This is the argument for:
The proposer's rebuttal remarksJan 22nd 2010Richard Donkin
In entering this debate we were asked to consider the proposition that women in the developed world had never had it so good. Since that is the proposition I will confine my remarks to debating that point and that point alone.
The problem with steering the debate in another direction, however much we may sympathise with the arguments and frustrations in doing so, is that it avoids discussion of the specific motion. Moreover, it removes the opportunity for women to take stock of their lives, to look around and to make some comparisons of then and now.
If we had been invited to discuss the plight of people—not just women—in the developing world, we would have needed far more than the space allotted here. But this debate is focused on women in the developed world and the general question of whether they are better off now than they have ever been.The debate, I should add, is not seeking to determine whether women are better off than men in the workplace. As has been established, and I would not quibble with any of the evidence on women's pay, the struggle for equal pay for equal responsibilities in the workplace between men and women has a long way to run. But that is not the proposition.
The question we are here to discuss is whether women in developed countries today are better off than their mothers were. I do not think that this debate is necessarily about pay and careers but about perceptions, and self-perceptions at that. What do we mean by "never had it so good"?
Are women simply going to measure their progress in society by financial comparisons? Isn't that the sort of thing that men do? I thought women were smarter than that.
Many working women today will have had an entirely different experience of the workplace from that of their mothers, some of whom may never have held down a full-time job. Does that mean that these modern women can view themselves as better off than their mothers were?
The answer depends on the way an individual woman understands her role in society. An important consideration here must be self-fulfilment and, as Fay Weldon the novelist once said, men are irrelevant in women's considerations. "Women are happy or unhappy, fulfilled or unfulfilled, and it has nothing to do with men," said Weldon. That is harsh, but women must believe this of themselves if they are to reshape a better future than the conflict-strewn path of history carved by men.This brings us to the nub of the debate: do women have a better opportunity today to realise their potential than they did in the past? I think the answer must be a resounding "yes".
Within western industrialised nations, at least, young women today are rarely singled out by their parents, as my wife was, and channelled into a career that, in her case, her father decided would be a "good career for a woman. When I was at school, 35 years ago, careers advice for most of my female contemporaries did not extend much beyond suggestions of teaching or filling some clerical roll. Today women get the same educational opportunities as boys without assumptions that they will be seeking to pursue a particular predestined career path.
A generation ago there were few of the safeguards in the employment system that protect women today. Sexual discrimination laws were in their infancy and equal opportunities legislation was just beginning to make a difference. Today all that has changed.
If there is modern discrimination against women in contemporary education it is probably directed at those who might want to raise a family at home. That option is no longer on the agenda for those in school or college. Women are educated today in order to fulfil an economic role in society. The traditional role of motherhood, they find, must be slotted within career breaks, then juggled in ever more complex organisational demands of combining salaried work with domestic cares.
That cannot be right. I would like to see leaders of the feminist movement fighting to restore the dignity of motherhood in our lives. Men need to be part of that struggle, directing some of their own ambitions in the direction of good parenting, so that the raising of families is accepted as something that demands equal input and that is valued in society, particularly by governments and employers.
For all the talk of growth economies, of productivity, of richer nations enjoying greater spending power than less successful neighbours, the end game of humanity is not a fistful of dollars but about relative happiness and contentment over a lifetime. Women play a unique role in that equation, always have, always will.
Why is the caring role—whether looking after children or the elderly—perceived by some as a raw deal? Helping children to understand the world around them is one of the most rewarding experiences that life can offer, while sharing the twilight years of the elderly can be equally rewarding if we can rid ourselves of the shabby images of caring: brattish, screaming infants and incoherent oldies gathered round the TV. Care in the family need not be like that, but valuing everything in monetary terms has diminished humanity, importing elements of the production line to birth, life and death.We can all agree there are still too few women in politics, still too few in the most senior professional and management roles. But we should always take into consideration those women who do not choose this path in life. The late Mother Teresa seemed capable of finding a proper perspective that all of us with families, not just women, could adopt. She said: "Everybody today seems to be in such a terrible rush, anxious for greater developments and greater riches and so on, so that children have very little time for their parents. Parents have very little time for each other, and in the home begins the disruption of peace of the world."
The women's struggle, the women's movement must carry on, but women might do themselves a service if they took stock for a moment, looked around and counted their blessings as much as their victories. It is good to celebrate now and then and women deserve to celebrate for just a moment perhaps. Tomorrow there will be more work and women should embark on the rest of their journey, wherever they believe they should be heading, in the knowledge that they are second to no man. But today it is time to discover their own distinctive futures, an inclusive future for all, not the future of men.
My initial thoughts, is that he obviously makes some valid points, like society's perceptions on the role of women has changed and women tend to be a little bit more career focussed. But I don't believe that takes away from our innate ability for motherhood and nuturing, and neither will it if we don't want it to. As he states it is up to us women to decide on what we want in life and go after that. In a previous post I believe that I stated that women and men were created differently to have different tasks in life. This all falls apart when a few women decide that they want to "take on" men. I would say to them...be your own person.
It sounds like I am conceeding with what the article states, but I'm really not...opportunities and potentials for women remain constrained. And if we dissagregate this along the lines of ethnicity, location, careers it becomes even more pronounced. But at the same time as women we need to stop trying to compete with men and do what we were meant to do...whatever that may be for the individual.
What say you?
