“Happy being barefoot in the kitchen.”
The titles of certain posts just write themselves. Phrases like the one in the title are catnip to people like me who salivate at the opportunity to poke at the pet peeves of lefties and feminists everywhere.
It comes from an article in which a “reluctant housewife” discovers that she and her husband quickly grew tired of trying to jam the square peg of feminism into the round hole that is human nature. Instead of dividing household duties in a feminist approved (read foolish) manner, they gave up and divided those duties up according to the dictates of human nature.
I used to feel guilty that my marriage seemed so normal. When I got married, I imagined my marriage would be different. I wanted to bust up traditions. Reinvent what marriage meant. I was determined not to let my marriage resemble the traditional roles of my parents’ relationship. So, two months after I said “I do”, when I found myself unemployed and picking up my husband’s socks off the floor, I started to cry. When Dave came home and found me sobbing on the couch, I threw my apron at him. “You make dinner!” He made hot dogs and mac and cheese from a box. Breaking down traditions didn’t taste as good as I thought it would.
Were they happy with their decision to revert to more traditional gender roles?
Ultimately, in our struggle to break tradition, my husband and I learned that tradition is what works the best for us. I’ve given up trying to turn my marriage into a feminist ideal. I haven’t given up on feminist ideals; it’s just that I believe that at its heart feminism is about choice. And, while I hope one day Gloria Steinem can forgive me, I’m happy being barefoot in the kitchen as long as it’s accompanied with a glass of wine.
Of course, all of the above points to a glaring contradiction in leftist/feminist thinking. Reading the above, many feminists will repair to their fainting couches. Gasp! They’re the perpetuating the patriarchy with their reversion to more traditional gender roles. Human nature, you see, must be staunchly resisted.
By the same token, those who say that marriage must remain an opposite gender institution are ogres! Why? Because anybody who says that people can resist the urges of their natures is wrong. Human nature cannot be resisted.
But never mind that contradiction. Just pretend it doesn’t exist.
Loading ...
Feminism is about choice, Ari, and the rejection of the idea that generalizations or stereotypes about human nature should limit individual choices. If a woman is happy in a “traditional” marriage and/or gender role, then feminism has no qualms with her choice. The problem arises when there are no choices, and when the woman who is NOT happy in the traditional gender role is vilified for making a different choice or paid less than a man for her different choice. Human nature varies. Some women are happy in traditional roles. Some men are happy in traditional roles. Some women are miserable in traditional roles. Some men are miserable in traditional roles. Feminism posits the idea that people’s choices should not be limited based on societal expectations about gender roles. Feminism promotes the freedom of choices for both men and women. If it is in your nature to be satisfied as a stay-at-home mom, feminism supports that. If it is in your nature to be satisfied as the female breadwinner of your family, feminism supports that. If it is in your nature to be a man who enjoys caring for children, feminism supports that. If it is in your nature to be a man who seeks a female companion who would prefer to be a housewife and mother, feminism supports that if that is also her choice. If it is in your nature to desire and marry a person of the opposite sex, feminism supports that. If it is in your nature to desire and marry a person of the same sex, feminism supports that. Feminism supports choice and freedom to allow people to be who they are, without the shackles of someone else’s opinion of who they should be based on someone else’s nature.
Heidi,
In a previous comment, you accused me of being pro-genocide. There is no place for such accusations in polite debate. I will not address anything you write until and unless you offer a complete and unreserved apology for your uncalled for remarks.
Heidi,
Posting now as anonymous? Please do not comment on my posts until you have offered a complete and unreserved apology for your previous uncalled for comments. That goes for Anonymous comments, sock puppet comments or comments under your own name. Is it that much trouble to say that you were wrong to have made a completely uncalled for comment?
I respectfully disagree with Anon’s (and the reluctant housewife’s) assertion that “feminism is about choice.” It should be, and I would support it if that were the case. However, stay-at-home wives and mothers have been called parasites (and usually worse) by the same people who claim to support their “choices.” There’s a list of approved ones and a list we’ll oppress you for choosing.
I am a feminist and I believe it’s about choice. Thats why I’m a feminist. I’ve seen some stay-at-home types who are bullied into it, I’ve seen more thankfully who chose it. If this works for “reluctant housewife” great. But don’t get on a soapbox and use anecdotes as proof feminism is wrong, or that people who choose non-traditional roles are wrong. It’s both intellectually lazy and baiting. And I expect better from you.
Nerdygirl,
You really believe in choice? Do you believe that people should choose whether or not to buy health insurance? Do you believe that poor people should be able to choose what schools they send their children to (via vouchers) rather than be forced into government run schools? Do you believe that employers should be able to hire whomever they want without interference at all from government?
The thing is, Nerdygirl, generalization works. Generalization is very often true. The fact is that the generalizations that can be gleaned from that article are true. Sure there are exceptions. But that’s not the point. The point is that if you want to maximize your chances of happiness, you go with the generalization. These generalizations about the differences between men and women come from literally thousands of years of observation. For the most part, they are true.
If you want to maximize your chance of happiness, you do what works for you. Generalizations only get you so far. It’s rather dull and well, generic. If you want cookie-cutter happiness, you do what your neighbors do, if you want true happiness, you do what you want to do, which may very well end up being what your neighbors do. But you do it because it works for you, not because it works for everyone else. It’s funny how as a nation we pride ourselves on our individuality, yet when someone is in fact different, we chastise them for it.
Also, you’re trying to compare apples to oranges with your analogies. Doesn’t quite work like that.
Nerdygirl,
You’re completely missing the point.
Actually, I’d say you are. You’re starting to lose your edge. You comment on human nature being unchangeable, and that any effort to change it is futile and stupid. But marriage is a social tool, used to change human nature into something actually useful for society. Society is against human nature, religion is against human nature, both try to channel nature into something useful for the whole of mankind, not just every sorry self. You’ve gone from being interesting and articulate to sputtering that people who don’t live traditionally are lying to themselves and that those darn kids should get off your lawn. You’re sounding old before your time. Also it seems a bit odd that you have a non-traditional arrangement, yet presume all other non-traditional arrangements will fail.
Marriage, religion, etc. don’t change human nature. They channel it.
Think of a dam. Now, water flowing along a river is not always all that useful. But if you dam up the river you can use the water to turn turbines and make hydroelectric power. That’s useful. The nature of the water didn’t change. The nature of gravity didn’t change. But the way the water was channeled (via spillways rather than via the normal course of the river) did change. And it made it more useful.
The human condition, in its natural state (whatever that may be) is not that useful. But given laws, social conventions and free markets, the natural inclinations of human nature can be channeled to produce things like skyscrapers, the internet air conditioning and lots of other really useful stuff. None of that would happen without those “dams” that are used to channel human nature.
I never said that anybody is lying to themselves. I just said that the way most likely to cause happiness is the way that has been tried and tested, rather than the social experiments, whose record for producing happiness has been, um, not quite what was expected. Generalization works. Think about McDonalds. They generalize about what type of food tastes good. Thy would not get rich selling peanut butter and anchovy sandwiches. They go with what appeals to the human brain. This is much more consistent than many people would like to think. But it’s true.
@nerdygirl
I’m not sure what you mean by “anecdotes;” I was referring to what feminists write about their aims. For example:
“[W]oman’s work within the home [is] not directly useful to society, produces nothing. [The housewife] is subordinate, secondary, parasitic. It is for their common welfare that the situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a ‘career’ for woman.” – Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949.
I can’t slog through too much Andrea Dworkin, but her writings are full invective against husband/wife dynamics and marriage as an institution (not to mention masculinity and men in general).
We believe that when marriage is done right, it works. This is not “baiting” or lazy in any sense. Marriage is hard work for both parties. Marriage done wrong is a terrible thing, and we seek to prevent that from happening by providing guidance (for those who want it).
Arlemagne: Mothers are generally considered more important then fathers. Thus when a divorce occurs, society assumes that the mother is best for the child and as such custody defaults to the mother. Does generalization work?
Also, when I commented on a previous thread that more rape-prevention programs should be aimed at men, you replied that it was useless to stop human nature, and thus a wasted effort. Now, given your current stance, either you are contradicting yourself or you don’t really care about preventing men from raping.
Norrie, I wasn’t really talking to you about the anecdotes, that was more directed towards Arelegmagne, and the subject of this post is in fact, an anecdote. I still believe that feminism is about choice, and I’m all for women choosing to be housewives. It’s only very recent in human history that women actually have that choice, so of course there’s going to be bumps along the way, but I feel that from what I’ve read of recent and upcoming feminists, that this is being worked out in the current wave.
@nerdygirl
Fair enough about the anecdotes. Thanks for the clarification.
I must point out that even though it was rarer before, all through history there have been women who were businesswomen. It wasn’t expected that they do it, but if they wanted to do so, they could be merchants or producers or traders. One example that comes to mind is Lydia, the seller of purple cloth, in the New Testament (a respected member of her community to boot).
I haven’t read much in the way of recent feminist writings, though I do try to keep up with general trends in the movement. One thing that confuses me is the refusal to address the plight of women in places other than the United States (usually in the name of “imperialism” or “colonialism”). When women are dying and disenfrachised (and everything in between) in the Middle East, people who try to raise the issue as something the women’s movement should address are told off or ignored. I have a hard time saying that reaction expands any woman’s sphere of choices.
Hmm, I’ve read a good bit that does comment on the plight of women around the world, and show’s the worlds reluctance to do anything about it. I’ve seen numerous campaigns to stop the stoning of women in Iran (The exact names escape me) and the deportation of another to Iran where she would face stoning for being an out lesbian. There are numerous groups devoted to stopping sex trafficking all over the world, though Thailand and Malaysia are most common. There are numerous writings on correctional rape (sadly used in most of Africa, but mostly the south) and FGM (Female genital mutilation. For that matter there is a lot of condemnation for circumcision as well.) I really don’t think the community is as full of straw as most people think. I don’t agree with everything, and I do think there are times when they take it too far or read too much into things, but at the same time, I’ve been in a lot of situations where I’ve been talked down to or harassed because I’m female. It gets old real fast. I’m fine with people choosing traditional lifestyles, people should be free to pursue their happiness, and for some it does lie in a traditional setting. But for others, traditional ways are not suited for them, and they do better in non-traditional arrangements or a blend of the two.
Women trailblazers (men for that matter too) are remarkable. I think it’s great that I am fortunate enough to live in a time where I have the opportunity to choose a career and livelihood for myself without losing familial support or the chance to have a family of my own, which is something many women of the past did face. I don’t have to worry about laws that prevent me from inheriting anything or owning land. In the past women didn’t have this opportunity. While some women were able, like Lydia, to have a career or way of work outside of marriage, many didn’t and were ostracized if they tried. It’s not quite as easy as you make it sound.