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?
I suppose I derive my identity from my vocation. My vocation narrows down to wife and mother. In a larger sense I am a child of God, a daughter, a sister, a friend. I have never seen myself as having the goal of being career-driven. Careers don't last a life-time, but family, loved ones and my relationship with the Lord does.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying one's career, that may be a part of a woman's vocation as well.
I pray everything works out so I can be a SAHM, but perhaps that is not what God has in store for me. If I am blessed enough to become a SAHM, and if people asked me what I do, I doubt I'll have any problem telling them what I do. It's sad how people look down on the role of a stay at home mother or a stay at home father.
Like Maggie, I too derive my identity primarily from my vocation, at least on a good day. On a bad day, I feel that my identity is tied to "what I do" and since I have no children or career, it's tempting to think I do "nothing".
ReplyDeleteEven though I do not have a living child here, I have thought of myself as a mother since the day I found out I was pregnant with Michael (just about one year ago), and I still feel that I *am* a mother. I am a mother in preparation.
I would love to be a SAHM, and I hope that I will be. But of course, if having a baby takes much longer than I hope, I will probably have a career of some kind, and I do think I would enjoy that. But it wouldn't be my preference, and as far as I'm concerned, can't be as important as being responsible for the life and formation of a human being.
Such an interesting question! Since I'm single, I've had to ask myself that question, "Who am I?" and "What gives my life purpose and meaning?" I guess the first question is answered by the second. The second... well, I would say my faith. My work, while it is extremely important to me, is something that I could give up if I had to, and would like to give up if I had kids.
ReplyDelete"Women nowadays are more likely to work so they have a sense of identity than out of necessity." I think that I'd have to edit that to specify upperclass women... unless you're using "necessity" in a very narrow sense. I am under the impression that most upper class mothers do not work full time, and that it is normal for middleclass families to think of saving for retirement and their children's college educations as necessity. But I don't really have stats on this anyway, and I guess it is a bit beside your point. :-)
ReplyDeleteI tend to think of identity issues as a cost that comes with the superabundance of resources, and so it is not something that I have had to pay. I was struggling to think of where I find my identity, and I realized that I couldn't figure it out because I don't think of myself in terms of having an identity. Obviously I do, we all do, but I don't think of myself in that sort of way... I know that certain groups will look down on me for choices related to marriage and parenting, but that seems so much less consuming than the questions of what is best for children in terms of education, in what ways I can do the most good, etc.
Hmmm... I think that could sound sort of arrogant, but maybe I am just trying to justify another approach to these things? And I suspect that most women in the world make these "choices" far more out of necessity than identity preference.
I'd still say that the majority of women who work do so out of necessity. I do know some women who work with out the necesscity of a second income, and that's usually because they have fewer or older children and desire something to do with their time and (very rarely) its to have a sense of having a little financial independence (i.e. not having to ask husband for money all the time).
ReplyDeleteHowever I'd like to add the caveat that I think most men work out of necessity and yet we don't question this either or chide them from not getting a sense of identity from the home. And that I would feel sorry for anyone, man or woman who only got a sense of identity from their paying vocation (it's often a something I feel for many actors I know).
I guess I should have made more clear that I was referring to women with less necessity to work.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that a person's vocation should be their source of identity (and of course people have many vocations: Christian, woman, wife, mother, and also job- and interest-related). Do you think we're the minority, as people who don't feel their *primary* identity comes from their paid employment? (Or do I just have too many friends who aren't married/parents yet, and who therefore consider their identity solely career-related?) Do you think this is perhaps age or income based?
Rae, I think your point on identity and the stereotypical "who am I?" questions being possible only in a wealthy country is interesting.
Molly, I agree that this is something we should ask about men as well. I do think men are more likely to base their identity on their job than on being fathers. And yet the first person who ever made me think about this was my own husband, who gets really annoyed when people do that. He believes that being a husband/father is more important than your career, even though he really likes his job. I'm just musing out loud again, but do you think men are more likely to find their identity in their work because traditionally they supported their families, and their vocation as a provider became conflated with what they were doing to provide?
I do think men look for an identity from their vocation because it is traditional, but I don't think that it's fair for them to say that men should look to their vocation for a sense of identity and women can't.
ReplyDeleteTwo Examples - If you were given two talented Doctors, one a man and one a women, both should be able say, without reprise, that being a Doctor is part of their identity.
If you were given two talented Stay At Home Parents, one a man and one a woman, both should be able to say, without reprise, that being a Parent is part of their identity.
So basically what I would say is I want to do with out the dualism.
Molly, I agree, and hope I didn't come off as saying men are allowed to use their career as part of their identity and women aren't. Certainly they both can, and do!
ReplyDeleteIf I may be so bold, here is how I would suggest any person, man or woman, might derive their dignity: Christian, spouse (if so), parent (if so), "everyday" vocation (job, homemaking, volunteering, whatever it is the person spends most of the day doing), additional hobbies and interests (art/music, sports, and writing/blogging of course!). Depending on a person's priorities, that order would be rearranged.
On a side note, I wonder if when you're around people like you all the time (people who share your primary vocations), you start to feel like the things lower on the list are more important to your identity? I'm just thinking of college in particular. Sure, I was an 18 year old white Christian woman who was smart and pursuing a degree - but so were almost all of the people around me! During those four years, my identity was primarily tied up in playing rugby, as it was something that separated me from most of the others.
Sorry I hope I didn't come off to brusque either! I like you list of items that a person might used to form their identity and I agree that who you surround yourself with can shape it. When we were in college, part of our identity was being a college student. When we are no longer active students that is no longer a central part of our identity, it becomes something else i.e Claiming "College Educated" is a different type of identity than being a "College Student", wouldn't you agree? In the Theatrical world our identities and jobs get muddled all too quickly for many reasons, an interesting part of this is that people expect anyone with ties to the theatre to act in certain ways or believe certain things (which isn't always true) so we must be aware at how our chosen vocation shapes other views of our identities; i.e. many people are shocked to find out just how many of us are devout in our religious beliefs or have strong ties to our families because it is not something they assume to be part of our identity.
ReplyDeleteSince I honestly feel no stronger pull in one area of my life to another, I think I derive my identity from my actions and how they affect others and how I want to be perceived (and I admit I am a rather external person in these regards). I've asked people to describe me before, and though I might practice Christianity, or be a wife, a daughter, a theatre worker, a knitter, etc. the words people identify with me are always action or emotionally based "energetic, kind, thoughtful, funny" - to them and to myself I am not any of those thing because I am a Christian or a woman, etc. I am not kind because I'm a Christian, I'm not energetic because I'm in the theatre, rather I am and believe these things because of who I am in the most simple of terms.
Elizabeth, do you know what percentage of upper class/upper middle class mothers work full-time before their children are young? I am asking because I don't actually know, but have always had the impression that it was socially expected for these women to give up their jobs at *least* until their children started school. Would you feel comfortable in your social circle if you chose to go to work when you had a two-month-old?
ReplyDeleteI went to college in a wealthy town where families in which both parents worked had to find childcare for Wednesday afternoons because the schools let kids out early with the assumption that mothers would be home. And I've read too many articles about elite women choosing motherhood, so my view is probably skewed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html
But I wonder what percentage of young mothers are choosing to work full time when they really do have a full range of options.
Hey Rae,
ReplyDeleteI have no numbers whatsoever, and would also be very interested in them!
The article you included was fascinating. I also thought the various points of view within it were interesting - the students seeming so matter of fact and happy with their plans, and the faculty freaking out. Isn't if funny that we want women to have every choice available to them, and then don't like it when they choose the one we wouldn't? (I think we're probably all guilty of this to some extent.) It kind of reminded me of the movie "Mona Lisa Smile," when Julia Roberts is so adament that Julia Stiles go to law school because she can, but Stiles calmly chooses to become a homemaker instead.
BTW, that movie was the first time I had seen someone do that. My mom and almost all my friends' mothers worked, and I had every intention of being a working mother. The fact that an intelligent woman could choose to stay at home initially floored me.
"Isn't if funny that we want women to have every choice available to them, and then don't like it when they choose the one we wouldn't?"
ReplyDeleteExactly! I hate it how "choice" is so glorified (I don't personally think that "choice" is so great unless the options are great) but watch out if the "choice" is not the "right" one!
I think that it is really sad that both of our backgrounds tried to teach us that we were limited in our options. I am rather fond of the idea of there being as many options as possible available to women since we all find ourselves in very different circumstances (despite the whole "we're all sisters going through the same thing" idea).
Elizabeth, I sat down to write a post about this chapter and it turned into a sob story about how I often feel harshly judged for my plans to be a SAHM and homeschooler someday. (Quite frankly, I was planning on these things long before I found a supportive boyfriend who will one day soon have the financial means to help me pursue the vocation that I have determined is mine.) I am the product of my fabulous liberal arts education, yet I find it difficult, both in the academic community and within my own group of intellectual friends, to defend the value of the mother I hope to be, and it has caused me a lot of turmoil over the years (I'm not even engaged now, let alone with children, so I realize that it's slightly ridiculous that I have always been conscious of this desire/calling, but so be it). I have remained resolute in the value that I personally ascribe to the position of a SAHM, but it is difficult to reconcile that decision in the larger (secular) world.
ReplyDeleteMaggie, I think that you should certainly share your story, even if you feel as though it is a "sob story." I for one need to hear such stories since they are so different from my experience.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all of your responses, I would like to add yet another view point. My husband and I became pregnant soon after our marriage, and immediately worried that our measly part time incomes would not support our baby. (we realize now that we just had no idea what we wanted to do with our lives and this was a good excuse to quit college) I admire all of you for your education and battle with not having titles to back up my thoughts, just as many of you battle with thoughts of wasting your degrees on being a SAHM. I worked for years out of necessity so my husband could finish his degree and now the tables have turned. And we have three kids and we do it on one income. Priorities. So anyway. To answer the question of where I derive my identity; it comes from many aspects of my current and past life. Those aspects are like puzzle pieces that don't work unless together. I am a mommy (a SAHM one-for the time being), a (dare I say it) non-traditional student, an active member of our church, a volunteer grant writer and librarian, and the other half of an amazing team. It sounds like a lot, but hubby and boys take priority over everything else. I have seen women who struggle with work and family, those that are great at it, and women who can't understand the balancing act and don't want to. The media certainly loves an extreme and because of that I think we are bombarded with unrealistic ideas of what our lives entail. There is a middle ground where most of us probably live, but that is just not as fun to watch on tv.
ReplyDelete