Women's Work Is Still Work

 There are many reasons why women only earn 75% of what men make.

• They don't negotiate higher salaries (although negotiating tends to be associated with even lower salaries for women).
• Women who earn more money than their husbands tend to get divorced.
• They choose to go into lower paying fields.
• They take time off for childcare (and sometimes "leave before they leave").
• Discrimination. 

All of these are more interrelated than you think.

Women tend to go into fields such as media (which we all know is fucked), education, health care, and administration (i.e. become secretaries). Men go into fields such as finance, technology, engineering, and construction. I'm not saying these fields are not important, but I think that education and health are pretty important. For that matter, I think childcare is important. But society doesn't. We don't even pay most childcare workers. And when we do, we pay them less than we pay parking lot attendants. We are willing to pay people more to look after our cars than our children.

Childcare has traditionally been free, and despite many studies showing the importance of a child's early developmental years, it is considered a low-status job that needs little to no training. Really, as most parents will tell you, it's one of the most demanding jobs there is.

So how do you juggle the demands of being a parent with the demands of your job? People who can afford private nannies and people in New York State spend a lot of money on childcare. That's just the average. There is a nursery at UCLA where my developmental psychology professor sent her child--for $17,000 a year, but she said, "You're smiling when you sign the check, because you know your child is going to be well-looked after." More and more people are willing to spend a reasonable amount of money to have their children well looked after. But what a "reasonable amount" is actually very high. So high that some women quit their “hard-core corporate life” jobs to take care of and educate their kids themselves. Some women choose to be the child-carer because they were making less money than their husbands anyway (such as in social services). Even women with a “hard-core corporate life” do so though, possibly because childcare, not earning money, is women's work.

Of course, if you're going into a job such as education, the idea is that you'll automatically have more time to take care of kids (whether or not this is true is up to debate), which may be one of the reasons women go into these fields in the first place.

Education has always had a low status in the United States. It was traditionally performed by recent (male) college graduates, before they could move into more profitable, higher-status jobs. As more and more children started getting educated, more and more women entered the field. Sometimes there were not even high school graduates. Many were required to be unmarried. In this way, education was not only feminized, but treated as a young person's temporary job.

To a large extent, this has not changed. Educators are mostly women, and educators stay in the field for an average of 11 years. Women are also paid less than men. Primary school teachers (and as a previous TA for elementary school students, I say that their job is not any easier. Think you know long division? Try explaining it to a 7 year old), make less than secondary school teachers. Teacher make less than administrators, who are mostly men.

Why is this? Education is a government-subsidized career, but so are certain astronomers, and teachers in the private sector are, if anything, being paid less. The real reason is this: we as a society deem women's work less valuable. The more women are in a field, the less money we think people in that field should make. What's the lowest paying field? Household work. Why pay anyone to do it when your wife will do it for free? Even if she has a job. Especially if her job pays more than yours.

Just as men are a majority of educational administrators while women make up a majority of teachers, 93% of executive chefs are men, but women cook 78% of home meals, make 93% of food purchases, and spend 3x as many hours in the kitchen as men. Is this because women want to stay at home? Because they aren't ready for the rigors of executive cooking? Maybe. Or maybe because A) it's difficult for women to become executive chefs because of discrimination B) aforementioned work-life conflict and C) men are less willing to work for free.

I think our society needs to reevaluate its values. Larry Summer basically got ousted as president of Harvard because he claimed that women didn't put in as much work in the STEM fields. But women do just as much work as men, if not more. Maybe instead of women leaning in at work, men should lean in at home. It's not just about work-life balance. Rearing children, taking care of your home, educating children, taking care of the sick, the poor, the abused--this is work. Noble work. We need to start valuing it as such.

It's Not Slut-Shaming If the Dress Doesn't Fit

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Thinkprogress has an article denouncing slut-shaming in school dress codes because . . . a school did not allow middle schoolers to wear tube tops to their middle school prom. I take issue with the article. Granted, female nudity and all its variations are still made too much of, but while banning high school students from wearing tube-top dresses is both futile and inane, banning middle school students from wearing tube-top dresses . . . kind of makes sense. What are they wearing tube tops for anyway? It's like the legendary student at Berkeley who went around naked (with a towel, so there were no hygienic concerns): you could do it. But why?

Let's list all of the reasons a girl (middle school age or older) might wear a tube top (or other item of clothing), from most to least damning, more or less.

1. You are emulating a pop star/movie star/that girl from Cosmo
2. All the other girls are wearing it
3. It's Fashion!
4. It's really pretty
5. You are rebelling against one or more adult figures in your life
6. You want sexual attention
7. You want to feel sexy/pretty/confident
8. You want to express your personal style
9. For political reasons
10. Because it's really hot (the weather, not the tube top)

How dare she dress like that?

Notice that hardly any of these have to do with male sexual attention. More of these have to do with female attention, peer pressure, and the fashion industry. Starting about three-quarters down, we get into the whole dress-for-yourself thing, and one political motive (think Femen)--where you are still utilizing your body for shocking, attention-getting reasons, albeit to point out the fallacy of the shockingness of the female body.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with a middle school (how old are these kids? 13?) banning tube tops. Frankly, I actually think it's more of a concern that high school Mormon girls have to custom-make their prom dresses if they want actual sleeves on the dresses. There were some comments in the Thinkprogress article that noted that the school dress codes seemed to be imposed by old men, but the fashion industry is still largely perpetrated by men as well (albeit gay men).

Why is this fashionable?

As long as the school dress code is consistent, gender-equal, and can explain itself, then it's not slut-shaming to send a girl home for wearing a tube-top, anymore than it is to make a boy wear P.E. shorts because he cannot un-sag his pants. Dress codes exist for a reason, especially at school. Adults have to follow them, why shouldn't students? Would it be appropriate for a middle-school teacher to wear a tube top to chaperon the prom? Probably not, because a teacher should be trying to maintain an air of professionalism, even at a party. We should have the same standards for students when they attend class. It's a learning environment, not the beach, or even the mall.

Now let's get to the unwanted male attention part. Though I do believe the best way to prevent sexual assault is to teach people to not assault others, woman should also be defensive. Just as people learn to be defensive drivers, because they know there will always be jackasses on the road, people should be defensive dressers because there will always be weird sexual predators in the world. We put off certain vibes based on how we dress. How a girl dresses may not affect whether or not she gets raped, but girls in scanty clothing are more likely to talked about in terms they'd most likely rather not be discussed in. If a girl wants the attention, then fine, as long as she is informed. If a girl does not want the attention, or not the that degree, at the very least, the girl will be labeled a tease.

Aren't we getting too carried away with this? Like with Janet Jackson's supposed nipple incident? Sure. Maybe someday women can go around topless. Hey, women do it all the time in Europe. At the beach. Not at work. Not at school. Maybe that will change someday, and society will be better for it. Nowadays? It's just not worth it.

In the meantime, dress fabulously--even if you do have to cover up.

Sure, Blame Feminism for the Hook-up Culture

Interesting article in The Atlantic magazine today about how interviewer Freitas determined the hook-up culture is not all that it's cracked up to be. It argues that hooking up is, well, boring most of the time, or leads to unsatisfying sex. This makes sense. How are people supposed to get good at sex if all of their experience are drunken one-night stands?

Stereotypes aside (the article features much anecdotal evidence, if no statistics), it's an interesting way of giving people and excuse to opt-out of the hook-up culture without seeming like a Puritanical prude. It reminds me of something (god help me) Stephanie Meyer once said about Edward and Bella's relationship (before all the BDSM of their marriage night),"I get some pressure to put a big sex scene in," Meyer says. "But you can go anywhere for graphic sex. It's harder to find a romance where they dwell on the hand-holding. I was a late bloomer. When I was 16, holding hands was just--wow" (Time).

Sounds pretty good. Why settle for mediocre sex when you can get great hand-holding (and more)? This reminds me of "The Woman Who Loved to Make Vaginas Happy" from The Vagina Monologues, where it is stated that "moans are connected with not getting what you want right away."

When we fall in love, a smorgasbord of chemicals in our brains make us lose appetite, develop OCD, but also make us very, very happy. That only lasts for about a year though. Some scientists have used that as evidence that humans aren't made for monogamy. There are even love addicts now, that go in search of a new partner as soon as the hormonal and neurotransmitter high fades. In a way, this may seem like an endorsement of of hook-up culture, but hey--a year. That's a long time to be with someone in these hook-up times.

In any case, assuming that hook-up culture is boring, what is one to do? The article argues that the solutions Freitas are not viable. That's reasonable when the only proposed solution seems to be for adults to warn young adults of the dangers of unsatisfying hook-ups. Any viable inroads on this subject probably have to come from within the generation itself, such as in young adult TV (Girls portrays sex as pretty mediocre most of the time), facebook groups, etc.

My real issue with the article though, is that it states Freitas "feminism a pass, even while acknowledging that many feminist writers have welcomed the destruction of the traditional date, because such courting rituals 'propped up patriarchy,' as one feminist critic quoted in the book put it."

Since when has feminism ever gotten a pass? Most people don't even know what feminism is, or at least it's definition is very much in dispute, with people all up in arms every time a celebrity like Zooey Deschanel or Stephanie Meyer or Marissa Mayer choose to embrace or not embrace the label. The problem is that there have been at least three movements of feminism, and they don't always agree with each other.

It's probably somewhere between the 2nd and the 3rd movement that the traditional date was destroyed though. It probably propped up patriarchy because . . . men asked women out? Men paid for the dates? Sorry, but it seems pretty easy to resurrect the traditional date with feminist trappings: go Dutch! And yes, women can ask men out too sometimes (even if most date books which dabble in evolutionary psychology advise against this). And yes, women can arrange dates as well!

My boyfriend (now my fiance) and I did all three. I told him that I liked him, and we mutually decided where to go for a date. At the end of the date I told him that I believed in going Dutch, which he had no problem with (though he subverted the practice by buying me chocolate bars). When we go out nowadays? The planning? All me. Which seems to be the norm among married couples. (It's called "invisible work.") Every once in awhile in complains, but then again he doesn't have any alternatives (besides staying home, and since we stay home 80% of the time, I win the 20% of the time I arrange dates).

In short, while "it seems legitimate to wonder if feminism has unwillingly equalized the sexual playing field to allow women the freedom to behave with as much recklessness as men, as Ariel Levy argued in Female Chauvinist Pigs" whatever's done can be undone. The pendulum continues to swing. While, sure, feminists want the freedom to act like chauvinist pigs without any more condemnation than male chauvinist pigs, that doesn't mean that we all want to be chauvinist pigs, anymore than all men want to be chauvinist pigs. I don't believe feminism is women becoming like men. I think feminism is men and women becoming like each other. Somewhere in that middle ground, maybe we can not participate in hook-up culture without becoming Puritanical prudes.

Chivalry be Dead

This post was inspired partially by a discussion I had with my friends about appropriate boundaries with members of the opposite sex and partially by a historical art series ("Romance and Reality" by Lord Kenneth Clark) that my boyfriend was watching last night.

Appropriate boundaries with members of the opposite sex:
We live in modern times, where depending on the culture of your clique, it's okay to put your arms around your friends or slap them on the butt or be friends with benefits. That being said, your partner may not always be comfortable with all that. This whole discussion came up because one of my boyfriend's girl friends whom he has not seen in awhile innocently but inappropriately crossed that line by jumping on him (as in jumped up to hug him, possibly wrapping her legs around him--I'm not sure, I didn't actually witness it). Later I asked my boyfriend if he thought it was appropriate. He got nervous and said that people thought it was funny, and that his girl friend didn't mean anything by it. That's probably true, in that his girl friend didn't think anything of it, but it still makes me uncomfortable. So I talked with two of my friends. One has totally inappropriate boundaries with her guy friends, but she helped me see that this was mostly about my insecurities. Then I helped her see that she would freak out if her own boyfriend did half the stuff she does with her guy friends. The other friend took my perspective x2 and said not only that my boyfriend should be respectful of my feelings, but that his girl friend probably had romantic feelings for my boyfriend and that she doesn't like the way they conduct themselves toward each other. More on that later.

Romance and Reality:
This series has to do with courtly love, which Kenneth Clark says was one of the strangest aspects of Western Civilization, popping up during the Middle Ages around the time of the Crusades. He mentioned that some people speculate that it came about from the love poetry of Persia (sure, blame the Asians), but he said that one more likely reason for its development had to do with the fact that a lot of guys went off to steal land during the Crusades (war was more transparently for profit back then), leaving their wives at home. Women at this time in the Middle Ages actually had some authority; when they're husband was away, they were the boss. In the meantime, all of the gallant young knights who for some reason or another did not go to fight in the Crusades had to pay fealty to their lady. Think of the most well-known example of courtly love: Lancelot and Guinevere. Although the stories have changed over time, originally, Lancelot and Guinevere fell in love because they spent a lot of time together ruling Camelot while Arthur was away searching for the Holy Grail. Also, originally their love was never consummated. It was pure and chaste, like most courtly love.

Courtly love is when a man falls in love with an unavailable, usually married woman and pledges ever-lasting devotion to her because she's so beautiful, refined, and virtuous. It's associated with the devotion some religious figures have toward the Virgin Mary. Like one's relationship with the Virgin Mary, the woman may or may not even give the man the time of day (not even in a non-dirty way), but the man's devotion will still be unyielding.

In the Middle Ages during the Crusades, this probably was an ideal. This way, the married woman really does get to stay chaste and loyal to her husband (therefore avoiding the problems of bastards), but she still gets some male attention. And the poor guys who have been tricked into this situation are supposed to be happy with it.

But think about how messed up this is in modern times, when even in long-distance relationships you can communicate with your lover or jump on a plane. I don't think most guys would be happy with their girlfriends receiving devotion from some other dude, even if it wasn't consummated. But the real benefactress is, of course, the lady, nowadays referred to as a female lonely user. Basically, she's not going to really get with her guy friend for whatever reason, but she uses him as a de facto boyfriend, sans the kissing, etc.

But how can a guy be a boyfriend if there's no kissing and no nooky? Well, how can you be "friends with benefits"? By separating the sex from the emotional intimacy and commitment. Friends with benefits have the sexual relationship and may even have some emotional intimacy (hence the "friends" part), but not the commitment. That's 2/3s of Sternberg's Love Triangle (I mean--Triangular Theory of Love). Girls with surrogate boyfriends have at least the emotional intimacy; there may even be some one-sided commitment, but there is no passion. At least not consummated passion. Flirtatiousness--fine. Sex--no-no. In case this is still unclear, here are some of the things a surrogate boyfriend would be expected to do:

1. Listen to girl friend's problems for extended periods of time.
2. Be available at all times to chat.
3. Sit next to girl friend or save girl friend a seat.
4. Accompany girl friend on errands.
5. See and give commentary on her underwear.*
6. Let girl friend hug put her arm around him.
7. Dance with girl friend.
8. But not initiate any touching of girl friend.

*Not necessarily while wearing it.

Numbers 1 through 7 are guidelines for a functional girl-girl friendship, but only if it's two sided. What strikes me as weird about the relationship though, is the unevenness. This list is catering to the girl. It's not that the guy friend isn't getting anything out of the relationship, even if he's not secretly in love with her, but the relationship is primarily dictated by the girl's needs.

Well, yeah, some may say. Girls are needier than guys. Fuck you. But there do seem to be types of girls who "need" a boyfriend--someone to wait on them--literally. My boyfriend's girl friend moved from one long-distance boyfriend to a local one during the peak of their surrogate relationship. At one point, she was going to the city to see a play at night, but had class during the day. Therefore her boyfriend waited for her on campus the whole day. I'm not sure what he was doing. He had a laptop, I think.

We call these types of girls "princesses." They always need to be attended to, even if there is no immediate need, because what if? These princesses imitate the real princesses in the day of yore, when the female sex was considered too delicate to fend for herself, even as she was running her husband's estate. Therefore, she had both female and male attendants--chivalrous knights to pick up their handkerchiefs and whatnot. Not that the knight was supposed to expect anything in return. He was supposed to want to do it because she was so damn beautiful.

Girls, this is outdated thinking. No matter how beautiful you are, it's not okay to treat a guy like crap. It's not okay to receive without giving in return. You are not a princess. Pick up your own damn shit. Get your hands dirty--like a queen.

Here's my real beef with chivalry--it's sexist. Sure, it's nice when a guy makes you walk on the inside of the street for safety or opens doors for you or takes your jacket or pushes your chair in or stands when you enter the room--actually some of those things are annoying. I have to admit I let my boyfriend do the first, but I am kind of unobservant when it comes to traffic, so my safety may actually be a real issue. The other stuff? A non-issue. I know how to operate doors. It's okay if people help you out that way, as long as you help them back in return. Some girls might say this stuff is respectful, but I believe real respect is a two-way street. Chivalry is men treating women differently because of some essential difference, such as delicacy. Do I want my boyfriend to change the my lightbulbs? Yes. He's taller. But in a pinch I can do it myself. Besides, I'll make it up to him by searching for stuff under the furniture. Division of labor.

Even before I connected chivalry with female lonely users (to be fair, I think guys can also be lonely users), I hated it because I view it as a deterrent to feminism. I know it's not an equal argument, but how can women achieve equality with men if they're still holding onto sex-specific privileges? Having a door opened for you is not equivalent to having equal pay in a work environment, but it's the idea that counts. Don't accept any chivalrous bribes! Fight for equality! Even in the dating environment! Go Dutch!

Disclaimer: I allow my boyfriend to steer me to the inside of the street, change my lightbulbs, and carry my bags. I convince myself this is okay because of my deficient traffic awareness and the fact that I am seven inches shorter and 75 pounds lighter than him. I refuse to let him pay more of the rent even though he (currently) makes more money than I do.