I was reading a local paper a few days ago, when I came across the following letter:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/community/postbag/letter/20080912_0.html
I objected to this strongly on a number of levels, but especially to the writer's longing for "gender stereotypes." What stereotypes does she have in mind exactly? "50's housewife" maybe, the myth that Friedan debunked so famously? "Endlessly devoted and selfless mother"? "Women are women and men are men"? And I find it especially disturbing that she believes that women can only discover their identity within the home.
I must confess to mixed feelings about women quitting paid work to raise their children. My mother (willingly) gave up work to raise me and my sister, and I will always appeciate it (and her) for it. But my mother does not derive her identity, either as a person or as a woman, from being a wife and mother. Sure, she is both, but she is first and foremost, as Henrik Ibsen so famously phrased it, "a human being."
The writer's comments appear to stem from some Harlequin fantasy in which a wealthy man can support a family and allow the the woman to retreat gracefully from the world and devote herself to wifedom and motherhood. Real life, as we know, is by no means so trouble-free. Any woman who quits paid must inevitably become dependent on the male wage and the financial and employment status of her husband, which is by no means always a sure thing. And what are single mothers meant to do? My own grandmother was widowed at an early age and left with two young children, and had no choice but to work: the welfare state was in its infancy, she could get emotional but not financial support from her family, who were all poor, and bluntly it was a choice between work and going hungry.
Ladies, if it's your choice to give up work and raise a family, more power to you. But this letter confirms to me that feminism is still needed: women may be wives and mothers and housewives, but that isn't where our identity can be found. We're human beings after all. And now I'm off to re-read "The Feminine Mystique."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: We may be wives and mothers, but we are still human beings..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9273
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
This women seems a little out of touch with most modern day women. I agree that women, and men, should be able to stay home and raise their children. IF that's what they want to do. Personally, if I had to stay home with kids all day I would go nuts, or become a raging alcholic. Either outcome not ideal.
I also find this part interesting. "Women on this committee need to get over themselves – women wear bras and they need advertising." First of all not all women wear bras. And secondly do we really need ads for bras? Or tampons, or pads, or underwear? Those are all pretty much things people are going to buy, they don't need to be reminded about buying a bra.
Yup, the reason that the beauty and fashion and weight loss industries are so big, not to mention the prevalence of attractive women in the media and advertising must be because we are raising our girls to think that being pretty and attractive to men is wrong. Really though, the thinking is so flawed throughout this article that it is hard to know where to even start critiquing it. (I find it interesting that the author states she is a single mother and then goes on to blame feminism for the "madness" of society and break down of the family. Did feminism cause a divorce for her or keep her from getting married?) With people like this who idealize a past they never lived in I wish I could somehow ship them back in time. Do they realize fewer divorces did not mean happier marriages, but rather that a lot of women stayed in unhappy marriages because of economic reasons or the stigma attached with leaving? Maybe when they had no voice or power and realized that the past was a lot different than their fantasy novel they would change their tune. Also, assuming that she could go back in time, does the author of this letter realize that women were not allowed to express themselves sexually so that her bra add who's raciness she is defending would probably be a lot less racy? Does she also realize that she would likely have to beg her husband for money to justify purchasing it?
I would have to agree with you both. If it wasn't for the women who burned their bras we wouldn't have the freedom to express our sexuality or our femininity the way that do. swim suits would still look like a 5 yr olds jumper. I don't need an ad to buy a new sexy piece of lace all I need is to see it on the store rack.
Doesn't that simple woman know that women were alcoholics back in the day of house wives too? My grandma's were both stay at home moms raising 7 & 9 kids a piece and both were raging alcoholics. When alcohol couldn't do it for one of them she then turned to perscription pay killers and tranquilizers. She is still addicted to the pills today. So life wasn't better for them.
I admit that I wouldn't mind being a stay at home mom for a while. My house was cleaner, my boys were happier and I wasn't nearly as stressed all the time when I took 3 monthes off work to give birth. But at the end I was happy to go back to work if only to be able to have an adult conversation and it's hard to live without a pay check.
I'm a mostly stay-at-home Mom. It's partially my choice, partially a matter of I can't find a job that pays enough to cover the childcare and give me some extra cash. I'd rather not work *just* to put my kid in daycare. And partially, it's my kid has a number of issues and wouldn't do well in daycare, so it's best that I am home for him. I have a very part-time job, and I take my son with me to it (6 hours a week at a church as an admin assistant). I am lucky enough to have a partner who can support us on his paycheque and my pittance). But like you said, his job status isn't necessarily secure. Should he lose his job, we lose our house. Period. Because there is no way in hell I can find a job that pays what his does (despite having a graduate degree, compared to his two undergrad degrees).
And with all this, her article still pisses me off. I don't define myself by being wife and mother. I had an identity before both of those things. And while it's changed, I have outside interests, hobbies and any number of other things that make me who I am. It's not just my family situation.
Your point is absolutely valid.
Where too many comments like yours go (and where yours did not, thank you!) is into the realm of 'women who give up their paid work are dupes of the patriarchy'. God, that makes me mad. In an ideal world, I'd be working my dream job and my husband would be at home (he's better at the homemaking shit than I am). But it's not ideal, and we do what we can with the options and resources we have. Most of us women are smart enough to do what is right for us, and I seriously resent it when other feminists tell me I'm incapable of that because I am a SAHM.
she says she's a single mom. i wonder if there is some self loathing going on. she obviously holds a specific set of views and is otherwise unable to personally hold to them.
she's probably exhausted doing everything by herself. if feel bad for her. i wonder what kind of support system she has.
wow, ok, i hope the "The Feminine Mystique" comment was tongue-in-cheek humor.
As per the article. While i think it had some interesting views, it was not on being a woman, those views were on being a "modern feminist". Where some women (and more than a few on THIS site) will find a tiny scrap of potential sexism and explode it into the worst case of gender discrimination known to man...er, known to person....sorry. I do take issue with her line "I think that women should embrace their sexuality and stop trying to be men." She is TOTALLY off base there. The diehard militant feminist is not trying to be a man, she is trying to make sure she is her own new class. Niether sterotypical housewife, nor 50's male figure.
She does however raise some interesting points: bras DO need advertising, and you have to show how they work in an image. Why would you wear bra "A" over bra "B" and so on. The reason for the image, is in society today most people have no time or patience to read, they want a picture. The view that it is OK to be a housewife, is very true as well. It is ok...if that is what you WANT to be. Any person on here who belittles or degrades someone for wanting to be a housewife, is in fact, worse than ANY misogynist. Why? you fight so hard for women to chose who they want to be, and when they do, if it is not up to YOUR standards, you kick them. Awful.
It is ok, if a man finds you attractive, and it is ok if you, as a women, dress in a certain way to make yourself more attractive to a man. Because, no matter how you slice it, that is how the population maintains itself (don;t you dare go off on we don;t need men, or gay couples. Sperm + egg = baby! HAPPY!?)
Some of you will say "we need to change what is considered sexy".
why? because it degrades women? now who said that? I'll tell you who came up with that...Feminists. Therein lies the basis for this article. The problem is not men, it is the die hard feminist making mountains out of molehills.
I hope that some of you will come up with wonderfull arguments for what I have said, but I fear, that my opinions will fall on deaf ears, and i will just be discarded as a stupid man....
...again, that is sexist :P
(please ignore all spelling mistakes, i type fast when venting).