A snippet from the Economist.
So women working is better for the economy and for society and it does not lead to lower fertility rates. Woo! Why this obsession with finding empirical reasons for why it is good for women to work? Women are humans, individuals, not a separate sub-species on which data has to be collected to make the case for "allowing" them to work. I'm always torn by these statistics, on the one hand they are reassuring, on the other hand they are insulting by implication. Yay, it makes economic sense for me to work, I say clapping my dainty little hands and skipping joyously. Now I shall work. Whatever.
To be fair though, I do think that the Economist publishes these articles in an effort to debunk stereotypes against women in the workplace. I just have this visceral reaction against such statistic-ification of something I think is as natural and necessary as, say, men working.
Okay end of rant.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
yeah actually its funny i was talking to R yesterday and she was telling me how hard it is for her to freelance in Spain and while there are tones of programmes aimed at helping single young women, they actually make life much harder for married women trying to work outside certain frameworks.
Oh, Europe! there is a still a lot of frictional drag, like a skirt blowing in the wind against women, married/mothers working in an urban setting. Even in 2004!
Most articles do not mention women in agriculture?
Yes, 'allowing' pronouncing that its 'good' for them to, is infuriating. Still most columns do it.
Can I post alink here?
Post a Comment