Identity, Work and History

Though I'm a bit behind in my reading, the post before this gave me something I wanted to say that was a little too long in comment form. So here's my two cents about Women, Identity, Work and History.

What I think EFG is overlooking is that while the domestic sphere was historical the woman's "vocation" that did not mean a good majority of them did not work. Even 100+ years ago women in families in the lower classes (economic wise) worked even if it was as sewers or lace-maker from their homes. Middle class women were often expected to help out in the family business if that business, sometimes even working away from their husbands or fathers if multiple relatives owned businesses and need assistance. Even if a woman wasn't helping directly, day to day in the stores it was common to find ways to assist the business. As an example even a farmers wife (of which their are many examples from my family) was expected to do a number of chores and before the advent of fast food one of her many "jobs" was to help provide the multiple meals to the men working the fields. Upper classes women often had to run large homes, essentially they were in management - in charge of cooks, butlers, and servants, etc. and that was a job in and of itself (and part of a young woman's training if she was expected to marry to such a life). Also for those in the above the upper classes a woman was not just expected to stay in the home all day cleaning and cooking, especially as the industrial revolution gave her more gizmo's and gadgets to make that part easier. She was expected to be active in her community and church and not be idle.

And lets just admit it, it is easier in the day to day tasks to run a household post 1950's than it was pre-1900's. It just doesn't take as long to wash clothes, run errands or even to cook (though please note I'm not trying to say that homemaking is still an easy job by any means, especially when children enter the picture), so if women have the time to help out financially by working, why should we stop them? I think it's wrong to say that pre-feminist movement (about 1900's) women did not have the desire to have jobs or even careers, but that the facts of day to day survival did not encourage this and we take this for granted because we can do laundry in a couple of hours rather than having to take an entire day, food can be stored in the freezer rather than stored methodically through canning and preservation, clothing come pre-made, etc. etc.

Essentially what I'm getting at is I question if EFG has truly checked all her sources when she starts to make statement that boil down too - "Before the feminist movement a woman's sole sphere was the home", because the history just doesn't back it up when before the advent of cubicles the home was often an integral part of the families business and livelihood and that simply put "women worked" - if we didn't work before the feminist movement why was "equal pay for equal work" such a large component of the earlier feminist movements?

----------------------

And as a last note about women "Believing they must pursue a non domestic career if they expect to be taken seriously" - she is again seems to be ignoring the dualism for modern men, who are made to believe, by our society, that the only worthy vocations are those that are big, important and come with hefty pay checks. How many times have we seen a man looked down upon because they choose an unglamorous vocation that doesn't require a four year degree minimum? God forbid a man who works with his hands be an educated, well intentioned boon to society. How many of us have seen a farmer or a factory work looked down upon and stereotyped as uneducated or low-class even in modern times?

----------------------

I would like to end with an idea to put an idea out there, why can't we respect both aspects of the modern woman's life? I offer myself and a general description of many of the women I've met here as an example -

• I will probably never be a SAHM/W, if I do it will be for a short period of time; in fact I've never had a true desire to be one.
  
• I also do not see myself having a gaggle of children in which to focus 10-15+ years of my life on before they all would start to become self-sufficient.
  
• My husband will never have a big income job; though he is working towards a well paying job that he can be proud of, that job will never pay a lot of money.
  
• And I have non-domestic skills and talents (specifically when it comes to teaching and outreach to teenagers), which I like to think that God gave me to be used in a vocation outside of the home.
  
• At some point in my life I will also be in charge of running a family farm, (I say I here because my husband really has no desire to be a farmer, and I have no intention on selling my families farms) so while I might not be working at a building, will I probably do some kind of work my entire life for a combination of reasons - but mainly out of a desire to do so, whether that desire is to allow my husband to follow a desire job-path without the stress of being responsible for a single income, or to use my talents in the best way I can, etc.
  

Many of the women here have expressed either here or through their personal blogs an innate desire to be a SAHM/W, to raise many children and to lead lives those kind of lives. Some of them have husbands with careers that can easily support this (if not now then in the foreseeable future) or if not who are willing to do what is necessary job/career wise to support this family life choice. They might use their educations in non-direct ways, perhaps through their churches or other non-payed volunteer type routes (I always say an education is never truly wasted). And, though I don't know for certain, it seems like I might alone in the inheritance of land or family owned-business, so they might never have something like that to constantly be in charge of.

So what I'd like to say is why can't we both be respected? EFG seems very intent on trying to figure out which one is superior to the other, and I say why can't we be equal? If I can see and respect the many benefits a truly dedicated SAHM/W can bring to the world, why can't women like me be given the same respect? Not all of us are meant to or have the desire to operate solely in a domestic sphere, but that does not mean we are any less feminine or any less of a woman.

Where do you derive your identity?

Women are taking genuine pleasure in their work, even when it is far from glamorous. They like to be working to get out of the house, to interact with other adults, to earn money they can call their own. ... For years, women got the same sense of accomplishment from presiding over a household and raising children. ... [I]ncreasing numbers of women have come to believe that they must pursue some kind of nondomestic career if they expect to be taken seriously. (pgs121-122)

I'm just throwing this idea out there, and would love to hear your thoughts on it, so please correct me if I'm wrong:  Women nowadays are more likely to work so they have a sense of identity than out of necessity.

Of course there are still a great many women working out of necessity. But I'm wondering if the ones that might not need to (let's say the middle and upper-middle class wives) still feel they must because they wouldn't know what else to do? After all, if they just have 2 kids and they eat out often and their husbands help out a lot around the house, they have fewer domestic duties. They feel like staying at home is a waste of their college education. And what would they say when someone asked what they do for a living?

I bring up that last question because it's really been a sticking point for me. I'm planning to become a SAHM. If someone asks me what I do, how exactly will I answer it? I'm afraid I will inevitably point to my advanced degree as proof that I'm good enough to do other things, but I have intentionally chosen not to. So my identity would be SAHM, with a PhD caveat. (Of course then comes the whole "what a waste of your degree" but I'm not worried about that here.)

So I guess my question is, where do you derive your identity? Is it through work? (I don't think that's an inherently bad thing, BTW.) Is it through relationships or religion? And I guess most importantly, are you happy with that? Do you expect it to change?

Food for Thought -- Carrie Bradshaw

I recently found the blog of Leah Darrow. She was a contestant on America's Next Top Model, and recent re-vert to the Catholic Church. She has a blog called Exposed. I would highly recommend checking it out.

The following article is called: "Carrie Bradshaw: A Relic of Feminism" and I thought it was apt for the subject matter of our little blog, so here's a snippet...

I am a 30 year old woman, single, living in the city, working a full time job, involved with volunteer work, social, outgoing, independent, big fan of mascara and lip gloss, frequently seen running through an airport to catch my flight for a girls weekend away in Mexico and have a committed relationship with all that encompasses “fashion” --- oh, and by the way, did I mention I am a faithful Catholic??
At first glance, it more sounds like a character description of Carrie Bradshaw from none other than Sex and the City but adding the catholic disclaimer is like adding a moral compass to Carrie Bradshaw – and no, this is not a necklace, broach or belt.

and

The space between Carrie Bradshaw and the Church Lady is the New Feminism role that all Christian women are being called to. This is not a theory or an ideology to remain in print and left on a shelf, but this calling is a lifestyle - one that can change the hearts and minds of men, women and children.

Go here to read the rest. She even mentions Helen Alvare, my new hero(ine).

Feminism in Economics

I thought I would try to get on the ball here and actually try to read the book on time for a change. I still find the book kind of hard to read, and I have a difficult time understanding just what EFG is arguing for. Or is she not arguing for anything and is just laying down the history of feminism as she sees it? I'm still a little lost on that point.

I may not have enjoyed reading this chapter that much, but I think that the topic is a really important one to discuss. One of the things that I thought that was interesting in the general tone of the chapter was the general idea of how men and women were doing competitively in the job market. There was almost an idea of who's beating who and by how much, and is the gap closing even further. There's also the idea of women needing to work so they can be free of their dependence on men.

That stuff right there is all of the stuff that I don't particularly like about feminism. This idea that we are pitted against men, or at the very least that we have to be able to be free from them is sort of crazy to me. To me, we are in this together as a human race. I don't like women trying be free from men as in this chapter, or from children as in the previous chapter. I think that seriously takes away from what it means to be a woman.

On the other hand, I very much appreciate the advances that have been made allowing women to have more access to the work force. As a single woman, I'm glad that I can support myself and that I was not limited to choices as a secretary, a nurse or a teacher. As much as I hate the fact that it's necessary, I also appreciate that married women have more options open to them for work as well. I think that there are times that a second income is not as necessary as we make it out to be, but there are definitely times that it is absolutely needed as well.

I guess from the standpoint of someone who leans more towards the idea of a "New Feminism" (though I admit to not fully understanding all that entails either), I think that figuring out the role of women in the workplace and how to balance that with family life is one that falls to us. I think that it is already happening in a lot of places that women are working less so that they can be home with their children more. Not just as SAHM's, but also as people working part time or shorter hours. I don't think that there is any one answer to how much a woman should work, because it's going to vary a lot depending on every family's need. Personally, I can't say much about the balance, since I sort of focus on my job as a default. What are everyone's thoughts about how we can try to be women working and balancing family at the same time?

Sexual Revolution

This chapter solidified my position on Feminism.  I have felt from as early as my teens that contraception and abortion were the reasons I couldn't call myself a Feminist, even though I believe in equal pay for equal work, and equal opportunities for women in academia, work, etc.  I find myself saddened by the fact that I don't want to identify with something that could have been (and was at one point in time) a good for society.


I believe that even though an action is commonplace does not then make it a good action.

Just because women were quietly/secretly having premarital sex even before the Sexual Revolution, does not mean it was good.

And just because it is now accepted and even expected that women engage openly in premarital sex after the Sexual Revolution, it does not mean it is good.

Encouraging the behavior by normalizing the behavior seems to only have added more heartache than not.  We have a society filled with girls who have no self-esteem, who believe their worth to a male companion is measured in her willingness to put out.  What is really sad is that many girls have been taught to believe that they ARE confident and they DO have self-esteem BECAUSE they engage in sex outside of marriage.

Instead of building up our boys and girls to respect themselves enough to live a chaste life, we do not expect this of them.  Instead our teachers, parents, doctors...hand them condoms or birth control pills (things that fail over and over) and say under their breath, "Well, kid...just don't get (her) pregnant"  And this literally validates this expectation that they will or even should engage in sexual behavior before marriage.

It's a vicious cycle we have created for ourselves.  It's unfortunate.  I pray like crazy every single day that my husband and I will be able to impress upon our children their worth, their prized possession of their chastity...that they will believe they are worth waiting for.  And yes...I know we are fighting an uphill battle.  But I believe it is possible.  I have seen it.  I am encouraged by the families that we know in our prayer circles who are having success in this matter.  They are absolutely counter-cultural in the ways they lead their children through courtship...but it is beautiful the results they have seen.

One word about Abstinence education because surely someone will come along and remind me how "unrealistic" I am on it.  I believe Abstinence Education, as it stands, does not work because the adults teaching it are not credible.  Kids are very perceptive (especially at the age when sex education is taught in most schools) and they can tell that the people telling them to remain abstinent don't believe that they can do it.  And since that underlying message is there...they do not believe they can do it either.

Chapter 4

This chapter was sort of like a horrific car wreck to me. I was both highly disturbed and fascinated by it, all at the same time. My blood pressure was through the roof at times, but my curiosity got the better of me and kept me reading.

I think what fascinated me the most was the discussion of our new-found sexual freedom as women. Finally, we have sexual freedom like men do. I know I can be terribly naive at times, but all I could think is that if the men have been sexually free all this time and the women haven't, then who, pray tell, are the men having sex with?

I know, I know. The men could have it and not be judged, whereas their women were no longer acceptable in society. Well, in that case, why "free" the women to act like the men? Why not instead hold the men to a higher standard, and judge them to be as equally shameful as we judged the women to be?

You know, I don't like the sexual repression that denied the deep hunger for love that lies within all of us. But neither do I like unrestrained sex. There has to be some discipline because sex is a very beautiful and very powerful thing. Fireworks are beautiful when they are used safely and correctly, but dangerous as all get out when used without respect for their power.

I don't know if EFG was trying to help us figure out how we should define this new morality that we find ourselves in. I have to admit that I think that the idea of trying to redefine morality to fit our newfound sexual freedom is ridiculous. It's not as though we as Americans used to have one morality and now we have a different one. That's really not up for debate any more than the laws of science are. We are created as we are created. Ignoring that will not make it go away.

Here's how I see it. The sexual repression of the previous generation was an anorexia of sorts. Like if they tried to deny the need it would go away. Of course, the constant denial can lead to a binge/purge cycle with sex as well. The sexual revolution decided that sex was good, and that any sex we wanted was good, so let's go with it all. Like a glutton spiraling towards disastrous obesity. Both are deadly to the body, and we are only fooling ourselves if we think that we can play games with sexuality and end up any better.

Finally!!!

I finally, finally, FINALLY, have my copy (looong story, very boring) and can now join in the fun!! I have been trying so hard to not read any posts so I wouldn't spoil any of the book and now I can catch up and join!! I am so sorry for my absence! Yeah, book club, here I come!!

Chapter 4 - Eugenics Gets One Sentence

I'm actually not really enjoying chapter 4 so far. I mean, I agree with the main points Mrs. F-G is making, but frankly, I am tired of reading and thinking about abortion. As a woman who is struggling to get pregnant, and would like nothing better than to be a mother, I have little patience for arguments from people whose claims work like this: A "fetus" is a human being if it's parents or someone else wants it (adoption), but it's not a human being if "no one" wants it and/or it was conceived in less than ideal circumstances, or has "something wrong with it".

I got seven pages into the chapter (pg. 89) when I had to stop reading because I was throwing up a little bit in my mouth. The reason? Well, what else makes one throw up in their mouth other than moral relativism?

"One woman captured the attitudes of many: "I would say my views are true for me, but I can't put that on someone else. I just can't force my truths on other people." How cosmopolitan and liberated of her. Us poor Christian bumpkins sure could learn a thing or two from her about the truth, huh?

"Many other respondents acknowledged inconsistencies in their views, but then fell back on "that's just how I feel." Oh well then, if that's just how she feels, we have to let her walk away with an inconsistent viewpoint about when and how its o.k. to kill human beings, right? I mean, if that's how she feels, she must be correct. *facepalm*

And following right on the heels of the above quoted gem, is this beauty: "Some admitted - privately - that concerns about overpopulation by "poor" and "minority" children influenced their views." Gosh, folks, don't be shy about your desire to eradicate the poor and people of color. No, seriously. You're in good company. Margaret Sanger, you know, the sainted founder of Planned Parenthood, said some similar things.

"Such class-consciousness points to one important reason for promoting birth control for the unfit -- the burden they place on what Sanger, in Pivot, called "the normal and healthy sections of the community." She claims that the healthy classes unduly bear the costs of "those who should never have been born." Indeed, Sanger's movement only took off when the wealthy elite, including the eugenic Rockefeller Foundation, rallied to her side." -Angela Franz

Here is the above quoted article attesting to the same attitude of eugenics and social control by Ms. Sanger and her organization.

Also, this is a short video clip from a longer documentary called Maafa 21, which was created to raise awareness within the African-American community about the eugenic motives of Planned Parenthood. (This is just one clip of about 15.)





Something funny happened on the way through chapter 4: eugenics got one sentence. Perhaps it is because the initial aims of the Sanger/Planned Parenthood movement were birth control and not abortion, Mrs. F-G didn't want to spend any time discussing the eugenic spirit alive and well in these United States. But I'd say that if there are people responding to a study that they support abortion because there are too many poor and minority people, that's cause for alarm. And perhaps, for more than just one sentence.

Why don't we have anything to say about this chapter?

Until Sarah and Kay posted last night, there were no discussions about this chapter. I was trying to figure out why.

It may be that we've just hit a bit of a lull in the club (maybe we should read more than a chapter a week?) but I suspect it's more a combination of (a) some disappointment in the book so far and (b) we've heard it all.

It's not that my blood wasn't pumping when I read it - whenever I hear about the sexual revolution I get fired up. And yet, while it left me upset, I didn't feel like I had anything noteworthy to say. It's not like I learned anything new. Here's hoping the next chapter has more blog fodder!

Chapter 3 - Shocking and Barbaric

So, I guess I'll break the ice on this week's chapter...

One thing in particular that stood out to me (and I'm sure many of you, as well), was the story of the African American man in South Carolina who, upon discovering his unwed daughter was pregnant, proceeded to lock her in a room and isolate her from her sisters until she went into labor. When her labor started, he refused to call a doctor and the outcome of her hours of seemingly painful labor was a stillborn child and her bleeding to death (pg 61). Talk about barbaric! Not only is the man's daughter dead, but her child is dead, as well.

Although EFG doesn't give a year for this incident, it is presumed to be pre-1960s. The father's motive for this act was reportedly to retain the family's "honor"(?!). Honestly, I'd be curious to hear what happened to the father. I wonder if the family's honor remained intact after his neglect led to two deaths.

Now, enter the question of abortion. Although this incident is presumed to have happened in a time when abortions were not legal, given that the family was of middle-class standing, they would likely have been able to afford an abortion that would have prevented this outcome. They may or may not have chosen this option and the woman may or may not have wanted to give birth to and/or raise the child, but, in any event, the availability of the abortion option, not to mention the greater independence of women that came to be after the feminist movement could have resulted in a very different, and quite possibly more pleasant outcome for this woman.

Video on New Feminism

I found this video of Catholic law professor Helen Alvare , discussing the New Feminism. I know this isn't directly from the book, but I am sure that it is relevant.

I'd love to embed it here, but I don't know how to embed on blogger, so here's the link to the video. I promise it's worth looking at (and about 5 mins. long).

(Edit by Elizabeth - I embedded the video. To do it on blogger, click on the "embed" button to the right of the video on YouTube and copy/paste the code into the post, from the "edit HTML" tab.)



What you think of New Feminism? How do you think Mrs. E F-G would view this video?

Growing Up Feminine -- 20 Years Later

I read all of chapter 2, waiting for her to get to the really good stuff. Then I realized that the chapter was over. Oops. My initial reaction, which I wrote in the margins at the end said, "This chapter is dated, re: lipstick feminism". The point has been made by several other ladies here that the research and information in this book is dated, so I don't think I have to prove myself on that claim. However, I'd like to mention the one part of the chapter that I thought was really interesting, before I talk about what I *wish* had been in this chapter. What I wish she said about being feminine in 2010.

In talking of Naomi Wolf, author of The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are Used Against Women, E F-G touches on what I felt to be one of the only points from this chapter that still feels like it makes sense in light of the experience of feminism and femininity that I had growing up, and more importantly, that my generation has had since 1996 (when I was in 6th grade and this book came out).

"Wolf echoes the complaints of generations of feminists who, from Mary Wollstonecraft to the present, has criticized the ways that feminine fashion keeps women in thrall to men. Simone deBeauvoir, in The Second Sex, especially deplored women's disadvantage in a culture in which they must always look young and beautiful, while men could grow old in the security that the character and power etched on their faces would only enhance their appeal to the opposite sex." (39)

I read that and thought, yeah! Look at drastic increase in things like botox and plastic surgery, or just that often the mothers of teenagers look like teenagers themselves. I wish this chapter had explored some of the implications of what's called "lipstick feminism" or "sex and the city feminism" for lack of a better term. It's this kind of "feminism" which I think was trying to revive the ideals of feminism, but make them more palatable to women who like to shop, wear makeup, and wouldn't ever dream of going braless outside of their house.

The tagline is all about "empowerment". It's supposed to be empowering to be both sexually aggressive and disdainful of men at the same time. I'm not entirely sure who it is supposed to be empowering though. I say that because I used to live that. I bought into this idea of feminism which suggests that real "freedom" is the ability to sleep with anyone you'd like, at any time, for any reason, regardless of whether or not you even know or care about the man. Something I heard in college that I really internalized for many years was this: "Men should be like Kleenex. Soft, strong, and disposable." Your girlfriends are your loves, the ones who know your heart; men are just people you have sex with." How many women of my generation have taken this to heart?

While the pendulum has swung from "let's all wear flannel and drive fork-lifts and who needs a man" feminism to "let's all walk around half-naked and use men for sex while wearing skirts and heels" feminism, I don't think that the latter is an improvement over the former.

What I'd love to see is a feminism, and a femininity that allows women to be women. Who sometimes like to wear dresses or skirts, or who always love them, or who can't stand them. Who sometimes wear makeup, or always wear makeup, or hate to wear makeup. Who understand that there are more important things in life than lipstick, and 500$ handbags, and putting yourself first. But who also understand that there is something irreplaceable about the feel of a summer sundress and that "just came from the salon" sensation.

In essence, what I'm advocating for is a type of religious feminism. One that helps women to see that their value and dignity as women comes not from their waist size, or hair color, or shoe style, but from being made in the image of God, as a woman. That's true femininity. Everything else, all of the makeup, and dresses, and all of it, is just icing on the cake. Pretty icing. Fun icing. Icing that is an avenue for bonding among women. But icing just the same.

That's what I wish this chapter had been about.