Over at
Et Tu Jen's blog, where she addresses
Motherhood, Fulfillment, and Careers. While she does harken back to a time when women were content not having careers, she brings up an interesting point, which I'm going to represent by asking, why was it that women didn't realize how darned oppressed they were all those centuries? One obvious reason is that they were too darned busy running the household, doing chores or working in the fields or whatever else they had to do to fulfill their family's societal role or help provide for their families, raising children, cooking meals, etc., and that women's responsibilities effectively kept them in their places, unlike men, who had a limited but greater level of social mobility, depending on the society. (Of course, when you look at the bumper sticker that says that well-behaved women rarely make history, the same could be said about men. Also, one might add that women of low birth or economic status rarely made history either.) Women started noticing that they were trapped in the home at about the time their wealth and leisure permitted the time to think of such things. But that's not where Jen goes with her post.
Rather, she contends that the structure of society itself provided women with what they now seek in careers outside of the home, namely
- Adult conversation
- Breaks from the 24/7 care of their children
- Community recognition for accomplishments and talents (i.e. if you were the best seamstress or the best piano-player in the village, everyone recognized it)
- Clear, important goals and challenges (i.e. women's work was far more challenging, time-consuming and critical to survival)
- Stability in case of emergency (e.g. if a woman's husband died, left, was abusive, etc. her parents, siblings, and other extended family were nearby and could provide support and a place to live)
She ends her post by asking what other mothers do to help them achieve these things without working. Now while I don't particularly want to live in a community composed of my aunts, mother, and mother-in-law, and the play-date with other moms who are there only for the benefit of adult social interaction seems a bit contrived and artificial (and makes me, an introvert, as uncomfortable as a gathering of professors) the list of things that women seek in careers outside the home seems pretty accurate in my experience! And, well, I don't have too much else to say on that, because really I'm pretty happy with where I am right now. I've even written a few dissertation paragraphs in the past few days! Guess the exhaustion (mental & physical) is taking a break right now. Or the vitamins and iron have kicked in, rain has replaced scorching heat, and the semester has ended! (Ooops, did that sound like I didn't want to work?) ;)
Update: Jen absolutely
does ask the same questions I asked above! Just on
a different site!! (I do contend, though that the discontent started before the 1960s--try the 19th Century! Or the Industrial Revolution!)
12 comments:
I think probably the disconent built gradually in those places where men began to increasingly work outside the general household area.
If you figure that originally most people either worked in an agricultural setting, or in a craft-shop which was built onto the family home -- husbands and wive originally would have seen a good deal more of each other and gender segregation was cultural and social rather than occupational in origin.
I imagine the current discontents began to build as the home began to simply be a place people lived rather than the center of the household economy. Thus women were "left at home" rather than in the middle of things.
I agree with Darwin's findings and would have suggested the same - guess he beat me to it. Anyway, to further Darwin's thought - when men and women worked in the home, together, their work was equally valuable. As men's work moved away from the home, their work because more financially valuable while women's work at home became less so. So women ventured outside the home (and so did children for that matter) to reclaim the dignity of their work and to make some much needed money in the process. What they found was that the money they were making was not as much as what men were making though the work was just as valuable. Hence, womens' rights. And as for early child care - it took place in the coal mines.
Which reminds me that this stay at home motherhood thing is a myth. Women have always always worked - they just haven't always gotten paid for it. So how is this feminists' fault again? :) Sorry, I still consider myself a recovering Marxist - at least in theory.
-C
Well let's see, who was it that designated "motherhood" the problem? ;)
And of course, the Marxist answer to that one is that the kids need to be raised by the state anyway, so motherhood is a non-issue. Marxism doesn't care about mothers in the least--after all, how can the mother be alienated from the product she produces (her child)? She just doesn't fit in the scheme. If they have a role, it is probably to educate the young in the doctrine of the State. But no, she needs to be a worker, so her kids should likely be taken early to be indoctrinated. Any bluejays lurking who can help me out here?
Interestingly, a male commenter over at Et tu, Jen, was trying to defend men by pointing out that men's value has been devalued also. Kate provided a rather good analysis of the difference between Jen's points and his, but the idea that when men & women worked side-by-side the value of each of their roles was equal also points to the difference in the value of men's work. What do men gain by working exactly? Money and status. Oh, and toys. And it was perhaps because their work was devalued--not having any tangible value, just the acquisition of currency--that they felt threatened by women asserting their right to work outside the home, etc. And of course, this escalated after WWII.
As for that coal mines quip ;) poor children have always had the worst jobs--check out the show "The Worst Jobs in History" on the History Channel or History Channel International (I forget which!). Rich kids had nannies. One of the things the French Revolutionaries wanted to promote was the idealization of the mother, since they felt that women were spending too much time dressing & attending balls, etc., contributing to the decadence of the society. The way to fix this was to send women back in the home. Then things would be wholesome again! It's a long and complicated history. I wonder if a single thesis can possibly account for everything?
The act of mothering, in Western culture, has always been seen as a derogatory or demeaning act and was, hence, reserved for women (or is it the other way around - demeaning because it was practiced by women. Women who had money, or rather whose husbands had money, were often removed from the act of mothering thanks to nurses, governesses, etc. It was only poor women who had to do their own acts of mothering. To mother or not to mother, then, became a status symbol. Today, many wealthy women still are trying to replicate the past by turning their little ones over to expensive nannies (even mannies) and/or drop-in (full-time!) day cares. A woman who mothers, then, without help can be seen as pretty low on the "success" totem pole. So in order to wear her success, a mother who has "made it" or whose husband has "made it" will be tempted to pass off the act of mtohering to another party. Does the act of mothering affect the role of a mother and have to do wtih motherhood? Absolutely. What's motherhood without mothering?
-C
P.S. Sorry I keep switching names. I'm trying to find one that fits me.
I forgot my point. So, because the act of mothering is seen as low on the "success" totem pole, it will be difficult to implement the changes you suggest without getting the culture to consider the question of class and motherood.
By the way, I hadn't considered the act of mothering as related to class in current society until I read a report about mothers still resisting the act of breastfeeding despite its benefits for babies. Hanging out in a wealthy side of my home region, I don't know one mother who breastfeeds and you should see the looks I get from other yuppie moms who find out that I do.
"The act of mothering, in Western culture, has always been seen as a derogatory or demeaning act "
Sorry, but I have a hard time swallowing that since for centuries Western culture was Catholic culture and the woman the Church has always valued most highly and held up as the supreme model not only of womanhood but of Christian life-- that would be the Blessed Virgin Mary-- is valued precisely because of her motherhood. Now, you can argue that Mary's motherhood has been emphasized more and less at various points in history; but I just can't buy the "always" devalued argument from what I know of Church history, art history and Western literature.
You're right. Mary has been an idealized mother because of her role as mother. How much art is there, though, of Mary actually performing the act of mothering? The art I'm familiar with shows Mary rightly worshiping her infant - not diapering him or even breastfeeding him. And, though the Church has always valued motherhood, I don't know if it's always valued mothering.
The act of mothering, in Western culture, has always been seen as a derogatory or demeaning act
Now, you know better than this. Where's your citation? Or examples from time periods? I get the feeling that your "always" is rather limited in scope. The nanny-culture you talk about might come post Protestant Reformation, actually.
And incidently, what's the correspondence between upper class women not breastfeeding and the rate of boob-jobs? Jen would no doubt say that the breastfeeding issue has more to do with contraceptive culture & its insistence on sexual attractiveness (narrowly defined) for women, which means that saggy post-nursing breasts were a no-no. (But I haven't found that it makes mine any less attractive!!) ;) O.K. TMI!
How much art is there, though, of Mary actually performing the act of mothering?
Well, for starters, Melanie & I have had a nice exchange on her blog about Our Lady of La Leche--also known as Madonna Lactans. I have a nice collection of images on my computer that I snagged off of various web sites depicting the Virgin breastfeeding. And that's just the tip of the iceburg! The interesting thing about the "Madonna as Mother" motif in Western Art is that each artist represented her with the trappings of motherhood common in the painter's culture, so when we see representations of Mary mothering, we also learn a good deal about mothering in other countries throughout the centuries.
I wanted an Our Lady of La Leche pendant when I was nursing my daughter. I would love to get it this time--as an advertisement of sorts to those yuppie moms--HEY! I'm Catholic AND I breastfeed! Hah!
Those art pieces sound wonderful. I would love to look at them. Maybe you could send me the files. The only art of Mary I have seen has always been the sacred poses. I'd still like to see one of her changing a diaper! I guess I have been hard on the Church when it comes to mothering. I guess it has to do with the way mothers are treated during Mass (sent out of the Church with crying babies and given dirty looks) and the fact that there are no nursing rooms at my Church. Perhaps that's why the cry-rooms were gotten rid of - maybe the Church wanted to bring mothers back into the sacred space. Just thinking... But, in my final defense, it makes sense that the nanny thing would come out of the Protestant Reformation -American culture is based more on that than on Catholicism, no? I have always thought Protestants think differently about motherhood than we do - especially given their beliefs about Mary.
But I do still think the act of mothering is seen as a second rate job. I think of wealthy Southern women who had wet nurses for their babies (usually slaves). I also think of my grandmother who had a mommy's helper at the turn of the century who did the "dirty work" that babies require. As an attorney's wife, it was just something women of her class did. Perhaps it's a Mexican-thing but there were many women who served in this role so the mother could be free to serve other roles (mainly her husband). And, of course, there's the education thing. You know the fact that the majortiy of elementary school teachers are women while the majority of college professors are men. But I guess when it comes right down to it, I guess the act of mothering can be seen as second-rate because most men don't do it! Is that a feminist statement? I'm not sure. Thanks for the lessons. I'm learning lots.
-C
Perhaps that's why the cry-rooms were gotten rid of - maybe the Church wanted to bring mothers back into the sacred space.
That's what I've heard. A deacon friend of mine says he dislikes the cry room anyway because parents use it as a kind of self-exile whether the child is crying or not--and then the room is full when someone REALLY needs it.
it makes sense that the nanny thing would come out of the Protestant Reformation -American culture is based more on that than on Catholicism, no?
Yep!! Except for select cities--New Orleans comes to mind. In other Catholic areas it seems that the Catholics were marginalized more. Not so in New Orleans!!
But I do still think the act of mothering is seen as a second rate job.
I'm not arguing with this--provided you restrict your time frame and geography!! ;) But feminism hasn't exactly been interested in reversing this trend. In fact, it frequently pairs up with trends in psychology to lay MORE blame on mothers!
Children, it is true, have traditionally been relegated to the care of women (though the trend in education is relatively recent). Now whether that has to do with the perception that women are more patient and so more suited to the task, or more suited to the task for other reasons, is another question. Whether those perceptions are false is yet another question! But it may be worth noting that women are thus entrusted with future men. Oh, where did they go wrong!! (Just kidding!!)
For images of Maria Lactans, or Mary as nursing mother, start here.
C,
I think that where femininity and women are devalued, roles that are specifically feminine, especially motherhood and childcare, will not be valued. But I suspect that it's the lack of regard for women that comes first and the degradation of motherhood and of traditional feminine qualities that follows.
And I think that women do have a special knack that makes them better at childcare: we are multi-taskers and detail oriented. I have the ability to read or blog or cook or clean while still being aware of where the baby is and what she's doing. My husband does not. He has to focus on one thing or the other. And I've found that to be true of most men I've known; though as with all generalizations, I'm sure there are some exceptions.
I guess your experience of moms with crying babies at mass depends on the parish and especially on the priest. We've never had a cry room at our church, built in 1858. Our pastor loves kids (and they love him) and feels that babies should be at mass and doesn't mind that they make noise. We do take her out to the narthex or the chapel when she screams out of respect for everyone else's ability to pray. I'd be careful, however, of universalizing a Church-wide attitude from just one parish or even from a few experiences. I've heard stories of priests who give crying babies the evil eye and those who love to hear 'em scream.
I've read about how attitudes of priests (and everyone else) to nursing mothers are very different in South America for example. I can't remember where I read the story but recently I heard from someone who went to some kind of big conference in South America and a woman was walking around with a baby on the breast and the North American (US) priests were noticeable as the only ones of priests from around the world who looked askance at her bared breast.
Post a Comment