Difference between revisions of "426--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Stansell) |
(→Boydston) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
'''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' | '''Do me a favor and at the begining of each set of comments, write and bold ONE WORD which decribes your view/question/comment/or thought about the reading.''' | ||
| + | ''' | ||
| + | Invisibility:''' Boydston talks about how the woman's contribution to the household became increasingly invisible as wages became equated with family subsistence. I think that is even more true today than in the mid 1800s. For example, a man reported in 1830 that "Lynn shoemakers were full time wage earners with no important means of support other than their income from shoemaking." Today we would not even think to comment on this. For instance, if a guy is a banker, we just assume that all of his income comes from banking. So, I would guess that this notion of 'wage equals family subsistence' is even stronger today than it was in the 1800s. Does that mean that a non-wage-earning woman's contribution to the working class household is even more invisible now than it was then? -- Rebecca | ||
| − | + | '''Inequality:''' Boydston talks about the impact of a worker's wage being equated to his family subsistence. He mentions that employers would often talk about paying employees a certain amount because that is what they needed to support their families. This made me think about how women are typically paid less than men to do the same jobs. I suspect that the reasoning behind this is that women are either single, which means they probably have no kids and therefore don't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don't need to make as much. Men, on the other hand, can justify needing to be paid more because they are, ostensibly, supporting a family, or are saving up money to do so in future. I think that the issues that Boydston explores are still very relevant for women today, because the belief that men are supposed to be the primary, if not the sole, providers for families, and the belief that wages equate to subsistence, are beliefs that still hurt women's earning potential today. -- Rebecca | |
| − | + | ||
| − | Boydston talks about the impact of a worker's wage being equated to his family subsistence. He mentions that employers would often talk about paying employees a certain amount because that is what they needed to support their families. This made me think about how women are typically paid less than men to do the same jobs. I suspect that the reasoning behind this is that women are either single, which means they probably have no kids and therefore don't need to make as much, or they are married, in which case they can partially rely on their husbands' incomes and therefore don't need to make as much. Men, on the other hand, can justify needing to be paid more because they are, ostensibly, supporting a family, or are saving up money to do so in future. I think that the issues that Boydston explores are still very relevant for women today, because the belief that men are supposed to be the primary, if not the sole, providers for families, and the belief that wages equate to subsistence, are beliefs that still hurt women's earning potential today. -- Rebecca | + | |
I wanted to add to Rebecca's first comment on the non-wage-earning woman because I think that there are other factors that play in. To some extent the housewife's role is more appreciated, because it means that their family is well-enough off to be able to afford to have a family member who does not earn an external income. Also, there is the factor that the wife is willing to not work in order to take care of the household and any young children. In both cases, I think the work of the homemaker is appreciated, but at the same time I think they are overlooked or dismissed because women now have the option of working outside the home and not being seen as amoral or pretending above their station. I think many of these women would be passed off as not being able to stand up for themselves or able to support themselves outside of the nuclear family structure. -Lacey | I wanted to add to Rebecca's first comment on the non-wage-earning woman because I think that there are other factors that play in. To some extent the housewife's role is more appreciated, because it means that their family is well-enough off to be able to afford to have a family member who does not earn an external income. Also, there is the factor that the wife is willing to not work in order to take care of the household and any young children. In both cases, I think the work of the homemaker is appreciated, but at the same time I think they are overlooked or dismissed because women now have the option of working outside the home and not being seen as amoral or pretending above their station. I think many of these women would be passed off as not being able to stand up for themselves or able to support themselves outside of the nuclear family structure. -Lacey | ||
