* Re: Backlash
Topics: Sexism
23 Feb 1994
From: ervan
> [ Faludi discusses falling numbers of women in high level positions ]
I see five separate claims she makes:
1) More women are working in lower paying jobs.
2) Women's presence in trade and craft jobs is "stalled or backsliding"
3) Women's presence in management is "stagnant or falling"
4) Pay is dropping where women have made the most progress.
5) Welfare cuts affect mostly women.
(1) is true because more women entered the work force, i.e. total
participation is up (table 609, Statistical Abstract). That should be
seen as a good thing. But, of course, new employees start at the
bottom which tends to drag down the averages. This demonstrates
nothing at all about backlash.
(2) There is no good reference for this in the SA. But the only
one I can find shows women's participation increasing from 8.1% to 8.6%
between '83 & '91, contrary to Faludi's claim (table 629). It's also
worth nothing that trade and craft jobs and not traditional female
occupations and are highly subject to slight changes in perception
of desirability. It's also worth nothing that these are not growth
industries and tend to favor employees with more seniority when
layoffs come. Thus, new, more probably female employees will be fired
first but it has nothing to do with their being female, merely their
recent entrance into the market.
(3) The participation rate of women in management rose from 40.9%
to 46.3% from '83 to '91, again contray to Faludi's claim (ibid).
Similar comments to (2) apply again.
(4) The SA has no data on this. Again, however, increasing participation
rates mean decreasing average wages without representing real decreases.
(5) Of course, most welfare goes to women. Cutting welfare hurts women.
The question is whether cutting welfare is hurting women or ceasing to
give them an undeserved charity. Let me ask you this: if cutting AFDC
(money for poor, single mothers with children) is sexist, is increasing
it therefore anti-sexist? If so, how much? Is it anti-sexist to give
women $200/month/kid? Is it anti-sexist to give them $2000/month/kid?
When does it stop being anti-sexist and start being undeserved charity?
Now turn it backward and see it as a matter of not being sexist to
cut it, but merely bringing it back in line from having been previously
too high. Even if you disagree with the particular numbers (and I
challenge to even know what the actual numbers are), it is possible
to pursue this sort of reasoning with integrity not clouded by sexism
or backlash.
Home