Payback Time

Just thought I’d share an interesting “article” from the magazine Red Pepper. Clearly, I do not agree with the advice, I just find it entertaining.

---

Dear Auntie,

As a lifelong feminist, I’ve always insisted on sharing the costs on dates. But I only work part-time and have money troubles, while the man I’m now seeing earns a lot more than me. So he always pays when we go out on dates. We’ve never talked about it but I feel awkward. Does that make me a bad feminist?

Yours,

Anne Elliot, Bath

Dear Ms Elliot,

Take off the hairshirt, sister. If he’s got the money and you’re skint then let him pay.

In fact, there are good political reasons why he should pay. The UK has a gender pay gap of 17 per cent for equivalent work, according to official figures. That almost certainly underestimates the true picture, since women still don’t get these equivalent jobs. So next time he pays the bill at a restaurant, don’t think of it as confirming the patriarchy – treat it as a little bit of wealth redistribution. No need to feel awkward or guilty about it.

In my misguided youth, I used to sing that ‘If women were paid for all they do, there’d be a lot of wages due’. I thought that wages for housework would be a way to start tackling this economic inequality. But with age, and a partner who does his fair share of the cooking and cleaning (well, mostly), I came to realise that we shouldn’t limit our ambitions to a wage packet for ‘women’s work’.

Forget wages, what we need are reparations for housework.

My mother cooked, cleaned, ironed, washed and scrubbed, as women in my family had done for generations. I expect it’s the same in your family.

So next time your man flashes his cash for a cinema seat, top it up with an extra-large popcorn. And next time he shouts you a drink, make it a double. Then, as you’re nursing the hangover the following day, don’t forget to demand breakfast in bed and make sure that he does the washing up.

Got an ethical dilemma? Want some leftie advice from someone who’s been around a bit? Write to auntie@redpepper.org.uk and she’ll sort you out.

Is no resolution a resolution?

I agree that it is ironic, if not shameful that I spent three semesters in UP discussing land reform and the Iron Law of Oligarchy while wearing Nine West pumps with matching massive Kate Spade bags. Maybe I can take comfort in the fact that even respected academics such as Edward Said and Richard Rorty are criticised for the same reason. Said passionately talked about the Palestinian cause and imperialism yet kept a fancy flat in Manhattan and spoke in conferences wearing designer suits. Richard Rorty also pursued some form of activism, mostly related to issues of social justice but invested on the upkeep of his collection – wild orchids.

Said justified his lifestyle through what he called ‘disinterested aesthetic pleasure’. He believed that one’s political principles must not get in the way of appreciating great works of art. I am not too sure how Said defined art, but I tend to agree with the loose definition which is anything of high quality and high value. It is anything that excites the human senses. For that, Kate Spade bags qualify as art. So do Jimmy Choo peep toes. And HP PSC 2510 photosmart. And clearly, Crocs do not.

Similarly, Rorty tried to synthesise one’s personal and possibly selfish pleasure-seeking fetishes to the quest for a pluralistic, democratic society. In his autobiography Trotsky and Wild Orchids, he argued that it is not imperative to reconcile the personal and the public. He said that in the private realm, one is fee to engage in the art of self-creation, and if that entails art appreciation/collection, travelling or gardening, one should not be ashamed of it. Meanwhile, when one enters the public realm, one should be aware of his/her political obligations to the society. Essentially, the message is that the:

“ … dual goals of self-creation and social solidarity must be practiced simultaneously but separately … the ultimate synthesis of love and justice may turn out to be an intricately textured collage of private narcissism and public pragmatism”.

More interestingly phrased – “I (Rorty) wanted a way to be both an intellectual and spiritual snob and a friend of humanity – a nerdy recluse and a fighter for justice.”

I am not too sure if I buy this analysis. Is not resolving internal contradictions an acceptable resolution? Or does Umberto Eco make more sense when he said personal excess is an insult to poverty?

Just thinking aloud.

Click here for context.

---
On a side note, I am disappointed with how Rorty and Said managed to make their autobiographies sobfests. Said endlessly harped on his feelings of being out of place as a kid, hence the title of his autobiography, Out of Place, while Rorty dramatically narrated how he was bullied as a kid. Oh please.

---
Unfortunately, I returned Trotsky and Wild Orchids, and Out of Place to the library already while Eco’s How to Travel with a Salmon and Other Essays is in Manila. These circumstances disabled me from properly citing references.