, attitudes, and definitions. Traditionally, women married men who became the breadwinners, while they raised a family. We wouldn't call them gold diggers. But society has changed. Due to feminism, or even though we have feminism, more than ever, women will still seek out the best male they can, and not to be supported and spend their money. It’s the career they’re after, and security in a world filled with insecurity.
Under what circumstances is it fair to apply the term ‘gold digger’ to women who seek wealthy men to marry. The money is what is important to gold diggers, although raising children and keeping a home, or having a career oneself seems to make the term nonapplicable. Perhaps the term is a bit harsh for women who only want what’s best for their family and themselves – or a career. But taking the label out of context or applying it to some situations but not others, and not including the effect it has on the rest of society, may be unconscionable.
Today's world is different. Instead of growing up with specific rules of behaviour, it seems that anything goes. If women act as though they have no fear - of limitations or doing the wrong thing - it's because they have been told for so long they are exceptional people (and that anything that comes out of their mouths is right). Just as it did for men, 50 years ago, the world revolves around them – some of them, depending on social and family background for starters.
When my Dr puts on my referral for a pulmonary test that I "fear cancer', she is not only making a value judgement about me but is placing me squarely within a generation that feared the big C, that couldn't cope with life or death, and that preferred to block out negativity rather than deal with it. And now I have to try to get a specialist to treat me seriously, not as a non-contributing citizen with no reason to make helping me worthwhile.
Social Inequality
Feminism has enabled some women to join the ranks of the well-employed and fulfilled, but left out far too many. Similarities in education between men and women aren't the main marrying point, it seems. Wealth is, or other indicators, as mentioned. Too many educated people are unemployed or underemployed, lacking the relationships or whatever it takes to get on the path to success or fulfilment and wellbeing.
In my blog (see ‘Occupy Movement,’ Dec 10, 2011), I have written about how the Occupiers have been encouraged to blame the top 1% for the world’s economic problems, while those in the top 30% or so must surely be enjoying economic security, well-established in their career, married also to professionals in many cases, living a life of entitlement while denying the real circumstances of those farther down the ladder. As I said there, “Many in the middle classes comprehend (or perhaps would rather not admit) that there are many capable people out there being pushed out, while they edge their way upwards.” Bernie Hammond (‘Don’t shrug off,’ 2011), may be right after all. In order to understand the lives of the poor we do need to study the structure of society, especially how the wealthy got where they did. I hope this piece I am writing will contribute towards that.
A commenter on a piece in the Huffington Post recently made me aware of a term I was unfamiliar with - hypergamy, meaning ‘marrying up’ – while explaining that “hypergamy as a theory has been all but debunked and is not taken seriously.” Yet I found an article about this in Time magazine (The truth about women, 2009), though not naming it hypergamy, stating that this subject – of women, money, and relationships, is taboo.
Traditional femininity
There's something going on behind this view that 'women can have it all.' And I think it might be this that distorts the significance of the phrase and leads to inequality and discord in society. Even though women are told they can have the career, the husband and the kids, there are still aspects of traditional femininity they don't manage to lose. And I'm not talking about being sexy or feminine. That’s just part of how many women are. What many of them might be unable to do, or don't want to, is marry a man with less then themselves and in this way, not only help him to achieve fulfilment and thus success, in this way, but on a larger scale contribute towards lessening social inequality and achieving a more balanced society.
If men and women with money and great careers wouldn’t be so reluctant to form intimate partnerships with those with less money but similar interests and personalities, then the result could be a more blanced society. Otherwise, what we have is the rich marrying the rich and the rest left to struggle.
Conclusion
At the beginning of this piece, I wrote that feminism had changed the world, and not always for the best. In my own life, not knowing anything about feminism until I was approaching midlife, I only knew earlier on that one married someone one felt close to, for whatever reason, and that money or potential had little or nothing to do with it. It was just something women did. In the 17 interviews with women that I did, several told me that they never gave marriage much thought before jumping into it. The interviews were intended to be for a PhD (see ‘Intimacy and Sexuality, 2009), but the university couldn’t/didn’t fund me and I was pushed out. That must have been at about the same time that my ex-husband was pushing for divorce, and I was pressured into signing off on any further claims, despite my situation being so insecure. I guess he wanted to secure his situation and find a new wife, his sister having fortunately been a good-size lottery winner a few years earlier. I was still naive enough to believe in a just world, and my financial situation was so complex, being part of both the UK and Canada, it seemed the best decision (uninformed) at the time. Naïve, yes, in a different world. But no worse, in its own way, than the world today.
Instead of women being suppressed and oppressed, now it’s both men and women who are being pushed down the economic ladder, due to their luck running out, or talents going unnoticed, or not having the money to get an education, or not having the talent or knowledge, or enough ability. Not all the oppressed are the same, just as not all of the well-off are.
Social inequality refers, to a large extent, to people without money being treated as lesser human beings, in so many ways – health care, housing, education, job-seeking, and practically any way you can think of, including not being given credit for contributions they make to their community or society in general. Feminism hasn’t helped in changing that. In fact, feminism has probably made it worse, as women seek power and security in their lives.
Added Sept 9, 2012
Another aspect of feminism and its legacy is the hiring of spouses within the same university While it may be seen as beneficial to the university (see Universities see benefits, Feb 16, 2010) I can’t see that using the excuse of ‘diversity’ to uphold the policy of hiring of academic couples makes any sense at all. Rather, hiring couples simply promotes the idea of coupledom, already an established mainstream norm. According to Professors Anabel Quan-Haase and J. Bruce Morton, the reason for such hiring is "an improved understanding of the needs of women and families." But dual-income academic families aren’t helping society adapt to a poor economy, and the problem of some men and women excluded and unable to find work, or left without meaningful work. Two salaries two health plans, two sets of pension benefits when the time comes – while others struggles. This is the legacy of feminism.
Before I realized that feminism was the fundamental cause of this social inequality I had already written a piece about the hiring of spouses at universities (see The two-career family, Feb 18, 2010). If universities continue to close ranks against unattached individuals with no powerful social network, and if feminists – or women academics – use their relationships with men to secure their own future with no consideration for others, how is this helping the ordinary person, including the unattached ones and the educated ones who wish to pursue a career within academia?
List of sources, by title
Don't shrug off the power of the Occupy movement
By Bernie Hammond
Opinion, Western news
November 17, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/hammond_dont_shrug_off__the_power_of_the_occupy_movement.html
Gold digger: Informal definition
- a woman who associates with or marries a man chiefly for material gain
Reference dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gold+digger
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
Gold digger: definition
- a woman who only wants relationships with men who are rich
Macmillan Dictionary
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/gold-digger -
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
Have it all? Yeah, right!
By Barbara and Shannon Kelley
Jan 27, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-kelley/have-it-all_b_1225945.html
‘Intimacy and Sexuality: single-again older women’
Summary of proposed PhD thesis topic
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2009
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/IntimacySexualityOlderWomen.doc
Occupy movement may be most vapid of all
By Heinz Klatt
Opinions, Western News
November 24, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/klatt_occupy_movement_may_be_most_vapid_of_all_.html
The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives
By Sue (Fulham) McPherson
Western News
Dec 10, 2011
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/12/occupy-movement-uwos-klatt-and-hammond.html
The Truth About Women, Money and Relationships
By Andrea Sachs
Time magazine
Jan. 07, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870066,00.html
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
The two-career family - profs in the ivory tower (added Sept, 2012)
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Feb 18, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2010/02/two-career-family-profs-in-ivory-tower.html
Universities see benefits to hiring spouses as profs (added Sept, 2012)
By Misty Harris, Canwest News Service
Montreal Gazette
Feb 16, 2010
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Universities+benefits+hiring+spouses+profs/2571425/story.html
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
by Keli Goff
Huffington Post - Culture
Nov 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/what-justin-bieber-and-go_b_1094032.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111511&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
retrieved Feb 4, 2012
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
Nov 19, 2011
Sue’s Views on the News
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-justin-bieber-and-feminism-can.html
23 January 2012
Prostitutes take their desires to the Supreme Court
(revised Jan 25, 2012)
Laws limiting prostitution protect most vulnerable
Prostitution has been decriminalized, although laws surrounding it involve illegal activity. That's what some prostitutes want to have changed. They want to challenge the laws that ban keeping a bawdy house, communicating for the purpose of prostitution, and living off the avails of prostitution and procurement. If they accomplish their aim of making these legal, then what's to stop poor people (young women) from being further exploited in society. Sure, some women may be in this career by choice, or as a temporary measure to pay off debts, but we have to think about how it will affect those with fewer choices in life who have virtually no alternative if they want to survive. Don't make this easy for those who see the prostitution as a legitimate, objective exchange of money for what should be seen as an intimate act. For the sake of our next generation, there needs to be a distinction between legitimate forms of employment and this.
Above is the letter I submitted to the editor of the London Free Press today, in response to 'Sex workers turn to Supreme Court' (see reference list). Letter posted to the LFP website Jan 23, published in The London Free Press on Jan. 25, 2012.
Community reaction to sex-trade workers' Supreme Court appearance
By Community Team
CBC News
January 20, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/01/community-reaction-to-sex-trade-workers-arguments-to-the-supreme-court.html
Laws limiting prostitution protect most vulnerable
By Susan A McPherson
LFP letters
London Free Press
Jan 23, 2012 (Jan 25 in the LFP hard copy).
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/letters/home.html?p=48457&x=letters&l_publish_date=&s_publish_date=&s_keywords=&s_topic=&s_letter_type=Letter
Sex workers turn to Supreme Court
By Kris Sims, Parliamentary Bureau
London Free Press
January 19, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2012/01/19/19268456.html
Sex-trade workers take case to Canada's top court
By CTV News.ca Staff
CTV News
Jan. 19 2012
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120119/sex-trade-workers-court-20119/
Sex workers turn to Supreme Court
By Kris Sims ,Parliamentary Bureau
Toronto Sun
January 19, 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/19/sex-workers-turn-to-supreme-court#disqus_thread
Laws limiting prostitution protect most vulnerable
Prostitution has been decriminalized, although laws surrounding it involve illegal activity. That's what some prostitutes want to have changed. They want to challenge the laws that ban keeping a bawdy house, communicating for the purpose of prostitution, and living off the avails of prostitution and procurement. If they accomplish their aim of making these legal, then what's to stop poor people (young women) from being further exploited in society. Sure, some women may be in this career by choice, or as a temporary measure to pay off debts, but we have to think about how it will affect those with fewer choices in life who have virtually no alternative if they want to survive. Don't make this easy for those who see the prostitution as a legitimate, objective exchange of money for what should be seen as an intimate act. For the sake of our next generation, there needs to be a distinction between legitimate forms of employment and this.
Above is the letter I submitted to the editor of the London Free Press today, in response to 'Sex workers turn to Supreme Court' (see reference list). Letter posted to the LFP website Jan 23, published in The London Free Press on Jan. 25, 2012.
The news story came out in different forms at more or less the same time. My comments to the CBC report, submitted hours apart, were not published. No comments were published on the page following the article itself which contained selected comments, though the story itself was changed after a day or so to what you see there now, explaining that "roughly 76 per cent of 1770 respondents said 'Yes, activities like keeping a bawdy house and communicating for prostitution should be legal'." (CBC, Community Reaction).
While the CTV news site did not publish my comment (CTV, Sex-trade workers), 45 others were, before Comments were closed.
While the CTV news site did not publish my comment (CTV, Sex-trade workers), 45 others were, before Comments were closed.
The Toronto Sun was more liberal, publishing mine in with 37 other comments (See Toronto Sun, Sex Workers, comments section).
This is a serious matter, and if the issues do not get the attention they deserve, then society will suffer - or should we say the poor in society will suffer.
Community reaction to sex-trade workers' Supreme Court appearance
By Community Team
CBC News
January 20, 2012
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/01/community-reaction-to-sex-trade-workers-arguments-to-the-supreme-court.html
Laws limiting prostitution protect most vulnerable
By Susan A McPherson
LFP letters
London Free Press
Jan 23, 2012 (Jan 25 in the LFP hard copy).
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/letters/home.html?p=48457&x=letters&l_publish_date=&s_publish_date=&s_keywords=&s_topic=&s_letter_type=Letter
Sex workers turn to Supreme Court
By Kris Sims, Parliamentary Bureau
London Free Press
January 19, 2012
http://www.lfpress.com/news/canada/2012/01/19/19268456.html
Sex-trade workers take case to Canada's top court
By CTV News.ca Staff
CTV News
Jan. 19 2012
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120119/sex-trade-workers-court-20119/
Sex workers turn to Supreme Court
By Kris Sims ,Parliamentary Bureau
Toronto Sun
January 19, 2012
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/19/sex-workers-turn-to-supreme-court#disqus_thread
10 December 2011
The Occupy Movement: UWO's Klatt and Hammond, and other perspectives
[revised Jan 12, 2012]
In November, 2011, Heinz Klatt, retired professor, wrote a piece for Western News (UWO, London, Ont), with the title 'Occupy movement may be most vapid of all,' Nov 24, in which he complained about the Occupiers, ending with a suggestion that they might, after all, be on the same side, against the 1%.
Klatt was critical of the Occupiers not being able to articulate their concerns well or comprehend their aims sufficiently. But we all speak from our own knowledge base - from ‘education,’ the media, our own experience, and elsewhere. If the Occupiers are pursuing a particular path (placing blame on the 1%) and still sorting out where their movement is heading, then we should consider that normal, under the circumstances. Which revolutionary movement ever strated out being well organized and knowing exactly what their aims were and how they could be accomplished. Take the women's liberation movement as an example of a movement that has been chaotic at times, with no clear direction or organization in its early years. Chaining themselves to gates and throwing themselves in front of horses may not appear to us to be well thought-out strategies for success, but look at them now. As the Occupiers continue to discuss, listen to others, reflect on what they want for themselves and society, and to organize, no doubt their movement will progress in achieving their aims and their ability to express them.
The media’s emphasis, Klatt’s, and Bernie Hammond's, whose Nov 17 piece was the instigator of this discussion, all claim that the 1% is the problem, not that there could be many reasons why social inequality is worse now than in recent decades. As the division between the classes widens, there is bound to be increasing disatisfaction among those lower down, while those at the top (eg top 30-50%) reap the benefits of the 'good life.' Yet this fact of life, that the struggle for scarce resources exists at every level of society, has yet to be recognized as a contributing factor to the problem of social inequality in general.
Feminism is one contributing factor - beginning with the women's liberation movement that formed in opposition to men's dominance in society, and which now is in many ways dominant itself, if not over men of their own class, then over men and women lower down in terms of economic standing. Unfortunately, the real numbers of good careers and jobs in society has not increased, even though many more women are now working alongside men, and marrying them, resulting in increased numbers of the well-off dual-career, dual-income family and their assumptions of entitlement.
Feminism has achieved much for women's independence, but not for all women. And while men used to be dominant, in general, that dominance is now shared with women. We no longer live in a world where the man is breadwinner with a wife at home. In fact, most young people do not understand the way things were. Nor do many in the middle classes comprehend (or perhaps would rather not admit) that there are many capable people out there being pushed out, while they edge their way upwards.
Don't shrug off the power of the Occupy movement
By Bernie Hammond
Opinion, Western news
November 17, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/hammond_dont_shrug_off__the_power_of_the_occupy_movement.html
Occupy movement may be most vapid of all
By Heinz Klatt
Opinions, Western News
November 24, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/klatt_occupy_movement_may_be_most_vapid_of_all_.html
Income inequality: deep, complex and growing
By Jeffrey Simpson
Globe and Mail
Dec 09, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/income-inequality-deep-complex-and-growing/article2264938/
The poor are doing better than you think [comments section]
By Margaret Wente [and concerned readers]
Globe and Mail
Dec 10, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-poor-are-doing-better-than-you-think/article2266245/comments/
In November, 2011, Heinz Klatt, retired professor, wrote a piece for Western News (UWO, London, Ont), with the title 'Occupy movement may be most vapid of all,' Nov 24, in which he complained about the Occupiers, ending with a suggestion that they might, after all, be on the same side, against the 1%.
Klatt was critical of the Occupiers not being able to articulate their concerns well or comprehend their aims sufficiently. But we all speak from our own knowledge base - from ‘education,’ the media, our own experience, and elsewhere. If the Occupiers are pursuing a particular path (placing blame on the 1%) and still sorting out where their movement is heading, then we should consider that normal, under the circumstances. Which revolutionary movement ever strated out being well organized and knowing exactly what their aims were and how they could be accomplished. Take the women's liberation movement as an example of a movement that has been chaotic at times, with no clear direction or organization in its early years. Chaining themselves to gates and throwing themselves in front of horses may not appear to us to be well thought-out strategies for success, but look at them now. As the Occupiers continue to discuss, listen to others, reflect on what they want for themselves and society, and to organize, no doubt their movement will progress in achieving their aims and their ability to express them.
The media’s emphasis, Klatt’s, and Bernie Hammond's, whose Nov 17 piece was the instigator of this discussion, all claim that the 1% is the problem, not that there could be many reasons why social inequality is worse now than in recent decades. As the division between the classes widens, there is bound to be increasing disatisfaction among those lower down, while those at the top (eg top 30-50%) reap the benefits of the 'good life.' Yet this fact of life, that the struggle for scarce resources exists at every level of society, has yet to be recognized as a contributing factor to the problem of social inequality in general.
Feminism is one contributing factor - beginning with the women's liberation movement that formed in opposition to men's dominance in society, and which now is in many ways dominant itself, if not over men of their own class, then over men and women lower down in terms of economic standing. Unfortunately, the real numbers of good careers and jobs in society has not increased, even though many more women are now working alongside men, and marrying them, resulting in increased numbers of the well-off dual-career, dual-income family and their assumptions of entitlement.
Feminism has achieved much for women's independence, but not for all women. And while men used to be dominant, in general, that dominance is now shared with women. We no longer live in a world where the man is breadwinner with a wife at home. In fact, most young people do not understand the way things were. Nor do many in the middle classes comprehend (or perhaps would rather not admit) that there are many capable people out there being pushed out, while they edge their way upwards.
Don't shrug off the power of the Occupy movement
By Bernie Hammond
Opinion, Western news
November 17, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/hammond_dont_shrug_off__the_power_of_the_occupy_movement.html
Occupy movement may be most vapid of all
By Heinz Klatt
Opinions, Western News
November 24, 2011
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/opinions/2011/November/klatt_occupy_movement_may_be_most_vapid_of_all_.html
Income inequality: deep, complex and growing
By Jeffrey Simpson
Globe and Mail
Dec 09, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/income-inequality-deep-complex-and-growing/article2264938/
The poor are doing better than you think [comments section]
By Margaret Wente [and concerned readers]
Globe and Mail
Dec 10, 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/margaret-wente/the-poor-are-doing-better-than-you-think/article2266245/comments/
19 November 2011
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
or
What Justin Bieber and feminism can tell us about gold diggers
In this Huffington Post piece by Keli Goff, the incident involving Justin Bieber and his alleged paternity has introduced issues concerning feminist views on 'gold diggers. But as I see it, the situation Bieber was involved in is not the main issue. The phenomenon of gold digging is. And I don't see feminists sitting outside of that one. I see them as being as deeply involved as anyone else.
Kanye West's video about gold digging, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vwNcNOTVzY&feature=relmfu , came out a few years ago, before Justin Bieber made headlines over his 'women problems'. The term 'gold diggers' appears to have vague meanings, but rather than being strictly about situations such as Justin Bieber's, the term seem to be about life in general, about how some men and women conduct themselves in normal human relationships. As an aside, the girls in the video don't look as though their thoughts are on motherhood.
Gold diggers used to be seen as women who sought to marry a man for his money. Sometimes this seemed obvious, when the man was 80 or more and the woman in her 20s or 30s. I believe Hugh Hefner might fall into this category. of course, everything has changed now, since feminism has got women into the workforce in increasing numbers, many of them taking positions alongside men in a professional capacity. But to some extent, don't most women of today seek to marry men who can offer them the most, in terms of security and access to financial resources, even if the women themselves have a good career? Doesn't the thought of marrying well hold the possibility of an even more 'secure' lifestyle?
Years ago, say in the 50s and 60s, marrying a man for money might have been the only way a woman could be sure of achieving financial security, as so many women didn't work but relied on men as the 'breadwinners'. But today's world is different, thanks to feminism. In some ways, it seems as though the tables are turned. It used to be men who received encouragement and had more opportunities. But feminism has changed that. Their emphasis has been women, though of course, mainly on women from the middle classes.
I don't see 'gold digging' as mainly being about women who have sex for the purpose of getting pregnant, then getting the man to marry her, as has been claimed to be Mariah Yeater's aim. She now has a son, Tristyn, she claims to be Justin Bieber's. Any man should be suspicious of that kind of claim in today's world, now that contraceptives are generally available. That kind of claim might have worked years ago, in the 50's, before contraception became available, but no longer.
Nevertheless, good jobs and financially secure husbands may be hard to come by in todays's world, where unemployment is rife and feminism's impact has led to the dual-career, dual-income family doing well, on one side, and men and women struggling for subsistence on the other - the class divide.
Women in general, who have few other resources but whose sexual appeal is high (see video, Gold Digger by Kanye West), could well use that to get a man marry her, although basing a marriage on sexual attraction may not be the best way to go about it. But first has to acknowledge that men are often swayed by women's sexuality in order to accept this view. And then, the term 'gold digger' could be applied to that situation if the motivation for marriage was seen to be money, rather than compatibility, love, etc.
What I'm leading up to is this, that it is not just the overtly sexual woman with no college education who is seeking the best mate possible. In today's world, it's a fact of life that most women will seek to enhance their own assets, even if they have good prospects for a profitable career. Marrying a partner on his way up the corporate ladder may even help her own career. But is that seen as gold digging, or is that term kept (reserved) for the uneducated woman, who overtly displays her sexual assets, or who would have little opportunity to make her way in a tradtional career, or who chooses not to?
It isn't just women of today who are seeking partners with the most to offer. Men who need power on their side, and who desire a mutually-enhancing relationship, might also seek out a female partner based on their place on the income scale. After all,it is human nature to seek the best partner one can, under the circumstances, isn't it. So,. should the term gold diggers still be used, as it relaly applies to women of earlier generations who had so few choices in life?
Rather than look at Justin Bieber's experience as typical of 'gold digger' circumstances, I think it is not typical at all.
This is what I am suggesting the term 'gold digger' applies to, in general: Gold digging behaviour is surely more an accepted part of life that applies to all sort of women, from the poor, sexy uneducated young woman to the professional woman seeking the best partner she can acquire. Kanye West made a video about it not because it is unusual, but because it is what women do. And men love it.
Income, or personal assets, is one of the main criteria for choosing a partner. What if internet dating sites did not include these criteria as part of their set of 'characteristics,' to assist in selecting or excluding certain potential candidates from selection. What if people chose mates without taking into consideration their earning potential or material wealth, as so many of us did in the 60s?
Men and women marry for all sorts of reasons. In today's postfeminist society, men marry for a regular source of sex, or to have a trophy woman on his arm when he goes out, for companionship, for financial security, etc. Women marry men, not for sex, probably, but for financial security, and as trophies, too, and to have the good life - part of the dual career, dual income class in our society. It's what men and women do. 'Gold digging', if you still want to call it that, is one aspect of finding a partner.
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
by Keli Goff
Huffington Post - Culture
Nov 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/what-justin-bieber-and-go_b_1094032.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111511&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
What Justin Bieber and feminism can tell us about gold diggers
In this Huffington Post piece by Keli Goff, the incident involving Justin Bieber and his alleged paternity has introduced issues concerning feminist views on 'gold diggers. But as I see it, the situation Bieber was involved in is not the main issue. The phenomenon of gold digging is. And I don't see feminists sitting outside of that one. I see them as being as deeply involved as anyone else.
Kanye West's video about gold digging, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vwNcNOTVzY&feature=relmfu , came out a few years ago, before Justin Bieber made headlines over his 'women problems'. The term 'gold diggers' appears to have vague meanings, but rather than being strictly about situations such as Justin Bieber's, the term seem to be about life in general, about how some men and women conduct themselves in normal human relationships. As an aside, the girls in the video don't look as though their thoughts are on motherhood.
Gold diggers used to be seen as women who sought to marry a man for his money. Sometimes this seemed obvious, when the man was 80 or more and the woman in her 20s or 30s. I believe Hugh Hefner might fall into this category. of course, everything has changed now, since feminism has got women into the workforce in increasing numbers, many of them taking positions alongside men in a professional capacity. But to some extent, don't most women of today seek to marry men who can offer them the most, in terms of security and access to financial resources, even if the women themselves have a good career? Doesn't the thought of marrying well hold the possibility of an even more 'secure' lifestyle?
Years ago, say in the 50s and 60s, marrying a man for money might have been the only way a woman could be sure of achieving financial security, as so many women didn't work but relied on men as the 'breadwinners'. But today's world is different, thanks to feminism. In some ways, it seems as though the tables are turned. It used to be men who received encouragement and had more opportunities. But feminism has changed that. Their emphasis has been women, though of course, mainly on women from the middle classes.
I don't see 'gold digging' as mainly being about women who have sex for the purpose of getting pregnant, then getting the man to marry her, as has been claimed to be Mariah Yeater's aim. She now has a son, Tristyn, she claims to be Justin Bieber's. Any man should be suspicious of that kind of claim in today's world, now that contraceptives are generally available. That kind of claim might have worked years ago, in the 50's, before contraception became available, but no longer.
Nevertheless, good jobs and financially secure husbands may be hard to come by in todays's world, where unemployment is rife and feminism's impact has led to the dual-career, dual-income family doing well, on one side, and men and women struggling for subsistence on the other - the class divide.
Women in general, who have few other resources but whose sexual appeal is high (see video, Gold Digger by Kanye West), could well use that to get a man marry her, although basing a marriage on sexual attraction may not be the best way to go about it. But first has to acknowledge that men are often swayed by women's sexuality in order to accept this view. And then, the term 'gold digger' could be applied to that situation if the motivation for marriage was seen to be money, rather than compatibility, love, etc.
What I'm leading up to is this, that it is not just the overtly sexual woman with no college education who is seeking the best mate possible. In today's world, it's a fact of life that most women will seek to enhance their own assets, even if they have good prospects for a profitable career. Marrying a partner on his way up the corporate ladder may even help her own career. But is that seen as gold digging, or is that term kept (reserved) for the uneducated woman, who overtly displays her sexual assets, or who would have little opportunity to make her way in a tradtional career, or who chooses not to?
It isn't just women of today who are seeking partners with the most to offer. Men who need power on their side, and who desire a mutually-enhancing relationship, might also seek out a female partner based on their place on the income scale. After all,it is human nature to seek the best partner one can, under the circumstances, isn't it. So,. should the term gold diggers still be used, as it relaly applies to women of earlier generations who had so few choices in life?
Rather than look at Justin Bieber's experience as typical of 'gold digger' circumstances, I think it is not typical at all.
This is what I am suggesting the term 'gold digger' applies to, in general: Gold digging behaviour is surely more an accepted part of life that applies to all sort of women, from the poor, sexy uneducated young woman to the professional woman seeking the best partner she can acquire. Kanye West made a video about it not because it is unusual, but because it is what women do. And men love it.
Income, or personal assets, is one of the main criteria for choosing a partner. What if internet dating sites did not include these criteria as part of their set of 'characteristics,' to assist in selecting or excluding certain potential candidates from selection. What if people chose mates without taking into consideration their earning potential or material wealth, as so many of us did in the 60s?
Men and women marry for all sorts of reasons. In today's postfeminist society, men marry for a regular source of sex, or to have a trophy woman on his arm when he goes out, for companionship, for financial security, etc. Women marry men, not for sex, probably, but for financial security, and as trophies, too, and to have the good life - part of the dual career, dual income class in our society. It's what men and women do. 'Gold digging', if you still want to call it that, is one aspect of finding a partner.
What Justin Bieber and Gold Diggers Can Teach Us About Feminism
by Keli Goff
Huffington Post - Culture
Nov 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keli-goff/what-justin-bieber-and-go_b_1094032.html?ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=111511&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
9 November 2011
Ageism, Class, and the Wealth Gap Between the Young and Old
The only place in Huffington Post that the generation gap, or aging, or ageism, is being discussed is in the business section. And even so, this piece (the US Wealth Gap) written by Hope Yen could actually be about so many things, and not just about the division of wealth between the old and the young. It is a false division, more than likely intended to create division between the generations instead of explain it.
We all know there are seniors who are living in poverty, just as we know there are under 35-year-olds who have too much money to spend. Manipulating statistics to arrive at the conclusion one wants to isn't clever. It is devious, it is cunning, and it may even work (depending on one's agenda), but how can people have respect for such a person who writes this nonsense, or for the Huff Post editors who condone it, even encourage it. After all, isn't what counts the amount of reader interest, the number of comments (over 8,000).
Furthermore, why is there still a section called 'Women' in the Living category of this paper? Why isn't it called Gender? And how about one called 'Couples and Singledom'?
And why isn't there a category called 'Aging' or the 'Generation Gap'? Why are the differences between the young and the old all made to come down to money? I would like to talk about aging itself, and not simply about the differences in income between the generations that some writers are treating as the main issue.
The other piece referred to below is another piece of nonsense, placing the blame squarely on the high worth of the top 1% of households in the US. Yet the problem is not the top 1%. The problem is all around us. The problem is in the way some of the higher income earners in the 99% treat others in this immense category, which includes doctors, lawyers, service workers, and receptionists. It reflects the struggle of life, the quest for more, and the effort for some to stop others from getting even a small share fo the scarce resources our world has to offer.
The problem is not that the healthcare workers are overworked. It is that they spend their effort on taks that are non-productive, on trying to give more to some individuals and making sure others get less. The system is not so much overburdened with too may sick or old people. It is overburdened with too many who have health insurance making sure they get every dollar's worth, and then some.
I don't believe that 'generational warfare' was designed by the 1% to distract the rest of us from looking at class differences, as stated in 'One Percent.' The complexity of our world is such that different agendas collide as they pursue their own interests, and sometimes join forces to gang up on one group - usually the most vulnerable, and for the purpose for protecting their own interests. Get people to blame the 1% and they won't be so ready to place the responsibility where it lies - in the way boys and girls are raised, and indoctrinated, into pushing their way forward, seeking more money, and more power. What's more, the main divide isn't between the young and old; it isn't a generational divide. It's between each level of society, between those struggling for more and those who have it and are trying to keep it!
The One Percent Turns Class War Into Generational War
By Dean Baker
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-one-percent-turns-cla_b_1080141.html
U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments
We all know there are seniors who are living in poverty, just as we know there are under 35-year-olds who have too much money to spend. Manipulating statistics to arrive at the conclusion one wants to isn't clever. It is devious, it is cunning, and it may even work (depending on one's agenda), but how can people have respect for such a person who writes this nonsense, or for the Huff Post editors who condone it, even encourage it. After all, isn't what counts the amount of reader interest, the number of comments (over 8,000).
Furthermore, why is there still a section called 'Women' in the Living category of this paper? Why isn't it called Gender? And how about one called 'Couples and Singledom'?
And why isn't there a category called 'Aging' or the 'Generation Gap'? Why are the differences between the young and the old all made to come down to money? I would like to talk about aging itself, and not simply about the differences in income between the generations that some writers are treating as the main issue.
The other piece referred to below is another piece of nonsense, placing the blame squarely on the high worth of the top 1% of households in the US. Yet the problem is not the top 1%. The problem is all around us. The problem is in the way some of the higher income earners in the 99% treat others in this immense category, which includes doctors, lawyers, service workers, and receptionists. It reflects the struggle of life, the quest for more, and the effort for some to stop others from getting even a small share fo the scarce resources our world has to offer.
The problem is not that the healthcare workers are overworked. It is that they spend their effort on taks that are non-productive, on trying to give more to some individuals and making sure others get less. The system is not so much overburdened with too may sick or old people. It is overburdened with too many who have health insurance making sure they get every dollar's worth, and then some.
I don't believe that 'generational warfare' was designed by the 1% to distract the rest of us from looking at class differences, as stated in 'One Percent.' The complexity of our world is such that different agendas collide as they pursue their own interests, and sometimes join forces to gang up on one group - usually the most vulnerable, and for the purpose for protecting their own interests. Get people to blame the 1% and they won't be so ready to place the responsibility where it lies - in the way boys and girls are raised, and indoctrinated, into pushing their way forward, seeking more money, and more power. What's more, the main divide isn't between the young and old; it isn't a generational divide. It's between each level of society, between those struggling for more and those who have it and are trying to keep it!
The One Percent Turns Class War Into Generational War
By Dean Baker
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/the-one-percent-turns-cla_b_1080141.html
U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen
Huffington Post - Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments
7 November 2011
Widest-ever wealth gap between young and old in the US
This very one-sided article has appeared in numerous newspapers' websites today. It places blame for economic disparity between the young and the old strictly on the shoulders of the old, regardless of income, home ownership, marital status, or work history.
One reason the economic division between young and old can be seen as increasing over the last 30 to 50 years is the effect of feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce - changing norms, in other words.
Whereas 50 years ago a wealthy man might have a wife who stayed home and did charity work, now, older men are sought out by women for what they have to offer - in the firm, or as an influential, hidden, character reference for other careers. Thus the household with the head at age 65 plus might have a 45year old wife with high earning power in today's world.
I am not surprised that whoever wrote this piece didn't want to include this probable effect. It's not something the middle class really wants to deal with. And as women continue to marry men with the best resources, how can we ever expect the situation to get better. One of the side effects of feminism. What's that called again - oh, collateral damage.
Another problem with this article - something omitted - is that many old people, particularly older women, live in poverty. They may not be in debt, and so would not be included in the 8% mentioned in the last sentence. But despite receiving old age benefits, many will be struggling to get by.
So often we see articles and blogs that onlty serve to create more antagonism between the generations. Would I be right in assuming that the author of this piece is under 40, and female, and has her own agenda?
One other issue is the comment made by Harry Holzer, labor economist and public policy prof at Georgetown University, who is quoted as saying "It makes us wonder whether the extraordinary amount of resources we spend on retirees and their health care should be at least partially reallocated to those who are hurting worse than them." Apparently he called magnitude of the wealth gap "striking."
Note that he, like the other 'experts' mentioned in this piece, places the blame on old people in general, when it is obvious that the ones who will lose out if money allocated for healthcare is taken away are those with limited resources. It will be the ones without private medical insurance who will have to try to make do with even less proper healthcare.
I don't know if we can assume that the situation is the same in Canada., regarding health care matters and more importantly, the gap between the old and the young, but knowing the effects that feminism has caused in Canada, it sounds as though it could be the same here as in the US.
U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
Huffington Post Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments
U.S. wealth gap between young and old is widest ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
USA Today
Nov 8, 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/story/2011-11-06/wealth-gap-young-old/51098910/1
Links updated July, 2012
One reason the economic division between young and old can be seen as increasing over the last 30 to 50 years is the effect of feminism and increasing numbers of women in the workforce - changing norms, in other words.
Whereas 50 years ago a wealthy man might have a wife who stayed home and did charity work, now, older men are sought out by women for what they have to offer - in the firm, or as an influential, hidden, character reference for other careers. Thus the household with the head at age 65 plus might have a 45year old wife with high earning power in today's world.
I am not surprised that whoever wrote this piece didn't want to include this probable effect. It's not something the middle class really wants to deal with. And as women continue to marry men with the best resources, how can we ever expect the situation to get better. One of the side effects of feminism. What's that called again - oh, collateral damage.
Another problem with this article - something omitted - is that many old people, particularly older women, live in poverty. They may not be in debt, and so would not be included in the 8% mentioned in the last sentence. But despite receiving old age benefits, many will be struggling to get by.
So often we see articles and blogs that onlty serve to create more antagonism between the generations. Would I be right in assuming that the author of this piece is under 40, and female, and has her own agenda?
One other issue is the comment made by Harry Holzer, labor economist and public policy prof at Georgetown University, who is quoted as saying "It makes us wonder whether the extraordinary amount of resources we spend on retirees and their health care should be at least partially reallocated to those who are hurting worse than them." Apparently he called magnitude of the wealth gap "striking."
Note that he, like the other 'experts' mentioned in this piece, places the blame on old people in general, when it is obvious that the ones who will lose out if money allocated for healthcare is taken away are those with limited resources. It will be the ones without private medical insurance who will have to try to make do with even less proper healthcare.
I don't know if we can assume that the situation is the same in Canada., regarding health care matters and more importantly, the gap between the old and the young, but knowing the effects that feminism has caused in Canada, it sounds as though it could be the same here as in the US.
U.S. Wealth Gap Between Young, Old Is Widest Ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
Huffington Post Business
Nov 7, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/us-wealth-gap-young-old_n_1079372.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=110711&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief#comments
U.S. wealth gap between young and old is widest ever
By Hope Yen, Associated Press
USA Today
Nov 8, 2011
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/story/2011-11-06/wealth-gap-young-old/51098910/1
Links updated July, 2012
2 November 2011
Gender, sex and aging: What do we owe our spouses?
A trio of stories on the Huffington Post drew my interest recently, all related matters, to do with gender, sex, and aging. Sex was the drawing card in D A Wolf's 'Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?', and is an inviting resource for anyone wanting to know what other readers think about sex between two people in a relationship. The comments section attracted an enthusiastic crowd, each one either telling their own personal story, or making one up, or simply letting everyone know what they thought about the subject of Wolf's piece.
But in the next piece on sex, the attitude of readers/commenters changed considerably. This one was about sex among the baby boomers, and for that reason, it appears, became the target of jokes and ridicule. Could it be that the approach was wrong, and not simply that older citizens are the target of jokes in this ageist society of ours? In an attempt to persuade the world that baby boomers can have sex just like anyone else, and enjoy it, the writers, whoever they were, may have been just a bit on the defensive. What formed the basis of the piece were myths that were then dispelled by the writers' claims. We don't hear who the writers were, and the format of the piece was awkward to read, being fairly short but, including the comments section, split up over 7 pages.
As with the first piece on the subject of sex, this second piece was also clearly about people within the state of coupledom. Those without partners had no real need to peruse the pieces, let alone comment on them, unless they still had hope, or at least intentions, to become half of a couple sometime in the future. This was my main objection to both these pieces, that single men and women were left out or left hanging on the margins, although in the 'ageless' couples and sex article, at least that was a topic many of us knew something about from previous experience. It doesn't seem to even occur to the writers of the boomers' sex piece that most older people aren't going to have casual sex, just for the fun of it (despite what the quoted lavalifePRIME says).
The final point about these two stories is that, as usual with such stories, there is little or no analysis of the society in which it all takes place. We all take for granted that we live in western society and that both men and women have certain freedoms, but there are still the remnants of traditional marriage present in our ways of thinking, as well as the modern ways of looking at our experiences through the eyes of feminism. Thus, women are seen (and speak) from both the perspective of not being equal with men in ways of dealing with sexual matters, as well as at times acting like men and taking on men's ways of dealing with sexual matters.
And that leads us to the last of the stories, also about the older generation, about women in particular. Once again, this piece incorporates aspects of old-fashioned tradition, of a woman being a homemaker, but about doing so after having had a fulfilling career. I think one aim of it was truly to justify and uphold the legitimate choice of women to be homemakers, but quite a number of readers comments were negative about the choices available to the writer, and particularly about the perceived uselessness of her choice, to stay home. At this point in our society, in which the economy has still not rebounded, if some women express the desire to remain at home to be homemakers and/or raise children, it doesn't help to treat them like pariahs. Just as some homemakers may not take their work seriously, or do a good job, so are there women in the workforce who aren't conscientious, or doing their work to the best of their ability. It isn't work per se that makes one person better than another. It isn't the paycheque that a person brings home, or the taxes they pay, that makes them better than someone else. It might lead them to be seen as different, to be living a lifestyle that's not the norm, in this society where occupation and financial resources are the determinants of a person's identity and worth. It's much easier to do after having a career, than rely on an ex to provide a reference, but it's still good to hear about women living this way, so that society does not forget how things were done in the past.
Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?
by D A Wolf
Huffington Post Divorce
Oct 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-a-wolf/do-we-owe-our-spouses-sex_b_927484.html?ref=love--sex
Most Common Sex Myths About Baby Boomers
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 29, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/the-most-common-sex-myths_n_1057479.html
Words With Friends and Back to Home-Ec
by Jamie Lee Curtis
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-lee-curtis/50s-housewives-home-ec-_b_1006209.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=101211&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
But in the next piece on sex, the attitude of readers/commenters changed considerably. This one was about sex among the baby boomers, and for that reason, it appears, became the target of jokes and ridicule. Could it be that the approach was wrong, and not simply that older citizens are the target of jokes in this ageist society of ours? In an attempt to persuade the world that baby boomers can have sex just like anyone else, and enjoy it, the writers, whoever they were, may have been just a bit on the defensive. What formed the basis of the piece were myths that were then dispelled by the writers' claims. We don't hear who the writers were, and the format of the piece was awkward to read, being fairly short but, including the comments section, split up over 7 pages.
As with the first piece on the subject of sex, this second piece was also clearly about people within the state of coupledom. Those without partners had no real need to peruse the pieces, let alone comment on them, unless they still had hope, or at least intentions, to become half of a couple sometime in the future. This was my main objection to both these pieces, that single men and women were left out or left hanging on the margins, although in the 'ageless' couples and sex article, at least that was a topic many of us knew something about from previous experience. It doesn't seem to even occur to the writers of the boomers' sex piece that most older people aren't going to have casual sex, just for the fun of it (despite what the quoted lavalifePRIME says).
The final point about these two stories is that, as usual with such stories, there is little or no analysis of the society in which it all takes place. We all take for granted that we live in western society and that both men and women have certain freedoms, but there are still the remnants of traditional marriage present in our ways of thinking, as well as the modern ways of looking at our experiences through the eyes of feminism. Thus, women are seen (and speak) from both the perspective of not being equal with men in ways of dealing with sexual matters, as well as at times acting like men and taking on men's ways of dealing with sexual matters.
And that leads us to the last of the stories, also about the older generation, about women in particular. Once again, this piece incorporates aspects of old-fashioned tradition, of a woman being a homemaker, but about doing so after having had a fulfilling career. I think one aim of it was truly to justify and uphold the legitimate choice of women to be homemakers, but quite a number of readers comments were negative about the choices available to the writer, and particularly about the perceived uselessness of her choice, to stay home. At this point in our society, in which the economy has still not rebounded, if some women express the desire to remain at home to be homemakers and/or raise children, it doesn't help to treat them like pariahs. Just as some homemakers may not take their work seriously, or do a good job, so are there women in the workforce who aren't conscientious, or doing their work to the best of their ability. It isn't work per se that makes one person better than another. It isn't the paycheque that a person brings home, or the taxes they pay, that makes them better than someone else. It might lead them to be seen as different, to be living a lifestyle that's not the norm, in this society where occupation and financial resources are the determinants of a person's identity and worth. It's much easier to do after having a career, than rely on an ex to provide a reference, but it's still good to hear about women living this way, so that society does not forget how things were done in the past.
Do We Owe Our Spouses Sex?
by D A Wolf
Huffington Post Divorce
Oct 15, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/d-a-wolf/do-we-owe-our-spouses-sex_b_927484.html?ref=love--sex
Most Common Sex Myths About Baby Boomers
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 29, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/the-most-common-sex-myths_n_1057479.html
Words With Friends and Back to Home-Ec
by Jamie Lee Curtis
Huffington Post Fifty
Oct 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-lee-curtis/50s-housewives-home-ec-_b_1006209.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=101211&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief
13 September 2011
Serena Williams penalized at the 2011 US Open tennis finals
The story of Serena Williams has dominated tennis news since Sept 11 when she railed against the umpire she suspected of having unfairly penalized her during the women's final at the US Open which was held over the last two weeks in New York. Serena let out a yelp, at the very moment her opponent was preparing to hit the ball back to Serena's side of the court. The umpire deemed the noise to be a 'hinderance' and gave the point to her opponent, Australian Samantha Stosur, at which point Serena let loose with a diatribe of accusations and insults against the umpire. Sam Stosur went on to win the match, and was already one set up at the time of the incident. Serena was fined $2000 for her outburst. Her earnings for participating in the US Open were $1.4 million.
Discussions were held at more than one newspaper site, with many viewpoints and sensitive feelings exposed. At this particular Huffington Post comment site (see below), I was surprised to see support for Serena from black people who placed blame on white people for Serena's outburst - a result of longstanding racist discrimination against her, one claimed. A heated discussion developed from such comments which I, among others, engaged in, but with no resolution. Try as I might, I could not get my point across about the concept of reverse racism. To me, Serena's comments reflected an antagonism towards the umpire that at the very least bordered on racial difference, discrimination, or intolerance.
It seemed that no matter how well off a black person became, or how successful, any perceived slight or insensitive remark could be interpreted as racist. Once again, in this sense, racism reverts simply to the colour of the skin and no other basis at all. On a wider level, racism is about denying opportunity to people on the basis of their cultural or national background or religion (or however you want to word it), but one can hardly say that Serena is still experiencing this level of racism, having reached the highest levels of international tennis tournaments. Yet here she is, letting loose on the umpire, in a similar vein as in 2009, against a linesperson.
Another aspect of the discussion was her behaviour seemingly taken out of context. Alone, with no explanation, her behaviour was described as a child's, yet Serena is a poweful woman, not just physically but in the world, having support from her family, friends, tennis support team, blacks in America no doubt, and fans of tennis eveywhere. So when a person holding such power oversteps the limit of decency and good behaviour, isn't that different than when someone with little or no power oversteps it. Are we expecting too much to want the people we admire and respect for their skills and talent to also engage in good behaviour? Do such people ever get punished to the same extent that powerless people do, or are the powerless punished more because they have no contribution to society to draw upon to excuse their bad behaviour?
So far, on this brief report alone, nearly 1800 comments have been submitted by readers. Many of them are very unhappy with her behaviour. Many others remain loyal to her. But at least people have had the opportunity, and the freedom, to give their views on this controversial incident.
Serena Williams Loses Cool With Chair Umpire In U.S. Open Final (VIDEO)
Huffington Post
Sept 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/11/serena-williams-loses-cool_n_957772.html
Discussions were held at more than one newspaper site, with many viewpoints and sensitive feelings exposed. At this particular Huffington Post comment site (see below), I was surprised to see support for Serena from black people who placed blame on white people for Serena's outburst - a result of longstanding racist discrimination against her, one claimed. A heated discussion developed from such comments which I, among others, engaged in, but with no resolution. Try as I might, I could not get my point across about the concept of reverse racism. To me, Serena's comments reflected an antagonism towards the umpire that at the very least bordered on racial difference, discrimination, or intolerance.
It seemed that no matter how well off a black person became, or how successful, any perceived slight or insensitive remark could be interpreted as racist. Once again, in this sense, racism reverts simply to the colour of the skin and no other basis at all. On a wider level, racism is about denying opportunity to people on the basis of their cultural or national background or religion (or however you want to word it), but one can hardly say that Serena is still experiencing this level of racism, having reached the highest levels of international tennis tournaments. Yet here she is, letting loose on the umpire, in a similar vein as in 2009, against a linesperson.
Another aspect of the discussion was her behaviour seemingly taken out of context. Alone, with no explanation, her behaviour was described as a child's, yet Serena is a poweful woman, not just physically but in the world, having support from her family, friends, tennis support team, blacks in America no doubt, and fans of tennis eveywhere. So when a person holding such power oversteps the limit of decency and good behaviour, isn't that different than when someone with little or no power oversteps it. Are we expecting too much to want the people we admire and respect for their skills and talent to also engage in good behaviour? Do such people ever get punished to the same extent that powerless people do, or are the powerless punished more because they have no contribution to society to draw upon to excuse their bad behaviour?
So far, on this brief report alone, nearly 1800 comments have been submitted by readers. Many of them are very unhappy with her behaviour. Many others remain loyal to her. But at least people have had the opportunity, and the freedom, to give their views on this controversial incident.
Serena Williams Loses Cool With Chair Umpire In U.S. Open Final (VIDEO)
Huffington Post
Sept 11, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/11/serena-williams-loses-cool_n_957772.html
8 April 2011
The London Slut Walk - The 'S' word should be SEX, not slut
I was just about to post a comment this evening on an article in the London Free Press (Walker objects, Apr 8) when comments were cut off, after only 4 had been posted - all by men. The article was not the first on the local response to the apparent remark by a Toronto cop addressing law students, that 'women should avoid dressing like “sluts” if they didn’t want to be victimized' (What starts with an ‘s’, April 8, LFP).
Following is my comment, mainly in response to comments made by others.
I'm not sure if Jeff is trying to say there should be a Slut Walk? (Megan Walker doesn't like the idea, and Jeff doesn't approve of her kind of activism, he says, so I gather he's all for the Walk by that name). Are you sure you won't be tempted to refer to the marchers as Sluts, Jeff?
There must be a better way to handle this situation.
Mick, the word slut has different connotations according to gender. Men have always been allowed to be proud of their sexual exploits. Not so with women. Most keep quiet about them so they won't be judged.
That's all I wrote. And my response to the other article today by Kelly Pedro is also lacking, in part due to word limits placed on contributions. I would have liked to have added that the s word in question should probably not be 'slut' at all but rather, 'sex'. Focusing on the word slut is distorting the problem, taking the emphasis off a topic that really needs to be discussed, as demonstrated by the lack of understanding by more than one commenter.
It's too bad the comment made by one commenter got deleted. It illustrated some of the attitudes that need to be addressed, instead of women simply demanding their rights to dress provocatively without considering negative consequences. Removing the derogatory comments, what remains of his comment is this:
"Now if I pin money to my shirt,walk late at night and get mugged, can the 'it shouldn't be the way I dress' excuse work too??????"
Nowhere has it been mentioned that women's behaviour is also part of the problem. Being sexually provocative might also result in unwanted attention, just as their attire might. When it comes to sexual violence, it's not always the clothing that matters. If a woman appears vulnerable, or available, she might be more likely to be seen as a target.
One issue I have concern with, regarding the Value Women campaign initiated by Megan Walker, is that it's not inclusive of the idea of 'slut,' or at least of the idea that women are sexual (and may be seen as 'sluttish'). Pushing the problem away is not a solution, either, no more than the opposite, which appears to be that of embracing the notion of women as sluts, as in the Slut Walk.
When women dress in hot outfits, that is exactly what men are thinking of when they use the word 'slut'. And that's probably what the cop meant when he used it and got into trouble for doing so. The word is used so commonly that he obviously used it in the wrong manner, and definitely in the wrong place.
Men don't think like women in matters pertaining to sex. A woman can believe she has rights (as men do too, of course), but if they act as though no one can take away those rights, or that men 'shouldn't', by dressing as they have a right to, sexually provocatively, in the wrong place at the wrong time, they may be increase the chances of being noticed, and place themslves at risk. There is a difference between 'should' and 'what is', and women are being warned by the police that men don't always think or behave rationally when it comes to sex. and if men won't be considerate of women, in such circumstances, then women have to take precautions.
Feminists claim that men have always been in awe of women's sexuality and the power it has over them, so that's one reason why, in general, some men intentionally demean women by referring to them as sluts - putting them in their place, so to speak.
It probably makes some men angry just to see the attitudes of women participating in the Slut Walk. How does that help the problem of 'violence against women.' And how did the walk itself help educate the public about violence against women?
Campaign counters Slut Walk
By Kelly Pedro
London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/08/17922886.html
Slutwalk: "Because We've had Enough"
By Thomas Cermak
London Fuse
April 10, 2011
http://londonfuse.ca/images/slutwalk-because-weve-had-enough
Walker objects to women being called 'sluts'
By Kelly Pedro
The London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/07/17916251.html
What starts with an ‘s’ and divides women’s groups?
By Kelly Pedro
London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/07/17914086.html#/news/london/2011/04/07/pf-17916296.html
-----------------------------------------------
added May 19, 2011
Sex and the SlutWalk (with comments)
by Agenda intern Andrew Lynes
TVO - The Agenda
May 6, 2011
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewpost&post_id=15290&blog_id=323
Following is my comment, mainly in response to comments made by others.
I'm not sure if Jeff is trying to say there should be a Slut Walk? (Megan Walker doesn't like the idea, and Jeff doesn't approve of her kind of activism, he says, so I gather he's all for the Walk by that name). Are you sure you won't be tempted to refer to the marchers as Sluts, Jeff?
There must be a better way to handle this situation.
Mick, the word slut has different connotations according to gender. Men have always been allowed to be proud of their sexual exploits. Not so with women. Most keep quiet about them so they won't be judged.
That's all I wrote. And my response to the other article today by Kelly Pedro is also lacking, in part due to word limits placed on contributions. I would have liked to have added that the s word in question should probably not be 'slut' at all but rather, 'sex'. Focusing on the word slut is distorting the problem, taking the emphasis off a topic that really needs to be discussed, as demonstrated by the lack of understanding by more than one commenter.
It's too bad the comment made by one commenter got deleted. It illustrated some of the attitudes that need to be addressed, instead of women simply demanding their rights to dress provocatively without considering negative consequences. Removing the derogatory comments, what remains of his comment is this:
"Now if I pin money to my shirt,walk late at night and get mugged, can the 'it shouldn't be the way I dress' excuse work too??????"
Nowhere has it been mentioned that women's behaviour is also part of the problem. Being sexually provocative might also result in unwanted attention, just as their attire might. When it comes to sexual violence, it's not always the clothing that matters. If a woman appears vulnerable, or available, she might be more likely to be seen as a target.
One issue I have concern with, regarding the Value Women campaign initiated by Megan Walker, is that it's not inclusive of the idea of 'slut,' or at least of the idea that women are sexual (and may be seen as 'sluttish'). Pushing the problem away is not a solution, either, no more than the opposite, which appears to be that of embracing the notion of women as sluts, as in the Slut Walk.
When women dress in hot outfits, that is exactly what men are thinking of when they use the word 'slut'. And that's probably what the cop meant when he used it and got into trouble for doing so. The word is used so commonly that he obviously used it in the wrong manner, and definitely in the wrong place.
Men don't think like women in matters pertaining to sex. A woman can believe she has rights (as men do too, of course), but if they act as though no one can take away those rights, or that men 'shouldn't', by dressing as they have a right to, sexually provocatively, in the wrong place at the wrong time, they may be increase the chances of being noticed, and place themslves at risk. There is a difference between 'should' and 'what is', and women are being warned by the police that men don't always think or behave rationally when it comes to sex. and if men won't be considerate of women, in such circumstances, then women have to take precautions.
Feminists claim that men have always been in awe of women's sexuality and the power it has over them, so that's one reason why, in general, some men intentionally demean women by referring to them as sluts - putting them in their place, so to speak.
It probably makes some men angry just to see the attitudes of women participating in the Slut Walk. How does that help the problem of 'violence against women.' And how did the walk itself help educate the public about violence against women?
Campaign counters Slut Walk
By Kelly Pedro
London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/08/17922886.html
Slutwalk: "Because We've had Enough"
By Thomas Cermak
London Fuse
April 10, 2011
http://londonfuse.ca/images/slutwalk-because-weve-had-enough
Walker objects to women being called 'sluts'
By Kelly Pedro
The London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/07/17916251.html
What starts with an ‘s’ and divides women’s groups?
By Kelly Pedro
London Free Press
April 8, 2011
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/07/17914086.html#/news/london/2011/04/07/pf-17916296.html
-----------------------------------------------
added May 19, 2011
Sex and the SlutWalk (with comments)
by Agenda intern Andrew Lynes
TVO - The Agenda
May 6, 2011
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=3&action=blog&subaction=viewpost&post_id=15290&blog_id=323
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)