I’ve been having a facebook conversation about my recent blog post with one of my friends. I’ve learned so much about what I believe that I’ve decided to post what I wrote. Beware, it’s 3 pages single-spaced on MW! If my friend wishes to identify herself she can do so in a comment 
She said:
I have been thinking about your feminism post and I think it has good stuff: it’s so true that we, mostly as Americans, have lost our appreciation for well crafted goods. We are a disposable nation/generation. Now, while trying not to criticize per se (because i know you hate it and i have also done my fair share of poking your opinion out of you) but rather prompt a discussion: how is this a woman-specific argument?I see what you are saying in terms of offering this as a women’s possession, but I suppose I just see things a little differently then these more traditional models you present. What can be said of the single father raising children, or the single mother? The father who likes to cook or the mother who earns the living? I see how your view is well meaning, indeed, but I am trying to explore feminism. I don’t like all feminists- the man haters or women who victimize themselves, so I would really love to hear more about your view, but also apply it to a realistic sociologists-type model in which there is more poverty and other unwanted problems than you or I have surly been exposed to.
On the one hand, it’s such a touchy subject- like race or religion, but it feels like now, at our age (as opposed to those crazies in high school) we can finally begin to have true mature conversations.
sorry for babbling, I am trying to avoid an essay
Why is my argument a woman-specific one? I believe that the two genders are equal in importance, but have different purposes or natural abilities. Some feminists take “women are equal to men” so far as to say that the biological aspects of gender mean nothing, and gender is completely a social construct. I do not believe that. I do believe that some aspects of gender are social constructs, but also some we are born with. Most women are born with the ability to bear and nurture children. In addition to this I believe that most women are better suited than most men to be the primary caregivers of children. I also believe that most men are born better suited to provide the necessities of life for their children, i.e., work for food or money. Of course, women can do that too, and men can raise children, but I believe that it is, in general, better for a wife to be the one who primarily cares for the children, and the husband the one who provides for them. The feminist aspect of this is that much of the time, this female role is ridiculed or not even considered as important. In reality it is extremely important. This is what my church believes.
Also, just because females have one role and males have another doesn’t mean that they are restricted to that role at all times. In many circumstances, things are switched around, sometimes even for the better. Or, single parents might have to do both roles, which is very, very difficult, but quite possible. But in general, things run most smoothly and turn out the best when the mother raises the children and the father provides for them, as long as both parents work together and help each other perform their roles and be happy. I don’t have any statistics for this, but it is what I believe. Anyway I never had much faith in statistics. I’m not going to go around telling people how to run their families, but I do want to encourage women to be mothers to their children, and stay home and care for them as much as they can. Not only is it fulfilling to the mother (as long as it is not forced) and beneficial to the children, it also would help reduce consumerism. These days many people believe that both parents need to work to have enough money. In my own experience this is not true. Most of the time, what really needs to happen is for these people to be more frugal, have more modest houses, buy fewer toys and gadgets, and not waste as much.
All of what I’m saying is what my church believes also. In my church this kind of father-mother, husband-wife relationship is called “equal partners”. The wife/mother has the role of caring for the children, the husband/father of working to provide for them. But since they are equal partners, those roles are flexible, and they help each other out with the other person’s role as needed. Specifically how they help each other is determined solely by the couple. For example, my parents believe all of this. My dad worked, and my mom stayed home with us. She hasn’t had a job since before David was born, except for running a small daycare in her home for a few years. She is a homemaker and keeps track of cleaning, cooking, etc. However, my dad (and us kids) have always done much of the cleaning and cooking, simply because we are part of the family and my mom appreciates the help. If my dad were disabled or something, and we needed money I’m sure my mom would do whatever it took to find a job of some kind. In another family, the mom might work more, or the dad might cook more. It is all decided between the couple according to their circumstances, likes, and dislikes. But in general, especially when the children are young, it is best for the mother to stay at home with them, if possible.
If someone is a single parent, doing all of these roles would be very difficult, and they would have to find help in the form of daycare, welfare, friends, family, whatever. Because they don’t have their partner to help them out, they’ve got to find others to help them make sure everything gets done. This is one reason why my church stresses education for women so much. Though the church teaches us to stay at home and be moms, where a degree isn’t exactly necessary (though helpful) in this day and age moms have got to have degrees in case they suddenly become single parents and have to go work. With a degree those moms will hopefully be able to find decent jobs, be able to afford good daycare, and so on. Of course, men in the church are encouraged to get lots of education too, since they will most likely be the main providers of their families.
Anyway, now I’m babbling! I know lots of people don’t agree with me about gender-specific roles and such, but I -and Samuel- believe all this stuff and it is really important to us. Both our families were run this way and have been really successful.
I would say the only feminism I truly disagree with is the kind that promotes:
1. laughing at men who want to perform traditional fatherly roles
2. laughing at women who want to perform traditional motherly roles
3. parents neglecting their own children
that sounds like a fair assessment. so, just for kicks, i’ll propose: the woman I work for is a loving wife and mother as well as working full time teaching and doing cutting edge, important research on effects of greenhouse effects on plants. Would you have this situation any other way? ( side info: Her husband also works full time as a professor/researcher and from what I know her kids are doing well.) In my view, the world is benefiting substantially from her untraditional way of life.
Aleatha said:
I’d say this woman is totally awesome, as long as she, her husband, and kids believe that her family is more important than her work.
I personally would not want to have that life, but that’s because I hate the working world -I just don’t feel comfortable in it. I love staying at home, and I love homemaking types of tasks. Having to work someplace all day would make me really unhappy and stressed. I have the coolest job in the world right now (making costumes for plays) and most of the time I still wish I could just spend those hours at home cleaning, cooking, relaxing, whatever. The accomplishment of having a beautiful home is more fulfilling to me than the accomplishment of seeing my costume work on stage.
Conversely, if your boss were forced to stay at home, she might feel like I do when I have to work- a lack of fulfillment. That is certainly not good for her or her husband or kids. Each family needs to decide what’s going to work out best for everyone involved. Sacrifice -of a career, time, whatever- is always part of marriage and parenting, but excessive sacrifice can result in depression or worse. Parents need to decide what they’re willing to let go of for the benefit of their family, and what they aren’t willing to sacrifice, to maintain their own happiness.
Another point which I’m sure you’ll agree with is that no matter how much she adds to the world’s knowledge of greenhouse effects on plants, if she is neglecting her children and not teaching them how to take care of themselves and be kind and good citizens, the world will not have gained anything really. If she is able to teach her children at the same time, that’s awesome! But not all women can, want to, or should be expected to do the same.
I have lots of thoughts on this, but I will focus on just a couple. (although I’m writing a novel I’m noticing, because this is totally a soapbox for me).
First, that we (meaning society) tend to think that traditionally women being in the home is limiting them. Nowadays it certainly can feel so (although I don’t think it is), but if you look back even more than fifty years, you really needed someone full time in the home. Meals weren’t very quick to cook, and you needed three of them every day. Laundry had to be done, and you didn’t have fast washers or dryers. Also, looking back even further, women did “work” – when I look at Ma Ingalls she’s one of the hardest working women I’ve ever heard about, but she didn’t work outside of the home. Nowadays with so many modern conveniences a lot of women look at the basic main task left, raising children, and feel like this isn’t enough to keep them going at home, or that this is too restrictive or boring, and yet ironically, this is the most important task of being at home that there is.
If you’re only living on one income, then you don’t have/don’t choose to have as many “time saving things” or fancy things, which actually usually takes care of what the extra income would buy. Not that I don’t think that people should have laundry machines, because of course I do. But that honest labour is good for people and children. That’s why one day I want to have a garden (when I have a place I can plant it). Not as much for what grows there, although that would be a bonus, but because of the good and honest work it will give me and my kids to do.
I find that I empathize most with women who choose to work purely because of interests and interior drives (most often university professors, I notice) instead of women who work for money for their family. I know that some families legitimately need two incomes (my Mom worked). And that in today’s world of supersized houses and cars and lifestyles it can feel impossible to survive on one. Like Aleatha, I think that when families and couples plan for only one income, and buy houses, cars and plan vacations with only one income in mind, it’s very possible to live on one income. And women who are working just for money tend to feel and act like life is rushing by them.
When women want to work for emotional reasons – because they love what they do, or they love to teach or something, I can understand that, because it’s not just working for stuff, it’s working for yourself. Not that balancing a family and working isn’t pretty hard, but I can understand what makes them choose to work then.
I know that there are lots of women who can’t imagine being a homemaker because they don’t like cleaning, or cooking, or homely arts, or whatever. Partly, I think sometimes we have too much of a stereotype of what kind of people make good homemakers. I think all women can be good homemakers, and that a lot of these skills are just that – taught and practiced skills that take time and work to learn.
I really should just write a post on this because I’m so opinionated about it.
Also, we tend to think that you either stay at home or work for forever, but life is a lot longer than that. I read a fascinating book called, “A Midwife’s Tale” a social history of a women who was a midwife between around 1790-1820. After her children were grown or teenagers she began midwifing (midwifering? Being a midwife?) and did that for about three decades. She had a complete second career, and I think that’s another possibility for women who would like to have a career but also would like to raise their children at home.
I myself plan to go and get a master’s degree once all of my kids are in school (I’ll be able to get it cheaply since Avram will be a professor), and then I’d like to work for Avram’s university in some capacity, so I’m involved in the academic world but not actually a professor.
Anyway, I’m mostly writing all this to say that I agree with you Aleatha, and these are my corresponding (and multitudinous) thoughts on the matter. The End.
I agree with all the statements made by my intelligent, eloquent, and wise wife. This is something that is very important because our society (and especially certain groups within it) argue against any form of traditional beliefs concerning the family. Basically the only groups that champion these beliefs now are religious organizations, and what hope have they against the mighty promulgations of modern science?
I would also like to point out though that the result of good parenting and equal partnering is not good children. I feel that this is one of the major points that is often missed. Often people seem to think that as long as the children of a union are successful providers and consumers themselves then their parents must have done a good job. In truth though, parents have little impact on how their children turn out. A child is a person with thoughts, feelings, and ideas of his/her own. He/she will develop and discover that his/her parents are wrong about many things and determine to not make the same mistakes.
Do not get me wrong, I am not implicating that neglect is a viable option, but rather that many good parents have bad children, and many bad parents have good children. Parents have little influence on the outcome of their children. Rather good parenting makes for good, loving parents, and for children that love their parents and want to be with them. While the child will most likely disagree with his/her parents on many things, he/she will most likely still respect and love his/her parents. Likewise the loving parent may not agree with the choices of the child, but will continue to provide love and support. That is what successful families are about. Or at least that is closer to the mark than having your children grow up to be successful businessmen/women.
Hey that’s me!
What changes the world for the better?
Dialogue!
Little side note: I am not opposed to the “traditional” model that it seems I am playing devil’s advocate against. (I am pleased that my dear friend, you Aleatha, was willing to develop/discuss/defend these ideas.) My mother, too, stayed home once her children were born. I do, however, like to hear that people are doing it for the right reason. That sounds harsh, but people aren’t always given the option or feel like they have one.
I think you will make a thoughtful and caring mother and for that I applaud you
I cannot comprehend a family in which both parents work full-time that is not neglecting its children (in my personal estimation) to the point of abuse.
If both the parents your friend described worked part-time, I’d be very happy to hear about them. If the father stayed home, I’d be happy as well. If both parents or a parent worked from home full-time, I’d be quite contented also.
“Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Jesus).
Well, I have a lot of thoughts on your larger topic: what women should do with their lives — but I won’t put them here. Thank you for letting us read your thoughts!