I was speaking with a fellow seminarian today. During the course of the conversation, I told him I was hesitant to use the word feminism to describe my beliefs about women. On the other hand I think that I should be paid the same amount for the same work as a man; that I should be treated with respect at work, not as a sex object; that I should be able to vote, own property, and generally enjoy the rights afforded to adult men. However, I am not interested in being "the same" as a man, a sort of masculinized femininity, neither am I in favor of abortion, or some of the other positions espoused by modern feminism. He suggested that there may be a "crucified feminism" which I might be able to espouse. I had not thought of this before. I am unsure what this would look like, but it is something for me to think about.
3 comments:
Have you read Paul Evdokimov's "Women and the Salvation of the World"?
You said: "...I think that I should be paid the same amount for the same work as a man..."
I've never understood this attitude. To me it seems that no one deserves more money for working than the amount for which they are willing to work. In short, the price of any individual's labor is set by three things: 1) the intersection of the labor-demand-curve with the labor-supply-curve, 2) the negotiating parties' perception of each of those curves, and 3) the negotiating ability of each party.
I think that you are correct. However in hte early days of the sufferage movement, the women had no bargaining ability. Women could work in the same factory, doing the same work, and make a lower wage. Thankfully this is no longer the case.
I think one of the factors which has influenced my thinking on this matter is that I am single. Consequently, I don't fit neatly into the defined "gender roles" we traditionally see women in. I guess that is the big problem, I am in many ways a traditionalist without a tradtional role to play. It can be a bit bewildering at times.
Post a Comment