Another apt phrase by Hilary Clinton voicing her opinion on how Bill liked to live. Good books,good food, and a suitcase full of clothes. Apparently he never cared too much about houses, savings, furniture,transportation, the laundry and you know the rest.
I have to laugh a little. That carefree phrase reminds me of my college days when that's all I needed to feel great. Then again, I am reminded of why I came to America. At that time, women were not allowed to obtain a business loan without a male signature. True story. I was astounded as you probably are. Times have changed, but have they really?
We've had to work hard to change things. Still it's easier for a man to be hired than a woman. That hiring person thinks....she may have a man to support, children or elderly parents, while the man standing there probably does not. She often has that second shift, at home, he does not. I can remember doing this exact same thinking as I worked for Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney as their Personnel Officer. Tough choice even then.
With this economy even more so. Do you see changes coming in the next few years when more of us will work together in groups to support one another? Do you see more people living in small groups, say three or four adults and one child, supporting each other and economizing at the same time? Do you envision more of us moving to cities in "cafe societies" as they do in Europe where living in a community is more the focus than one huge suburban house?
Let us know what you think on our comments and please share your ideas.
We don't all want to just have good food, good books and a suitcase full of clothes.
5 comments:
I have a comment to make, but this subject pisses me off no end....so it may take a day or two to get it all out in a form that makes more sense than irate rambling. I'll be back ;0)
I had to think a while about this post – to me this is not a yes or no because it’s actually, in my mind anyway, a yes AND no. I have very personal experience with the ”no” end. After working at the same company for 22 years and owning the company for the last ten, I applied for a disadvantaged small business designation with the state. After 9 months of paperwork and a 2 ½ hour personal interview, I was turned down flat. The reason - it was felt that without the men working for me and the expertise they brought to the table, that I could not run the company….I was not smart enough, didn’t know enough….was not MAN ENOUGH. I was so furious it took a couple of months before I could discuss this without screaming. I sent a letter of rebuttal explaining that I was no different from a person who owned a pharmacy and who employed pharmacists. That if one left I would just hire another – that you hired your employees for their expertise. But because I own a business in a male dominated work field, whatever I had to say fell on deaf ears. And now, after sitting here royally pissed all over again, this is the yes and no –
Yes, there has been a shift in the balance of women owning their own business, and the acceptance they receive, but acceptance leans towards businesses that are deemed “suitable” for women to own, ie: cutesy boutiques, catering companies, personnel service businesses, anything that is non-threatening to the perceived notion of woman-held jobs. A woman who tries to compete in a male-dominated work field is treated with condescension. She must prove herself over and over, and then is not taken seriously. Financial institutions, those bastions of male domination, have a hard time perceiving that a woman can “control” a business and the employees who work for her in what is considered a male controlled field. After all, look at some of the big construction companies around, Teichert, CC Myers, MCM, Otto – all companies started by men and passed to sons. Men….not women. So the good-ole-boy mentality lives on when in this enlightened age people should know better.
The no, in paragraph one, speaks for itself. I have seen, over the years, many women shot down in flames unless there was a man behind her pulling the strings. And it is not flattering to any woman for anyone to believe that she cannot succeed without the help or influence of a man. If a woman fails at business she is deemed under-educated or ill-prepared to take on the job she has chosen. If a man fails the finger is pointed at a down economy. Not fair, not equal.
I believe it to be true that until sometime during the decade of the 1920's in the U.S. that children belonged to the father soley. The mother was NEVER recognized as a legal parent or guardian. It appears that a woman's autonomy must begin @ home...even if she has a "Prince Charming"!
I was remembering my past and my own career opportunities. While growing up, being female was a definite block to many occupations, with very few exceptions. Construction, engineering, automotive, and sports all were blocked to women for the most part. There were a few exceptions, myself being one. I worked as a service station manager, changing tires etc., and selling motorcycles. Nevertheless, we were few and far between. As a group, most often women had the burden of making it possible for men to do these things. I feel society has not evolved very much world wide. Women must work twice as hard and for less money to be thought of half as well as men. Fortunately, we do it with style. Nevertheless, there was no simplicity of good books, a suit case of clothes and some good food. Who had time and money for a book, travel and luxuries? What with caring for the family’s needs and working to support it all. I am a fan of President Clinton, but his view in this is a simplistic one. What an idealistic world view, where all needs are feed by others, leaving one on a perpetual vacation. Although the world is changing, right this moment, there is some woman out there pressing Bill’s favorite trousers. God love ‘em.
This is Debbie testing to see if anonymous comments work on this blog.
Post a Comment