Thursday, February 25, 2010

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.

5 comments:

  1. I too have fallen behind with reading, mostly because the book is less than stellar and I'm having a hard time getting through it.

    That said, I have to point out that EFG herself has had a long successful career as a professor of law, and had no children. So I don't know how much she personally thinks that SAHM/W is superior to career mom/wife, but perhaps she's trying to stick it to the feminist establishment which for so long has said that being a SAHW/M is a waste of talent, education, etc.

    I also want to say, I hope I haven't come across as someone who has/would judge you for not wanting to be a SAHM/W. Of all of my non-blog friends, I don't really have more than one or two who would want to be SAHM, and I don't respect them less at all. I mean, I'd love to have the chance to be a SAHM (if I can ever get pregnant!), but I also know that by the time my kids would be school age, I'd probably want at least a part time job. I'd love to have four or five kids, but again, I don't know if that will happen. If I only have one or two, of course I'll work outside the home, though I might not get paid for it (volunteer, community involvement, etc.).

    My mother-in-law is one of the best moms I've ever encountered, and she worked part-time (and then full time) all while my husband and his sisters were growing up. People are called to many things, and as long as someone is listening to God's voice and doing what is best for their family, what is there to judge?

    One thing that really does bother me though, is when women (or men) who would like nothing more to be SAHM/D are forced to work because of financial reasons (like student loans, house payments, etc.) or because they think they need to in order to have a certain amount of possessions to be happy. But I guess getting into how our economic system makes it harder for families to thrive is a rant for another time.

    Thanks for this post; it's very thoughtful and I'm glad to see you haven't given up on the book (though it seems like you might like to!). Now I have to get it together and write something. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have not written for the past few chapters because I am so negative about the quality of the book. The quality of the historical information is far inferior to what I would expect from a history professor at a decent school, and I can't help but wonder whether it is because E F-G thinks that her audience isn't smart enough to care about more than stories.

    It is really odd for me to understand how certain arguments can come from pure myth (that women somehow spent all their time on family rather than "work" prior to the feminist movement), but then I remember that E F-G isn't actually clearly presenting arguments, and that she, like all of us, has a very limited perspective on life.

    Anyway I agree with most everything you've written here. And I can't help but wonder whether you would say that I seem to express the innate desire to be a SAHM/W. I have worked rather hard to keep myself in check since I think that I have the strongest sense of it being morally wrong for women to use the theory of family as an excuse for slacking off on contributing to the wellbeing of others who aren't direct extensions of themselves... and that can easily make others feel defensive or think that I undervalue family/home/children.

    I think that it is awesome that you value children and family while retaining interest in other things. I don't think that we can ever think that "staying at home" and "working" are equal for women so long as we think that they are unequal for men, but I hope that we eventually get to the place where everyone (both men and women) can value family first and then figure out how it fits in with the rest of their unique needs in terms of income, talent, and interests.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don't worry I haven't taken offense from anyone here about their SAHM desires, though in life I have been on the receiving end of the extreme anti-feminist ideas that the home is the only place where women belong.

    FTG- I also think its strange how EFG lead one life while leading (directly or indirectly) so many to vilify that life. I too have alot to say about just how much it really takes to get by.

    Rae- It's one of my biggest problems with this book - a lot of heresay and popular myth about pre-feminist family life. It might be kind of new-age-y to say but I also find that my sense of family extends beyond those related by blood or marriage to me, my friends are my family, my theatre company is my family, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "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? "

    On this part of your post, I began thinking about how it stunk to be Sarah Palin during the last election cycle. Here she was...a working mom and the feminist elite took her to task for it! She had capitalized on all of the opportunities she came across and they vilified her for going on the campaign trail while having a baby at home. And they never take the men to task who are on the campaign trail with children at home. Now, I am not the biggest Palin supporter (I do admire her...but I'm not discussing her politics necessarily)...but I found it absolutely ridiculous how she was vilified for taking her career seriously while having a family.

    And the poor girl...she got it bad on the conservative end, too. Many conservatives bashed her for joining the campaign trail instead of being home taking care of her baby. when the story of her daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy came about...she was vilified there for not staying home to deal with her daughter...because her daughter was in that situation ONLY because Palin was governor...right? Puh-leeze.

    So anyway...I just wanted to comment that your post reminded me of how women can't win no matter what they do....it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Even though I'm not an admirer of Mrs. Palin, and don't consider myself conservative in anyways. I do admire that she's brought the image of a fairly successful working mother to attention of more people. I would have to add that I would have rather seen Mrs. Palin (or a Mr. Palin if roles were reversed in the exact same situation) staying out of the election because of the family reasons you talked about. 1) Until a DS baby is born it can be hard to tell if the syndrome will affect other parts of the babies over all health and some can be more demanding of special attention. So with a child who was very young and possibly needing more attention I would have liked Mrs. Palin to choose her family. Though I can assume on this point her husband took up those roles to make sure he was under good care.
    2) Since she was aware of her daughter pregnancy before she announced her VP status, I would have admired her more for staying out of the race and the spot light and saving her daughter and now grandson from the harsh and critical spot light. I do believe Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin would not have received as much media attention if Mrs. Palin had turned down the nomination.
    Mrs. Palin, who I'm of the opinion plays the "Poor Me" card a little too much for my taste, did make the decision to be in the spot light and therefore (like any other political or famous figure) put her family in the spot light at a very trying moment of their lives. I choose to judge her actions not as a woman, but as a parent and I feel that as a parent I would have preferred her to make other decisions. As it is I observed her choosing to further her career rather than her families security and privacy at that trying time, something I believe I would judge just as harshly if McCain, Obama or Biden had been placed in the exact same situation and continued to do exactly as Mrs. Palin has done in the last couple of years. (When I say "exactly" I really do mean exactly - same situation, same media coverage, same spreads in grocery store checkout magazines)

    Okay... sorry just had to put that out there, though I don't think we should turn this into Palin Hate/Love discussion.

    ReplyDelete