Last Friday, one of the Gazette’s syndicated columnists, Bonnie Erbe, wrote on the ubiquitous topic of “mothers vs. career women.”
I read it several times to myself — and even out loud to my husband, twice, — just to make sure I was getting her point. Which was: Homemakers are holding up the advancement of women in the workplace, in politics and the arts. Those of us who are reluctant to let go of our responsibilities at hearth and home (chores, housework, etc.) are responsible for indoctrinating the next generation with the stereotype that women’s work is primarily in the home and men’s work is not.
She concludes by saying, “The truth is, until women flat out refuse to have children with old-fashioned men, these stereotypes will be perpetuated. And the worst part of that is, some women actually prefer it that way.”
Whoa.
Those were some bold assertions — even for a feminist like Erbe.
I’m certainly in favor of equal pay for equal work, more representation of women in politics, the arts and the corporate world and more help from our husbands with household chores. But Erbe’s argument that the progress of women is directly linked to the amount of housework we do or don’t do is shortsighted and only perpetuates the divide between the work-at-home mom and the work-away-from-home mom that is probably doing more damage to our psyches than disproportionate paychecks.
First of all, as much as we may want to change it, boys and girls come to us with tendencies that have more to do with genetics than how they are raised. Just as most girls are born with an instinct to play “house,” most boys are born with a drive to compete and be tough, appropriate characteristics for earning a living in the workplace. Absolutely, we should encourage our girls to develop their leadership skills and encourage our boys to be more domestic. But to claim that a child’s parental role model (old-fashioned or not) is the only force perpetuating these stereotypes isn’t looking at the whole picture.
Second, is it really fair to measure the advancement of women in America by the amount of housework we do and what we allow our “old-fashioned” husbands “to get away with” at home?
Take some women I know, for example:
Meet “Susan.” A mother of two, she considers her primary job to be raising her children and taking care of the home. But she also has a cake decorating business, manages rental properties and even teaches aerobic classes a couple a days a week at the local gym. Her husband’s primary job is away from the house, but he too juggles different interests, jobs and hobbies. And although she does most of the housework, her husband and children do their “fair share” and it works for their family.
Meet “Cheryl.” A mother of two, she would also consider her primary job to be raising her two girls. A more “traditional” family, Cheryl does not have a paid job outside the house, but her husband works long days away from home which doesn’t allow him to contribute much to daily household chores. Does she resent him for that? No. In fact, nothing brings her greater joy than to focus on raising her daughters and making a nurturing home for her family.
Meet “Amy.” A mother of two, she would also consider her primary job to be raising her children and taking care of the home front even though she works a full eight-hour day as a teacher at a local elementary school. With a husband who also works outside the home, their whole family pitches in to keep things running smoothly at home. Does it work for them? Most of the time it does.
And then there’s me. A mother of three, who was raised in a traditional home where Dad worked and Mom stayed home to raise four children. According to Erbe, I should be one of those unfortunate women who married an old-fashioned man and who sees her place to be at home, doing all the chores, housework and child-rearing.
She was (sort of) right on one account. I did marry an old fashioned man (I wanted to) with old fashioned values. But my old fashioned man who goes to work every day, not only gladly disposes of dead mice, mows the lawn and fixes leaky toilets, but he is more than willing to clean, do laundry or give the kids their baths — not just when I can’t get to it, but when it needs to be done. He also fully supports, encourages and even enjoys his wife pursuing her own career goals.
Which brings me to the balance of Erbe’s theory: Being raised by a full-time stay-at-home mother, you’d think I’d be home right now contemplating what we’re having for supper tonight. I am at home, but instead of planning a menu (already done — wild rice casserole) I’m considering the subject of the progress of women in America.
The thing is, I get as much joy and fulfillment out of baking a chocolate Bundt cake for the church potluck, cooking a roast for my man and organizing my spice cabinet (which is totally out of alphabetical order right now) as I do from researching and writing about a complex issue for my job at The Gazette. I’m not willing to give up either of those parts of my life. And if that means I’m hindering women’s progress in this country, then I’m not interested in moving forward.
The truth is, Ms. Erbe, the progress of women has nothing to do with who does what around the house or abandoning the more traditional or old fashioned roles of men and women. On the other hand, making strides in women’s rights has everything to do with each of us being empowered to choose the role (or roles) that work best for us — and then doing it with gusto.
After all, that’s what I was taught the women’s movement of the 20th century was all about in the first place: Freedom — and that includes the freedom to be feminine.
If there are women out there who want more help at home, perhaps they should start with a frank conversation with their husbands before shifting the blame back to other women. But to encourage women today to relinquish their traditional roles at home that many in fact may thrive in, or to suggest they not to marry at all, is not what I call being progressive.
I call it downright depressing.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by Observer (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To Mrs. Walker;
I disagree with your conclusion as to the article. The author prefaces her statement to "not have children with an old fashioned man", with this statement:
"This is anecdotal, of course, but I’ve had so many female friends complain about their husbands/partners failing to pick up a fair share of the housework and childcare. I ask, “Why won’t he do his fair share?” The typical response is, “I can’t get him to do anything so I do it myself.” Then I ask why the wife didn’t choose instead to marry a man who would do his fair share. Again, the typical response is that such men do not exist or the woman in question couldn’t wait any longer to get married since she wanted children and her biological clock was running.
The truth is until women flat out refuse to have children with old-fashioned men, these stereotypes will be perpetuated. And the worst part of that is, some women actually prefer it that way."
You give examples, including your own husband, of men willing to do their fair share. That appears to be the author's premise, rather than marry an old fashioned man, marry one willing to pick-up the slack/fair share.
You might want to read the article again, without bias.
Posted by biscuitboy (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Observer
I agree with you. It appears to me that Ms Walker may have read too many of her own feelings into the column before responding to it. JMO
Posted by oh4theluvof (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"......Erbe’s argument that the progress of women is directly linked to the amount of housework we do or don’t do is shortsighted..."
Exactly right, Ashley!! Erbe fails to recognize that the home that tomorrow's leaders grow up in is essential to the next generation's success. The correlation between her brand of feminism and the moral and ethical decay of society is very direct. When children get only the left-overs of their mother's time and energy, they are unprepared to go out and face the challenges in the world....emotionally and socially, especially.
Mothers have been told by people like Erbe how they should contribute to society. They have complied and now our schools are full of emotionally and socially dysfunctional kids because no one is properly parenting them. GEE, ya think????? If Erbe's motivation was the happiness of these women or their children, she would leave well enough alone when she herself even recognizes that "some women actually prefer it that way.”
She won't, though, because that might mean the men are also fulfilled and happy and her real motivation is to see that they aren't. She is willing to sacrifice the women and children and subsequently our whole society to ensure that.
Posted by create (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh4, amen!! So beautifully stated. I've seen those emotionally and socially unprepared children up close in the classroom.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)