Has the cost of living undermined feminism?

[Cormac Donaghey]

This maybe one for the female posters to get their teeth in to.


As we all know, the cost of living in the 26 counties has gone through the roof over the last 5- 10 years. Families are crippled by mortgages, utility bills, ancillary debts, and childcare costs.

Now, one would think that the fact that both partners now have to work to meet the monthly bills/ debts, would assist one of the central goals of feminism, for women to return to the workforce.

What has actually happened is that the two parents now are missing out on crucial quality time with their children and the childcare costs almost render one of the wages pointless.

I constantly hear young women bemoan the fact that they cant spend more time with their children. What impact will this critical situation have in the long term for families

What to do?

[borderlinegenius]

What to do?

3-day weeks for all. Obviously.

[mjcoughlan]

What to do?

Hire a nanny.

[rockofcashel]

What to do?

Hire a nanny.

Then shag her

[Cormac Donaghey]

What to do?

Hire a nanny.

That is only an option in D4 land.

Rock of Cashel. Behave.

[Cormac Donaghey]

What to do?

3-day weeks for all. Obviously.

Yeah. But the employers confederation would probably use EU directives against us there. Remember too, we have a government whose idea of social partnership is to ask workers to take a wage freeze for productivity reasons. They then fool us in to thinking that we are being compensated for this by low income taxes. When in reality our public services are being squeezed in return.

Lets all move to Sweden. Or bring progressive, family orientated policies here.

[smiffy]

This maybe one for the female posters to get their teeth in to.


As we all know, the cost of living in the 26 counties has gone through the roof over the last 5- 10 years. Families are crippled by mortgages, utility bills, ancillary debts, and childcare costs.

Now, one would think that the fact that both partners now have to work to meet the monthly bills/ debts, would assist one of the central goals of feminism, for women to return to the workforce.

What has actually happened is that the two parents now are missing out on crucial quality time with their children and the childcare costs almost render one of the wages pointless.

I constantly hear young women bemoan the fact that they cant spend more time with their children. What impact will this critical situation have in the long term for families

What to do?

It's an interesting question, and while there's no easy answer, it highlights some of the limitations of a certain kind of feminism. The ideal of getting as many women as possible into the workforce was generally only held by a middle-class strand of feminism, who focussed solely on a rather crude, legalistic conception of equal rights. It's premised on the position that women should be equal to men in all respects (which is fair enough) and if only certain constraints and prejudices were taken away, everything would be fine. Of course, this depends on an assumption that everything else in society is acceptable, and that the only change that is needed is in relation to things like equal rates of pay/non-discrimination legislation.

However, as I said, this represents only one kind of feminism (to be crude - the FG/PD/'ladies who lunch' position). Many other feminists would see the struggle for equality for women in the context of other struggles for social justice, such as socialism, anti-racism or disabled rights campaigns. For these, getting more women into work isn't an end in itself. Certainly it's positive to remove the barriers that prevent women for returning to work, and being successful in that environment. But the key is to allow people as much freedom as possible to reach their full potential. This depends on changing a wide range of social structures, of tackling issues like poverty, access to housing, quality childcare and education, efficient public services and many others. It's only by dealing with these for everyone that the problems you highlight can be addressed.

One interesting historical aside that's often overlooked is that International Women's Day was actually originally established as a socialist event, to commemorate the Triangle Factory Fire in New York in 1911, and to protest against low pay and poor working conditions for both women and children in the textile industry in the early 20th Century. I'm not sure if the likes of the IBEC women's groups who appear on the front of The Irish Times every year for their networking coffee mornings, and who would likely have opposed the legislation introduced in the wake of the fire as an unacceptable constraint on competitiveness, and PCGM! , appreciate the irony.

[david]

Why restrict it to females?

Anyway, it's hard to be 100% sympathetic with the situations of couples such as you're thinking of and, without specifics, I can only come up with general solutions. I'm sure many posters have similar suggestions to these:

Maybe they should simply make do with less? Smaller house? One that's not floodlit but is properly insulated? One car? They're in Dublin, so NO car? Take a holiday in Ireland? Stay at home for a holiday? Stop buying ready meals? Use less make-up? Cut down on clothes buying? Do they need plasma tv? A mobile phone? Why buy the latest? Buy a fridge which will last fifteen years, not five? Change the car(s) every five years, not every year? Buy a fuel-efficient model? Walk to the pub? And so on and so forth etc ad nauseum.

The modern industrial economy works like this: resources are dug from a hole in the ground on one side of the planet, used for a few weeks, then dumped in a hole on the other side of the planet. This is known as the Creation of Value. The Creation of Value improves our quality of life. Improvements in our quality of life make us happier. The more we transfer from hole to hole, the happier we become.


Unfortunately, we are not yet transferring enough. According to the Worldwatch Institute, we have used more goods and services since 1950 than in all the rest of human history. But we still don’t seem to be happy. Indeed, over the same period, 25-year-olds in Britain have become ten times more likely to be afflicted by depression. One in four British adults now suffers from a chronic lack of sleep, and one fifth of schoolchildren have psychological problems. Over the past 13 years, mental health insurance claims have risen by 36 per cent. American studies suggest that between 40 and 60 per cent of the population suffers from mental illness in any one year. The World Health Organisation predicts that by 2010 depression will become the second commonest disease in the developed world. Unless we start consuming in earnest, we’ll never experience real joy.

Calls to the Samaritans increase by eight per cent between Christmas and New Year’s Day. But the figures are misleading. The more depressed we are, the more we spend on anti-depressants and alcohol. The more we spend, as any economist will explain to you, the happier we become.

From http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2000...f-consumption/

[Cormac Donaghey]

This maybe one for the female posters to get their teeth in to.


As we all know, the cost of living in the 26 counties has gone through the roof over the last 5- 10 years. Families are crippled by mortgages, utility bills, ancillary debts, and childcare costs.

Now, one would think that the fact that both partners now have to work to meet the monthly bills/ debts, would assist one of the central goals of feminism, for women to return to the workforce.

What has actually happened is that the two parents now are missing out on crucial quality time with their children and the childcare costs almost render one of the wages pointless.

I constantly hear young women bemoan the fact that they cant spend more time with their children. What impact will this critical situation have in the long term for families

What to do?

It's an interesting question, and while there's no easy answer, it highlights some of the limitations of a certain kind of feminism. The ideal of getting as many women as possible into the workforce was generally only held by a middle-class strand of feminism, who focussed solely on a rather crude, legalistic conception of equal rights. It's premised on the position that women should be equal to men in all respects (which is fair enough) and if only certain constraints and prejudices were taken away, everything would be fine. Of course, this depends on an assumption that everything else in society is acceptable, and that the only change that is needed is in relation to things like equal rates of pay/non-discrimination legislation.

However, as I said, this represents only one kind of feminism (to be crude - the FG/PD/'ladies who lunch' position). Many other feminists would see the struggle for equality for women in the context of other struggles for social justice, such as socialism, anti-racism or disabled rights campaigns. For these, getting more women into work isn't an end in itself. Certainly it's positive to remove the barriers that prevent women for returning to work, and being successful in that environment. But the key is to allow people as much freedom as possible to reach their full potential. This depends on changing a wide range of social structures, of tackling issues like poverty, access to housing, quality childcare and education, efficient public services and many others. It's only by dealing with these for everyone that the problems you highlight can be addressed.

One interesting historical aside that's often overlooked is that International Women's Day was actually originally established as a socialist event, to commemorate the Triangle Factory Fire in New York in 1911, and to protest against low pay and poor working conditions for both women and children in the textile industry in the early 20th Century. I'm not sure if the likes of the IBEC women's groups who appear on the front of The Irish Times every year for their networking coffee mornings, and who would likely have opposed the legislation introduced in the wake of the fire as an unacceptable constraint on competitiveness, and PCGM! , appreciate the irony.

Very sharp input,

Mo cara.

You have a fan :wink:

[borderlinegenius]

Yeah. But the employers confederation would probably use EU directives against us there. Remember too, we have a government whose idea of social partnership is to ask workers to take a wage freeze for productivity reasons. They then fool us in to thinking that we are being compensated for this by low income taxes. When in reality our public services are being squeezed in return.

EU directives me arse! Some revolutionary you are, boy.

Seriously though, we're working too much. There are too many of us, there's only so many natural resources to go around, and there are kids who don't see their parents. Does nobody else think such a radical slow down might be clever. Obviously, free-market lunatics need not answer; I know you people believe the planet just keeps on givin'.

Lets all move to Sweden.

Yeah, because it's progressive to take a zero tolerance approach to cannabis. Because a progressive country forcibly sterilises the lesser members of society.

Sweden sux.