Frankly, rich or poor, educated or not, whether we embrace capitalism or some other way of making the world go round (collectivism, whatevah) it’ll make no damn difference at all so long as women are treated as commodities instead of people.

“Excuse me if I’m not wiping away tears of joy that your nanny and her family left their home so they could come here and take care of rich people’s children and swimming pools. I hope she becomes a baking phenomenon and never has to wipe another white kid’s poopy butt again, but it isn’t the revolution.”

Here again you’re thrusting me into having to either bring about the revolution or be totally wrong and materialistic. Kind of a high standard, no? My point was that because she took out a loan and embarked on an entrepreneurial venture, her situation’s improved, and I think that’s generalizable to other women’s lives. I’m not saying it’s the be all end all or the revolution, or that this belief means I’m not all about kum bah yah as well.

We talked on an earlier thread about microloans helping women in developing nations. I’ve invested in a minor way in one of these companies, and I can tell you, the loans aren’t for women to start drum circles, they’re to start businesses, where they might even have to (gasp!) close deals.

I also find it interesting that you say you’re “ another ‘sure, Comparative Literature majors have a very bright future’ fool giving myself wrinkles worrying about my retirement.” Your connecting “bright future” with ability to retire seems to indicate that you embarked on this career with certain financial expectations. Yet you object to a proposal that women be educated about financial opportunities. Seems a bit hypocritical…

I agree with what you’re saying about “culture, however manifested, inspires us all.” If I hadn’t grown up with artsy-fartsy, poor-but-culture-ridden, humanities professor parents, I could easily have gone through my tech school, and the others, without cracking open a classic. I think it’s important for women, and for everyone, to incorporate humanities into their education if they have that privilege, and obviously if someone has a calling in that direction, she should go for it. However, I think the other side of the coin is that women need practical info early on as to the various career paths and their economic ramifications, and also encouragement that they should try to be financially independent. There’s a lot of conditioning of women before making decisions as to their majors that marriage can be a fallback. I think it’s important to say it’s not, that we should plan to fend for ourselves so that whatever happens, we have our own resources for security.

LJN – thanks for the response. Interesting points. Absolutely, critical mass is key. I’ve definitely seen the “I had to do it the hard way” motif operating. I didn’t know about what the UK govt has been doing, and am not surprised that these changes would benefit all employees. Great examples about beneficial results stemming from more women in medicine.

I agree that women tend to be more entrepreneurial and sometimes more willing to take risks, sometimes because there’s a second income, other times because they’re facing more obstacles in the big male-dominated companies. So you do see more opting out or going into smaller companies. I’m seeing some limited examples of companies reeling from the blow of losing their training investment and trying to implement mentoring, flex-time, or “getting back in” programs to stem the tide, but I’m not sure how successful these will be.

I found it interesting that a recent article, I think in the Atlantic or Time, talked about midlife crises in women often manifesting in entrepreneurial ventures — not in a mad rush to the Fortune 500. Hard to say whether the latter will morph into something women feel is worth the downside, or whether women will continue the trend to be business owners. I’d settle for one out of two.

What planet are you people on? Thanks to such comments, I finally understand why some versions of feminism are deemed elitist.

Trust me, though: If I had a perfectly healthy adult person in my household who wasn’t pulling his/her weight you’d better believe I’d give him or her the boot. That’s why I’m single.

Also, in the cosmic sense “what goes around comes around,” so even apparently altruistic gestures given for “free” provide benefits to the giver, so are they purely altruistic?

But in that case, ones trusts Karma or the Universe or even the dreaded G-word to bring good fortune back around to us. That requires a very different equation than the patriarchal “you give me X and I’ll give you Y—but only if I have to.” Trusting the Universe to balance its energies out is very different then assessing your household members based on what they give you, and giving the boot to those who don’t cough up enough “benefit.”

I’ll stop now, because apparently you have to go into rehab if you mention the word “spiritual” on this blog.

PS Ide Cayn–I do not disagree with most of your points. I merely suggest that by virtue of the owning the uterus, we have the ultimate trump card (not the only card). Since you seem to reflect my position as an adversarial one, which baffles me and adds unnecessary heat to the discussion, I respectfully bow out.

Firstly, until there’s a critical mass of women in *any* field, it is fairly likely that those who make it will have been forced to become ‘one of the boys’. Often this will result in them accepting the status quo for all *other* women – something along the lines of “I did it the hard way, so I’m not giving anyone else a hand up”.

Likewise, any small group of women in a male environment is extremely visible, and individual quirks, failures etc. will be taken by the PTB to be characteristic of all women, not just those individuals. Again, not conducive to changing the status quo.

The UK govt. has noticed this, and has put a fair amount of time and money into establishing a commission and resource center on/for women in SET. Most of the research suggests that changes to corporate culture which benefit women are beneficial to all employees, and encourage diversity in the workforce, which is known to benefit the bottom line (creative problem solving etc.)

Still a very long way to go, though, and the numbers are getting worse rather than better in terms of women in the upper levels of big UK companies. Many seem to be chucking it all in to go self-employed or start up on their own. Again, that will benefit those who can make that choice but not the rest of women in the workforce.

Science has traditionally been very very male – even medicine has only just started to notice that women and men react differently to drugs, and show different symptoms to even something as common as a heart attack. That’s where I think more women in the field, making decisions on where research money should be spent, will benefit women in general, and therefore benefit our idea that he/she/it should all have the same options.

Sorry – thinking aloud here, so if there’s anything that needs stomped on or clarified, please shout.

PS – No. But I was kinda sorta hoping that the feminist revolution would look different. No pitchforks.

Absolutely. Public state university debt-incurring privilege, but privilege nonetheless.

“Honestly, when has any low-serotonin artyfartybrainiac culture ever really changed anything beyond aesthetics?”

I think the Powers That Be do use Culture to enhance their cocktail hours. But I also think culture, however manifested, inspires us all. Dismissing everything that isn’t hard science, that doesn’t have obvious money making and/or useful potential, is a mistake.

SMMO: The fact that college and Comparative Lit were viable OPTIONs for you just reeks of privilege, don’t you think? One need not be a Pradawearing trustafarian to wallow in privilege. Besides, “serious” privilege (the old money privilege we love to hate) doesn’t wear Prada. Big-time privilege leaves the likes of Prada to the “eurotrash.”

(HPS resists the silly winky emoticon)