Another Agenda
I often argue with my co-worker (let's just call him OU81ASWELL) about gender politics, which he enjoys but which gets me really worked up and angry.
Gawd. I'm such a %$*#$&! girl!
Anyway, he phones me in the evening for an argument and since I have nothing better to do than answer the phone - NOT! - I often go to bed ranting and raving to myself.
Well, last night, I had just watched The Agenda when he called. The program had been about the fact (notice I said "fact") that female teachers in Canada, the U.S., and Britain essentially outnumber male teachers two-thirds to one-third. Now, I would have thought that wasn't a particularly good thing, but there was a woman on the panel who pretty much vetoed the entire premise of the show (if I had been Steve Paikin I'd have hooked her during a commercial break - alas for Steve Paikin, there ARE no commercial breaks on TVO) by saying, "So?"
All of which meant that when OU8 called, I actually had a specific topic at hand with the argument winner handy. (I live this way, I really do. It's okay. I'm used to it.) Being a total #$@$$*&! girl in these gender discussions, I introduced the topic and argument winner together, of course - NOT that it stopped OU8 from stating a lot of senseless opinion on the matter.
That's fine. Because what that panelist had done for me was to finally shine a light on why I get so mad in these discussions, which is basically that we're even HAVING the discussion.
Two-thirds of teachers are women and one-third are men? So? Why is that assumed to be a problem that needs addressing? Is anybody stopping men from becoming teachers? No. So, what's the problem? I mean, women were prevented, actually prevented from doing all kinds of work - by men. We actually had to gain the right to work. No one is doing anything of the kind to men with regards to the teaching profession.
And a quick glance at the administration level is very revealing as to who is STILL and very CLEARLY being discriminated against.
So, the fact that there's no actual discrimination against male teachers going on makes me wonder why this is an issue at all. I'm not sure what we say to the fact that female teachers outnumber male teachers (ahem, although, the higher the salaries, the more men you'll find earning them, dontcha know) other than "So?"
But back to my argument with OU8, who believes very strongly that Feminism is ruining the Western World. And he's in dandy company with the likes of every single gawddamned rightwing pundit and politician in Canada, the U.S., and Britain - the three countries where female teachers outnumber male teachers two-thirds to one-third. As the argument regressed and we dug down further into our trenches, I suddenly saw the future.
"Look", I said. "Girls have ALWAYS done better in school than boys - until a certain age when it starts to fall apart for them a bit." (And I believe that to be maturity - girls figure out everything ISN'T possible and their confidence deflates like a popped Hollywood boob. Boys, on the other hand, reach old age before they realize they probably won't be an NHL superstar.) "What's going to happen is that girls will eventually take over in EVERY field of endeavour. Now that we're in - we're only going to try harder and there's only one other sex to try harder than and that's boys. Women, ultimately, will be running everything."
To which he replied, "That would be awful".
"Why?" I asked (and, at this point, my mind was racing with the implications of THE REVOLUTION wherein the hardest workers actually reach the top on merit, no artificial barriers put up by men to keep them from achieving their potential in the workforce).
"Because there'd be no more babies and our population would die out".
So there you have it, Dear Reader. Women aren't SUPPOSED to succeed economically because, for some reason known only to rightwing pundits and OU81ASWELL, they'd cease to reproduce. Hm. Interesting logic, eh? In any case, I countered with, "OU8, it only takes a few hours to have a baby. I've had three and the combined total time in which I wasn't working in order to have them was probably... max... 24 hours."
"But then you're a mother. You want to be with your babies. You want to feed them and nurture them. It's the most important job in the world."
"Oh really? Then why is the pay so bad?"
"We can't afford to pay for it. But that doesn't mean it's not the most important job there is."
"Sorry. None of what you're saying is supported in fact. If mothering was the most important work in society, mothers would be the highest paid members of the workforce. In fact, mothering is the lowest paid work in society. Therefore, it is the least valued."
I'm right, actually. I was a stay-at-home mother so I know not only that I didn't make any money, but I also know that my work wasn't valued by society. Sure, there's a lot of talk about how necessary and important it is that women stay at home with their children (all of it by rightwing pundits and politicians) but clearly it isn't or society would pay mothers well to do it.
Anyway, to bring my argument with OU8 back around to The Agenda question last night, "Do We Need More Male Teachers?" (unless it was the more leading "How Do We Get More Male Teachers?"...), I would suggest that the reason we don't have as many male teachers in primary school as we have female teachers in primary school is that men are less likely than women to want to work with young children because they know that in actual fact, it is not work that is highly valued by society.
Sure - rightwing pundits and policians SAY it is, but it clearly isn't. Men go where the money is and increasingly, as workplace barriers come down - so will women. And because girls do better in school than boys and have for a very long time, it is only a matter of an increasingly level playing field before women will out perform men in every profession.
And what's wrong with that? Afterall, it only takes a few hours to have a baby and with all the extra money women will be making, they can hire men to look after the children (with the added bonus that the male role modelling can begin in infancy) while they go out to run the world. Eventually, as working with (for) children becomes something less associated with women and more associated with men, the male teacher shortage will grow to be a surplus and there will be no more hand wringing about the problem (as some see it) of female teachers outnumbering male teachers in the classrooms of the nation by two-thirds to one-third.
You'll have come a long way, Baby, when that percentage is reversed.
