The Feminist Housewife

[naomikritzer]

Airheaded editor of new magazine for stay-at-home mothers, in Salon interview: I hope you got this sentiment, that we are all very grateful at the end of the day. Going from the workforce to staying home is a transition and a challenge but it is totally worth it. The moments with your kids are priceless and when you put your head on your pillow every night you know you are there for your kids and you know you're doing the right thing. It just feels right.

Bitchy Salon interviewer: Are you conscious that statements like that -- about how you know you're doing the right thing -- will make many working mothers feel angry and guilty? (Because naturally, if a stay-at-home mother believes that her choice was a good one and her work is worthwhile, this invalidates the choices of mothers who work outside the home.)

A lot of people have been pissing me off lately.

Linda Hirshman in The American Prospect, a magazine to which I subscribe: Great as liberal feminism was, once it retreated to choice the movement had no language to use on the gendered ideology of the family. Feminists could not say, "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."

And since I'm a poor, oppressed housewife who has apparently bought into the gendered ideology of the family, I haven't had time to post about it -- just to stew.

Happy Feminist commenting on Pandragon thread about the Salon article: There is also no way, no how, taking on a powerless position in which you produce nothing economically is ever going to get you the same status in society that men traditionally enjoy. I am not knocking women who become homemakers, but to fantasize that somehow it can become a position that is as powerful and respected as being an executive is simply unrealistic-- and it perpetuates the notion that women should continue to take on these less powerful roles in order to "transform" them.

And you know, part of why I'm so infuriated by all this is that both sides are pissing me off. The editor of "Total 180" or whatever the new magazine for stay-at-home mothers is called embraces all the cliched happy-talk of the people who feel the need to pat me on the head -- "being an at-home mom is the absolute hardest and most important job there is." And, well -- no. I am not so desperate for validation that I think that my job is harder than that of, oh, a chicken processor on a slaughterhouse line. I am not so pathetic that I need to be assured that my job is more important than that of a doctor with the International Medical Corps who's training midwives in Afghanistan. Also, if someone's going to try to speak on my behalf, I want them to sound halfway intelligent -- not, God help us all, cite The Mists of Avalon as a historical reference or talk nostalgically about how much more attentive parents were in the 1950s. Oh, and I'm okay with the term stay-at-home mother or homemaker or even housewife; "Chief Home Officer" made me cringe with all the oh, teh cutesy horror I normally reserve for limited-edition Precious Moments commemorative plates.

But for the love of freshly-ironed pillowcases (no, I don't iron the pillowcases), the fact that my work as a stay-at-home parent is not particularly valued by society (except in the sense that I get all the platitudes I can eat, lucky me) does not mean that it is not valuable. Our society fails to value domestic work because we live in a sexist society. Why are feminists suddenly all buying into the sexist idea that traditional women's work must be pointless and stupid? I agree with Happy Feminist that I am never going to have the same status in society as a CEO. (It is possible that there are people who believe that this is going to change, but I think they're mostly taking better drugs than anything in my medicine cabinet.) Nonetheless, our sexist society's sexist judgement on my work does not make my work less valid, or my choices less legitimate.

I didn't "take on my role" to "transform" it, or because my gendered society told me that I had to, or for any other feminist or non-feminist reason. I wanted to stay home with my children because even if most children are tedious and boring, my children are brilliant and interesting, and funny, and also very cute. Ed also wanted to stay home with the kids, but I won. I think I used the "I have breasts, and you don't" argument.

Housework may be boring, but raising children is not. What a stupid thing to say.

Saying that I am proud of what I do, and consider what I do to be worthwhile, does not mean that I think mothers who work outside the home are bad, neglectful mothers who should feel guilty about their choices. I resent the idea that by speaking positively of my own work, I must be putting them down.

The vast majority of working stiffs -- male or female -- do not find their jobs particularly fulfilling. Admittedly, even at boring jobs, they give you 15 minute breaks a couple of times a day, and you can go to the bathroom all by yourself and nobody stands there while you're peeing and asks you questions about why you keep a hair-catcher in the bathtub and when you're next going to replace the bar of soap. Still, most people have a job, not a fabulously fulfilling career. And most women who choose to stay home were choosing between domestic work and a JOB, not domestic work and a CAREER.

Finally, I just want to say -- I think that the "mommy wars" are fostered by THE MAN to keep us down.

(I'm going to cross-post this to bad_feminists, if I can figure out how.)

Comments

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

Sing it, sister.

I'm not a mom, and I never wanted to be, but you could not be more right.

[kuddliphish.livejournal.com]

As always, you hit the nail right on the head--and made me laugh while doing it which is more than I can say for any other commentary on the "mommy wars" I've read.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

You should send this to one of the magazines you cite. Or all of them, for that matter.

It's a side of the argument that people need to read.

[mrswebchik.livejournal.com]

Oh, thank you for that!

Personally, I like both roles. I've been fortunate that when I want to work, I can. And when I get sick of the work environment and miss my kids, I can stay at home. I've been working semi-part-time (somewhere between part and full-time) outside the home for the past year. I found out today that my last day will be Jan 30, and then I'll get to stay home with the kids full-time. And if it weren't for the fact that we won't be able to afford me leaving work before then, I'd stop sooner. Something about a nesting instinct and brilliant, funny, fascinating children at home... makes going in to the office every day a bit difficult. I think I have a 10-11 months tolerance for work, because right about that point I generally get sick of wherever I'm working.

Okay, my migraine meds are kicking in... I forgot what I was saying.

Oh yeah, basically, I agree with you 100%. The role of the working mom is valuable, as is the role of the stay-at-home-mom. Depending on the day, I switch between which I think is more difficult. Like any job, they both have their high and low points. I wish people didn't feel it necessary to justify their choice by belittling the other side. It's just silly and pointless.

Then again, I'm a Libra. I hate conflict anyways.

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

"Chief Home Officer" made me cringe with all the oh, teh cutesy horror I normally reserve for limited-edition Precious Moments commemorative plates.

I think I love you.

I, too, left a job outside the home for the stay-at-home beat. (Not that I've stopped working, because I haven't; I do freelance copyediting, and I write.) I worked in marketing, and it was a job to me, nothing more. I did a management gig for a short while and didn't like it. I did the "I'm available any time, at all hours, to get the job done!" and I didn't like that either, in the end.

But that seems to be what most of the recent feminist screeds are saying I should have relished.

I don't see money and power as being a requirement for my life. I do see raising my daughter as an important job, though perhaps it doesn't come with as much cachet and the hours are even weirder. (On the other hand, my toddler is often more reasonable than the consultants and execs I used to work for, and usually more pleasant-tempered.)

That said, I have no problem with mothers who work outside the home. It was my goal to work from home, and I happen to work in a field where that is possible... but it's not possible for everyone, nor is staying home with kids ideal for everyone. My motto is "find what works best for your family, and go for it."

[kythiaranos.livejournal.com]

Well said.

Personally, I think everyone--men and women--should be disturbed and insulted that our society seems to view the almighty paycheck as the sole measure of a person's value and power.

I don't like the housework, but it needs to be done. And if that's the tradeoff that gets me time to write, I'll take it.

[pants-of-doom.livejournal.com]

I think that the "mommy wars" are fostered by THE MAN to keep us down.

I could not agree more.

A further question

[wolfgangemilio.livejournal.com]

Here's a question I have been wondering about.

What happens to the stay-at-home parent when the kids leave? Unless a career is compatible with a home office, I image that after ten to fifteen years of child-rearing it might be difficult to get back into whatever scene the parent was a part of before the kids. (I have to say "I imagine" because I have not gone through the process myself.)

I agree that raising kids to be healthy, decent, and hopefully well-educated is an extremely important job, and can not (well, should not) be sacrificed for a dual income. There are at least two counterpoints to this statement, though. One is that raising kids well does not have to be sacrificed for a dual income--indeed in affording books, Legos, musical instruments, a computer, travel away from home, and so on, it can go a long way toward raising healthy, decent, and hopefully well-educated people. Second, I firmly believe in a life beyond kids, and when a person's working identity is largely taken up by raising kids, what happens when the kids acquire their independence? (Here I am using a broad definition of the word "independence", which can range from being old enough to hang out with friends on their own, i.e., teenager, to going to college, to actually being financially self-supporing.)

Re: A further question

[naomikritzer]

Yeah, this is a whole nother issue. The trendy term for having kids, staying home for a while, and then getting back into the paid workforce is "sequencing." It's a bitch if you're a tech worker, though, because skills grow stale really fast.

Anyway, it depends on the parent. Some former SAHPs go back to school and train for a different job. Others get back in one way or another. Others never go back to work -- Ed's mother originally quit work to stay home with him, and never went back. Then again, caring for 20 huskies is, if not a full-time job, certainly an arduous and demanding part-time job.

[(Anonymous)]

Methinks the economic dependent doth protest too much.

The bottom line is this: mothering, housekeeping, and working are not either-or choices: the vast, vast majority of the women in the world do _all three_. The fundamental question, which no housewife seems to want to answer, is why you can get away with only doing half the work all the other women do. Women aren't choosing to raise children and do housework OR have a job - they're doing both. Why do you get the privilege of only doing some?

[naomikritzer]

Because the standard of our society is that small children require supervision, and that on an ongoing basis, this must be done by an adult. In many parts of the world, Molly would be considered old enough to care for Kiera. Here, if I so much as left them alone together while walking down to the corner store for a gallon of milk, I could potentially be charged with child endangerment.

And because another standard of our society is that children don't belong in the workplace. If, like a Nepali farmwife, I were going to go out and cut grass to feed our water buffalo with a hand scythe, load it into a giant basket, and carry it home, I could bring my kids along to do that. I can't take them with me to an office.

If you have both a job and a child, and no partner to stay home with your children, in our society, you have to hire someone to look after your kids. So no, the working mother is not doing twice my work: she's paying someone else to do the childcare during her working hours.

[lilisonna.livejournal.com]

Indeed. My child-care provider is doing no less work while she is caring for my daughter than I am while I am at my office. In some way, I feel like I'm getting away with doing less 'work' than a typical SAHP does. Spending all day with busy children is demanding.

[olstad.livejournal.com]

Just as another twist to your argument... what does this say for stay at home Dads? Are they too "giving up a career" to stay home with the kids? Sometimes they get lauded for doing so and sometimes ridiculed. Why can't either sex get appreciated for the work that they do, whether that is in the home or in the workplace?

By the by- have you heard the country song, "Mister Mom"? I think you'd like it. http://www.lyrics007.com/Lonestar%20Lyrics/Mr.%20Mom%20Lyrics.html

[mrswebchik.livejournal.com]

My husband was a SAHD while he was laid off all year. I laughed and told him he made a better housewife than I did. I think it's nuts that people really can't appreciate people for doing whatever it is they're comfortable with or happy doing.

Now it's my turn to stay home, and he's going to be working. This is the second time we've switched roles in the 3 years we've been married. It works for us, though, and at least our families understand.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I'm so glad you wrote about this. And it's so damn funny and hits the different nails right on their dull little heads exactly (which makes me wish I had written it, dammit).

I was rofl at "The Mists of Avalon". Hey, maybe your books could serve as evidence of our feminist past someday! And then to suggest that gangs or elementary school blowjobs (or other recent "weird stuff"?) is a result of parents not staying home with their kids...I just started feeling sorry for this woman who was so obviously out of her depth.

Some commenter on 11D pointed out that Salon did not perhaps choose the right interviewer for this article, and wondered what Ann Lamott would have made of T180!. Interesting to think about what would have been different in that article. (And note the obnoxious exclamation point in the magazine's title. Another reason to mock it, if you didn't see enough at www.darlashine.com ).

But speaking of feminism & religion & history, did you see this entry in the 4th Carnival of Feminists? http://the-goddess.org/blog/2005/11/happy-feminist-first-sex.html

I'm trying to write a tactful blog post about gender in archaeology (a very hot topic in academia now) and am slogging my way through "Goddesses and the Divine Feminine" which I surprisingly just grabbed off the new book shelf at my small library, but I fear that anything I write about the lack of evidence for prehistoric matriarchies will just show how I've been brainwashed by the patriarchy. And coming from a completely different side of feminism, there's Hirshman also sneering at me being a stepford dupe. It's enough to make you turn off the computer and go bake muffins. Except my husband already did that last night. ;-)

Zea
http://imponderabilia.blogspot.com/