Pages

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

The Last Laugh

There is a certain debate among different people concerning patriarchy. This is a system by which most, if not all, positions of authority and prestige go to men, and by which there are structural barriers which prevent women from attaining true equality with men. In the most extreme examples, women have no rights whatsoever, even to self-determination and selection of sex and marriage partners.

Feminists, especially, have delved into history and archaeology in attempts to find evidence of past egalitarian societies which later became patriarchal on their own or were conquered by a patriarchal state. Some even believe to have found that evidence.

Others are more sceptical. They say patriarchy is endemic to all present-day complex societies, and the most simple and logical explanation is that patriarchy has always been with us. In other words, we now have the knowledge and capability to change the present and future with respect to patriarchy, but the past will always be the past.

But what if there are other explanations? Keep in mind that feminism per se is a relatively modern phenomenon which originated in the mid-to-late 19th century. No matter how long patriarchy itself has existed, feminism itself probably started as a reaction to conditions of the time. This was the era of the industrial revolution, as workers from the countryside began to flock to industrial centres to work in factories.

According to at least one author, factory owners and employers did not discriminate between men, women and children at first. Their labour was needed to keep the machines running. (We tend to think of machines as taking jobs away from people, but this is a more recent phenomenon. In the past, no matter how much technology had improved, it was still cheaper to hire more labour. Jobless recoveries could hardly have occurred before the last two decades of the 20th century.)

But the very labour that was keeping the factories going was counted on to produce newer labour as older workers stopped working due to age or disease. It soon became apparent that the grind was taking its toll on labourers’ reproductive efforts. Pregnancy was occurring as much as before, but child mortality was high. Acting purely out of self-interest, the ruling elite reasoned that they would soon run out of labour if this situation wasn’t addressed.

Changes were made so a man could bring home a wage with which he could purportedly support the entire family. Women were encouraged to stay home when pregnant or nursing, and many wound up staying for more extended periods of time. As a result, men had the time and opportunity needed to invest in their careers while women lost advancement opportunities as well as some form of economic independence. Furthermore, because their important household work wasn’t paid for, domestic chores became devalued. As time went on, people born into the system understandably came to see this as normal, and perhaps even natural.

In this way, efforts to improve the lot of pregnant women and their children came to be, in some people’s opinions, yet another example of patriarchy putting limits on what women can do and how much they can earn. Patriarchal attitudes may well have had an effect on the reasoning applied to solve this problem. But the one constant we can never escape is that women are the ones who become pregnant, give birth, and nurse. This puts limits on their opportunities for job or financial advancement. Efforts to counter these effects and give women a more level playing field have been lacking at best.

This may be one reason why industry is facing a labour shortage of a different kind today. Women with greater access to birth control and greater career aspirations are delaying, limiting and, in some cases, foregoing reproduction in order to better their economic situation. While technological development has reduced the number of workers needed to run the machines, there is still a critical mass of workers needed to keep things running, as well as to consume the products they produce. But not enough people are currently being born to replace the existing population, and asking women to have more children than they intend to in today’s politically correct climate is politically dangerous at best.

In this sense, could women have finally had the last laugh at patriarchy’s expense?

No comments:

Post a Comment