Re: Learned Helplessness, Spouse Abuse (long)

May 15, 2001

> In a message dated 5/14/01 12:21:37 AM US Eastern Standard Time,

> ahicks@s... writes:

>

> In every single culture, males are more violent than females. Men

are the

> warrior class in nearly every community of peoples. They commit

more

> homicides. And yes, SES plays a role, but the fact remains that

young women

> in the same SES do not commit these crimes of violence at anything

remotely

> like their male counterparts.

Hi again,

My belief is that this is an issue with two parts. Part of it is

that, yes, males are in a very general sense, more aggressive. I

still think that America is special in this regard and places a high

value on violence to solve problems. It's a tradition...consider,

labor violence, racial conflict, Indian wars, feuds, lynch mobs,

organized crime...the list goes on and on of historical violence that

has become a part of our culture. My book goes into a segment on

" frontier tradition " and it is still a tradition to take the law into

one's own hands. Violence is THE way to sidestep accomodation and

America has the highest homicide rate of any industrialized nation, by

far.

>

> >>This is a personal issue for me. I always worked, I do have a

B.A.,

> but nothing further than that. We made the decision that I would

stay

> home and take care of the kiddos and I've been out of the workforce

> for a few years now. If I were to go back in now, I would be faced

> with clerical work or support work, which is a big reason why I'm

> going back to school. If it came up today, I'd be smack in the

middle

> of Welfare. <<

>

> But this is exactly why women earn less than men.

???? And how does this bolster your position? Why is it that it is

common and accepted that the woman will make all the sacrifices in the

job field for the kiddos?

It is not because

women

> are paid less for the same hours of the same work as men with the

same skills

> and seniority.

Really? I hate to be sarcastic here, but this happens ALL the time,

even leaving babies completely out of the picture. Not only are women

paid less for the same work, with the same seniority and etc., they

are *still* much less likely to get the higher paying traditionally

male dominated jobs. A blatant example of this happened on my last

job where a man was hired a full year after I was and was doing work

with far less responsibility than I had - yet he came in at a wage

that was 25% higher than my wage was. (Actually, this was another

chink in the AA wall, because I couldn't " turn it over " and fought it

instead).

When I was trying to figure out which avenue to take to improve our

current situation I looked seriously at the skilled trades, the

" trades. " These are things such as electrician, plumber, carpenter,

etc. The stats on these jobs are downright depressing. In 20 years

the percentage of women in these jobs changed less than one percent

and is now at just over 2%. This is the " concrete floor " as opposed

to the glass ceiling, which many women are now able to penetrate. The

reasons given for why these numbers are so bad are typical - that the

work requires strength and is dirty, etc. Yet at the same time, women

are frequently shunted into jobs such as medical aide where the work

is just as heavy and quite a bit dirtier. These jobs pay *hit for

wages and so do most office jobs and support jobs, although some of

them require quite a lot of skill.

Women *opt to go on mommy track, and to take jobs

that allow

> them to put children and home first, far more often than men do. I

made that

> choice, and didn't graduate from law school until I was 37,

precisely because

> it took me many years to finish college while raising three sons.

That I'm

> now 44 and not earning a half million dollars a year as a partner in

a major

> law firm is largely a result of my own choices. I still choose not

to work

> 70 hours per week, because I want my grandchildren to know me as

Gramma Mona

> who baby-sits them and kisses their owies, and not as some distant

lawyer

> they seldom see.

My " mommy track " came late in life and one reason we " chose " this

option is because it was the only practical choice to make. I had

expected to be back in the workforce quite awhile before now--until I

did the math on it. In all reality, this is the first time it truly

came home to me what I was facing. A *moderately* priced daycare in

my area costs $425 per child per month. Oh, and an extra $90.00 if

the child isn't potty trained. So right there, that is $940 per month

for full time child care. The cheapest in-home care I could find

around here was still $5.00/hour for 2 kids, but I wouldn't have put

my kids there if my life depended on it.

Yes, I could cover that working full time - with probably $600 - $700

left over. But with the tax bite, and other working costs I wouldn't

gain much and would lose the time with my kids. Actually, IMO, if

more people did the math I think more moms would stay home with their

kids.

Women having children has been an excuse to pay them less, but I don't

follow the logic there. Why does all of it fall to women? Is it all

because of choices she made in your view? Perhaps the ultimate

" choice " to make here is to remain childless?

>

> >>As an experiment, leave a baby with it's father. When no one is

> watching, see how he loves his baby when he is free to do so.<<

>

> Of course this is true. But by and large, women are more patient

with young

> children. Men do not opt to work in day-care centers, or to be

kindergarten

> teachers, at nearly the rates women *choose to do so. Women feel an

> instinctive impulse to nurture and lavish affection on little ones.

I think this is just stereotypes that uphold the status quo. Women

don't have a corner on the market on patience, or maternal " instinct "

(an idea that is largely BS, everyone has to learn how to take care of

kids, mothers included). Men don't " opt " to work in daycare centers

because the pay is crap and they have far better options (along with

the cultural idea that " men don't do that. " ) Start giving those women

working there pay and status in our society and watch the males come

in droves.

Men are

> far less delighted with them, particularly when the tots are not

theirs.

This is the *HIGHEST* incidence of child abuse, but I don't follow how

this negates anything I'm saying.

In

> virtually ever culture women are the primary nurturers of small

children.

> Something that universal can't have come about because, by some wild

> coincidence, every culture has imposed a role on women that they are

no more

> suited to than are men.

No, this isn't what I'm getting at. There are many reasons why it is

more frequent for women to do the childraising. However, there are

different values put on it in various cultures. Here, you are

considered very low status if you engage in this. I remember I was at

a symposium about sustainable business. Another person came up to me

and asked me my profession. When I said (what do I say? Homemaker?

FT Mommy? Housewife? - all the words seem fairly inadequate and I

always want to duck my head), he actually turned on his heel and

walked away. Why is that? Garbage " Handlers " get more respect.

My own personal joke is that as my life has progressed my

responsibilities have increased exponentially, while my pay has

decreased to nothing.

And, I truly believe that if all people could follow their hearts,

they'd do some childraising, some earning, some of whatever. We are

really polarized here and have very defined and isolating roles.

>

> >>I don't believe you are seriously ascribing to the idea that the

> children that are raised by a single parent are inadequately

raised.

> I certainly don't believe they are. While I agree that it is a lot

to

> take on (amen), it doesn't follow that children are necessarily best

> raised by both parents. This is an individual family situation.<<

>

> Children are best raised by two parents. That makes for optimal

outcome.

I've seen too many exceptions to this to allow it as a rule.

> From that it does not follow that children raised by single parents

are

> raised poorly. But having both a mother and father figure is

psychologically

> and financially beneficial.

Provided that they are both relatively stable, loving, etc., etc. If

they are not, well that changes the picture. And this example was

originally given in the context of why women (I am going to stick with

women here because they have shown that men DO leave) don't leave

abusive relationships. Some women would stay with an abuser because

of the myth that this situation was still better than what she could

provide on her own for her children. That needs to be seriously

questioned.

Indeed, some sociologists have

concluded that

> part of the pathology among young black males results from the

absence of

> father figures, which is why some African Americans have attempted

to

> implement schools exclusively for black boys with an all-male

teaching staff.

> (These schools have faced legal challenges for excluding black

girls and

> female teachers.)

Hmmmm, I'd be interested in finding the source for that. I read a

book a couple of years ago that totally convinced me that the " male

role model " desirability was a myth that can be taken way too far. I

can't remember the author at the moment however.

In fact, I can't think at all at the moment. I'm too tired and will

have to catch you tomorrow.

See you,

May 15, 2001

At 10:20 PM 5/14/01 +0000, you wrote:

>Interestingly, there used to be a law in Wisconsin that required every

>ladies' room to have a bed (because women were such weak, fragile

>creatures). Guess who got rid of it? Feminists.

My father, an insurance salesman, also told me that it was feminists

who demanded unisex insurance rates -- even though the previous

sex-specific rates had *favored* women. As with other mammals,

the female of our species tends to live a bit longer than the male.

But apparently the earlier feminists really meant it when they talked

about wanting equal treatment.

May 15, 2001

At 10:20 PM 5/14/01 +0000, you wrote:

>Interestingly, there used to be a law in Wisconsin that required every

>ladies' room to have a bed (because women were such weak, fragile

>creatures). Guess who got rid of it? Feminists.

My father, an insurance salesman, also told me that it was feminists

who demanded unisex insurance rates -- even though the previous

sex-specific rates had *favored* women. As with other mammals,

the female of our species tends to live a bit longer than the male.

But apparently the earlier feminists really meant it when they talked

about wanting equal treatment.

May 15, 2001

At 10:20 PM 5/14/01 +0000, you wrote:

>Interestingly, there used to be a law in Wisconsin that required every

>ladies' room to have a bed (because women were such weak, fragile

>creatures). Guess who got rid of it? Feminists.

My father, an insurance salesman, also told me that it was feminists

who demanded unisex insurance rates -- even though the previous

sex-specific rates had *favored* women. As with other mammals,

the female of our species tends to live a bit longer than the male.

But apparently the earlier feminists really meant it when they talked

about wanting equal treatment.

May 15, 2001

At 09:40 PM 5/14/01 -0400, you wrote:

>Interesting issue, how women identify with feminism today. Now these

>are just the observations of an average Joe ...

>

>Seems that many women no longer want to be identified with the term

> " feminist " . I'm sure that doesn't mean the cause is finished.

>Presumably, the ideas of some current feminist groups, and the

>perceptions they foster, are not aligned with the average woman's

>life.

For me it started back in the 80's. I still considered myself a

feminist then, but was nonetheless disturbed by some aspects

of the movement. The kicker was my gradual realization that

(at that time) only lesbians were considered " real " feminists.

Straight feminists would complain about this, and the leaders

would assure them that you didn't have to be a lesbian as long

as you were a " woman-identified woman. " So of course

" woman-identified " promptly became a synonym for " lesbian. "

Weird stuff.

I don't think you have to be a lesbian any more to be " real. "

Apparently the focus now is on homemakers, or SAHMs to

use the cutesy modern term. Whatever.

>I wonder, do you (women) feel that you've thereby lost a connection

>with any kind of centralized " movement " ? Do you personally feel

>suitably empowered now?

I don't usually sit around worrying about whether or not I'm

suitably empowered. I just live my life.

I guess that means I'm empowered enough. I don't deal with much

significant oppression. I run into the occasional bozo who thinks

that condescension is the way to impress a woman, but I'm more

likely to think of him as a jackass than as a sexist.

> I'm guessing you couldn't be satisfied with

>the lack of progress of late - pay equity being one example. The

>government's attempt to rectify pay equity here in Canada somehow

>went quietly up in smoke some years ago.

There is no longer a sex gap in pay, at least in the USA. There is

a mother gap, though. Women who reproduce tend to devote less

time to their careers afterwards, so don't get paid as much or

advance as fast. This skews the stats and makes it look like

there's still a sex gap if you just compare all men to all women.

But women who have no children earn the same salary as men

in similar positions.

I'm not sure there's a whole lot to be done about that. I certainly

don't favor forcing employers to pay more to employees who

aren't doing the same work. The inevitable result of that would

be a return of reluctance to hire women at all, because she'd

probably just have a baby.

Look at the situation in Germany. Employers are legally required

to grant *two years* of *paid* maternity leave to new mothers.

German employers are understandably reluctant to hire women

in the childbearing years. And who can blame them?

>Thinking back say, to the heroic campaigning of Gloria Steinem, she

>was thought of by many as too radical, and yet looking back, her role

>(and many others') was essential for the movement as a whole, and

>intellectually indisputable as we look at it in hindsight. What I'm

>getting at is, with any movement, there's probably a radical front,

>but also a united majority with the same cause if not the same

>methods. So what is the nature of the feminist united majority today?

Are you so sure there is one?

Seems to me that, as with many labor unions, the feminist movement

just didn't go away after solving the problems it originally arose to

solve. So it keeps shambling around inventing new problems to

yell about.

Many situations these days seem to favor women. Some still

favor men. That's life.

I'd be embarrassed to demand the special treatment that today's

feminists are demanding. And wanting special favors seems to

be the only feminist issue left.

May 15, 2001

At 09:40 PM 5/14/01 -0400, you wrote:

>Interesting issue, how women identify with feminism today. Now these

>are just the observations of an average Joe ...

>

>Seems that many women no longer want to be identified with the term

> " feminist " . I'm sure that doesn't mean the cause is finished.

>Presumably, the ideas of some current feminist groups, and the

>perceptions they foster, are not aligned with the average woman's

>life.

For me it started back in the 80's. I still considered myself a

feminist then, but was nonetheless disturbed by some aspects

of the movement. The kicker was my gradual realization that

(at that time) only lesbians were considered " real " feminists.

Straight feminists would complain about this, and the leaders

would assure them that you didn't have to be a lesbian as long

as you were a " woman-identified woman. " So of course

" woman-identified " promptly became a synonym for " lesbian. "

Weird stuff.

I don't think you have to be a lesbian any more to be " real. "

Apparently the focus now is on homemakers, or SAHMs to

use the cutesy modern term. Whatever.

>I wonder, do you (women) feel that you've thereby lost a connection

>with any kind of centralized " movement " ? Do you personally feel

>suitably empowered now?

I don't usually sit around worrying about whether or not I'm

suitably empowered. I just live my life.

I guess that means I'm empowered enough. I don't deal with much

significant oppression. I run into the occasional bozo who thinks

that condescension is the way to impress a woman, but I'm more

likely to think of him as a jackass than as a sexist.

> I'm guessing you couldn't be satisfied with

>the lack of progress of late - pay equity being one example. The

>government's attempt to rectify pay equity here in Canada somehow

>went quietly up in smoke some years ago.

There is no longer a sex gap in pay, at least in the USA. There is

a mother gap, though. Women who reproduce tend to devote less

time to their careers afterwards, so don't get paid as much or

advance as fast. This skews the stats and makes it look like

there's still a sex gap if you just compare all men to all women.

But women who have no children earn the same salary as men

in similar positions.

I'm not sure there's a whole lot to be done about that. I certainly

don't favor forcing employers to pay more to employees who

aren't doing the same work. The inevitable result of that would

be a return of reluctance to hire women at all, because she'd

probably just have a baby.

Look at the situation in Germany. Employers are legally required

to grant *two years* of *paid* maternity leave to new mothers.

German employers are understandably reluctant to hire women

in the childbearing years. And who can blame them?

>Thinking back say, to the heroic campaigning of Gloria Steinem, she

>was thought of by many as too radical, and yet looking back, her role

>(and many others') was essential for the movement as a whole, and

>intellectually indisputable as we look at it in hindsight. What I'm

>getting at is, with any movement, there's probably a radical front,

>but also a united majority with the same cause if not the same

>methods. So what is the nature of the feminist united majority today?

Are you so sure there is one?

Seems to me that, as with many labor unions, the feminist movement

just didn't go away after solving the problems it originally arose to

solve. So it keeps shambling around inventing new problems to

yell about.

Many situations these days seem to favor women. Some still

favor men. That's life.

I'd be embarrassed to demand the special treatment that today's

feminists are demanding. And wanting special favors seems to

be the only feminist issue left.

May 15, 2001

Really? I hate to be sarcastic here, but this happens ALL the time, even leaving babies completely out of the picture. Not only are women paid less for the same work, with the same seniority and etc., they are *still* much less likely to get the higher paying traditionally male dominated jobs.

I'm sorry, but I find this almost impossible to believe. It is against the law to pay men and women differentially for the same job, and I am aware of no company that does so, much less companies that "do it all the time." As a lawyer who has some expertise in employment discrimination law, I would be absolutely delighted to learn of scads of situations like this, since my share of the recovery would be sizable.

A blatant example of this happened on my last

job where a man was hired a full year after I was and was doing work with far less responsibility than I had - yet he came in at a wage that was 25% higher than my wage was. (Actually, this was another chink in the AA wall, because I couldn't "turn it over" and fought it instead).

Sounds to me as tho this is a situation in which there is a subjective difference of opinion as to what work entails more responsibility, and should be more highly compensated. If you sought the same position, knowing it paid more highly than your current one, and were refused consideration on the basis of gender, then that is illegal gender discrimination. But it is not illegal to pay a man a higher amount for a job that compensates at a higher level than yours, just because some might feel your position should pay equally.

>>This is the "concrete floor" as opposed to the glass ceiling, which many women are now able to penetrate. The reasons given for why these numbers are so bad are typical - that the work requires strength and is dirty, etc. <<

Very few women wish to be plumbers. Some do, but not nearly as many per capita as males. If trade schools were discriminating against female applicants in the plumbing program, that would be illegal gender discrimination. But the fact is, women do not, in general, aspire to be plumbers.

>> Yet at the same time, women are frequently shunted into jobs such as medical aide where the work is just as heavy and quite a bit dirtier. <<

Honestly, I laughed reading this. Have you ever seen plumbers digging out a basement pipe clogged with huge amounts of dirt, human excrement, piss, used tampons, and general gross and putrid crud? It is the single most foul chore I can imagine, and I'd rather do almost anything else, including digging out impacted bowels of old people as a med tech aide.

If women wish to do the plumbing work, the trade schools should allow them too. If they do not, that is illegal discrimination. If women instead choose to become med tech aides (who is "shunting" them, are you suggesting they are incapable of making their own choices?), they should be free to do so.

>>Women having children has been an excuse to pay them less, but I don't follow the logic there. Why does all of it fall to women? Is it all because of choices she made in your view? Perhaps the ultimate "choice" to make here is to remain childless?<<

No, no. Women are not paid less because they had children. They are paid less because they opt for jobs with fewer responsibilities, and do not acquire the seniority at the same level as men because some of them drop out, or go down to half time, to raise children. These choices result in being less competitive in rising up the corporate ladder. And yes, if she does not wish to make the trade-off between nurturing her children and putting in 60-70 hour weeks to make partner, then she should seriously consider remaining childless.

>>Women don't have a corner on the market on patience, or maternal "instinct" (an idea that is largely BS, everyone has to learn how to take care of kids, mothers included). Men don't "opt" to work in daycare centers because the pay is crap and they have far better options (along with the cultural idea that "men don't do that.") Start giving those women working there pay and status in our society and watch the males come in droves.<<

There is much, much evidence from evolutionary biologists that women are hard-wired to nurture babies and the young, because for most of human existence the species would not have survived if they lacked the urge and intense interest in to nursing them, caring for them, and protecting them.

There is a reason why women staying home and tending to the children has been the norm in virtually every culture known to humanity. Mere socialization cannot, by wild coincidence, be the reason for this, since it defies statistical probability.

--Mona--

May 15, 2001