Many
of the articles we read this semester have either implicitly or
explicitly discussed how work by women is devalued or not seen as “real work.”
Because earning money for one’s family is so deeply connected to masculinity in
a lot of cultures (Whitson, 2010), the very act of a woman making a living can
threaten her husband’s sense (and performance) of being a strong man. This
brings me back to the class discussion we had several weeks ago—with
constructions of masculinity so deeply tied to not being feminine, how can we go about creating a more equal, just
place, without doing away with the very idea of gender? Or we need to somehow
completely flip ideas of gender so that there are so many more options that are
unrelated to binary oppositions.
Pearson
(2007), among others, explained how often, throughout the world, women are seen
as sources “cheap labor” for businesses. This idea of anyone being “cheap
labor” feels so devaluing, exploitive, discriminatory, and unfair. I dislike
what the economy “decides” is valuable and the ways that people speak of wages
and prices as unquestionable and accurate truths created by “The Market.” The
economy is so talked about as if it is an external object or fact and not as a
socially created (and interpreted) system. Because “The Market” is a social
construction, the structure and consequences of the market reflect and sustain
a lot of the patriarchy and unequal power relations that already exist.
Many
people assume that the U.S. is so advanced in terms of gender (perhaps mostly
people outside of academia), but these narrow and rigid gender norms are still
very prevalent here. In the U.S. we would not call women “cheap labor” but I
think that still accurately describes the way that women’s work is paid and
devalued. Furthermore, there are still sectors of work that are very hostile
and difficult for women to work in. One very good (but also extreme) example of
this is the military. I was listening to public radio the other day, and the
program Here & Now interviewed
former U.S. Marine Chad Russell. Russell’s interview was about his strong
opposition to allowing women to work in certain combat roles in the Marines. Through
his discourse he generalized and implied that women did not have the stamina to
withstand certain combat situations, they were a distraction to people (because
they increased sexual relations), and that this led to complacency (and
eventually a lack of safety). At many points during the interview I wondered if
it was 1950 and not 2015. One of the questions he posed was “Is this a
necessity to do this or is this a political desire from outsiders?” His
inability to think outside of his male gendered body was incredibly
frustrating, as was his acceptance of policies that are discriminatory at their
core. He also perpetuated that notion that things connected to feminism are
political while everything else (misogyny included) gets to main the status of
being neutral or apolitical. I have never had any desire to join any part of
the military, but despite this, Russell’s (very essentializing) interview
struck a nerve. I could see how these policies would continue to stigmatize
women in the Marines and also potentially limit their careers. I am not sure
why breasts and a uterus equate to less stamina, so Chad Russell, please
explain this to me?
Here
is the link to his interview:
Great post Sonia! Thank you for sharing your thoughts about some of the very problematic realities that exist in our society today. The interview you share is particularly interesting with it's sexist, patronizing and at several points, contradictory, content. It is difficult for me to not react to it without feeling any sort of indignation which could color my argument but I will try.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, the former Marine in question, makes a very unclear distinction between “value” and “function”. He claims that women bring an equal value to the military but that when considering functionality, it's a different issue altogether. I am unsure what to take away from this.
Second he mentions the results of a test unit to justify his stance of not letting women into “real” combat. “End result, the best women in the test as a group in regards to the infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in the test study.” This argument seem a little problematic to me given that we don’t what ratio of men and women were present in the unit. If you have a smaller sample size of women, perhaps then it is unfair to generalize their performance capabilities and compare them with those of the men. Also, say we were to consider that women were performing equal to the lowest 5% of men. My question is whether the lowest 5% are being kicked out of their combat positions? Furthermore, given that the women have been let into combat roles only in 2013 are they not jumping the gun (literally and figuratively) in making these assessments and decisions?
Thirdly, the marine contradicts himself when he says that “ofcourse women can do these things (referring to different duties that are to be fulfilled in combat) but it’s a matter of is this a necessity to do this or is this a political desire coming from an outside influence?”
I also take issue with the interviewer’s reference to some of women’s unique contributions as “softer” issues. This reminds me of our discussions over the last so many weeks about the lack of consideration of “women’s” work as productive, real, labor intensive work.
Thank you Sonia for your post. When you mention that women are seen as “cheap labor” for corporations all around the globe, in my mind I immediately think of the women working in the maquilas in northern Mexico; the women migrating from rural to urban areas to work as domestic workers in Guatemala; or rural Chinese girls who migrate to the more populated cities to work in factories. Indeed work is gendered and need to be studied through gender, class and race perspective. All of these women have something in common: they are from the Global South, they all have low skills and education, and they might live in difficult conditions or conditions of poverty.
ReplyDeleteEven though the reasons why they decide to migrate or to work in the factories or the maquilas (leaving their families and culture behind) might differ from one to another, they will all share something: they will become cheap labor for the liberal/capitalist economy. Thus, they will experience very poor and similar work conditions: low wage salaries, exploitation, and in many cases exposure to unhealthy work environments. Additionally, for those women who cross borders, while in their “new homes”, the receiving countries will impose unfavorable immigration and work policies that will subject them as indentured servitude, limiting their mobility.
The new globalized economy has created a set of dispositions that depends on gender and class. Some of them impact directly on women and at the same time sustain, as you Sonia mentioned, unequal power relations and patriarchy.
Thank you Sonia you invoke a very interesting and a highly debatable subject, which is women productivity and cheap labor. In support of your point, Peet and Hartwick (2009) explain that 40% of the world workforces are women. They also explain that unfortunately women have the highest number of unemployment and receive less pay rates compared to their male counterparts. Undoubtedly, this is one of the reasons why 60% of the world’s poor are women.
ReplyDeleteI think this analysis provided another layer to analysis women marginalization in the world we lived. I also believe this require thinking beyond development practice to the legal, cultural and, social environment dimension governing where we lived. I felt these legal biases give room to this unfortunate trend. This involves both domestic and international law on the protection of women right for equity on pay and working conditions. I also believe bureaucratic structures of many societies are also indicted, because if women domestic work are not factored in Gross domestic Products, it tell us a lot about how governments and theory view what is productivity.
I believe there should be a complete shift in practice by accommodating women in national income assessment. In summation, women needs better treatment as they contribute equally in any setting compared to male counterparts.