hey, this is really hard. This article demands an essay as response. Have you ever tried writing an essay in one of these comment boxes? It's simply not going to happen. You will have to settle for random observations:
"the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking"
Could it be that these responsibilities are actually more significant? And men are simply being chivalrous in allowing their partner to have the better spot?
"But elite women aren’t resisting tradition"
In our experience, the new tradition is for the man to stay home with the kids and the wife to work. This whole thing doesn't explain the many men who would prefer to stay at home.
“Housekeeping and child-rearing in the nuclear family is not interesting and not socially validated. Justice requires that it not be assigned to women on the basis of their gender and at the sacrifice of their access to money, power, and honor.”
But maybe what is changing now is that it is becoming socially validated. And more interesting, based on the things you mentioned in your previous post: home organization, menu planning, and home-cooking as shared interests.
"If women’s flourishing does matter"
Of course it does. But perhaps there are better alternatives to create an environment where that can happen.
"There are three rules: Prepare yourself to qualify for good work, treat work seriously, and don’t put yourself in a position of unequal resources when you marry."
Those are the feminist rules of my youth. What's new here?
"Feminist organizations should produce each year a survey of the most common job opportunities for people with college degrees, along with the average lifetime earnings from each job category"
So, is this about money or about flourishing? And it is not proven that because the man earns the money he has more power in the family. Actually there were a number of statements in this article which were not proven.
And the whole nanny thing seems to ignore the fact that the nanny is a woman. So why is nannying desirable, but mothering is not?
"Worse, the behavior tarnishes every female with the knowledge that she is almost never going to be a ruler"
The underlying elite premise, about "ruling classes" and so-forth, really goes against the grain with me. Is that what we, as a society, have settled on? And all this time I thought that was what we were working against.
Excellent points. Some I had noticed myself. The overall message that I got was that women (as a group) are not doing the things that will lead them (as a gender) to assume equal power in society. Not more power than men, just equal.
That is not to say that every woman is or should be concerned with wealth and power; every man is not. But the women who are poised to more easily attain that wealth and power, the 'elite' mentioned in the article, are dropping out in favor of letting their husbands do the work. That makes it even harder for non-elite women to achieve wealth and power.
Proven or not, I believe in a one-earner household it is the earner who holds the most power. The earner's job choice and performance determines where and how the family will live. And should that earner die or divorce, the non-earner is stuck with whatever they the earner chose to provide.
On a lighter note, I also think that we read into these articles what we want to see. Right now I really want someone else to clean my bathrooms!
what do you think the idea that the submissive is the one w/ the real power does to this whole discussion? I don't know that I agree that the submissive has real power in all cases, but I am putting it out there.
My spouse gets to make all the meaningful decisions until I don't let him anymore. I enable him to be dominant b/c I "go along" - certainly, some women are bullied into "going along" so this is not necessarily true for them, but in my case, I earn more - I have more credentials, I have more friends nad a wider support network, I have more social interactions and opportunities... I "let" him decide and determine things until or unless I get bored with it. I am thinking as I type, so don't hold me to all of this - but it occurs to me that it parallels a maternalistic parenting approach.
Undoubtedly, we don't measure power correctly... or think about it outside the age-old paradigm.
The Golden Rule - He who has the Gold makes the rules...
Dana, Interesting concept. My thoughts: In a 'one up, one down' relationship, I don't think you can be truly submissive and have more power than the dominant. In your relationship (as outlined here) you are clearly the more powerful. You 'let' him make decisions until you 'don't let him anymore', then you reassert your power. The power was never gone. Just by stating that the family power structure is within your control says that you have the power in that relationship.
I am less concerned about power in the context of relationships (although it is fascinating) than I am about power in the context of society. Who has the power in our society, and why? Is that OK? Should it be different? What would make it different? What would change as a result?
I agree with Rebecca - this article does support an essay in response. I did not agree with much of the author's points, nor perscribe to her opinions, although the article did raise points I hadn't seen before in a publication (but thought of in reference to many of my friends). Thanks for the food for thought - and here are a few (quite a few!) of mine.
First, here's what I agree with: I agree 100% with one of the author's main points that many "elite" women are "opting out" - and ignoring the costs they incur for this. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say these women are *letting* their partners off the hook and suffering, martyr-style, as they attempt to juggle their career (valued far less than their partner's) and still "buy the butter", so to speak. Yes, this is happening. However, I am NOT opting out in this way, although I am not working and my husband is (I also believe I am furthering feminism by doing this; more later).
A few miscellaneous points I am also in agreement with:
"The economic temptation is to assign the cost of child care to the woman’s income." I totally agree - I see this all the time. When I've pointed out the alternative view I have seen women's jaws drop.
I also liked what she said here:
" The home-economics trap involves superior female knowledge and superior female sanitation. [ snip ] “Where’s the butter?” actually means butter my toast, buy the butter, remember when we’re out of butter. Next thing you know you’re quitting your job at the law firm because you’re so busy managing the butter. If women never start playing the household-manager role, the house will be dirty, but the realities of the physical world will trump the pull of gender ideology. Either the other adult in the family will take a hand or the children will grow up with robust immune systems."
I completely agree here - a thousand percent. Women play into this with more ferocity than men seem to invest in keeping women in the home (although everyone is "playing" when this happens). More on this later.
Now, here's where I don't agree or adhere to the author's views.
In a nutshell, it seems like "old" feminism to worry about the balance of power based solely on earning potential (more about the article's secondary issue of personal fulfillment later). The very concept of using career and earnings as a yardstick for societal, personal, or familial success completely supports the "male" model of power. $25, $50, or $100/ hour earnings is only ONE kind of power and has many drawbacks (see high earner's health problem, stress disorders, and parenting difficulties).
Ladies, why should we combat grody Boy's Club work culture by working our asses off to compete according to their rules? Is there another alternative that allows us to work, nurture and grow as much as we'd like? Focussing on earnings and career is a consuming, but rather hollow, strategy to be an end-all goal.
Here's my family situation. I am the non-earner, and deliberately so since we wanted one primary caretaker for our children, fulltime. My husband fufilled that role while I worked for our first year. In our house, I am the strongest voice in our decisions about family, money, and living choices. I also weigh in heavily on Ralph's career moves (this is occurring right now in our lives).
Beth, you said:
"Proven or not, I believe in a one-earner household it is the earner who holds the most power. The earner's job choice and performance determines where and how the family will live. And should that earner die or divorce, the non-earner is stuck with whatever they the earner chose to provide."
This may be true in many relationships, but is definitely not true in mine. It is actually me - the non-earner, nurterer / family manager - who has taken the lion's share of decision-making regarding where we live, how we live, and what we eat. I have even been heavily involved with my husband's career (performance, choices, and difficulties). He considers me his career adviser (while I do not in turn rely on him as my family manager adviser). I definitely have the power card in our family, mostly because I am happy to take it, Ralph trusts my decisions and instincts, and I am happy to relinquish that power when need be. I don't think this is just personality-based between us. I am 29 and have different concepts of feminism than many of my older contemporary college-aged females (I am genuinely not sure if my earning power alone puts me in the "elite" category).
As far as the issues of death and divorce, both issues would make life harder for BOTH Ralph and I. If he vanished or died than yes, I'd have to hustle my ass to either find a man or a job - both of which I've done in the past and have confidence I could figure out again. If I died, think of what he'd have to sacrifice in terms of his job and the quality of care of his children (not to mention his "career adviser", as he calls me!).
Another issue this article doesn't address is the cost of the competitive career- and earnings-driven work culture. There is a personal and familial cost to high-earnership. This article doesn't ask how hard-workers in impressive careers feel about themselves; how drained and stretched they feel, how irritated by and out of touch with their children when they get home. Are these men jauntily strutting around the office, bringing home the bacon with a smile on their face, feeling "fulfilled", and going home rested and ready for family time? Even if so, is the solution for us to rush off to our own high-profile careers and nanny-out the children, so life can be "fair"?
While this article tells a woman how to best compete in the Boys World (while expecting little to nothing from men in this endeavor) it in fact doesn't take the empowerment issue far enough - all the way to one's personal responsibility in her relationship with her partner. Take this statement:
"But the women who are poised to more easily attain that wealth and power, the 'elite' mentioned in the article, are dropping out in favor of letting their husbands do the work. That makes it even harder for non-elite women to achieve wealth and power."
The author seems to think only families "elite" enough to entertain someone staying home can effect these changes. I disagree. I think things are harder in general for families who work balls-out from economic necessity, but women can still choose to hold their own power in these situations. Example: my own parents, who sent my mom to work while my dad stayed home. We lived in a bus. We were poor. We found our own way and did not need Wall Street to show us that women can hold, value, and excel at a career (my mother remained the sole breadwinner for my parents' entire working lives).
As for the brilliant "butter" argument: I have trained my husband out of this shit (ask him about what I did when he forgot to take out the garbage enough times). I do not play that game nor is my husband a passive force regarding housework (he has in fact been mopping floors as I write this). That said, if one person is staying home more (the author seems to think this is a bad idea, though), that person really does know more about how the house runs and when butter should be bought. It is up to the household manager to enable his / her partner to participate in a way that edifies both and supports mutually-agreed upon values of cleanliness, order, and such. I attempt to walk the line of a family manager who communicates effectively to enable my husband to participate and enjoy his participation. This is something I could write an even longer article about (although a less snarky one).
The article gets really gross toward the end - talking about marrying down, " avoid[ing] taking on more than a fair share of the second shift". While I do in fact avoiding doing more than my share, I would like to think I do so out of self-respect and a genuine desire to help my husband feel ownership of the home. This article, by contrast, sounds like a career-centered dickhead of a man putting his foot down about chores. See, I am a feminist who refuses to act like an aggressive man, in order to be a fulfilled woman. In fact, this article belittles "women's work" more than most men I've ever heard:
"The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government."
Ewww! What is this statement saying about women who do flourish in the home? What is this statement saying about the potential to fight the feminist fight FROM the home? The part where homelife allows for "less flourishing" is a pretty big leap, and a slightly offensive one for someone who's "opted out" but retained her integrity and expected a lot from her husband. Now, I think this is exposing issues of the author. I think work is easier for "old-school" feminist. I think they've relied on it. It is *easier* to get "attaboys" and to receive external recognition of progress at work than at home. Some women (especially old-school feminists, of which my mother was one) simply never get used to being home and at their core judge themselves for both their "demeaning position" and their lack of success at it. This is sad, when really homelife is an opportunity to grow and flourish like no other. In fact, finding a way to make home life physically, emotionally, and intellectually stimulating is a hurdle I feel more accomplished at than finding these things at the workplace (where the structure is largely supplied for you).
"Worse, the behavior tarnishes every female with the knowledge that she is almost never going to be a ruler."
I have never felt that in my life. I have always believed I've had the potential to be a "ruler" and my home life has only reinforced that. In fact, I have more power and fufillment in my position now than I did working in a male-dominated field, with an engineering degree, and managing an all-male crew (most of them at least 20 years my senior).
When I read this article, I hear an embittered woman scrabbling for power and completely distrusting anyone who isn't doing the same thing the same way. I agree her methods might work, if one wants to focus entirely on keeping one's career and doesn't mind the drawbacks of the me-first attitude. But I like my method better - knowing I have power, and organizing my family around it. Whining, "marrying strategically", and choosing to think of one's home and children as a battleground seems exhausting and soul-shrinking. Power is a personal decision backed up by action, not a series of war moves against those you love (I apply the same social power caveat the author does in the second paragraph of IV. when I say this).
Kudos to the women who work and those who stay home. Remember that "feminism" supports other women's manifestations of power, not just the women who look (or dress, or have degrees) like you. We can fight the feminist fight on all fronts; and perhaps we need to change the fronts, both at work and home, rather than adapt to the viscious or martyered mentalities that allow them to function as they now do.
6 Comments:
hey, this is really hard. This article demands an essay as response. Have you ever tried writing an essay in one of these comment boxes? It's simply not going to happen. You will have to settle for random observations:
"the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking"
Could it be that these responsibilities are actually more significant? And men are simply being chivalrous in allowing their partner to have the better spot?
"But elite women aren’t resisting tradition"
In our experience, the new tradition is for the man to stay home with the kids and the wife to work. This whole thing doesn't explain the many men who would prefer to stay at home.
“Housekeeping and child-rearing in the nuclear family is not interesting and not socially validated. Justice requires that it not be assigned to women on the basis of their gender and at the sacrifice of their access to money, power, and honor.”
But maybe what is changing now is that it is becoming socially validated. And more interesting, based on the things you mentioned in your previous post: home organization, menu planning, and home-cooking as shared interests.
"If women’s flourishing does matter"
Of course it does. But perhaps there are better alternatives to create an environment where that can happen.
"There are three rules: Prepare yourself to qualify for good work, treat work seriously, and don’t put yourself in a position of unequal resources when you marry."
Those are the feminist rules of my youth. What's new here?
"Feminist organizations should produce each year a survey of the most common job opportunities for people with college degrees, along with the average lifetime earnings from each job category"
So, is this about money or about flourishing? And it is not proven that because the man earns the money he has more power in the family. Actually there were a number of statements in this article which were not proven.
And the whole nanny thing seems to ignore the fact that the nanny is a woman. So why is nannying desirable, but mothering is not?
"Worse, the behavior tarnishes every female with the knowledge that she is almost never going to be a ruler"
The underlying elite premise, about "ruling classes" and so-forth, really goes against the grain with me. Is that what we, as a society, have settled on? And all this time I thought that was what we were working against.
Excellent points. Some I had noticed myself. The overall message that I got was that women (as a group) are not doing the things that will lead them (as a gender) to assume equal power in society. Not more power than men, just equal.
That is not to say that every woman is or should be concerned with wealth and power; every man is not. But the women who are poised to more easily attain that wealth and power, the 'elite' mentioned in the article, are dropping out in favor of letting their husbands do the work. That makes it even harder for non-elite women to achieve wealth and power.
Proven or not, I believe in a one-earner household it is the earner who holds the most power. The earner's job choice and performance determines where and how the family will live. And should that earner die or divorce, the non-earner is stuck with whatever they the earner chose to provide.
On a lighter note, I also think that we read into these articles what we want to see. Right now I really want someone else to clean my bathrooms!
If I was there, I would love to clean your bathrooms! In exchange for food, of course. :)
what do you think the idea that the submissive is the one w/ the real power does to this whole discussion? I don't know that I agree that the submissive has real power in all cases, but I am putting it out there.
My spouse gets to make all the meaningful decisions until I don't let him anymore. I enable him to be dominant b/c I "go along" - certainly, some women are bullied into "going along" so this is not necessarily true for them, but in my case, I earn more - I have more credentials, I have more friends nad a wider support network, I have more social interactions and opportunities... I "let" him decide and determine things until or unless I get bored with it. I am thinking as I type, so don't hold me to all of this - but it occurs to me that it parallels a maternalistic parenting approach.
Undoubtedly, we don't measure power correctly... or think about it outside the age-old paradigm.
The Golden Rule - He who has the Gold makes the rules...
Dana, Interesting concept. My thoughts: In a 'one up, one down' relationship, I don't think you can be truly submissive and have more power than the dominant. In your relationship (as outlined here) you are clearly the more powerful. You 'let' him make decisions until you 'don't let him anymore', then you reassert your power. The power was never gone. Just by stating that the family power structure is within your control says that you have the power in that relationship.
I am less concerned about power in the context of relationships (although it is fascinating) than I am about power in the context of society. Who has the power in our society, and why? Is that OK? Should it be different? What would make it different? What would change as a result?
I agree with Rebecca - this article does support an essay in response. I did not agree with much of the author's points, nor perscribe to her opinions, although the article did raise points I hadn't seen before in a publication (but thought of in reference to many of my friends). Thanks for the food for thought - and here are a few (quite a few!) of mine.
First, here's what I agree with: I agree 100% with one of the author's main points that many "elite" women are "opting out" - and ignoring the costs they incur for this. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say these women are *letting* their partners off the hook and suffering, martyr-style, as they attempt to juggle their career (valued far less than their partner's) and still "buy the butter", so to speak. Yes, this is happening. However, I am NOT opting out in this way, although I am not working and my husband is (I also believe I am furthering feminism by doing this; more later).
A few miscellaneous points I am also in agreement with:
"The economic temptation is to assign the cost of child care to the woman’s income." I totally agree - I see this all the time. When I've pointed out the alternative view I have seen women's jaws drop.
I also liked what she said here:
" The home-economics trap involves superior female knowledge and superior female sanitation. [ snip ] “Where’s the butter?” actually means butter my toast, buy the butter, remember when we’re out of butter. Next thing you know you’re quitting your job at the law firm because you’re so busy managing the butter. If women never start playing the household-manager role, the house will be dirty, but the realities of the physical world will trump the pull of gender ideology. Either the other adult in the family will take a hand or the children will grow up with robust immune systems."
I completely agree here - a thousand percent. Women play into this with more ferocity than men seem to invest in keeping women in the home (although everyone is "playing" when this happens). More on this later.
Now, here's where I don't agree or adhere to the author's views.
In a nutshell, it seems like "old" feminism to worry about the balance of power based solely on earning potential (more about the article's secondary issue of personal fulfillment later). The very concept of using career and earnings as a yardstick for societal, personal, or familial success completely supports the "male" model of power. $25, $50, or $100/ hour earnings is only ONE kind of power and has many drawbacks (see high earner's health problem, stress disorders, and parenting difficulties).
Ladies, why should we combat grody Boy's Club work culture by working our asses off to compete according to their rules? Is there another alternative that allows us to work, nurture and grow as much as we'd like? Focussing on earnings and career is a consuming, but rather hollow, strategy to be an end-all goal.
Here's my family situation. I am the non-earner, and deliberately so since we wanted one primary caretaker for our children, fulltime. My husband fufilled that role while I worked for our first year. In our house, I am the strongest voice in our decisions about family, money, and living choices. I also weigh in heavily on Ralph's career moves (this is occurring right now in our lives).
Beth, you said:
"Proven or not, I believe in a one-earner household it is the earner who holds the most power. The earner's job choice and performance determines where and how the family will live. And should that earner die or divorce, the non-earner is stuck with whatever they the earner chose to provide."
This may be true in many relationships, but is definitely not true in mine. It is actually me - the non-earner, nurterer / family manager - who has taken the lion's share of decision-making regarding where we live, how we live, and what we eat. I have even been heavily involved with my husband's career (performance, choices, and difficulties). He considers me his career adviser (while I do not in turn rely on him as my family manager adviser). I definitely have the power card in our family, mostly because I am happy to take it, Ralph trusts my decisions and instincts, and I am happy to relinquish that power when need be. I don't think this is just personality-based between us. I am 29 and have different concepts of feminism than many of my older contemporary college-aged females (I am genuinely not sure if my earning power alone puts me in the "elite" category).
As far as the issues of death and divorce, both issues would make life harder for BOTH Ralph and I. If he vanished or died than yes, I'd have to hustle my ass to either find a man or a job - both of which I've done in the past and have confidence I could figure out again. If I died, think of what he'd have to sacrifice in terms of his job and the quality of care of his children (not to mention his "career adviser", as he calls me!).
Another issue this article doesn't address is the cost of the competitive career- and earnings-driven work culture. There is a personal and familial cost to high-earnership. This article doesn't ask how hard-workers in impressive careers feel about themselves; how drained and stretched they feel, how irritated by and out of touch with their children when they get home. Are these men jauntily strutting around the office, bringing home the bacon with a smile on their face, feeling "fulfilled", and going home rested and ready for family time? Even if so, is the solution for us to rush off to our own high-profile careers and nanny-out the children, so life can be "fair"?
While this article tells a woman how to best compete in the Boys World (while expecting little to nothing from men in this endeavor) it in fact doesn't take the empowerment issue far enough - all the way to one's personal responsibility in her relationship with her partner. Take this statement:
"But the women who are poised to more easily attain that wealth and power, the 'elite' mentioned in the article, are dropping out in favor of letting their husbands do the work. That makes it even harder for non-elite women to achieve wealth and power."
The author seems to think only families "elite" enough to entertain someone staying home can effect these changes. I disagree. I think things are harder in general for families who work balls-out from economic necessity, but women can still choose to hold their own power in these situations. Example: my own parents, who sent my mom to work while my dad stayed home. We lived in a bus. We were poor. We found our own way and did not need Wall Street to show us that women can hold, value, and excel at a career (my mother remained the sole breadwinner for my parents' entire working lives).
As for the brilliant "butter" argument: I have trained my husband out of this shit (ask him about what I did when he forgot to take out the garbage enough times). I do not play that game nor is my husband a passive force regarding housework (he has in fact been mopping floors as I write this). That said, if one person is staying home more (the author seems to think this is a bad idea, though), that person really does know more about how the house runs and when butter should be bought. It is up to the household manager to enable his / her partner to participate in a way that edifies both and supports mutually-agreed upon values of cleanliness, order, and such. I attempt to walk the line of a family manager who communicates effectively to enable my husband to participate and enjoy his participation. This is something I could write an even longer article about (although a less snarky one).
The article gets really gross toward the end - talking about marrying down, " avoid[ing] taking on more than a fair share of the second shift". While I do in fact avoiding doing more than my share, I would like to think I do so out of self-respect and a genuine desire to help my husband feel ownership of the home. This article, by contrast, sounds like a career-centered dickhead of a man putting his foot down about chores. See, I am a feminist who refuses to act like an aggressive man, in order to be a fulfilled woman. In fact, this article belittles "women's work" more than most men I've ever heard:
"The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government."
Ewww! What is this statement saying about women who do flourish in the home? What is this statement saying about the potential to fight the feminist fight FROM the home? The part where homelife allows for "less flourishing" is a pretty big leap, and a slightly offensive one for someone who's "opted out" but retained her integrity and expected a lot from her husband. Now, I think this is exposing issues of the author. I think work is easier for "old-school" feminist. I think they've relied on it. It is *easier* to get "attaboys" and to receive external recognition of progress at work than at home. Some women (especially old-school feminists, of which my mother was one) simply never get used to being home and at their core judge themselves for both their "demeaning position" and their lack of success at it. This is sad, when really homelife is an opportunity to grow and flourish like no other. In fact, finding a way to make home life physically, emotionally, and intellectually stimulating is a hurdle I feel more accomplished at than finding these things at the workplace (where the structure is largely supplied for you).
"Worse, the behavior tarnishes every female with the knowledge that she is almost never going to be a ruler."
I have never felt that in my life. I have always believed I've had the potential to be a "ruler" and my home life has only reinforced that. In fact, I have more power and fufillment in my position now than I did working in a male-dominated field, with an engineering degree, and managing an all-male crew (most of them at least 20 years my senior).
When I read this article, I hear an embittered woman scrabbling for power and completely distrusting anyone who isn't doing the same thing the same way. I agree her methods might work, if one wants to focus entirely on keeping one's career and doesn't mind the drawbacks of the me-first attitude. But I like my method better - knowing I have power, and organizing my family around it. Whining, "marrying strategically", and choosing to think of one's home and children as a battleground seems exhausting and soul-shrinking. Power is a personal decision backed up by action, not a series of war moves against those you love (I apply the same social power caveat the author does in the second paragraph of IV. when I say this).
Kudos to the women who work and those who stay home. Remember that "feminism" supports other women's manifestations of power, not just the women who look (or dress, or have degrees) like you. We can fight the feminist fight on all fronts; and perhaps we need to change the fronts, both at work and home, rather than adapt to the viscious or martyered mentalities that allow them to function as they now do.
Post a Comment
<< Home