Chapter from: The hidden feelings of motherhood:
Coping with mothering stress, depression and burnout.
Oakland, CA:
New Harbinger, 2001.
Hearth and Home: The Fascinating
History of Women’s Domestic Work in America
Kathleen Kendall-Tackett, Ph.D., IBCLC
Family Research Laboratory, University
of New Hampshire
As mothers, we are bombarded with advice and cultural messages about how to
clean our houses, raise our children and spend our days. No matter what we do,
many of us have a vague sense of guilt about not "doing enough."
If you find yourself feeling guilty without really understanding why, read
on. There are historical and cultural forces that you may not be aware of that
are shaping your beliefs about who you are and what you should be
accomplishing. Ruth Schwartz Cowan, in her history of household technology,
describes the influence of these cultural forces in this way.
Many of the rules that tyrannize housewives are unconscious and therefore
potent. By exploring their history we can bring these rules into consciousness
and thereby dilute their potency….If we can learn to select among the rules
only those that make sense for us in the present, we can begin to control
household technology instead of letting it control us.
History can be wonderfully informative, giving a perspective that few other
things can. And history is often referred to. Conservatives and liberals alike
make references to the "traditional family." Usually, this means the
family structure of the 1950s. But as you'll see, in order to understand where
we are now, we need to go back farther than 50 years. Indeed, the traditional
family, as its currently conceptualized, has its origins in the period of time
before the Civil War: what historians refer to as the Antebellum Period. It was
during the Antebellum Period that womens work at home had its greatest cultural
support.
As with anyone who attempts to cover almost 200 years of history in a few
pages, I need to acknowledge some limitations of my discussion. First, I have
purposely focused on purveyors of popular culture such as advice books,
magazines, movies, television shows, and advertising, since these shape
cultural beliefs and attitudes. But in doing this, I acknowledge that within
any of these eras, there have been mothers who were able to carve out for
themselves satisfying lives—even when it seemed that the broader culture was
against them. Further, there is a vast difference in the experiences of mothers
based not only on when they lived, but their social class and ethnic heritage.
Finally, I want to acknowledge that even when a culture did support mothers,
there were women who felt confined by their role and were unhappy. Culture
alone cannot govern relationships that occur in individual families.
In this chapter, I provide a brief history of womens work both inside and
outside the home. I've used three primary historical texts: Domestic
Revolutions: A Social history of American Family Life (Mintz & Kellogg
1988), More Work for Mother (Schwartz Cowan 1983), and "Just a Housewife":
The Rise And Fall Of Domesticity In America (Matthews 1987). I hope this
information will help you recognize the cultural forces that shape your life,
and empower you to choose a life-style that is best for you and your family.
Women of the Antebellum Period
From 1830 to 1860, the status of the American housewife was at its peak.
Historian Glenna Matthews, outlines several reasons for this. In the years
following the Revolutionary War, there was the first glimmer of what we would
call "home." No longer was home a dwelling place, where you simply
ate and slept. Home became a place of emotional attachment, a haven in a harsh
world, a place where children and adults were nurtured. These changes
represented a fundamental cultural shift. Prior to the Revolutionary War,
fathers were considered responsible for raising children. In custody disputes,
with few exceptions, fathers were granted custody. It was many years before
mothers were considered better nurturers of children "of tender
years." Interestingly, the few parenting books that existed during this
time were addressed to fathers.
With the rise in the status of the home, the role of the mother was
elevated. In a young country, embarking on "the grand experiment" of
democracy, mothers were seen as the moral center of the culture. There was much
emphasis on mothers being the trainers of the citizenry. As such, they needed
to be educated and thoroughly knowledgeable about the issues and concerns of
the day. For the first time, the literacy rate of boys and girls was about
equal (Matthews 1987).
"It is the correct thing to remember that the lady who rules
the household must have absolute authority in it and rule as absolute queen. No
comfort or order can be obtained without this....The lady who holds this
position must remember that the every-day happiness of those in the home circle
is in her hands; that she has the greatest power of anyone to make the home a
place of peace and happiness, or a place to avoid."
Everybody's book of correct conduct, being the etiquette of every-day
life, 1893
Domesticity had a high place in the broader culture. The "notable
housewife" was a frequent theme in fiction, and she was positively
portrayed. The notable housewife was a role that required a great deal of
skill. Female craft traditions, such as cooking, baking, and stitchery became
jealously guarded family treasures that were passed from mother to daughter.
This is not to romanticize the work of mothers during this time. Much of the
work in housewifery was grueling and unrelenting. There were limited
opportunities for women. Women could not vote, and married women could not own
property. Looking at the lives of these women through modern eyes, we would
note that their work was largely segregated by sex and limited to the domestic
realm. Some individual women wrote in letters and journals that they were
overwhelmed with the responsibilities of child care and running a household.
As difficult as it was, however, domestic work of women was infused with
transcendent meaning that came from both religious and secular sources.
Although aspects of their work were hard and tedious, they were constantly told
that they were making a significant contribution to their country. Women of the
Antebellum Period were raising citizens for the new republic. "It is the
correct thing to remember that a happy and harmonious home rears great and
noble men and women; and that the friend who visits is often influenced by its
atmosphere to good (from Everybodys book of correct conduct, being the
etiquette of Every-day Life 1893).
The importance of this role was extolled from the pulpits. Matthews credits
some of this change to the first and second Great Awakenings, and the rise of
Protestant evangelicalism. There was a turning from the more rigid Calvinism of
the Puritans to an emphasis on Gods grace. This influenced how children were
treated within the home. Mothers and fathers were supposed to be living
examples to their children of Gods love.
Many of the ideas about the notable housewife may have, in fact, come from
the Bible. In the Old Testament book of Proverbs, we see an example of a
notable housewife in "the virtuous woman" of Chapter 31. Her primary
sphere is domestic, yet she has interest in the wider world. She works hard; is
competent; handles money; buys and sells land; manufactures goods for herself,
her family, and to sell; provides for her family; and she helps the poor and
needy. Her husband has status in the community because of her efforts. Both her
husband and children praise her and "call her blessed."
- Who can find a virtuous woman? For her worth is far above rubies.
- The heart of her husband safely trusts her; so he will have no lack of gain.
- She does him good and not evil all the days of her life.
- She seeks wool and flax, and willingly works with her hands.
- She is like the merchant ships, she brings food from afar.
- She also rises while it is yet night, and provides food for her household,
and a portion for her maid servants.
- She considers a field and buys it; from her profits she plants a vineyard.
- She girds herself with strength and strengthens her arms.
- She perceives that her merchandise is good, and her lamp does not go out by
night.
- She stretches out her hands to the distaff, and her hand holds the spindle.
- She extends her hand to the poor, yes, she reaches out her hands to the
needy.
- She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household is clothed
with scarlet.
- She make tapestry for herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple.
- Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land.
- She makes linen garments and sell them, and supplies sashes for the
merchants.
- Strength and honor are her clothing; she shall rejoice in time to come.
- She opens her mouth with wisdom, and on her tongue is the law of kindness.
- She watches over the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of
idleness.
- Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises
her: "Many daughters have done well, but you excel them all."
- Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord, she
shall be praised.
- Give her the fruit of her hands, and let her own works praise her in the
gates.
Proverbs 31: 10-31
There was also secular support of the notable housewife by 19th century
philosophers such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of the most important
intellectuals of his time. Domestic themes were also present in the works of
Nathaniel Hawthorne. For both Hawthorne and Emerson, the model American home
was loving, welcoming for visitors, free of social caste, and inhabited by a
family that could be emulated. The importance of mothers and domestic themes
was also key in the growing movements for the abolition of slavery and for
women's sufferage. As Matthews states: "...the domestic sphere was not
viewed as an ahistorical enclave where people could meet basic needs…but rather
as a dynamic scene of actions that could affect the outcome of history".
As in the virtuous women described in the Bible, women reformers used the
moral authority of the home to highlight the plight of the less fortunate. One
of the most famous examples is that of Harriet Beecher Stowe. We all know her
as the author of the remarkable Uncle Toms Cabin; a book that Abraham Lincoln
credited as ultimately bringing about the end of slavery. She is arguably one
of the most influential writers in American history. What you may not know is
that she, and other members of her family, were best-known for their books
about domesticity. Domestic themes of home and motherhood were also prominent
in Uncle Toms Cabin.
Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Toms Cabin shortly after the death of her infant
son Charley. At the urging of a relative, she wrote a book that addressed the
issue of slavery--the first book to do so. She used her experience of mourning
for a child to give her empathy for the slave mother who could lose her
children by having them sold away from her. Eliza, one of her main characters,
is a slave who runs away with her young son to keep him from being sold. In a
letter to Eliza Cabot Follen (December 16 1852), she makes the connection
between her personal experience and the experience of her character Eliza.
I have been the mother of seven children, the most beautiful and most loved
of whom lies buried near my Cincinnati
residence. It was at his dying bed and at his grave that I learned what a poor
slave mother may feel when her child is torn away from her. In those depths of
sorrow which seemed to me immeasurable, it was my only prayer to God that such
anguish might not be suffered in vain. There were circumstances about his death
of such peculiar bitterness, of what seemed almost cruel suffering that I felt
I could never be consoled for it unless this crushing of my own heart might
enable me to work out some great good to others.
I allude to this here because I have often felt that much that is in that
book had its root in the awful scenes and bitter sorrow of that summer. It has
left now, I trust, no trace on my mind except a deep compassion for the
sorrowful, especially for mothers who are separated from their children.
Uncle Toms Cabin, the homes of the characters are also very much in
evidence. The home of the Quaker couple who offers refuge to Eliza is cheerful,
neat, and warm. It was the embodiment of Beecher Stowes most deeply held
beliefs. In contrast, the home of the villainous Simon Legree is filthy,
ragged, and slovenly. But merely keeping house well was not enough. Notable
housewives needed to be good character as well. An example here is the cousin
who comes from New England to take over the
household. She handles her duties well but is prejudiced. It is not until she
overcomes her prejudice that she is granted notable-housewife status.
The importance of women using their influence for good was something Beecher
Stowe believed throughout her life. She also emphasized that women must be
knowledgeable citizens, particularly in regard to slavery. In a letter to
Charles Sumner written after the publication of Uncle Toms Cabin, she wrote:
The first duty of every American woman is to thoroughly understand the
subject for herself and to feel that she is bound to use her influence for the
right.
In later years, we would see how the perception of womens role in the
broader culture had changed.
The Decline of Domesticity: 1865-1920
The decline of domesticity began in the years after the Civil War, ending in
1865. The notable housewife was no longer a theme in literature. Rather, she
was gradually replaced with the overbearing mother, or "housewife
bitch" that soon became prominent in literature. Matthews cites numerous
examples from the writings of Sinclair Lewis and George Peck, author of the
Pecks Bad Boy series. No longer the moral center of the family and the culture;
mothers were seen as the problem.
Matthews hypothesizes that these negative images of housewives started to
appear because of the perception that the housewife/activist had in fact gained
too much power.
Many of these womens groups, such as the powerful Womens Christian
Temperance Union, used their activism to make changes to curb men's behaviors
such as drinking and gambling. The WCTU was an all-woman political
organization. They organized because of alcohols negative influence on women
and children, when drunken husbands abused and did not provide for them. The
negative portrayals of mothers in literature may have been part of a backlash
against the power women had gained. "Politicizing the home and then
turning this to female advantage inevitably made enemies for domestic values,
enemies who would welcome a diminution in the sanctity of home".
But negative portrayals in literature of housewives were only the beginning.
Soon industrialization and the new modern science would forever change the role
of the housewife.
Industrialization, Consumerism, and Womens Work: 1920-1960
There are several other cultural forces that eroded the status of the
housewife. Perhaps one of the most pervasive was industrialization, which
started about 1860. One of its first changes in the household was that it
created an even more marked division of labor between the sexes than had
existed previously, as men left the home to go to work. And its influence did
not stop there.
The Labor-Saving Device
Industrialization also had a large influence on womens work with the
invention of "the labor-saving device." These devices--washing
machines, sewing machines, and vacuums--were designed to make the onerous tasks
of taking care of a home less burdensome. They were also designed to eliminate
the need for servants. These efforts were, for the most part, well intentioned.
But their effects had long-range effects on the work that women did.
First, labor-saving devices clearly did make some tasks easier, but they
simultaneously raised the standards. For example, since cleaning now took less
time, the standards of cleanliness rose. Since it was easier to wash clothing
with a washing machine, women could now wash clothes more often. As family
diets became more varied, cooking became more complex. Larger homes meant more
to clean. Finally, work that had traditionally (at least in middle-class homes)
been hired out, returned home and became the job of the housewife. These tasks
included laundry, rug and drapery cleaning, and floor polishing (Schwartz Cowan
1983).
Also, labor-saving devices eliminated the need for domestic help. Before
their advent, most middle-class homes had at least some domestic help. With the
machines, women did most of these chores alone. Indeed, Schwartz Cowan
describes how the housewife of the 1950s could single-handedly produce what her
counterpart in the 1850s needed a staff of three or four to produce:
middle-class standards of health and cleanliness for her family. Labor-saving
devices eliminated the drudgery but not the labor or time necessary to complete
their tasks; even with labor-saving devices, women were still working the same
number of hours as women in previous generations. "Thus, there was more
work for a mother to do in a modern home because there was no one left to help
her with it".
Labor-saving devices also had another insidious effect. Since the technology
was "new," kitchens and households were now redesigned to accommodate
these machines. Therefore, women had to rely on outside experts to help them
with the new technology. What had traditionally been their sphere, suddenly
became foreign. Indeed, an army of experts now began to take over all aspects
of womens domestic work.
Another insidious effect of technologys entry into our households was that
many tasks that required skill were eliminated. In fact, time management
experts told women to make their household tasks as automatic and
"brainless" as possible. The problem no one had foreseen was that
housework "continued to fill womens time while it starved their
brains" (Matthews 1987 p. 195). The problem was first identified in 1920
by Dr. Abraham Myerson, in a book entitled The Nervous Housewife. He also
identified isolation being a particular problem for housewives, as was the
de-skilling and de-valuation of her job. In 1930, in Ladies Home Journal, he
added one more problem to the list: the devaluation of motherhood (Myerson,
cited in Matthews, 1987).
The Army of Experts
Knowledge that was traditionally transmitted woman to woman, was now
considered obsolete—a pathetic relic from the past. We now needed to be taught by
"experts" how to cook, raise our children, and run our households.
Immigrant families were told to shed their old ways in favor of
"modern" techniques. Some groups resisted, and continued to practice
their old ways. When they did, they were often objects of derision and pity. In
this way, the dominant white middle class culture attempted to force their
views on women of other cultures.
During this time, home economists, such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman, became
exasperated with the inefficiency of the American housewife. She argued through
much of her life, that women must be freed from domestic work so that they
could do "more important" things. She proposed community kitchens,
where all families in a community could eat together; communal child-rearing; and
provision of outside services, such as laundry, for the family. She stated that
housework should be done by professionals instead of amateurs at home.
Interestingly, economist Juliet Schor (1992) describes Gilmans proposed
solutions in positive terms, arguing that women work hard because they are so
inefficient at home! She was trying to make the broader point that most homes
and home appliances are not designed with ease of care in mind since we don't
value women's time. That may be true. But we should be careful not to adopt the
negative attitude about women, or domestic work, that is present in our
culture.
As more items were mass-produced, fewer were created at home. Women were no
longer responsible for making cloth or clothing. Women no longer had to make
their own soap or candles. And clearly, many women (if not most) relished being
released from these tasks. Yet something was lost when women's domestic work
was de-skilled. Women in the past had concrete evidence of their productivity
and contribution to the family. They could point to the physical presence of
vegetables grown, jars of preserves put up, clothing that was sewn, cloth that
was woven. In the diaries of 18th century midwife Martha Ballard, we see that
she kept daily track of her production in the household, and was apparently
proud of this (Thatcher Ulrich 1990). Many of the household tasks were also
outlets for women's creativity.
Tasks such as cooking, sewing, quilting, lace making, and stitchery
dramatically diminished during the 20th century as mass-produced items were
considered better than what women could produce themselves. Many of the daily
tasks women now performed lacked any kind of permanency. Cleaning, diapering,
driving were all tasks that had to be done over and over, and there was often
no evidence that they had ever been done at all. In Motherhood Stress, Debbie
Lewis describes this lack of permanence of production and speculates that this
is why so many at-home mothers enjoy various types of needlework, since they
know that the product they create will last for more than five minutes.
Scientific Eating
With tremendous arrogance, women were told that they could no longer rely on
the palates of their families to tell them what tasted "good."
Instead, women needed to rely on nutritionists to tell them what their families
should eat. "Scientifically engineered" food substitutes were now
finding their way into American homes. These were widely touted in women's
magazines, and those who resisted were described as "ridiculous" when
they failed to embrace the modern way.
Interestingly, the native cuisine of immigrant families was not easy to
change, and attempts to change the diets of these cultures did not have a great
deal of success. These families didn't like the taste of scientifically
engineered foods and continued to eat their traditional diets.
Commercially baked bread did not catch on until the 1900s. And other food
substitutes did not really catch on until there were food shortages during
World War II. Curiously, after the war, these foods were marketed as
"better" than the foods they were designed to replace. Canned,
packaged, and mass-marketed foods eventually took over the market and became
standard. These foods have become so much the norm that foods prepared from
fresh ingredients taste strange, especially to kids. Matthews described her
dismay at the decline of American cookery with the widespread acceptance of
processed foods.
Arguably, the nadir of American cookery came in the fifties. This was the
heyday of prepared foods and the cream-of-mushroom-soup cuisine whereby the
cook could pour a can of this product over anything that was not dessert and
create a culinary treat according to the standards of the day (p. 211).
Cream-of-mushroom cuisine appears to be making a comeback as advertisers
capitalize on nostalgia for baby-boomers' youth.
We are still reaping the consequences of the marketing campaigns that
brought scientifically engineered foods into our homes. Consider the
ill-conceived campaign to promote margarine as being healthier than butter. Now
we have learned that "trans" fatty acids (that are not only in
margarine but in most commercially produced baked goods) are worse for you than
butter. I wonder if the chemically laden "fat-free" products that are
now flooding the market will have a similar history. We're eating more and more
of these foods and finding ourselves, as a country, fatter than ever. Could our
current levels of heaviness be related to our addiction to heavily manufactured
foods? There is a growing body of research evidence that indicates that this
may be so.
Scientific Mothering
A parallel development occurred with regard to child rearing. Love and
affection were considered sloppy and "unscientific." Feeding of
infants was rigidly scheduled. Rather than feeding babies when they appeared
hungry, women were no longer to trust these cues. Instead they were to rely on
outside experts to determine when and how often babies should eat. This
approach had a disastrous impact on breastfeeding. When feedings are rigidly
scheduled, the impact is a decrease in a mother's milk supply. But that was OK
according to the experts of the day, since bottle feeding allowed a much more
scientific approach. Intake could now be accurately measured. Unfortunately,
variations of this approach still exist today.
Psychologists, such as John B. Watson, openly speculated about whether
mothers were in fact, the best ones to be raising children given their lack of
a scientific education. Parents were to mold children's behavior through a
process of positive and negative reinforcements.
It is a serious question in my mind whether children should know their
parents. There are undoubtedly much more scientific ways of bringing up
children, which will probably mean finer and happier children (Watson cited in
Matthews 1987 p. 183).1
1 I often wonder if John Watson knew any actual children.
His comments have an eerily modern ring to them. In a book about overbearing
social welfare policies, and their negative effects on families, Dana Mack (1997)
states:
Our family policy, it seems, has been based upon a long-standing conviction
on the part of educators, psychologists, and social service professionals that
parents really should not be too heavily engaged in the child-rearing process,
but rather should abandon it to professionals.
Mothers of the industrial age were warned that they must abandon the
childrearing techniques of previous generations, whereby mothers kissed and
coddled their young children. Parents were advised to let their babies cry. To
follow scientific methods, parents were told to adopt a strict regimen for
feeding, sleeping, and toileting so that they conditioned a child to be polite,
neat and cleanly. Mothers were told that they could start bowel training at age
one month by inserting a tapered soap stick into the rectum for three to five
minutes (Mintz & Kellogg 1988). Much of this child rearing advice seems
ridiculous, if not cruel.
Mothers of the industrial age were warned that they must abandon the
childrearing techniques of previous generations, whereby mothers kissed and
coddled their young children. Parents were advised to let their babies cry. To
follow scientific methods, parents were told to adopt a strict regimen for
feeding, sleeping, and toileting so that they conditioned a child to be polite,
neat and cleanly. Mothers were told that they could start bowel training at age
one month by inserting a tapered soap stick into the rectum for three to five
minutes (Mintz & Kellogg 1988). Much of this child rearing advice seems
ridiculous, if not cruel.
Other female traditions, such as herbal medicine and midwifery, were also
all but lost as conventional (read: "scientific") medicine began to
take hold. More traditional forms of healing were relegated to the category of
"old wives' tales," and dismissed out of hand. These other forms of
healing were quite prominent in the 19th century, only to almost die out in the
first 60 or 70 years of the 20th. We are now only beginning to realize what we
lost by the ransacking of all these traditions. While alternative medicine has
become increasingly popular, there is still strong opposition from segments of
the scientific community.
Consumerism
Industrialization brought us another aspect of modern life: consumerism. By
the 1920s, large numbers of mass-produced consumer goods were within the
financial reach of the average family. In order to create a market for these
items, the advertising industry was born. With it came the marketing of
obsolescence and "creative waste." The idea was to train women to buy
new rather than to use everything to the very end: in a telling phrase, to
"waste more rather than less" (Christine Fredrick's 1929 volume
Selling to Mrs. Consumer cited in Matthews 1987 p. 170). Consumerism has as its
foundation the chronic "need" to purchase new goods without
considering whether the item is really needed, or with little consideration of
its durability, or how it was produced. Consumerism is also a trend that
continues to this day and whose impact is being felt not only in our
overflowing homes, but in our overflowing planet.
Advertising also started to erode women's self-esteem. Mothers were
repeatedly told that if their families were not healthy, attractive, and
popular, and if they themselves were haggard looking or tired, it was their
fault since the means to remedy these problems were easily available. Guilt
was--and is--one of the most common appeals used in advertising (Schwartz Cowan
1983).
The Automobile
The final impact of industrialization was the advent and increasing
availability of the automobile. As early as 1925, it was in widespread use. The
car became the means by which the American housewife did most of her work, and
where she spent most of her time (Schwartz Cowan 1983). Mothers spent a large
amount of their day chauffeuring other members of the family; a situation that
has not improved. But there were problems associated with the car being their
primary place of work. First, by the end of the day, women could not point to
"something" that they had accomplished. Second, driving also had the
effect of isolating women from each other. Rather than having a place where
women could gather, they were encased in their individual automobiles.
The Low Status of Housewives
Popular literature of the day also continued in its attack on American
housewives. The idea of "home" being a place of emotional attachment
was met with derision. Women at home were portrayed as idle or even parasites.
At the same time, women were advised to create a haven for their husbands at
home. But unlike their counterparts of 100 years earlier, part of creating this
haven was being deliberately "dumb" about the goings on in the
outside world. Women were discouraged from becoming involved outside their
narrow sphere. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Ladies Home Journal repeatedly
told women not to be concerned or involved in the world outside their homes. In
an article published in September 1938, Bruce and Beatrice Gould issued the
following advice.
Be glad you're dumb about all these earth-shaking questions. They don't
affect you nearly so much as a lot of other things much nearer home….The great
problems of the world are all Greek to you—but the problems of your home and
family and community are right down your alley. Be glad you're dumb while your
husband is saving the world—be brave and you can save the home" (cited in
Matthews 1987 p. 198).
Contrast this with the mother who was responsible for the education of
citizens of the new republic 100 years previously.
At every turn, the American housewife was told that she didn't know what she
was doing. This attitude was communicated through books, magazine articles, and
later movies. While technological advances did free women from some of their
most challenging tasks, we didn't stop to ask whether all these changes really
constituted progress. What happens to the way women feel about homemaking when
they change from producers of the family's products to consumers?2 What happens
when women must rely on outside experts for everything from what we should eat
to how we treat our children? What happens when we are told to make our routine
jobs brainless and we spend the majority of our time in our car? We were to
see.
"The Problem that Has No Name": Betty Friedan and The
Feminine Mystique
In 1963, Betty Friedan fired the opening salvo of the women's movement with
the publication of her book The Feminine Mystique. In this book, she put into
words "the problem that has no name": that women were largely unhappy
with the role that our culture prescribed for them. She stated that women
needed to be "liberated" from housework in order to fulfill their
potential through paid employment. This was a message that resonated with
thousands of women, and mothers entered the paid labor force in unprecedented numbers.
What Friedan articulated was the growing discontent of the American
housewife. Interestingly, writer and Nobel Prize laureate Pearl S. Buck, made
many of the same points about the plight of the American housewife in a book
written in 1941. She was astonished to visit the United
States from her native China, and observe that the status
of the American woman was so low. Isolated, discouraged from using their minds
for anything outside the narrow sphere of the home, and cut-off from aspects of
homemaking that had taken considerable skill, Buck concluded that American
women were "starving at the source." She went on to describe how
women had almost no influence on American national life, and that feminine
qualities were despised. She also noted, with some alarm, that women were
passing this disdain for all things female on to the next generation. She
writes: "What is one to think of women who deliberately teach their sons
to despise women?"
However, as historian Glenna Matthews describes, the time was not yet right
for women to openly discuss their unhappiness with the changing role of
housewife. America
was soon to enter World War II and was just recovering from the Great
Depression. Further, the forces that had devalued the work of the housewife
didn't reach their full flower until the 1950s.
Schwartz Cowan makes an interesting point about production in the
American household. She argues that women are still producers and what they
"produce" is a healthy family. This type of production is never
included in the Gross National Product, but is production nonetheless.
Therefore, when women realize that driving, for example, is contributing to
their production, it helps them feel pride in that activity.
The 1950s: The Golden Era for Families?
The 1950s have often been described as the "golden era" of the
American family. It is true that the majority of women during this time did
stay home with their children. But as we have seen from the above discussion,
the culture itself did not have positive things to say about women at home.
These stereotypes were reinforced by yet another technological invention:
television. Interestingly, two icons of this era—Donna Reed and Lucille
Ball—were not the traditional wives that they portrayed on television. Both
were not only actresses but television producers in an era when women had very
limited roles. The lives they lived were, in fact, very different than their
on-screen personas.3
In the meantime, the destruction of mother-to-mother transmission of skills,
and the constant message of advertisers had another insidious effect: the loss
of skills became real. This increased our reliance on foods and services
provided by other people even further. Putting us even more firmly in the role
of consumer rather than producer, and if we are to believe advertisers, fairly
dumb consumers at that. To me, the most troubling aspect of this decline in
skills is the financial bondage that it places families in. Purchased
alternatives are almost always more expensive than what you can do at home. But
since we feel we don't have any choice, we continue to purchase expensive goods
and services—sometimes teetering at the brink of poverty to do so.
Traditionalists often blame Betty Friedan and other feminists for devaluing
homemaking and creating women's unhappiness. This is neither fair nor accurate.
There were many other forces that led to the unhappiness of many American
housewives. She simply named the problem. However, Matthews, a feminist
historian, points out that the early women's movement did make the mistake of
adopting our culture's contempt for all-things domestic.
Two generations later, women are questioning whether simply shedding all
vestiges of the housewife role was really the solution. Many women are working
full time, and still doing the bulk of child and home care. Many are asking
whether we have traded the bondage of one cultural tradition for another. Can
caring for children and tending a home be rewarding activities? Were we too
quick to abandon every aspect of domesticity? Have we, in fact, thrown the baby
out with the bath water?
The Rise of Modern Domesticity
Interest is domesticity is once again on the rise. Books on the joys of
mothering and making a warm, beautiful home are hitting the bestseller list.
Some examples include Sarah Ban Breathnach's Simple Abundance, Victoria Moran's
Shelter for the Spirit, and
3 A recent television show on the cable channel Arts & Entertainment
(A&E) recently gave two rather poignant examples of the unreality of
television families. First, the young man who played Donna Reed's son on
television described how his real-life mother had felt that she couldn't
live-up to her son's "other" mom on TV. Second, TV's "Bud"
on Father Knows Best described his life as the real son of a violent alcoholic.
His on-screen persona was in sharp contrast to the chaos he experienced at
home.
Alexandra Stoddard's many titles including Creating a Beautiful Home. But
the rise of domesticity is perhaps best personified in a single woman.
Martha Stewart: The Return of the Notable Housewife
Business Week magazine dubbed Martha Stewart "America's
lifestyle queen." No matter what you think of her, you must admit that she
is highly competent. She is almost single-handedly restoring skill to
homemaking. Whether or not you ever try any of her suggestions, her can-do
attitude is contagious.
And her skill is paying off--big-time. As Business Week notes, "even
those who scoff at Stewart's perfect-housewife image admit that she's a
stunningly savvy entrepreneur" (Brady 2000). Her various business
enterprises including Martha Stewart Living magazine, a television show, a Web
site that racked up record Christmas sales last year, and products for garden
and home. She is one of the wealthiest women in America. Clearly, someone is
clearly buying her products. Diane Fisher describes why she thinks the new
domesticity is catching on.
Perhaps many of us, raised in a generation geared up to juggle all the
balls—the cellular phone, briefcase, handweights, and diaper bag—perhaps we're
finally getting ready to opt our of an inhuman scenario: this idea of doing it
all…As unreal and perfect as Martha Stewart can be, she reminds us of the joy
in arranging flowers, gardening, lovingly setting a table. We are almost ready
to admit that we miss the domestic arts!
What I've also found telling, however, is the viciousness of the attacks
against her. Some seem good-natured. For example, we can really
"believe" that she would add a wing onto her dining room in
preparation for luncheon guests. Other jokes, however, are cruel, even
including snide remarks about her ethnic heritage. One spoof called her the
"dominatrix of domesticity." Given what we know about history, we
should be somewhat troubled by the appearance, once again, of the
"housewife bitch."
Does this mean that we all have to be like Martha Stewart? Of course not! I
think people joke about her because she sets the bar so high. I like the fact
that she puts a positive face on domesticity, shows women how to live with
style and beauty, and encourages women to learn new skills. But very few
mortals could even come close to doing all that she does. My hope is that as we
become more confident in our own choices, we can use her as the resource she
is, but not feel inferior because we are not just like her.
Women's Ways of Knowing
There has also been a resurgence of interest in "women's ways of
knowing." One of the most influential books in this movement is Toward a
New Psychology of Women by Jean Baker Miller. The premise of this book, and
ones that followed, was that women approach life differently than men. Women's
growth and psychological development occurs in relationships with others,
including our families and friends. Men tend to be independent; women are more
likely to seek relationships. Rather than despising our femaleness, we should
embrace it. "Relational" theory resonates with thousands of women.
This willingness to embrace women's history and culture has also led to a
resurgence of interest in women's craft traditions, such as quilting,
stitchery, and cooking. Indeed, quilts made by traditional groups, such as the
Amish, are now recognized as works of art and sell for hundreds of dollars.
Older quilts are often worth even more, and are becoming part of museum
folk-art collections. Interestingly, Wellesley
College's Stone Center
(former academic home to Jean Baker Miller), uses quilt motifs on many of their
conference brochures.
Environmental Concerns
Change may be coming from another source that has little to do with
domesticity per se, but could have a large impact on families. With an
increasing concern about the environment, many have been calling for a change
in the way we consume goods. According to Vicki Robins of the New Road Map
Foundation, overconsumption is bad for us in a number of ways. It leads to a
declining quality of life. We work longer hours in jobs we may hate so we can
buy more stuff. Overconsumption leads to debt, economic weakness, and the
lowest savings rate in the world. Finally, overconsumption leads to problems
for the environment including the accumulation of toxic waste and garbage,
water and air pollution, and the depletion of renewable resources (Robins
1994).
Waste is another direct result of the consumerism. The business practice of
"planned obsolescence" generates an enormous amount of waste as
manufacturers change colors or styles frequently to get you to continue to buy.
This applies to everything from clothing, to plastic containers, to household
appliances (think avocado-green refrigerators).
Noting that massive consumerism is having a negative impact on the
environment, two recent summits in Japan on "sustainable
consumption," i.e., consumption that does not have a negative
environmental impact, have convened (Myers 2000). If implemented, policies that
resulted from these meetings will have a dramatic impact on our spending
habits. These policies could include eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels,
foods, and other products allowing the true (much higher) price of these items
to surface. The new higher prices would curb consumerism and encourage families
to abandon the buy-and-dump mentality that is still prevalent in the U.S. If this
seems somewhat "leftist" to you, you should know that the staunchly
conservative Theodore Roosevelt warned Americans almost 100 years ago that unbridled
consumerism would cripple America
(Wills 1937).
The Reappearance of the Mother/Activist
As with her counterparts in the 1850s, mothers are once-again using the
moral authority of their role to call for social changes. There are numerous
examples of mother/activists. I have selected two that specifically refer to
women's involvement as mothers. The first is Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.
This organization was founded in 1980 by a group of mothers after a 13-year old
girl was killed by a drunk driver. At the time this organization was formed,
sentences for drunk drivers were lenient. This organization has managed to
change public opinion about the seriousness of drunk driving.
A second example of mother/activism is "The Million Mom March"
held in Washington DC on Mother's Day, 2000. In this case,
mothers organized around the issue of gun control. To quote from their web site
(www.millionmom.com), their purpose "is to prevent gun death and injury
and to support victims of gun trauma. We want common sense gun laws. We want to
keep our children and our families safe in a nation that is flooded with
unregistered, unlicensed and unregulated guns." Many of the mothers who
participated had husbands or children who were killed with guns.
Like Harriet Beecher Stowe before them, mothers in both of these
organizations turn their personal pain into social action. They do so
specifically referring to their role as mothers.
Discourse on Work Options for Mothers
Which brings us full circle. You will recall that we started this discussion
by acknowledging that women often feel a vague sense of guilt. As you can see,
there have been a variety of cultural forces shaping how we live and the
choices we make. And not all of these have been benign, with our best interests
at heart.
As mothers, you must feel free to evaluate your options and make choices
based on what's best for your family. A similar point was recently made by
former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. I found her comment to be interesting
since she's been the icon for the "working mother" since the 1992
election. However, in a recent interview, she acknowledged that women should be
free to choose whether they stay home with children or seek employment outside
the home (Stan 2000).
I think we should do everything possible to give families real choices about
whether or when one or both parents should work during a child's young years,
because there isn't any doubt in my mind that the most important job any of us
have is caring for children.
I hope that by discussing our past, you will feel free to examine the
"shoulds" in your life. Many of the tasks we do, and standards we
have adopted, were not freely chosen, but "given" to us by the
advertising industry and an army of experts. To realize the goal of bringing
our workload down to a more manageable level, we must begin to make conscious
choices about our work at home and in the marketplace—the topic of the next two
chapters.
Whole Wheat Spinach
Tortilla's
