As a commemoration of the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day, CBC conducted a special interview with three women from three different generations in Canada: Erin Cardone (25 years old reporter and columnist with the Victoria News), Suromitra Sanatani (47 years old strategic counsel with the law firm HB Global Advisors and former Vice President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business), and Ursula Franklin (89 years old celebrated physicist, feminists, and pacifist). Before the interview, the CBC co-host Anna Maria shared with the audience the findings of Kathleen Lahley, a law professor at Queen’s University who conducted a research on the wage gap between men and women in Canada. Her studies essentially revealed that between 1970s and early 1990s, women made a significant stride forward, earning approximately 72 cents for every dollar a man made. After 1993, however, women started to fall backwards again, earning only 70.4 cents on the dollar. Although for some people the difference might seem minimal, many are concerned that it is still increasing at a constant pace. After this brief introduction on the changing demographics and roles of women, Anna Maria gave an opportunity for all three, intellectually empowered women to express their opinions. Although they all agreed that the Feminist Movement was important, their unique generational gap sheds light on the disparity of feminist’s goal and their incompatible views on women’s participation in the work field.
So, what is the state of feminism? Ursula Franklin thinks the existing wage gap is not a surprising phenomenon at all. For her, it is important to realize that only a few decades ago, the major problem was not even about wages or wage gaps, but about the ¨access¨ women had to opportunities that would even allow her to earn such salary. In this respect, Ursula Franklin thinks women have made an incredible stride over the past few decades, urging us to acknowledge and celebrate such feat despite the warnings of Kathleen Lahley. Suromitra Sanatani agrees with Ursula, but suggested that we should not be complacent with our current state despite the successful advancement of women in the workforce. She cited her personal experience as an example. Suromitra used to be the only women of color in the boardroom. She explained that now there were two of them, but still not enough. Erin Cardone, the youngest women in the group, is by far the least concerned about the wage gap. According to her, men and women have been treated fairly equal and paid the same. She is confident that as the years go by, women will start running more companies and eventually advance their positions. She even exclaimed proudly that individual choice made it more acceptable for women to have a part-time job or a different work week than men. Does this mean that a wage gap is a choice gap then? According to Erin, men and women are inherently different and thus, it is natural for women to want to take time off from their work in order to care for the children. Erin pulled out the so-called “nurturing card”, suggesting how women are more superior, pure, peaceful, and domestic beings that should serve as a “moral compass” and be in charge of revitalizing the home. She is certain that there is nothing wrong with this image, a fact which disconcerts me because it seems like she is oblivious of the “birdcage” she is trapped into.
So, what is the state of feminism? Ursula Franklin thinks the existing wage gap is not a surprising phenomenon at all. For her, it is important to realize that only a few decades ago, the major problem was not even about wages or wage gaps, but about the ¨access¨ women had to opportunities that would even allow her to earn such salary. In this respect, Ursula Franklin thinks women have made an incredible stride over the past few decades, urging us to acknowledge and celebrate such feat despite the warnings of Kathleen Lahley. Suromitra Sanatani agrees with Ursula, but suggested that we should not be complacent with our current state despite the successful advancement of women in the workforce. She cited her personal experience as an example. Suromitra used to be the only women of color in the boardroom. She explained that now there were two of them, but still not enough. Erin Cardone, the youngest women in the group, is by far the least concerned about the wage gap. According to her, men and women have been treated fairly equal and paid the same. She is confident that as the years go by, women will start running more companies and eventually advance their positions. She even exclaimed proudly that individual choice made it more acceptable for women to have a part-time job or a different work week than men. Does this mean that a wage gap is a choice gap then? According to Erin, men and women are inherently different and thus, it is natural for women to want to take time off from their work in order to care for the children. Erin pulled out the so-called “nurturing card”, suggesting how women are more superior, pure, peaceful, and domestic beings that should serve as a “moral compass” and be in charge of revitalizing the home. She is certain that there is nothing wrong with this image, a fact which disconcerts me because it seems like she is oblivious of the “birdcage” she is trapped into.
First of all, her confidence and optimism with the current state of gender equality at the workplace makes me think that she has been deeply influenced by the “female fantasies of power” and large doses of “embedded feminism” which makes her believe that feminists have reached their goals and that women nowadays can do it all. Although the education revolution did launch a record number of women into universities, more women today are continuously paid less than their male counterparts despite having the same degree and qualifications (2). For instance, in 1990, women with university degrees earned 86.8 per cent of what men with the same degree earned. In 2010, according to Statistics Canada, “women with similar degrees were earning 68.3 per cent of what their male counterparts were” (3). Secondly, she considers women’s preference to work part-time in order to take care of the children as a “personal choice”. Although there is nothing wrong with the desire to spend more time with one’s own children, Erin sees a woman’s ability to choose a different work schedule than a man as an advantage that suits her needs to do a job that she was told only a woman can do best. However, as Ursula points out, “Do we really want to live in an environment where men have the choice to take care of the family but don’t, but women should?¨ In a way, Erin’s comment feeds into the patriarchal system, described by Johnson, that identifies men as the norm and thereby the most important members of society. To what extent is choosing to be responsible of child rearing a free choice? Similar to our discussion about labiaplasty in class, do women really “choose” to undergo that painful surgery like the way they “choose” to work part-time simply because they can afford it? In either case, the women like Erin are tricked into believing that a choose of their choice mean that they have reached the pinnacle of feminism. Paired with “embedded sexism” then, it doesn’t matter if the woman wants to work half-time, have 10 children, get labiaplasty, and wear miniskirts as long as “they” chose to do so. Little do they know that it is only an illusion created by the external and subtle forces of a patriarchal system that traps women behind the invisible bars of “the birdcage.” Women ultimately undergo labiaplasty in order to please the man, to meet their desires of being normal and to look like a virgin because they are scorned and looked as deviant if they don’t. Likewise, women are penalized with a lesser wage for wanting to rear children.
Towards the end of the interview Erin concluded that “feminism is partly responsible for a contingent of overworked, overburdened, and overachieving, and therefore very unhappy young women today”, like her. She explained that there were too many pressures coming towards women to become good managers, good wives, good girlfriends, do child rearing, housework, etc. (like the “supergirl” described by Susan Douglas). Ursula responded astutely, saying that feminism was not “an employment agency for women.” Rather, the goal of the feminist movement was meant to find accommodations for women with a better pay than being merely a housewife. I agree with Ursula when she said that the real problem was that woman today are frustrated because they see themselves as infiltrating a system.This is why Ursula (and in a lesser degree Suromitra) urges us to examine closely at the social structures that are causing this tendency, making Ursula a radical feminist like Brownmiller who wanted “a total transfiguration of society- politics, business, child-rearing, sex, romance, housework, entertainment, academics.” Ursula sees the need of working outside the system.
The takeaway message from this interview created by the disparate values of different women separated by various generations is that “ there’s nothing wrong with women, but there’s a lot wrong with the rest of the world.” Despite the great strides women have made in history, we are still very stereotyped in the workplace. Personally, I believe it is crucial to understand why women are losing ground after decades of successful advancement. If, what Ursula says is true then, it must mean that we must demolish the system or work outside of it, rather than infiltrate it and working around it. The responses of Erin, coupled with our knowledge of “embedded feminism” really confirms the idea that women seem to be stuck in a vicious cycle where the forces of patriarchy always get the best of us.
Works Cited
Douglas, Susan. Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s
Work is Done. New York: Times Books, 2010. Print.
Marilyn Frye, “Oppression,” from The Politics of Reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment