Women, work and choice
Bettina Arndt has used the excuse of "debate" to launch an attack on feminism and to gloss over the social pressures that impose the bulk of domestic labour on women. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on April 9, she claimed that new research by Janeen Baxter showed that 41% of women doing the bulk of domestic work "were very satisfied with the division of labour". In fact, "large numbers of women appeared happy with their lot". She went on to argue that the unequal participation of women in paid work is a result of women's personal choices rather than any systematic discrimination or disadvantage.
Accompanying this was an article by a woman who had rejected a promotion, choosing to have a child instead. The Herald highlighted the fact that this woman "opted for the gut reaction". The two articles combined presented child-bearing and domestic work as the natural choice for women. Arndt said that women have "good sense ... in refusing to make their career their lives".
Four days later, a letter from Baxter appeared in the Herald. She wanted to set the record straight: "While my research shows that about 40% of women are satisfied with their current housework arrangements, this does not mean that women enjoy doing the housework, or that they would choose housework over paid work under different circumstances. Satisfaction with current arrangements may mean that women are unable to envisage alternative arrangements. Moreover, let's not overlook the fact that the majority of women (about 60%) are dissatisfied!" Clearly, Arndt distorted the research to suit her own argument.
Baxter points out that discrimination and structural impediments are a major feature of women's work experience. Also, women's domestic labour load is a major factor contributing to their unequal access to and participation in paid work.
Amidst these issues, Arndt's attack on feminism is brutal. Apparently "outdated feminist rhetoric continues to silence voices seeking recognition of the varying needs of women". Feminists are portrayed as half-crazed extremists; the article quotes Judith Sloan, director of the National Institute of Labour Studies in Adelaide: "I've been screamed at by public sector types and feminists from the union movement when I've said that women's position in the labour market reflects their legitimate preferences".
Despite what Arndt is trying to convey, feminism is about increasing choice for women. Women should have the ability to choose to work, full time or part time, and/or to have children. Currently, this choice is constrained by many factors: the burden of domestic labour, women's role as carers of children, the lack of child-care facilities, discrimination and enormous social pressure.
A constructive debate would centre on how society could eliminate these constraints. Arndt's argument justifies the status quo rather than seeking advances for women.
By Trish Corcoran