There’s this event that is starting to get traction in Europe (I don’t know in the rest of the world), that on November 4th, at 9:10 am, women work for free for the rest of the year due to wage disparities between men and women.
Clarification: women are not refusing pay, the event is that they (as well as men) are highlighting the fact that after that date, they are essentially working for free.
Truthfully I’m not sure what to think of this or say about it. I mean, the purpose of noting this event is to bring awareness to wage disparities and inequality. But I can’t help but feel it lacks revolutionary character. All wage labour is labour done for free, it is not unique to wage disparity among other lines.
What are your thoughts? How do we repackage this into a revolutionary outlook?
They aren’t literally working for free or refusing pay.
The point is that because of the average gender pay gap between men and women, women are essentially working for free for the rest of the year relatively.
Nobodies rejecting pay to make a point. The date November 4th is to mark the point in the year where if women were paid equally to men, they could stop working and take home the same pay they receive in reality.
There is also some revolutionary suggestions by the Europe party of Socialists and the women’s wovement zij-kant called the “out of office” campaign in which for the remainder of the year they are encouraging women to link and automatic mailbox message directing all inquiries to male colleagues as they are currently still being paid. Essentially a soft strike where they still work bar answering emails.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/77014/unequal-pay-day-european-women-work-for-free-starting-from-monday-4-november
It makes more sense.
makes sense
Yes I can see how my original post makes it seem like they are refusing pay
I think the idea of them refusing to answer emails is a good way of getting non revolutionary women to engage in the campaign.
I’d like to see people setting fire to CEOs cars and striking but for a lot of women, even agreeing to strike will put a target on them and lead to considerably more workplace discrimination than if a male colleague did the same. This same discrimination still isn’t addressed today.
Even with action women are hamstringed by male perception and control of the workplace and having the odd girl boss ceo is not the fix to this problem.
The UK government currently believes it is however (they are suggesting tying CEO bonuses to the amount of women in board rooms) and are completely missing the point that companies promoting a girl boss into the board is not going to a) change the material conditions of female colleagues down the ladder b) more than likely lead to companies hiring women who will turn their backs on their fellow colleagues and defend the already existing status quo.
I think the solution proposed is reasonable enough to get engagement from the wider female workforce in a way that a full strike might not. Maybe. And hopefully will raise awareness about these current issues.
The wider problem cannot be addressed until men pull their heads out their arses recognise the systemic discrimination that their female colleagues suffer and join with them in solidarity to affect real systemic change.
Sadly that isn’t the case across the majority and women are yet again being made to try and push back against the patriarchy on their own without support or allyship leading to a situation where a majority of men will criticise and mock these movements eithee through a lack of understanding or a vicious distaste for womens empowerment in the workplace and perpetuate these problems as they see them as “oh the girls are kicking up a fuss again”.
If we want real revolutionary change we need men to recognise this and join in solidarity to address this problem.
Leaving women to tackle this alone in a system made for and by men is what leads to less revolutionary and more appeasement strategies as women are blocked from pushing back due to fear of harassment, discrimination and job insecurity.
Allyship is important here.
That’s my take.