a womans work is never done

The problem is that there's nothing noble or heroic about domestic labour - it's mostly dreadfully boring work and is unappealing because it's reactive rather than proactive (cookery aside) so doesn't allow for much stimulation. This is precisely why any group that reaches a privileged position in the power structure immediately delegates it - men delegate it to women, rich men and women delegate it to poor servant men and women, etc.

but you would starve w/o that reactive labour . Esp. on the praries any work in the house / garden et al was done by woman. Gardening provided a large chunk of food for the house hold as well educating and rasign children, doiing quillting etc were all PROACTIVE and often more then neescary. alot of their actions were heroic just not noticed.

Sorry should have made clear that domestic labour is obviouslly totally necessary and worthy of recognition and indeed compensation. And yes actually there is a nobility to running a house and family. "Heroic" though I would say not. My point I guess is that calling dom.lab. heroic-and-noble kind of works to erase or ignore the grim and tedious reality of it and the reasons nobody wants to do it.

i should have written acts of heroism that went unnoticed and alot of prarie wives saved untold people and livestock from thunder,hail,blizzards and fire . Often more then the menfolk and i guess i am talking from a rural rather then a urban scene .

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 ?

tom's points would be entirely valid if not for the fact that the only thing more meaningless and unrewarding than domestic labour is WORKING AT A DOT-COM. everyone should work as little as possible and spend all their free time making art.

God knows I'd never suggest that I was in a professional capacity anything other than 10 times less useful to society than any housewife. Pointing out tedious reactive nature of most domestic labour (when not battling prairie fires etc.) doesn't equate to thinking it worthless.

is tom mocking me ?

Anthony, I think what you're getting at is that women like your grandmother should be recognized for their strength, integrity and selflessness. Traits that obviously aren't nurtured working at dot.coms.

I think there is heroism in it. You can see it if you read descriptions of servants in novels like The Death of the Heart and Remembrance of Things Past. Also, in To the Lighthouse and Mrs. Dalloway, there's the shadowy presence of servants, behind the scenes, making parties come together, preparing the house for the return of the family. How can you not be impressed by the description of Lily in The Dead? Maybe it's just that novels romanticize everything, but I tend to think of it as a failure of imagination on our part.

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?

I was George Washington. He lay me down. We sat at his tea house, naked. i ate a tiny cake and he became infuriated

The failure of femminsim i think is the failure to recognize the nobility and heroism of domestic labour , or am i wrong ?

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.

If you read the second wave femminists esp. fredain and steinem they say very nasty things about domestic slavery ,Femminist theory has until recently has failed to notice the power of ruling the home. Woman now have the job and the house work. In the name of true gender equailty we have to tell people (boys and girls) service is noble.

I agree that domestic work is noble for both sexes. But I don't think that just because Steinem and Friedan said bad stuff about domestic work that the whole of feminism should be blamed. Individuals are responsible for what they say.

But those two woman were lauded and often hoisted themselves as gurus and leaders. If you call attention to yourself as a leader, you are responsible for those who choose to follow.

but not all of feminism followed Steinem and Friedan. You are forgetting that even in the 70's, feminism was a diverse project.

I know but it did have its putschs ( ie the lavendar menance) as well for the sake of destroying domesticicty as noble those 2 did do the most damage.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, Anthony. Middle-class feminism a la Friedan was called to task by feminists, especially working-class feminists, because working-class and poor women had to work *and* manage domestic duties. Gloria Steinem, BTW, was working- class - raised by a single mother, I believe. There was some controversy, though, about her sudden rise as a "leader" - a lot of women were active before she appeared on the scene.

Anyway, I do think you're wrong, because I've read lots of personal testimony by feminists about the sacrifices their mothers made. There's also been an effort to write "women's histories" that have sought to document domestic life at all economic levels. 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. 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.

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.

And as for "power within the home" - that's a Paglianism. Yuk.

Middle-class feminism a la Friedan was called to task by feminists, especially working-class feminists, because working-class and poor women had to work *and* manage domestic duties.

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 ...

I was George Washington. He lay me down. We sat at his tea house, naked. i ate a tiny cake and he became infuriated

Hanle y, you are beginning to sound more and more like Wesley Willis every day.

Anthony, I wasn't mocking.

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.

i.e. the grand narrative of the evils of the power-structure tends to neglect or even dehumanise the individuals working *within* that structure.

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 .

Question: does she do this by choice, or because that responsibility belons to her?

"Controlling the market" - that's a mystification I've only seen coming from anti-feminists. You can't just throw out a phrase like that without explaining exactly how that works. Consumption is not "control" - how is choosing one detergent over another an exercise of power? Honestly, where are you getting this stuff?

Even today she is marying when 20 years ago she ripped apart those who found stabiltiy and often an economic nesscity in it.

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.

i am not trying to tell people anything, i am trying to muck out how i feel, i do that thru socratic dialouge. I am playing devils advocate not to be a contraion but to learn more . Now Kerry the example i am thinking about is the inflation boycotts , again in hte 70s .

Regarding "immigrant cultures" - my parents are the product of those cultures. However, in the industrialized US, this model usually meant that younger women worked, while older women (and often older men as well!) handled the domestic duties, including child care.

This pattern was disrupted as industries moved to outlying areas. In the case of my family, by the time I was born, the extended family had become dispersed as jobs moved elsewhere. This made it difficult for families to balance earning a living and child care - resulting in many women (virtually all of the mothers I knew as a kid) moving into the part-time and low-paying service sector, or not working at all if they had very young children. So this is not an issue of promoting the nuclear family over the extended family, or an ignorance of "immigrant" models - it is a *fact* of the immediate post-immigrant experience.

i think you have skunked me kerry : )