In the post-feminist world it is widely believed that a woman’s place could equally be in the boardroom as in any other room. A woman is technically free to be an automotive technician or a hair stylist. But statistics show women choose the automotive tech careers less frequently. Statistics also show that women occupy only 17 percent of corporate leadership positions. Perhaps with this in mind, the most recent Oxford style, online debate held by The Economist was the on topic of Women and Work. Debaters argued for or against the issue: A woman’s place is at work. On one side, the argument is that society is better off when women are at work because that’s how women achieve their full potential. Not so fast, said the opposing side. Women should not be boxed into the workplace or anyplace. They should be free to choose and that’s why at least five million American women are full-time mothers.
When all was said, the winning side opposed the idea that a woman’s place is in/at a job. The arguments ranged from the pay gap to the idea that selling one’s life to an organization doesn’t hold any charms. Some found it a hard sell that women would joyfully seek out mundane, routine work from behind desks, or on assembly lines, or in janitorial work for anything other than the money. Others argue that when women work, they actually outsource the old-fashioned woman’s role of raising children, housekeeping and the like to other women. And besides, a woman is not the same as a man because a man cannot anatomically bear children and technology has not provided an alternative to replace the entire gestational period. Ultimately, it was argued, the question itself is flawed because it assumes that women raising children at home are not working. Feel free to air your views.