― anthony, Sunday, 14 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Tom, Sunday, 14 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
and it was drudgery but isnt doing work that is nesscary but dull every day w/o recognition because it needed to be done an act of altruism and perhaps nobility ?
― ethan, Sunday, 14 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Sam-at-home, Sunday, 14 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
On the other hand, there's nothing worse than adopting the attitude of a martyr about it. (But this probably came about only after women stopped getting credit for it.) Or that of a warrior. What's wrong with a little dust?
― youn, Sunday, 14 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Mike Hanle y, Sunday, 14 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
I don't think feminism has "failed" here, many feminists argue for the recognition of domestic labour as noble work which is worthy of reimbursement. however, it is the failure of society in general that this has not yet been achieved. Feminism isn't about devaluing domestic labour, simply about recognising that that should not be the only avenue open to women, and that it should not necessarily be restricted to women.
― di, Sunday, 14 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― anthony, Monday, 15 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― di, Monday, 15 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Kerry, Monday, 15 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
But often there domestic tasks were both considered more vital and less appreciated . This was why i chose the title of this thread. Often they were not honored for there domestic work.
Gloria Steinem, BTW, was working- class - raised by a single mother, I believe.
She was upper middle class, university educated and spoiled rotten . She used her tits much more then she used her brains and like jane fonda latched onto the right men. She was not the great femminst hero . Even today she is marying when 20 years ago she ripped apart those who found stabiltiy and often an economic nesscity in it.
There was some controversy, though, about her sudden rise as a "leader" - a lot of women were active before she appeared on the scene.
But she muscled her way in there. Thats what i meant by the word "hoist" she was not a freind of woman. The perfect example is the way she fucked over Kate Millet . I do not want to make this into a Steinem bitchfest but it seems like woman who did alot of the very early work were pushed off the stage. As well woman who loved woman were not allowed at the table by both Freidan and Steinam.
Anyway, I do think you're wrong, because I've read lots of personal testimony by feminists about the sacrifices their mothers made.
But it seems to be a litnay of victimhood. As you said yourself it dealt with sacrifices not joys or satisfaction. It meant if you were in the kitchen was a step to get into the boardroom not a goal in and of itself.
There's also been an effort to write "women's histories" that have sought to document domestic life at all economic levels.
As well to reclaim those who were writing and this is important work and work i think needs to be done more of. I thank atwood for putting Suzanne Moodie back in the cannon .
There have also been constant - and wrong - criticisms from the right that feminism "insults" mothers and motherhood. However, there is a long tradition of anti-feminism in which the "nobility and heroism" of domestic labor has been lauded for the sake of defending traditional sex roles.
I am not saying that women should have tradtional roles, i am not saying pregnent and barefoot in the kitchen is a good idea, but the problem with second wave femminsm had a habit of making sure there was a cohesive face for the media. This was why there was so much fracturing in the mid 70s. As well Now and PCSW were predominatly white and middle class . Florence Kennedy has written extensivly on her problems with NOW . I am saying that any work that people do that helps further the community, that feeds people, that keeps them safe and makes other generations is noble. I admire men who commit the same amount of effort to these tasks .
And then there's the whole essentialist / "cultural feminist" tendency which regards lauds women's skills as nurturers, etc. These debates are really old hat.
I am not claiming woman are nurterors and men are protectors. i know better then that. i am saying there has to be a reclaiming of the spirit of domestic work , of the working out the zen koan eat rice wash bowl, we need to start by recognizing the heroism of those that act the same tasks over and over again . My mother had the shaker hymn over her dresser when i was growing up and taking that level of commitment in everyday tasks irregardless of gender is vital i think. its just that woman have been doing that for 1000s of years.
But feminists have been fighting for fair work policies that make child care easier for both parents. You also have to keep in mind that second-wave feminism pretty much addresses issues in urban, industrialized worlds.
another problem w. 2nd wave. As well they are trying to provide work rules for nuclear families and ignoring larger socail communites that often spring up out of nesscity from immigrant cultures.
And as for "power within the home" - that's a Paglianism. Yuk.
Thats Dismissive. Why is that yuk ? Why is controlling the market yuk ? Often when i do market surveys a woman refuses to acknoweldge herself as the feamle head of the household and does most of the shopping ...
Hanle y, you are beginning to sound more and more like Wesley Willis every day.
― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Monday, 15 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
I know very little about feminist thought and thinkers - but it strikes me there's perhaps a reflex tendency among some feminist writers to stigmatise domestic labour. I think though that this is related to the wider ideological narrative of our times, that of 'individual'-versus-'system', given ample expression in male- dominated pop culture eg the Beats, punk, anti-globalisation etc. The reflexive discomfort some feminists feel with the figure of the 'housewife', in other words, is somehow related to the reflexive discomfort some individualists feel with the figure of the office worker.
― Tom, Monday, 15 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
This is the only point I'm willing to respond to: People can't change their minds, ever? I don't believe her point was ever that getting married made you a bad person, but rather that the reasoning behind getting married was often false and degrading to women.
ANd that's all I have to say, besides this: Anthony, you got quite a lot of nerve, which I like by and large in a person. But why do you insist on starting threads every now and then telling women what is and isn't right about them and the way they think/whatever? This isn't the first time you've felt the need to come on here and tell all of the women that this that and the other thing is how women's life is and how feminism is BLAH BLAH BLAH. ANTHONY YOU ARE A BOY.
― Ally, Monday, 15 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)