The Lure of Opulent Desolation

[PrettySquareGal]

Most revolutions are led by the educated and "elite" if you like.

I've always thought of most revolutions as being led by the disenfranchised revolting against the ruling classes/governments. At least that's how it usually went in my history books.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And as for the other poster who felt that I somehow insulted cannery workers, I would think they would be the first to tell me their job is limited. If they wish to stay there, it is because of their own choice now.

I would hope all cannery workers everywhere have some hope of a better job. But if they like it fine, great.

Well, would only that it were so simple. As it happens, the canning industry collapsed here in the '90s, and we were left with a mostly female, middle-aged labor force that had never been prepared for anything else -- because, again, the idea of "choice" was simply not a part of the culture they were raised in. You grew up, you got a job at the cannery or on the docks, you raised your family, you paid your bills, you got old, and you died. This was the pattern of life for generations -- and to talk to these folks about "exploring new opportunities and taking advantage of their options" was like talking to them in Sanskrit.

And, again, this is where feminism lost these women -- by simply not understanding that they led entirely different kind of lives than the ones they themselves were rebelling against. A revolution that restricts its benefits to the elite is hardly worth the name.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

Well, would only that it were so simple. As it happens, the canning industry collapsed here in the '90s, and we were left with a mostly middle-aged labor force that had never been prepared for anything else -- because, again, the idea of "preparing for a better life" was simply not a part of the culture they were raised in. You grew up, you got a job at the cannery or on the docks, you raised your family, you paid your bills, you got old, and you died. This was the pattern of life for generations -- and to talk to these folks about "exploring new opportunities and taking advantage of their options" was like talking to them in Sanskrit.

And, again, this is where feminism lost these women -- by simply not understanding that they led entirely different kind of lives than the ones they themselves were rebelling against. A revolution that restricts its benefits to the elite is hardly worth the name.

I just deleted my reply I was about to post since yours is far more eloquent. Well said.

 

[just_me]

LizzieMaine- I don't think you can diminish the positive impact the women's movement had because the people in your area continued to do what had always been done. The movement gave them options if they were willing to move out of their comfort zone and try to attain them.

The women's movement didn't restrict its benefits to the elite. I'm confused. What should they have done - pulled the women in your town out of the canneries and pushed them to other opportunities?

I grew up in the projects in NYC. No one's parents had been to college. My mother and my friends' working mothers were secretaries*. Fathers were blue collar workers. My friends and I were involved with the women's movement, went to college, had careers (because we wanted to, not because "men made us work"), married, some had children, and lived/live pretty happy lives.

I think my life would have been more limited and I would have been resentful if the women's movement hadn't occurred.

*Re: secretaries. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a secretary if you make the choice to do that because you want to be a secretary. It's a different story when there are not many options available to you so you settle for that option because you don't have many choices.

 

[reetpleat]

Well, would only that it were so simple. As it happens, the canning industry collapsed here in the '90s, and we were left with a mostly female, middle-aged labor force that had never been prepared for anything else -- because, again, the idea of "choice" was simply not a part of the culture they were raised in. You grew up, you got a job at the cannery or on the docks, you raised your family, you paid your bills, you got old, and you died. This was the pattern of life for generations -- and to talk to these folks about "exploring new opportunities and taking advantage of their options" was like talking to them in Sanskrit.

And, again, this is where feminism lost these women -- by simply not understanding that they led entirely different kind of lives than the ones they themselves were rebelling against. A revolution that restricts its benefits to the elite is hardly worth the name.

I agree with you there. My point was only that I reject the idea that while yes, there is no shame to working in a cannery, or other menial hard work, it is somehow not okay to suggest that it is not a dream job.

You are very right about the life situations about these women. And you may be right about them not being included by the feminist movement. I don't know. Perhaps it ws partially being ignored and partially choosing not to join. That is a discussion in itself.

But you can't make the leap that if the feminist movement did not take them into account, that it failed them or was a disaster. It may well be that the feminist movement brought positive change to their lives, on purpose or collateraly. In fact, I would say that is surely has in some ways. Has it failed them in others? Perhaps, by not doing enough for them. But in what way has it hurt them? It certainly wsn't the women's movement that closed down the canneries.

I can understand a criticism of the "movement" in not including them. But that hardly makes it a negative or bad. It just may not have been as good as it could have been. But what is.

It can be argued that the civil rights movement was led and inhabitted by black middle class and was not inclusive enough of the working class blacks. Or latinos, or women. But is that enough to denounce it?

but I definitely see your point, and a big part of it is that while culture changed a lot, it did not necesserily change that much for thethe people of your area.

 

[reetpleat]

I've always thought of most revolutions as being led by the disenfranchised revolting against the ruling classes/governments. At least that's how it usually went in my history books.

some of the more expert at history than I might have some insight. But generally, it seems to me, that while the numbers of a revolution is the masses, the leaders tend to be intellectuals, if not from the elite, at least well educated intelligentia.

am I wrong?

 

[LizzieMaine]

LizzieMaine- I don't think you can diminish the positive impact the women's movement had because the people in your area continued to do what had always been done. The movement gave them options if they were willing to move out of their comfort zone and try to attain them.

The women's movement didn't restrict its benefits to the elite. I'm confused. What should they have done - pulled the women in your town out of the canneries and pushed them to other opportunities?
.

I don't deny that there have been benefits -- I simply don't see them as all-encompassing. I agree that, for example, Title IX was a fine and appropriate thing for girls with athletic ability and ambitions, but it honestly didn't do *me* a lick of good. All I can remember is how mortified I was when they told us they weren't allowed to segregate gym classes by sex anymore -- meaning I'd have to display my utter lack of physical coordination in front of snickering boys. Feh.

Seriously, though, what I believe the second wavers should have done -- and they didn't-- is speak to working class women in their own language, and to understand that their situations, their concerns, and their issues were not those of a frustrated housewife from New Rochelle. They should have understood, for starters, that for these women, the idea of "staying at home with the kids" would have been an unimaginable privilege, not a stultifying burden to be thrown off. That alone alienated -- and continues to alienate -- millions of women who might otherwise have been responsive to what they were trying to accomplish.

 

[I'mSuzyParker]

Well, would only that it were so simple. As it happens, the canning industry collapsed here in the '90s, and we were left with a mostly female, middle-aged labor force that had never been prepared for anything else -- because, again, the idea of "choice" was simply not a part of the culture they were raised in. You grew up, you got a job at the cannery or on the docks, you raised your family, you paid your bills, you got old, and you died. This was the pattern of life for generations -- and to talk to these folks about "exploring new opportunities and taking advantage of their options" was like talking to them in Sanskrit.

And, again, this is where feminism lost these women -- by simply not understanding that they led entirely different kind of lives than the ones they themselves were rebelling against. A revolution that restricts its benefits to the elite is hardly worth the name.

LizzieMaine - your comment is awesome - YOU should write editorials. It's so easy to say this opportunity or that, etc. when there's an entire population of people who have never had an opportunity - so, easy to fault women for making the "wrong" choice, when they never had one to begin with.

 

[Foofoogal]

because we wanted to, not because "men made us work")

for clarification purposes only. My point is now( not then) there are men now that completely expect their woman to work. So no choice and so I see that as womens lib making it harder for women, not easier.
A lot of women also for that matter expect women to work.

 

[I'mSuzyParker]

for clarification purposes only. My point is now( not then) there are men now that completely expect their woman to work. So no choice and so I see that as womens lib making it harder for women, not easier.
A lot of women also for that matter expect women to work.

Foofoogal, thanks for articulating what I tried to a few days ago. I think there is an attitude today that if a woman does not work outside of the home, she doesn't count and that's absolutely ridiculous. No one's worth should be determined by whether they work at home or out of the home, what they make, etc. Personally, I don't think anyone could afford to pay a stay-at-home mom.

 

[ShoreRoadLady]

They should have understood, for starters, that for these women, the idea of "staying at home with the kids" would have been an unimaginable privilege, not a stultifying burden to be thrown off.

Sidestepping the debate for a moment, this is an excellent example of my great-grandmother's situation. I don't know enough family history to know exactly why or when she started working at a factory, but she did, and I suspect it was out of financial necessity, not any great desire to do factory work. She probably would've loved to be at home with her kids, who were quite young during that period.

 

[John Boyer]

[

QUOTE]

I don't deny that there have been benefits -- I simply don't see them as all-encompassing. I agree that, for example, Title IX was a fine and appropriate thing for girls with athletic ability and ambitions, but it honestly didn't do *me* a lick of good. All I can remember is how mortified I was when they told us they weren't allowed to segregate gym classes by sex anymore -- meaning I'd have to display my utter lack of physical coordination in front of snickering boys. Feh.

Similarly, perhaps, my wife points out that growing up on a Missouri farm the benefits of a Title IX program would have had little value. Her brothers and sisters had after school and weekend obligations to the family farming operation. This just wouldn't have been a viable option, regardless of the meaningful intent. Of course, natural changes in society and industry--aside from Academic Feminism--have played a very big role in creating, in my opinion, these opportunities for woman. And in some cases, even men.

Incidentally, my wife is +50, has two college degrees and was successfully employed in corporate America prior to electing to become a "stay at home mom" about 18 years ago. Today, we are raising two girls, 14 and 18 years of age. Of course, she deserves most of the credit. John

 

[Widebrim]

some of the more expert at history than I might have some insight. But generally, it seems to me, that while the numbers of a revolution is the masses, the leaders tend to be intellectuals, if not from the elite, at least well educated intelligentia.

am I wrong?

No, you are correct. Examples: American, French, Latin American (most), Russian Revolutions. Even the darling of many leftist and/or ignorant people, Che' Guevara, was originally an elitist Argentinian before he went to Cuba. The intelligentsia usually lead, and the masses follow.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

LizzieMaine- I don't think you can diminish the positive impact the women's movement had because the people in your area continued to do what had always been done. The movement gave them options if they were willing to move out of their comfort zone and try to attain them.

The women's movement didn't restrict its benefits to the elite. I'm confused. What should they have done - pulled the women in your town out of the canneries and pushed them to other opportunities?

I grew up in the projects in NYC. No one's parents had been to college. My mother and my friends' working mothers were secretaries*. Fathers were blue collar workers. My friends and I were involved with the women's movement, went to college, had careers (because we wanted to, not because "men made us work"), married, some had children, and lived/live pretty happy lives.

I think my life would have been more limited and I would have been resentful if the women's movement hadn't occurred.

*Re: secretaries. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a secretary if you make the choice to do that because you want to be a secretary. It's a different story when there are not many options available to you so you settle for that option because you don't have many choices.

I, too, grew up in a NYC government subsidized housing project, and was raised by as single mother who worked as a secretary. I did however go to an elite private school via a scholarship. I then went on to college, earned my degree and then went on to graduate school where I worked my way through with an assistantship and workstudy and earned my second degree.

In college I identified myself as a feminist, and I still do. I led consciousness raising groups and wrote articles for the local feminist rag. I went through different phases back then. I read Bell Hooks and refused to wear any makeup whatsoever- I thought that was a form of putting patriarchy on my face. (Ah, youth.) Years (not saying how many) later, I am grateful to the though provoking lessons and now know that I am my own woman who can choose do or wear whatever I want-- NOT because of feminism, but because I grew a set. lol

Do I attribute my education and current career to feminism? Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with the opportunities I had. Do I attribute some of my misery in my 20's to (my perceptions of) feminism? YES! I made some decisions not based upon what I truly wanted, for fear of not being feminist enough. I secretly loved pink and lipstick and pearls and June Cleaver- crimes, if you will. lol

Also, having lived in NYC and now in Maine, I can tell you that there is no comparison to urban versus rural poverty when it comes to opportunity. It's not a fair comparison- in NYC you have many options open to you. In a small rural town you're stuck with the few resources you have. You can't just hop on the subway or walk ten blocks applying for work in each place you pass. The whole culture is different.

 

[Mojito]

Foofoogal, thanks for articulating what I tried to a few days ago. I think there is an attitude today that if a woman does not work outside of the home, she doesn't count and that's absolutely ridiculous. No one's worth should be determined by whether they work at home or out of the home, what they make, etc. Personally, I don't think anyone could afford to pay a stay-at-home mom.

I absolutely agree that no one's worth should be determined on whether they stay at home or not, whether they pursue a career, whether they decide to have children etc. Sadly, I've heard from stay-at-home mums that they feel their work with their family (performing an incredibly valuable role that should be recognised and valued by society) is often ignored or even actively denigrated by some men and women. Those who have never tried it have even been known to pass comments on how easy it is, sometimes wondering what homemakers could possibly do with all that time on their hands when, for example, the kids are at school!

Unfortunately the flip side is true as well. My sister has sometimes worked part time and also studied as a mother and homemaker. She's a very gentle woman, and she has been heartbroken by the snide comments she's received from some mothers who choose not to work. Even some of her inlaws have been very critical in her presence of mothers who work part or full time (even those who had no choice because of financial pressures *but* to work). And I have had some very intrusive personal questions put to me about my own decision not to marry and have children, facing insinuations and outright suggestions about my biological clock, or even that my decision to devote myself to my career and enjoy my current lifestyle is wrong (regardless of the fact that yes, I have been in steady relationships, I was once engaged to someone who wanted to marry and have kids, and I made a very personal decision not to go ahead with that life).

Feminism is a broad umberella term encompassing many schools of thought - radical feminism, liberal feminism, socialist feminism, cultural feminism etc etc (and some would add the lipstick feminists of the third wave!). I was brought up with a simple definition: it was about choice. This came from my mother and grandmother, who regretted the choices they did not have in their early lives, and the limitations they faced. My mother was one of those second wave feminists, although she didn't fit the militant stereotype of the radical feminist that still defines the movement for many. She didn't march, she didn't burn bras (nor did many others - that's more emblematic urban legend than truth), she didn't rant through a megaphone. She certainly wasn't one of the elite. But she, like so many other women, quietly worked away to expand the options for both herself and for her daughters. While admiring some of the aethethics of the 50s, she has no desire to relive it (and is a little bemused by those who wish to do so). Growing up and gaining her education in the 40s and 50s she achieved a great deal, but she also found the career she wanted denied to her.

My father, too, supported feminist principles. For him, it was a matter of common sense. As Chief of Staff of one of two major Sydney papers in the 1950s/60s, he increased the number of women on the editorial team to something like a 40/60 ratio (and would have increased it more if he hadn't faced intractable resistance frome male colleagues). He did this not out of tokenism, but because he was hiring the best people for the job. He discovered that many women were returning to the workforce after raising their children, and that they were extremely literate and made excellent sub-editors. And he saw no reason why these women should not also have equal pay. Thank goodness he wasn't happy with the status quo!

Lizzie raises an important point about those that the social movement has not reached (except, perhaps, in some instances through a trickle down effect). Socialist feminists would have argued that it was necessary to liberate both the men and women of the working class in order to achieve true freedom of choice for all, but I doubt many women (or men, for that matter) would have related to the socialist ideology argued in academic circles. While feminism liberated many middle class women like my mother (and left a legacy that women like myself enjoy and are grateful for), there are many for whom it would be largely irrelevant, like many, if not most, political/social movements. Not only many of these women, but also many of the men, are bound by a lack of what seem to be viable options. Theoretically they can break the cycle, but the reality is often very different. This is not just a failure of feminism - it is a failure of society, and it affects both genders.

As always, though, it's important not to over generalise (or patronise working class men and women!). I've worked with, and developed quite a few friendships with, women who come from working class origins who are avowed feminists and who defend their right to a choice with great passion. One of my greatest cronies comes from an underprivileged area of Sydney and comes from generations of poverty. She is an autodidact of the first order who has shrugged off any suggestion from her circle of being a class traitor (she is now the pride of her family), and she is one of the most passionate advocates for equality and choice I've ever known. Her career to date has been brilliant, and she has recently married and is hoping to start a family in the near future. As was stated earlier in the thread, she wants it all...but she knows, as many women are learning, that she can't necessarily have it all at once. I don't know if one can ever really be prepared for the changes having a baby makes, but she's trying.

Finally (sorry - this is a bit all over the map! I think it's great that there are so many passionate women articulating their viewpoints here, whichever side that is), I'd like to thank just_me. This might seem very selfish and egocentric, but I am profoundly grateful to you and people like my mother who paved the way so that I could have the choices that I do today. I love my life, I love my career, I love the educational options I had, I love the fact that I don't have to struggle against the barriers that you did. I don't think we're "there" yet - we still have to reconcile and resolve many of the issues touched on in this thread (stropping the criticism of other women who make different life/family/career choices and balances between them would be a start!), but we have made progress.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I grew up in the projects in NYC. No one's parents had been to college. My mother and my friends' working mothers were secretaries*. Fathers were blue collar workers. My friends and I were involved with the women's movement, went to college, had careers (because we wanted to, not because "men made us work"), married, some had children, and lived/live pretty happy lives.

By the way, that's wonderful and be proud!!

 

[just_me]

By the way, that's wonderful and be proud!!

Thanks PrettySquareGal. I am. I'm also glad that my daughter can take for granted the options I didn't have or I had to fight for.

 

[just_me]

Mojito - great post. I agree with you all the way through, though, the last paragraph makes me blush. I, your mother, and other women did what we had to.

 

[Paisley]

In what way [is secretarial work limited]?

First, I like the work I do and the company I work for. And it's so hard to find good admin help that I've found it easy to find work, a plus since I can't spend six months or a year looking for a job. The pay is good enough for me to make my mortgage payment, save for retirement and enjoy a nice but simple life.

However, there's no career path: I'll never move up, let alone become a partner. My job won't change, except to use new technology. I'm at the bottom of the totem pole. Oh, and a lot of people assume that if you're a secretary, you're a knucklehead. (In fairness, many secretaries are; we've had to let three go in the past few years and there are a few more I'd like to see replaced at other branches.) Unless I make a change, this is what I'll be doing for the next 25 years.

 

[reetpleat]

I, too, grew up in a NYC government subsidized housing project, and was raised by as single mother who worked as a secretary. I did however go to an elite private school via a scholarship. I then went on to college, earned my degree and then went on to graduate school where I worked my way through with an assistantship and workstudy and earned my second degree.

In college I identified myself as a feminist, and I still do. I led consciousness raising groups and wrote articles for the local feminist rag. I went through different phases back then. I read Bell Hooks and refused to wear any makeup whatsoever- I thought that was a form of putting patriarchy on my face. (Ah, youth.) Years (not saying how many) later, I am grateful to the though provoking lessons and now know that I am my own woman who can choose do or wear whatever I want-- NOT because of feminism, but because I grew a set. lol

Do I attribute my education and current career to feminism? Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with the opportunities I had. Do I attribute some of my misery in my 20's to (my perceptions of) feminism? YES! I made some decisions not based upon what I truly wanted, for fear of not being feminist enough. I secretly loved pink and lipstick and pearls and June Cleaver- crimes, if you will. lol

Also, having lived in NYC and now in Maine, I can tell you that there is no comparison to urban versus rural poverty when it comes to opportunity. It's not a fair comparison- in NYC you have many options open to you. In a small rural town you're stuck with the few resources you have. You can't just hop on the subway or walk ten blocks applying for work in each place you pass. The whole culture is different.

With all due respect to your accomplishments. But fifty years ago, many scholarships, and many slots in prep schools and colleges were restricted to men.

Even changes to sport funding, while not directly affecting every woman, served to change perceptions of what women could do and what they deserved.