Some Kind of Wonder-full…

Beyond Independence: A Vision for Feminism

A newborn baby is completely dependent on its parents to fulfil their (rather simple) needs: food, warmth, love, sleep, cleanliness, touch. As the child develops into a teenager, they begin to break away – to seek to fulfil their needs using their own resources. This is a messy time, since they barely know what their individuals needs are, let alone how to fulfil them. Mistakes are made, but eventually, they are capable to leave home and be independent. Somewhat later, perhaps around the mid-twenties, the young adult begins to discover that they cannot live autonomously. They are skilled in some areas, but weak in others. It is no coincidence then, that at this stage they might begin to look for a partner in crime, with whom they can share different skills sets. This is the path towards interdependence.

Much is said about dependence, and independence, however, this final step is oft forgotten. Some people never get beyond dependence, living off society and their families. Still others think they have made it when they reach independence; that they are capable of solving any problem that comes their way autonomously. Not many reach the levels of humility and trust that is required of interdependence.

There would appear to be a gender dynamic at play here. Growing up, boyhood heroes are filled with Lone Ranger types, emotionally invulnerable rugged individuals who have everything it takes. One day this myth of independence will be busted: the man will find he is inequipped to deals with the blows life throws at him, whether they be relational or those things outside of his control, such as illness or grief. By contrast, under a patriarchal system, little girls grow up defined by their relationships with men. The likelihood of childbirth and childrearing in the future increasing a woman’s awareness of her dependence on men in the future: financial and physical. Of course there are significant exceptions to this trend – wonderfully sucessful single mothers as well as fathers – however the focus here is on a general theory. In general, it would appear that men are primed for independence, whilst women are primed for dependence.

Hence, when a partnership – often a marriage – arises between a man socialised into independence and a women socialised into dependence, strong barriers to sucess are apparant. If a man believes he is capable of dealing with all of lifes blows alone, why have a partner? He will sort out all the tasks that need to be done and all the relational difficulties of living autonomously. This puts a tremendous amount of pressure on a single human being, a pressure that can often result in future illness and sudden death. For the woman, socialised into dependence, she has no sphere of responsibility to call her own. Everything is managed by her husband. Thus, even if she had the skills beforehand, she loses confidence, and, in a vicious cycle, loses skills due to lack of practice. The woman is unable to develop fully her human potential, a source of much resentment.

Today I have been reading about the Japanese labour market; in particular, gender inequality. It appears that the equality laws enacted (at the beginning of the 1980s) had limited effect. That is because – on top of their being no sanctions for breaking the laws – there was some confusion between protection and equality. So, women were protected from lifting heavy items and leaving work in the dark: things that exacerbate dependence, rather than development.

Of course, much of the difficulty arises in that we do not fully know what the differences are between men and women. Moreover, there is often more variation between say the strongest and weakest man, and the strongest man and strongest women. These binaries are thus unhelpful, and it is generally of more value to see people as individuals. Nonetheless, the childbearing issue is a significant difference that needs to be tackled head on. For instance, the result of second-wave feminism (that utilised patriarchal methods in order to bring about liberation) is increased independence by women. “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle,” goes the famous saying. But this isn’t true! We are social animals, and we require companionship.

Moreover, many sucessful women are those that “man-ed up”; who supressed their emotions (some of which are a natural and important part of the menstraul cycle) to become invulnerable, worked intensive hours under high stress and lived hard in order to fit in (and prove themselves) to a man’s world). Whilst I am not suggesting for a moment that women are molly-coddled, I do wonder whether putting their bodies (potential childbearing vessels) under the same amount of stress as male colleagues may have had an affect on fertility. It’s a suggestion, not a fact; I may be totally wrong. Moreover, delaying childbirth, in order to get ahead professionally, may lead to more complications as the physical vessel is not upto the stress and strain of childbearing.

So where does this leave us? We have moved from a scenario of male independence-female dependence to one of male independence-female independence. What is the next move? I would suggest one of male-interdependence and female-interdependence. Of generosity of spirit and skills sharing, whatever those skills may be.

Personally, I am unconfortable with the policy move toward increased affordable child care for families; handing over the responsibility for bringing up one’s child to a “professional” doesn’t seem to be ideal. I would prefer a system that made it economically possible for one parent to take on the child care and homemaking role, giving equal preference between the sexes so that couples can decide based ont heir skills. What is of course problematic currently, is that caring and homemaking duties are valued less than professional ones. In other words, patriarchy cherishes masculine (not necessarily male) values – competition, drive, efficiency – above the feminine – listening, caring, being. Thus the caring professions, as well as the cleaning professions, are vastly underpaid in comparison to more “masculine” ones such as those in finance and law. Thus, stay at home fathers and mothers are unpaid despite their vital contribution to society.

So perhaps we should come full circle. Once upon a time, men worked whilst women stayed at home. Then both worked, and it became economically impossible for most couples to do otherwise. Perhaps we should move towards a system where it is economically viable for one partner to work outside the home and the other to work inside the home. This should not be constricted by gender lines, but should be down to individuals’ skills. Moreover, both should be paid similar sums financially (through government transfers), so that society values both equally. Also, were we to have a more flexible labour market, why shouldn’t the mother take on homefront duties during the first 5 years of the child’s life, and the father the next 5 years (or vica versa). If this became the norm for all those who chose to be parents, loss of competitive edge due to taking time out from work, wouldn’t have such a significant impact on people’s ability to get ahead.

This is a vision beyond independence; a move towards interdependence.