Equal Honor for the
Traditionally Female Work Sphere
By Denise Noe
“A man works
from sun to sun but a woman’s work is never done.” This saying has been oddly
upended in discussions about women who are said to be “working” and those
described as “not working.” Indeed, the media often runs articles discussing
the number of women who are “working.” Some articles specifically focus on
mothers, especially of young children, and whether or not a certain percentage
of them are “working.”
I suggest that a
basic mistake is made in all such discussions. This mistake is viewing “work”
as limited to the paid labor market. When this mistake is made, some of the
world’s hardest workers are said to be “not working” and some of its most
important work is rendered invisible.
What has
traditionally been “men’s work” has been in the paid labor market while what
has traditionally been “women’s work” has been in the unpaid domestic sphere.
Whether married or single, childless or mothers of many youngsters, women have
traditionally worked at running and managing homes and at caring for children.
Unfortunately,
there has long been a tendency to designate “work” as that which is in the paid
labor market, thus making the vital work performed by many people, most of them
female, seem irrelevant. This problem long pre-dates the advent of “Women’s
Lib” in the 1970s. Even though fulltime homemaking was the norm for married
women in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a reflexive tendency for those in this
occupation to describe their job “just a housewife.” That “just a” so often
preceded the job description because “work” was associated with the
traditionally male arena of the paid labor market. This problem was not
addressed by “Women’s Libbers,” some of whom were antagonistic to homemaking.
Ironically, extremists of the “women’s movement” worsened the denigration of
work in the traditionally women’s venue of the domestic sphere.
There
have long been some people who wanted domestic work to receive its due. One of
these is Arianna Huffington who burst onto the public scene (when her last name
was Stassinopoulos) with the publication in 1973 of her first book, The Female Woman. Subtitled, “An
Argument against Women’s Liberation, for Female Emancipation,” Huffington
asserted in that book, “The family is the main area where the claims of
emancipation diverge most strongly from the demands for liberation.
Emancipation means equal status for different roles.” She explained that while
many “Women’s Libbers” wanted to get rid of “housewife” as an occupation,
Huffington championed recognizing this job as of equal importance to jobs in
the paid labor market.
In
many households, a housewife prepares meals, keeps the house both clean and
neat, does the laundry, decorates the home, and performs other chores essential
to maintaining a household. She may also care for a child or children. In some
households, she cares for aging or ailing relatives. Such women are often busy at
productive activities throughout the day. That they are commonly said to be
“not working” is factually incorrect. Labor
that is outside the paid labor market is some of the most vitally important
work there is. One need only contemplate what a house looks like that is not
kept neat or clean to recognize the importance of housecleaning. The old
saying, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” reflects the truth
that caring for babies and toddlers is essential.
Even
as we demand respect for what has historically been called “women’s work,” we
must acknowledge that women are individuals and many are unsuited for domestic
tasks. What’s more, men can perform domestic chores and some men have greater
domestic talent than some women. Some men keep things cleaner and neater than
some women. Some men are better with babies and toddlers than some women. Thus,
“househusbands” are part of the modern landscape. These men should be respected
for their valuable contributions.
Regardless of who works in the domestic
sphere, the work itself and those doing it should be respected
Comments
Post a Comment