The point is not to reiterate gender stereotypes, write Emily J Hogg, Dr Charlotte J Fabricius and Dr Ida Aaskov Dolmer, but to make visible the ways that contemporary capitalism exploits our ideas about gender
As researchers working on the topic of feminised work, it is dismaying to see the anti-feminist definition of that term – advanced by conservative thinkers like Helen Andrews – gaining traction (Horror stories of a “feminised workplace” mask the real crisis in male identity, 24 November). If we understand “feminisation” to mean that contemporary workplaces are overwhelmed by women and their allegedly excessive emotions and touchy-feely refusal to compete, then it is easy to see why it might not seem to merit much thought. But there is an alternative, critical and feminist definition of the term.
“Feminisation” in this sense describes the central role played by gender in the transformations of work over the past decades, from the decline of conventionally masculine forms of work in heavy industry to the rise of the service economy and the problematic idea that women’s participation in paid labour is a measure of gender equality. This critical use of “feminisation” makes visible the ways that contemporary capitalism exploits our ideas about gender. The point is not to reiterate gender stereotypes (the fallacy that women are more naturally caring than men, for example), or to suggest that feminisation is something to be either entirely celebrated or entirely critiqued. Continue reading…
http://dlvr.it/TPZlYk
