Addressing Ehrenreich's article, I am appauled at the way Merry Maids are forced to scrub on their hands and knees. How incredibly degrading! And the fact that women hire women to clean on their hands and knees is appauling! What happened to sisterhood here? (Note photo of Merry Maid cleaning on her hands and knees...think she's really as "Merry" as she appears? Doubtful!)
Another thing that came to mind as I was reading this article was an experience I had last year while staying at a friends place in Central Park West, NYC. I was shocked and appauled by the number of minority nannies pushing around white babies--I was even more shocked by the fact that the mothers clad in their designer sunglasses and handbags were right, talking on their blackberry, while the minority nanny carried/pushed in a stroller the white, rich woman's kids. My friend embarrassingly pointed out that most of these white, rich mom's were housewives anyway but simply hired a nanny so they didn't have to deal with their own, whining, spoiled rotten kids. Being from Buffalo, this was a complete culture shock to me. White, spoiled kids then grow up to believe minority women are meant to serve them. And this is the educated, sophisticated New York City I'm talking about not some "confederate flag" bearers as Ehrenreich mentions on page 61. Stories like Elizabeth Senghor (pg 64) may be more common than we think.
Hakim-Dyce did not have a "Reality Check"--she made a choice to be a go-go dancer. Considering she had a college education, Dyce had many more job options; thus, frankly, it is difficult to feel sympathy for her.
Rangel makes some excellent points in her essay. It is about time for College institutions to modify. It's surprising that still today, class is not considered nearly as much as race, gender, and sexual preference, when in reality it is class that most greatly divides humanity. The fact that she was not granted the same benefits of traditional students is absurd. I'm curious if any colleges, Colgate included, has addressed the modifications suggested by Rangel.
Once again I have disagree with Regan; what do they say? Never talk politics in polite conversation. But to me politics is everything. I am, and always will be, for an increased welfare state. Child rearing should be considered by society at large a full-time occupation and respected as such. I have no problem donating some of my money in the form of taxes to ensure that this job is held as a valuable contribution to society. The "mommy tax" is a tax I would happily vote for, as mothers and fathers who want to be full-time parents should have the right to do so and still be able to live the life for which they worked.
ReplyDeleteThe Ehrenreich article makes me uncomfortable because I do not know how to solve the problem. Yes I want women to work outside of the home but I also want all women to enter into a workforce in which they are respected. The same issue is raised with the Hakim-Dyce article; Is it better for women to work in a disrespected field than not to work at all? I understand Regan's lack of sympathy for Hakim-Dyce but in this economy and my current job search, I have to admit I've thought along the same lines. If I did not have a family to support me and be my safety net, I might have found myself on Ms. Sweets overstuffed sofa myself.
Rangel was also an eye-opening article. What I found most interesting was her focus on money and institutional issues rather than her children and their father(s). Rangel does not mention one feeling of regret or anger toward her two dependents, only the hope that she has for them. Learning about her struggles through the financial aid and welfare offices shined another light on how much a mother can give to her children. I only wish I will be able to respect my children as much as she, and Critenden, respect hers.
I agree with Lindsey's stance on the "mommy tax," as funding for paid leave, child care, and additional benefits can help support those parents (mainly, mothers) who leave their jobs to have children. The pressure within our society to remain at work for longer hours, and more days of the year, has detrimental effects on those women who must take a leave of absence in order to care for their newborns.
ReplyDeleteIn my globalization and culture course, we have discussed how the economic demands that accompany globalization have led to this increase in work, as currently, Americans are working harder than ever before. This leads to the demand for reproductive labor, what Ehrenreich writes of when she notes her brief stint at "Merry Maids." In this course, we studied Philippina women who leave their families to come and work as housekeepers and nannies for American women who need to be at work. In leaving their own country and their nuclear families and greater communities in the Philippines, these women fill in for the women who have no alternative "mommy tax" to help support their own care of their children and house. Certainly, the reproductive labor found not only in "Maid to Order" but also in establishments such as restaurants, nursing homes, dry cleaners and the like are products of the ever-increasing demands of our working lives, brought on by the competition that is inherent in today's global world.
I find Hakim-Dyce’s position contradictory, for though I feel that she could have found a job of a different sort, it is obvious that she was in a tight bind, and so in her desperation sunk beneath her education and her personal standards to consider a job, any job, that would bring in some money. I feel more for Rangel, who sought an education in spite of her position in poverty and her need to support two young children. I think little access to higher education for low-income women is an oft-overlooked element of poverty today, and should be considered, especially for women like Rangel who have years and years of loans to pay before even receiving her diploma. Clearly our country does not value education enough, or even motherhood, for that matter, if it cannot supply adequate funding for those who need it most.
Great thoughts, all, and I appreciate the very civil debate you three always engage in in your posts! Lindsey, you make a really important point to consider, especially within the Colgate bubble: what if we did not have any family, home, savings to fall back on? Imagine living without those privileges: you have $100 in your bank account from week to week, no money from parents, no family home to go to, no safety net. How might that change our ways of reading any/all of these articles?
ReplyDeleteLindsay, just to clarify something, I have no problem donating either. Coming from a family (far more involved in charity causes than the average American) that donates ALOT of time and money to community service I believe donating is a wonderful thing. Donating is very different from taxation, however. Donating involves choice...what cause you want to donate to, what particular community, how much you want to donate and when etc. Isn't that what feminism and America is all about? Freedom to Choose?
ReplyDeleteIt is funny Professor that you bring this point up. Both of whom who have a safety net at home. Once again what about the women who don't have money in the bank. What are they suppose to do. Funding for a paid leave, funny. These are obligations that these women have to deal with. What happen to the strong women like my grandmother who had to scrub upper class white homes in the thirties while she was pregnant to support her family. Yes I would agree with Regan it is a choice my grandmother didn't complained she just worked because she knew if she was not having the baby and didn't show up she would lose her job. This must be a culture thing. Mothers need to stop believing in the socially constructed system that they must stay at home and care for the kids. Go out and get a job
ReplyDeleteThere are some interesting comments from diverse points of view in response to Regan's post. Since I was struck by Hakim-Dyce's article, I am likewise struck by Regan's response:
ReplyDelete"...she made a choice to be a go-go dancer. Considering she had a college education, Dyce had many more job options; thus, frankly, it is difficult to feel sympathy for her."
While one might be inclined to agree with Regan and find considerable onus to be placed on Hakim-Dyce for her decision to become a go-go dancer, I would urge a reconsideration of what is perhaps a far too dualistic view. Yes, Hakim-Dyce made a choice to pursue a career as a go-go dancer. Yes, she is a college educated woman. However, what may be more instrumental to consider is why one of her most lucrative options to sustain herself is exploitative and inherently sexist.