The problem with white feminism

A lot of people are much more comfortable talking about class or race oppression than men's oppression of women because of our sex. Even on a feminist board.

This is such a weird thread. Alison, a white feminist, wants to call white feminists she disagrees with "colonialists" because we challenge men. That's all it comes down to but it seems to have gone right off tangent. I may start posting about the kinds of things "white colonialists" (men) actually did. Then maybe Alison and her supporter Frack can get a clue. In the meantime:

"This is the problem right here. Cleaning DOES require specialized equipment (including chemicals that need to be handled and disposed of carefully) and skills similar in type to those needed for the other occupations listed. You ask my brother to clean a house he is going to get 409 and some paper towels and after he’s done you’ll ask him when he’s planning to get started. He has no more clue how to clean than I do how to change the oil on my Car. However of course Either of us could quickly learn either skill."

Are you seriously trying to compare a can of pledge, a lavatory brush and bleach to keeping tall ladders in the house so you can reach your first floor windows easily? I pay someone to clean my windows because I'm on the second floor and I can't reach my windows, but professional equipment can. I clean my own house because I can keep my vacuum cleaner in the cupboard, I don't need any professional help. Your brother not having a clue how to clean, isn't because cleaning is difficult, unless you are unable for some reason, it's because men can't be bothered and they leave it to women, either the ones they live with or the ones they pay.

It's got nothing to do with denigrating women's work and everything to do with noticing that men could do this too but they don't.

I don't really think people do think of barbering as higher status or skill than hairdressing. Most would put them at a similar level I suspect, they probably if they stopped to think about it realise that women's hairdressing can be more complex. Though, these days there are more high end barbers who deal with facial hair and shaving, which is an area all it's own.

The big divide I'd say exists in both is people who own their own business vs those who don't.

While you could argue, not whole

Ah thanks - I thought it might not. In that case then, barber is being given as an example of a "male" role that is equal to the looked-down-on "female" hairdressing role, when in fact a hairdresser needs more complicated knowledge?

Well, a female barber would need the same knowledge set as a male one, while a male hairdresser would need the same knowledge as a female one, so whole you could argue that hairdressing is generally more highly-skilled, I think that's due to the nature of the role rather than the sex of the person filling it IYSWIM.

I suppose most people would put them on a par, probably due to thinking about what they involve (cutting, dyeing and styling hair) without much knowledge of what they entail in terms of training. That's the case for me, anyway.

coding is still considered low status, and one of the more menial tasks which is often out sourced to places like India

in the USA it’s absolutely high status/high paid And certainly not working class. In fact it’s outsourced for just that reason (it’s status in the west means you can’t hire anyone here for less than 6 figures). It’s also difficult to find people to teach it in schools because they could be employed at a much higher salary in industry.

Actually, coding is still considered low status, and one of the more menial tasks which is often out sourced to places like India.

My favorite example of this is computer programming. It was once considered menial women’s work, barely a step up from secretary. Now that it’s male dominated profession it is considered high status and high skill. The work is the same as it ever was (in some ways it was more difficult pre 1980 because computers were barely functional).

Ah thanks - I thought it might not. In that case then, barber is being given as an example of a "male" role that is equal to the looked-down-on "female" hairdressing role, when in fact a hairdresser needs more complicated knowledge?

So - and apologies in advance to those posters who don't like discussion of "poor wims" here in fwr... - in order to be equal to men, women have to be better?

Do Male barbers have to be trained in chemistry in the same way hairdressers are? As standard?

No, in most districts I think that's one of the standard differences between the licences.

NotDavidTennant

I don't know if it is that straightforward. Like Beyond said, class is clearly also a factor, and there are other factors as well that are difficult to unpick. The fact that they are service industries is a factor

But it's interesting to look at something like secretarial work, which used to be done more by men but became a woman's job, and see how attitudes about the job have changed. Nursing is also an interesting example not so much in terms of pay which is probably in line with regards to education requirements, but in terms of people's attitudes.

Childcare is related quite closely to a perception of women's work, maybe more than any others, and here I think sometimes feminists have contributed to the idea that childcare is essentially dull and unrewarding work, which we should free women from because they are able to do so much more. But it too is affected by the fact that childcare can't cost workers more than they already bring in.

Do Male barbers have to be trained in chemistry in the same way hairdressers are? As standard?

Thanks goose! It's not just being a woman though is it, it's a class thing too. As has been pointed out oodles of times on the thread, class is very relevant in the U.K.

I wasn't at school too long ago (local comp with a large WC%) - it was largely true that those who were working class and less book-smart went to college to study health and beauty. Was that unusual?

See, I can well believe that in some professions where there is not a direct link between revenue and earnings (e.g. librarians) that women might have their pay pushed down due to sexism. But I struggle to see how this happens in professions like hairdressing and childcare where the worker is generally selling their services more or less directly to the customer.

Who is suppressing pay in that scenario?

I don't think male barbers/hairdressers are generally considered as more skilled though.

No, I think you are actually right in terms of hairdressers. It might make sense to wonder if the lower status of the hairdresser is due to it being associated with women and gay men, but it's true that barbering has a similar reputation.

I think you are right that it is more about that category of job generally. It may be that women have been and continue to be over-represented in that sector, because those jobs can often be easier to combin with childrearing in various ways.

Who in the real world actually thinks that? This board has, in my view, form for talking women down by exaggeration of how awful society is on issues where actually that isn't the case.

Shocking as it may be to your sensibilities, there is a whole series of jobs or careers that some people believe are less well paid or which gain less respect because they are thought of as women's careers.

Secretarial work, for example, hairdressing, childcare, being a librarian all being examples, the latter an interesting one as it requires a masters degree but isn't well paid compared to many other such positions and many people think it amounts to checking books out and putting them on a shelf.

And in fact there is evidence that careers associated with women are less well paid than similar careers associated with men. It's not quite so simple that it's likely the only factor, but it seems to be a real factor.

However, it's a skill that most people could acquire if they took the time to do so and have decent hand-eye coordination and a reasonably steady hand

Given my utter uselessness at anything art or arts and crafts related I very much doubt it's a skill I could acquire.

I believe her point was that it is considered low skilled because it's associated with being a woman's job, not because it's actually a low skill job

Who in the real world actually thinks that? This board has, in my view, form for talking women down by exaggeration of how awful society is on issues where actually that isn't the case.

Hairdressing isn't key- hole surgery but, sorry I find the suggestion that society in general thinks hairdressing is low skill or it's low skill because it's seen as a woman's job exactly the sort of "woe is me" it's so hard being a woman nonsense I'm thinking of.

I believe her point was that it is considered low skilled because it's associated with being a woman's job, not because it's actually a low skill job.

I don't think male barbers/hairdressers are generally considered as more skilled though. I think it's on a similar level to plumbing or plastering, in that you've got to learn how to do it so it's a skill in that respect that most people don't have. However, it's a skill that most people could acquire if they took the time to do so and have decent hand-eye coordination and a reasonably steady hand.

Eh? Are you serious? Low skilled?

I believe her point was that it is considered low skilled because it's associated with being a woman's job, not because it's actually a low skill job.

(Even the fringe trim can go horribly wrong)

I can vouch for that.

Anyone who thinks hairdressing is a low skill occupation is welcome to try anything more complicated than a fringe trim on their own hair and then get back to me about how well that went.

(Even the fringe trim can go horribly wrong)

Another similar example there could be hairdressing - a "female" job looked down on for being "low skilled"

Eh? Are you serious? Low skilled?

Wow, I feel like this discussion has got a little lost in the weeds.

It's not really a question of whether childcare (or cleaning, but mainly this is about childcare IMO cleaning is attached to that for secondary reasons)is an honourable or skilled job.

It's in terms of seeing the ability to use paid childcare to work elsewhere as some kind of feminist victory.

People are able to use childcare and work if they make more money than they need to pay the caregiver. This sets limits around who can afford it, and also who will go into it and what their economic situation is likely to be. Can some university student do that for a year, are their high priced nannies. Sure, but they really aren't characteristic of workers in the childcare sector. A family with two professional jobs and paying for care is better off than they would be otherwise. Maybe the mother also feels freer and more fulfilled as a result, but that doesn't in itself make it a victory for women. It makes it good for her personally, and maybe good for women of her class, and also families of that class.

But what about working class or poor women? They probably don't make enough to pay for care, so they aren't freer in that way, and they don't have access to the financial benefit of care, which accentuates the income gap. If they do childcare themselves they are now doing the same work, just for other people's kids instead of their own, but again that is similar work and not great pay, so how is that liberating for women as a group? What's more, where two income families are the norm, cost of things like housing tends to go up which affects them more. They may find they have to work to get by and use some sort of lesser childcare.

Even if you bring socialised care into the mix it can be difficult, as it may cut down choices rather than increasing them. It is difficult to justify not working for a wage when there is free or cheap childcare, even if you'd much rather be taking care of your own kids, and again the costs associated with a society of dual income families may force taking the job. And the satisfaction of the work for its own sake may not be quite the same between a professional job and some sort of service industry low wage position.

The fact is that some people will always have to be dedicated to doing childcare, and mostly it will be women, especially if it is paid care. So I tend to be suspicious when I hear that somehow women are going to be freed from the tyranny of childcare. The story is perhaps that somehow it's transferred from women who don't like it to those who do, but generally that doesn't seem to be the typical axis of the exchange.

It's fairly clear that it's a class issue and not a feminist issue. Is anyone surprised that working class women and minorities are at the bottom of the pile in terms of opportunities and aspiration?