Christians are admonished in scripture not “to become entangled in the affairs of this world,” not such an easy task when the god of this world is variously characterized as a sly serpent, a devouring lion, and a beast who would control all our “buying and selling.” This last apocalyptic picture is frighteningly similar to the evolving bureaucratic and economic structures of the
Alvin Toffler, in his best-selling Future Shock (Bantam 1970), gives the name “technocracy” to our country’s present-day megalithic monsters. He defines technocracy as 1) econocentric (its goal is economy, its means for reaching that goal is technology), 2) short-range (it disregards bad long-range effects, such as wasted manpower, pollution, and destruction of natural balances), and 3) undemocratic (decision-making, most of it non-delegated, is in the lands of very few men).
In each of these three aspects, super-industrialism (another name for technocracy) exploits the individual man and woman — especially the woman. Economically, the gap is widening between the incomes of working men and working women. Also, short-range planning in big-business continues to postpone the development of day-care centers and other institutions that would ease the pressures on working women. And increasing bureaucracy is reducing the already small percentage of women among industrial decision makers.
Many see no cause to even consider these three points as they relate to women; they would rather rest on that time-honored but short-sighted sentiment: “a woman’s place is in the home.”
There are two basic problems with that cliché. First to argue that “a woman’s place is in the home” is to assume, usually unconsciously, that “a woman’s place is at the side of some man.” But this fails to take into account the large number of welfare mothers, wives of sick or handicapped men, women separated from their husbands, divorcees, widows (who in the United States often outlive their husbands by 20 or 30 years) and single women not living at home—all of whom must somehow make a living for themselves and their dependents. It is a rare Christian community which obeys the Biblical injunction to care for orphans and widows, let alone extends this principle to include the great army of single women who must fend for themselves.
One way of caring would be to concern oneself with the methods by which technocratic institutions continue to exploit them. Half the women between the ages of 16 and 64 in the
Second, the argument that “a woman’s place is in the home” is a cultural anachronism. Not too many generations ago, all industry was “domestic” industry. Both men and women found their “place” in the home. Work as well as play was shared by the entire family. But the mechanization of industry moved the production of foods, clothing, and furniture from the house, the “love of money” replaced the love of labor, profit became the driving motive, and men took over the formerly male and female tasks. What is left in the home are largely dull, repetitive, never-ending jobs that any non-creative person can be trained to do. Proof is found in the cheap price-tag our society puts on domestic help and in the minuscule number of males willing to sacrifice their valuable time to do “housework.”
So, if we are willing to see the validity of a woman’s place in the economic world, let us examine more specifically how technocracy puts her down.
Women with the same amount of education (in fact, women as a whole enter the labor market with more training and education than men) and doing the same work are paid less than their male counterparts and presently that income gap is widening. By 1955 it was encouraging to see that the wages of the average woman in America had risen to nearly two-thirds of that earned by the average man ($2,719 as compared to $ 4,252), but since then the increase in women’s median wage ($1,738) has been only half the increase in men’s median wage ($3,414). Women now make barely more than half what men receive! In 1968, moreover, 60 percent of the women but only 20 percent of the men earned less than $5,000, while at the upper end of the scale only 3 percent of the women but 28 percent of the men had earnings of $10,000 of more.
Such figures are not the concern of most employers, who prefer to maintain certain pockets of “woman’s work” (largely service and clerical), because few men will take such jobs for the low pay they offer. It is here that “a woman’s place is in the home” is seen to be the phony moral rationalization that it is. If employers really meant this, they wouldn’t hire women at all. Instead they use the feminine mystique to mold women into their “place” in industry. Manufactures do not want to change this situation, for it saves them $10 to $15 billion every year, nearly one-fourth of all their profits.
Labor unions, supposedly the protectors of working people, also profit from this exploitation of women. They often hire women (as well as students and other “minority” groups) as part of the 90-day-labor force, collecting from them a union fee and releasing them before they can receive any membership benefits—including guarantee of a job. So a floating crew of experienced labor at cheap rates is established with the union acting as a hiring hall for the employers.
Also, even though studies and experiments show that the increased mobilization of women in industry would in the long run augment both production and profits, it would cut into a company’s profits during the period while adjustments were being made in hiring and training procedures (as for the latter, the argument that women are not qualified for men’s work remains meaningless as long as women continue to be denied the on-the-job training necessary for those jobs). As long as profits are figured from year to year, there seems to be no promise of serious attempts on the part of industries, labor unions, or even governments, to help take women out of the “labor surplus” category, where they hardly ever experience the privileges and protection of tenures, raises, benefits such as insurance, travel expenses and pensions, and where they have little or no influence in the making of company policies.
Even in some so-called feminine job-categories it is the men who rule. For example, in library science, over 70% of bachelors degrees are held by women, but over 90% of the doctorates have been earned by men. Again, men who constitute only 12% of the teaching force in elementary schools, hold 78% of the principalships! And in the churches, a woman with a Masters degree may be Choir Director or Sunday School Superintendent for years without pay, only to be replaced by a man with a Masters degree who will receive a full salary as Minister of Music or Minister of Education.
Our society is increasingly ruled by a few, a few with money, a few who are inevitably men, men who care little about the lives of their fellow men and women. Christians, on the other hand, seek human liberation, freedom characterized by love for God and fellow human beings. This must by definition include a concern for the liberation of women from economic exploitation.
Every Christian male should ask himself some of the following questions: Do I consider myself to be my wife’s “provider?” Is that a theologically or socially defined role? What does it assume about my wife’s capacities as compared to my own? Do I feel guilty about my wife’s working to put me through school? How do I value my wife’s work (paid or unpaid) in comparison with my own? What proof do I have that I consider it of equal value? When there is a conflict of interests or of time, whose is more important? Is my wife involved in society’s low-paid “woman’s work?” If so, does it concern me? Could she make it on her own? Or would another “provider” come along?
Burgeoning technocracy should force us to rethink how we value freedom, work, and money. It should also force us to rethink what God meant when he said that “in Christ there is neither male nor female.”
Dick and Joyce Boldrey were contributing editors of the Post American when this article appeared.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!