Something I've been thinking about recently is this interaction I had on a message board a little over a year ago (before I stopped using it because, like nearly every other site on the internet, it made me too angry). I was increasingly uncomfortable with just how much easier my life was when skipping my periods on birth control- I still am. I had gone on this message board to clumsily make the argument that it was sexist to say that women would be considered worse workers if we were actually given accommodations for something we can't control- in my experience, most women have one or two days every period where they are in a lot of pain, are bleeding heavily, and in general could probably stand to benefit from like, an extra week or two of vacation time every year just as a general rule. It was roundly pointed out to me that this was not the case, which of course made me angry, and I have been sitting with that anger and discomfort for a long time, and today my brain gave me some thoughts on how to work it out.
The thing is that it remains objectively easier for me to skip periods. I don't have to wonder when it's coming every month, deal with the side effects of it (i.e. anything that happens beyond the shedding of the lining itself)- for me, pain, energy loss, insane levels of bloating (I actually look a few months pregnant- this is not an exaggeration for dramatic or comedic effect, it is a LOT), and reduced patience/short temper due to being in pain and not having the energy necessary to deal with all those annoying little things that happen in a day. I'm not wrong that giving women time off of work to deal with this would be helpful, an equalizer, a reasonable accommodation- my issue is that under our current view of the "ideal worker" it would still make women "worse." No company wants to hire an employee who is going to be working less but getting paid the same because it's not in line with every company's main motive- profit. A worker who can work all the time and not need much in return is the ideal- this is why we have to have a minimum wage. However.
HOWEVER. Who is the best kind of person in this scenario? Yes, there are other intersections here- this person probably doesn't have any physical disabilities that need accommodations. They don't have any mental illnesses. All of their family members are either dead, and they've completed the grieving process, or healthy and well (same for their friends). These people are probably more often thin- the company wants a desirable image to make more profit. They probably speak, as a first language, the language of the country they're in, and maybe in other parts of the world, English (this is a guess on my part- I'm in the English-speaking parts of the world where I wouldn't know about this as an issue). These people do not get sick or have any other ailments that require them to take time off or not work as fast or efficiently. They do not have family obligations. Who is this sounding like, in your estimation? Yes, that's right- healthy adult white men.
Of course, I'm not new to this. We all know that healthy white men have it pretty good. Where I live, the average healthy white man is more likely to be employed. He is likely to have someone at home to take care of the house and kids, if family life is his jam. He can also opt out with little to no societal repercussions. He will not have to worry about getting pregnant and seeking an abortion or assistance with the child, let alone what that will do to his body. He does not need to ask about maternity leave. He does not have 1-2 days a month where he is in pain, tired, irritable, and bleeding that take away his ability to work. He does not have to worry about walking back to his car in the dark. He also doesn't need any physical accommodations at work. He can use all the standard size everything, drive safely in his car to work in the morning or take the bus without someone implying they'd love to fuck him in a painful way that wouldn't be enjoyable for him and isn't something he particularly wants to think about on the bus on the way to or from work, he can take the stairs, curbs and poorly built ramps are not an issue for him, nor are standard size doors without any electronic assistance. Also relevant here- his clothing options and choices are, for the most part, simple and comfortable. He is not required to style his face or hair. The office or workplace temperature will be comfortable for him. And so on and so forth.
This is because the world is built for men. Almost every last little thing about daily life has been designed with men in mind... including like, all of capitalism. In particular, in North America, things are built for healthy white men. But zeroing in- specifically they are built for men, and a white man will benefit from some things in the same way a black or indigenous man will. And I was trying to imagine an exception being made for women, because that's how everything works. You start with your standard, and then as all those pesky laws and regulations force you to, you make accommodations to let others have access.
What I'm thinking of here is: what if we used our imagination and knowledge of feminist analyses of history and present-day to think of a world where women were the default? Where the world was designed first with women's unique needs and bodies and lived experiences in mind? What would that kind of a world look like in the first place? What if we went back thousands of years and imagined that all of human history had revolved around a central idea of, say, women being revered as "closer to god" for their ability to "create life" (gestation, birth) which made people believe- oh, they are inherently wiser, more moral, what we all should strive to be. What if instead of (to borrow from marxist feminist analysis in the most basic of ways) a situation where women were exploited for their child-producing abilities to give a man the power to produce as many little "helpers" and "workers" as possible, to give the world in general the ability to make lots and lots more people to force into poorly paid work that made a few people rich... what if instead of that we had some kind of situation where women exploited men for their ability to... I don't know, give their offspring genetic diversity and have the free time to do household chores WITHOUT needing time off for, say, gestation or recovering from birth? What if it became custom for women to keep several men around the house, and sons grew up knowing they would effectively be "sold" into a household with a head woman where they would be expected to perform some kind of menial household labor- cleaning, repairs, cooking, farming, childcare, etc- for the rest of their lives, and all society thought of them was that they were stupid because "how could you possibly know anything, you are nothing but a brute good for sperm and hard labor." How would that translate into the modern day? Maybe a woman would keep one or two men by her side as companions, and there would be markers of that- these men wouldn't age as quickly, they would be dressed fashionably, they would look down their noses and sneer at those poor, working-class men who weren't pretty or lucky enough to be in their station... even though they were still wholly disempowered and had few choices in life.
I'm more than willing to bet someone can poke a million holes in that scenario I just described- and that's fine. I'm primarily interested, though, in holes being poked by women who can think of ways to imagine around it. You'll also notice this scenario is pretty basic- there is still class oppression, for example (something that can't just be "flipped" like sex-based oppression can), and my example is very Euro-centric (in that it loosely describes a simple sex-flipped version of a basic idea of "the way of life in the olden days" in a place like Britain or its North American colonies). I'm not going to deny that, or say that this imagining is a good idea, a better idea, how things "should have been", none of that. I'm simply inviting you to consider: what if women had been centered all along, and men cast as the "other"? What if women's gifts were seen as things we should all strive for, and men were told they should "act like a woman" to succeed in the world? What if many things traditionally associated with men were associated with women?
Why am I asking this? I think it's a good exercise to get people to consider just how made up so many of our social and societal norms are, how they can damage thinking and have people writing think pieces about absurdly anti-science concepts like "brain sex" to justify their oppression, and so on. I think it's healthy for women and girls in particular to think about the ways that the world has failed them and how they would like it to change. I think it can help people reimagine what they ask for when it comes to change. What parts of the system should we change? Is it even possible to change this system to that ideal, or do we have to do a major overhaul? Importantly: I want to get people fired up about the things they want to see so they think about how to make those changes. This involves thinking about why things are the way they are- where did the problem start? How have we let it go unchecked? How can we check it now? I also think it might help some people play out those alternate realities and realize some of the things they thought were incredibly meaningful changes are actually pointless, useless, and helping no one (men wearing makeup and dresses can still participate in your oppression...) and refocus their efforts where they will actually make a difference.
So... tell me truly. How do you think the world could be different if one aspect of women's oppression was gone, never happened, or flipped around?
No comments:
Post a Comment
comment-type-thingies