Welcome

This blog has been created to allow participants in the work/family conflict reading groups to discuss their thoughts about the books and/or the issue of negotiating the competing demands of work and family. Since you can read and post messages any time, you can participate at your leisure, making it easier for you to get the most out of our reading groups without necessarily adding to the tensions of managing work and family. I encourage you to use this venue for sharing your responses, relevant experiences and ideas for alternative ways of making work and family more compatible. The blog is meant to be a companion to our scheduled reading group meetings - an opportunity to get some feedback on ideas we have or express our opinion about something we are reading about in our book. Just as important, by participating on the blog, we can, at our convenience, begin the process of developing connections with each other.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

political parties and feminism

While reading Taking On The Boys, I have noticed that the author has taken a few shots on conservative and republican leaders and politicians. The book makes it seem as though if you are a feminist or if you are an advocate and supporter for equal pay and treatment for women in the workplace, it is imperative to take a more liberal approach to politics. In the past, I have supported the Republican Party, but now I question if it's possible to remain supportive the party if I want to see progress in having women treated more equally in the workplace. In addition, how do we get congress to be more pro-women for equal treatment? Do we just need to make more informed voting decisions on who campaigns for these certain positions on women in the workplace?
Posted by at

2 comments:

Rhonda said...

what a great set of comments and questions. Remember there are just as many varieties of Feminists as there are Republicans. There are also Republican Feminists. The question really is - are there conflicts between the basic principles of ones political position and one's support of policies that do not negatively affect women workers? One reason there might be a tendency for more conflict between Republican and women friendly policy than you might have b/w democrat and the same is the focus on personal as opposed to social responsibility. All things associated w/ family and marriage are defined as a personal issues, then the tensions and inequities we are reading about are left to the individual to sort out. But, of coures, the authors of the books are arguing that these are not personal issues, that they are deeply affected and connected to social policy and practices and thus can not be resolved by individuals. As the authors notes, how can you speak of personal choice, when these choices cost women so much more than men and when we are not free to choose the conditions from within which we must make our choices?

November 27, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Anonymous said...

I think that politics and feminism definitely affect one another. If a woman were to be president, be it Hillary Clinton or any other woman candidate would make it a clear purpose to equalize the woman in the work place. I think there should be no reason why a woman earns less than a male for the same position. That is completely against the Constitution by stating all men are created equal. How can that be so if there are such clear inequities? A woman in politics would definitely be of help, but at the same time, if she is so public about womens rights, her "feminism" will scare aware possible voters

November 29, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)