I am not a feminist. I am not not-a-feminist. I can't say I'm really one way or the other. In fact in most things I am not really that opinionated, or if I am, my opinion changes quickly and easily when presented with a good idea or argument.
I'm fickle and I'm a hypocrite.
I like to think that I'm open-minded, and try to remember that I don't know everything about everything. So my opinion about some things is available for swaying (not all things; there is no negotiating with me about animal abuse, for example).
When it comes to feminism and women's lib, I'm kind of "meh" about the whole thing.
Not because I think women are weak or stupid or born to be mommies or any of the usual stereotypical bullshit. I just think that perhaps women's lib backfired in some ways.
In college (which of course I attended because of the women's rights movements, yes, I appreciate that), I really enjoyed economics classes. I learned how almost everything can be boiled down to economics. Sometimes I wonder if, economically, women's lib was more of a lateral transfer than a step up the rung.
For example, I'm trapped in an office cubicle all day. I can't leave my job, because of the need for money. It sucks, day in and day out. People are unbelievably rude, pretentious, arrogant, selfish and bratty to me all day long. No one, certainly not the men, spare me any detail or censor their mouths because I'm a women. No one gives me any breaks because I'm a woman; in fact, it seems the opposite: they seem to think I can do 10 things at once. I hate it and it's sucking my soul away little bit by little bit, every day. Thanks, great-grandmas, for this gift of "freedom" I have in the labor market. This is just so awesome. It's not at all like another form of slavery and economic disenfranchisement! (excuse me while I wipe the sarcasm dripping from my mouth.)
If I were trapped in a marriage and raising kids barefoot in the kitchen, at least there would be a few advantages:
1. I'd be barefoot. Sweet. No uncomfortable heels.
2. I wouldn't be getting screamed at by strangers. (Just my own little monsters).
3. I would be spending a lot of quality time with my children. (These are hypothetical children I'm speaking of, by the way, I do not actually have any kids with two legs.) I would get to enjoy watching them grow up, helping them learn (or maybe even homeschooling) and making sure they spend lots of time playing outside so they don't become obese.
4. My household would not require two vehicles, and subsequently, two tanks to fill, double the car insurance, two repair bills, double the amount of fossil fuels burned, etc etc!
5. I would have the time to prepare a lot more home-cooked meals, which are fresher, more nutritious and healthy, less processed, less expensive, and when making your own, it's easier to source locally grown foods. Hell, I'd have my own garden and chickens and goats if I were at home all day.
Housing is another conundrum. I earn what is the median income for my area, approximately $32k annually. The median home price in my area is $200k. I would not be able to purchase a median home with my median income. The numbers don't work. I could only purchase a home with another person.... like one of those husband things you hear about.
The same goes for apartments. A good portion of the people who rent are lower income. They are waitresses and retail workers and so forth. They often cannot qualify for an apartment on their own. So they co-habitat with a friend or a...wait for it.....boyfriend.
Why has housing become so expensive? Housing prices exploded since the 1970's.
According to the US Census, the median home price in the US in 1950 was $7354. The minimum wage was $.75 per hour. A person earning minimum wage at a full time 40-hour work week grossed $1560 per year. That's about 4.71 times earnings. ($1560 x 4.714 = $7353.84).
Today, the minimum wage is set by state. So let's take just one state, Massachusetts. MA is known for having a high cost of living anyways. The minimum wage in 2011 is $8/hour. The median home price in MA as of May 2011 (after already suffering a 20% drop due to the recession) is over $300,000. A minimum wage worker in Mass earns $16,640 per year. The median home price is 18 times annual minimum wages.
This is a rough economic comparison, to be sure, but this is how I see it.
If the ratio of minimum wage compared to median home prices were the same today as they were in 1950, then the scenario would look like one of these two:
Minimum wage $16640/year (as it is). Median home price 4.71 times that = $78,374.
OR
Median home price $300,000 (as it is), wages should be $63694 (about $30/hour.)
Isn't something awfully wrong here?
There is just NO WAY that a person earning minimum wage today could buy a home of "median" value. How is that even possible? Keep in mind that "median" price is very different than "average" price. Aren't there a lot more poor people in the world than rich people? Aren't there a lot more people earning minimum wage than $30/hour?
Essentially housing prices are just WAY out of the ballpark than they were decades ago. And why is this? Why the long, rambling, discombobulated rant on housing prices?
Chicks, man.
In the 1940's and 1950's, the vast majority of households were single-income households. Dear husband worked, mom stayed home. The laws of economics kept home prices low. Houses had to affordable on one income, because that's who was buying: single-income households. When women entered the workforce with regularity, suddenly more households were two-income households. The two-income households could afford MUCH more house. The laws of supply and demand are always in play, and housing prices rose. And rose, and rose.
Today, housing prices practically demand a two-income household. And you say women are more independent today?
Of course, there ARE many women who are high-earners, and this will continue, since more women than men are earning college degrees these days. And there are modest, reasonably priced condos that an average Jane can afford on her own.
But for most ladies, if they want a nice "average" home and lifestyle, not fancy, just "median", with the yard and maybe a pool and a garage... you need to shack up with someone, baby, or even better, get him to put a ring on it. Not only that, but you STILL need to go to work every day to afford the cost of living!
Essentially the point of my argument is: women earning money caused housing prices to skyrocket. Many women are still enslaved in their marriages due to economic factors, and have to go to work every day on top of it, while managing children and household chores and generally being even more stressed out than ever.
I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened. I like having, you know, choices in my life. I'm glad there are laws against discrimination, and I especially enjoy not being fondled at work. I admire the hell out of the ladies who had the balls to stand up for their rights.
It's just, you know, a lot of times things don't work out exactly the way you planned. The moral of the story: be careful what you wish for.
No comments:
Post a Comment