Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Could women strike?

109 replies

GarlicNovember · 06/11/2014 13:46

It'd mean finding enough supportive men to take over child and other caring duties. Could it be done? Would it make the point that the world would grind to a halt if women didn't do all the supposedly invisible stuff they do?

OP posts:
PetulaGordino · 06/11/2014 15:12

it's like nurses striking isn't it? the reason why they don't do it (or very rarely, and for very very short time periods) is that patients are so vulnerable. and the critical nature of that responsibility can be easily abused

Original poster
GarlicNovember · 06/11/2014 15:11

Yh, Cailin, that is the problem. But, say the big unions supported an all-out strike by women, perhaps they could organise a day's worth of substitute carers, drivers, and so forth from their male memberships? And if all the women fucked off down the park for one specified day, maybe all the dads would have to get the day off work and look after their own homes & families?

It's just that I find it depressing that this idea is always instantly shot down with "couldn't work, all the children would starve." I don't know.

OP posts:
cailindana · 06/11/2014 15:01

What struck me about your OP was this: "It'd mean finding enough supportive men to take over child and other caring duties"

If we could do that, there'd be no need for a strike.

It's not the case that men don't understand the work women do. It's that men don't see women as people.

A strike wouldn't work as men already just take care of themselves. The ones who would suffer would be children and elderly people who actually need women to look after them. Men would just sneer and use it as another stick to beat us with.

Original poster
GarlicNovember · 06/11/2014 14:58

Well, what I'd want from it may not be what everyone else would want. I'd like to make the point about women's work being essential - work both outside and, importantly, inside homes. So, yes, a national sex strike would be interesting but I was thinking more of a total downing of tools! Tools to include kettles, pots & pans, mops & brushes, vehicles and everything.

If I got to state the strike's demands, I'd want an immediate revaluation of "wifework" and a total restructure of business practices, working conditions, and so on - because my utopia has both sexes taking equal responsibility for "life tasks" instead of implicitly assuming some woman would take care of all that.

There's probably a massive array of changes women would like to see as a consequence of proving their value. I just wonder whether it can be done in the first place? How would anyone else like to see it work out?

OP posts:
ArgyMargy · 06/11/2014 14:45

But this fact is already known. What would it achieve?

cailindana · 06/11/2014 14:43

What exactly would the strike involve?

partialderivative · 06/11/2014 14:42

I'm not entirely sure what you mean OP.

It's 'interesting' how the country carried on during the World Wars when women were required to fill roles that were traditionally seen as male. (I have no intention of belittling the role of any person during those years)

Could the reverse be true these days? Or have the lines between a 'Male' job and a 'Female' job been eroded to make that meaningless.

But then that might not be the sort of thing the OP was alluding to.

slug · 06/11/2014 14:25

It's been suggested before

PuffinsAreFicticious · 06/11/2014 14:22

Interesting idea. Would be fascinating to see it happen!