Thursday, February 09, 2006

The New Liberation Movement

By Rosemarie Jackowski

Read full article...

Posted 02/09 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. This is good:
    “It is easy to figure out who benefited the most from the movement. Just follow the money.”

    In general, I agree with you, with two caveats:
    1. Staying at home to raise children should not go along with a lack of education, which I suppose was (and is) often the case.
    2. I work with very young (up to 24 months) children two mornings a week. The experience is not only important for them--their first steps in socializing with other children--but for (childless) me. I would otherwise not have contact with young people. You’re right that a paid childcare worker cannot care about the children as much as their parents, but s/he can care a lot.

    Posted by keir from The Hague  on  02/10  at  08:02 AM

  2. Keir, thanks for your comment. I know that this article will be misinterpreted by many. I agree with your 2 caveats. I have always believed that education was even more important for a stay-at-home mother than it is for someone in the paid work force.  When an employee makes a mistake, it might affect the bottom line. When a parent makes a mistake, it can affect the entire life of another human being.
    I know that you know that I have never suggested that women spend their lives knitting doilies. I am just hoping that someday our culture will be enlightened enough to see the real value of women and men.
    I appreciate your comment because I think that you understood what I was trying to say. Maybe I was clumsy in the way that I expressed myself. It has been a taboo topic for so long. It is politically incorrect to support full time mothers. I understand that and I understand the growing trend to take children out of the home at younger ages for pre-school etc. My view is different. I believe that children should be “protected” from the culture as long as possible. Our culture tends to promote “in-the-box” thinking and has totally devalued critical thinking. Not all critics of the culture are religious fanatics. Some are peace protesters, independent thinkers, anarchists, socialists, etc. who object to the glorified way in which our government and other institutions are represented to children in group situations.
    I admire the work that you do. I am sure that the children in your care are lucky to have you, if they can’t be with their parents.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/10  at  02:21 PM

  3. I think that blaming Freidan because jobs are frequently tedious is like blaming Picasso because Art History is frequently a bore.

    Also, since when does history report that women didn’t enter the workforce until after Freidan’s book appeared ? Haven’t single women, war widows, and especially women of color been wage laborers in the United States since before it became a nation ?

    I have never known any feminist, no matter what her status, who did as good a job at denigrating housework and motherhood as the average man does.  You can see it everywhere, even in the activist community where women’s frequent calls for childcare at events --not to mention affordable rates for attending-- go unanswered.

    I’m all for sisterhood, but it’s unfair to blame other women alone for the low status of domestic labor.  I don’t see how it serves the cause of feminism to pit single women, married women, mothers or childfree women against each other while men continue to go about their “important business” blissfully unaware of and uninterested in how we live.

    Freidan was human.  She didn’t do everything, but she did more than most…

    Posted by alsis39.5 from Portland, OR  on  02/11  at  11:16 AM

  4. alsis, thanks for taking the time to comment.  I don’t blame Freidan because jobs are tedious. I blame the movement for not supporting ALL women.

    There is a call for more affordable childcare but that is often misinterpreted. Many of those women would prefer to stay at home and provide their own childcare if it was economically possible.

    The low status of domestic labor is an issue. The women’s movement was one of many causes that brought that about.

    In the 1970’s, I formed an organization called Justice for Children. Its main purpose was to advocate for the economic and legal rights of children who had been abandoned by the wage earning parent. I requested the help of NOW. They refused and have been relatively silent on the issue.

    I agree with you that women should not be pitted against one another. We should all be united in supporting those who need the support the most. I tried to say that in my article. I apologize if I was not clear but I stand by what I said.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/11  at  01:25 PM

  5. Great article.  I highly recomment the book “Women and Socialism” by Susan Smith.  She reports how bourgeois women actually have not supported the interest of working class women.  And that in fact NOW have been on the opposing side of issues necessary for working women.

    I can recall that it was Carter that voted to repeal Medicaid funded abortions.  Also the system of parental pecuniary (that is better know as “child support") is in badly need of changes.  In many cases this is a facist system that better serves the interest of capitalism rather than families.  It is clear that Fredian didn’t want women to be “completely” independent.

    Posted by Parential Pecuniary from San Quentin  on  02/17  at  03:26 AM
    6. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: In the Company of Philip Agee and John Perkins

    Previous entry: Tale of a Connecticut Donkey

    [ads]

    Support Press Action