Thistle, Susan. "From Marriage to the Market: The Transformation of Women's Lives and Work" Chapters 2 & 3
Davis, Kingsley. "Wives and Work: A Theory of the Sex-Role Revolution and Its Consequences"
Susan Thistle and Kingsley Davis both endeavor to explain women's shift from domestic labor into outside work and the corresponding changes in gender roles, relations, and the meaning of marriage. Rather than simply reviewing the facts surrounding these changes, Thistle and Davis search for answers to the all-important question - why? Both authors come to a variety of interesting conclusions, leading also to predictions regarding what the future will bring.
Susan Thistle's Chapter Two, entitled, "Support for Women's Domestic Economy in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries," looks deeper into the transition of women into the paid labor force, and the role played by the support and lack of support systems for domestic work. Thistle looks particularly at the events surrounding the Industrial Revolution and breaks down a few widely-held assumptions about the changes in gender roles in that period - for example, she explains that the advent of household appliances did not make nearly as large of an initial difference as was once thought, because at first they were unavailable to most families. Thistle splits her analysis along racial lines, separately following the transitions of white women and African-American women because their experiences differed drastically. Thistle essentially argues that the Industrial Revolution and the events of the early half of the twentieth century did not fully break down the system of women's work in the home, as is commonly assumed. She argues that these developments "merely eroded the frameworks sustaining women's work in the home" and the "radical breakdown of this old arrangement of labor" did not take place until post World War II (p. 34).
Chapter Two explains men's changing opinions regarding the role of housewife. Men previously would fight for pay that would allow their wives to stay home, because they did value the homemaking role and the work their wives did within the home. In later years, when interviewed, men expressed the opinion that they did not intend to financially support housewives and "by the 1980s male college students scoffed at the idea of supporting a full-time housewife" (p. 16). I wonder what the popular opinion of males would be today? What about males on the Boston College campus for example? I definitely think there would be mixed opinions. While domestic work is definitely not as valued as it once was, I do think there are many men who would value child-rearing and I know a lot of men who would like to have a wife who would stay home with the kids at least until they reached school age or even as long as until they reach high school. It would be interesting to see how opinions have changed and how people perceive the work of a housewife nowadays. Thistle emphasizes the decline of support for the role of the housewife and its direct relation to the breakdown of the domestic system. I definitely agree with her on this point. The cultural and social support for housewives declined and their work became less valued. This made the job of housewife that much more difficult, because if workplaces do not support the idea then they will no longer be paying "family" wages and government social policies will no longer support the idea of a woman at home. However, I think that the most damaging of all is the change in mindset - for the women as well. If the work of a housewife is not valued in society, there is a good chance the housewife herself will not see her own work as valuable and therefore will not feel that she is productive and important. This all leads to low self-esteem and discontent with the role of wife and mother..."only" a housewife. It is very important for purposes of identity and self-worth for people to see what they do as valuable, and when domestic work is not valued, the domestic workers become dissatisfied with their role. Therefore, I fully agree with Thistle's argument - the decline of support for housewives directly relates to the decline of the housewife role.
Susan Thistle's Chapter Three, "The Breakdown of Women's Domestic Economy After World War II" continues past the Industrial Revolution in the quest to uncover why women's roles changed so dramatically. Thistle again argues that lack of support systems are the primary cause because "women faced a full-scale breakdown of the economic, political, and cultural framework of support for their work in the home as the old forms of the gender division of labor came apart" (p. 35). Thistle discusses changes in divorce law, the cultural implications of the feminist rejection of marriage and early motherhood, and men's opinions as far as the breadwinner role and the decline of the breadwinner system. Thistle explains that it is actually the post WWII period that brought the large-scale ownership of household appliances, as this was the time when they became affordable for the average family. Appliances lessened the physical labor involved with running a household, which again contributed to the decline in the cultural value of homemaking. She also discusses the shift in the focus of marriage - from economic to emotional - and the repercussions of that change. The cultural changes in sexual relations between men and women, as well as greater access to reproductive controls, also contributed to the shift away from what was seen as "traditional" gender roles. Thistle concludes that, ultimately, "the legal shell that gave form to the old domestic economy crumbled," which completed the breakdown of women's domestic economy (p. 53).
Thistle discusses women's struggles to find alternative means of juggling domestic tasks with outside paid work. So many women still struggle with these dual roles today, so it makes one wonder, why hasn't more been done to alleviate the difficulties of balancing work and family? The laws have changed to reduce support for the housewife role, so why haven't systems been put into place to increase support for the working mother? Thistle explains, "no policies were yet in place to help women manage both sets of tasks," but I would argue that there still are too few policies, if any, in place to help women. It upsets me that we have been battling this issue for so many decades now, and there is still so little societal support in place. There is STILL no mandated paid maternity leave in this country and affordable childcare is very much needed.
I also found Thistle's discussion of the changing definition of marriage very interesting. With the declining economic necessity of marriage, there has been a turn towards marriage for the purposes of "emotional gratification" (p. 47). Thistle points out that many "predicted that unions based on emotional gratification would be more fragile than those grounded in each spouse's need for the other's labor" (p. 47). And they were right, the divorce rate did definitely rise. The changes in divorce law also made a huge difference in women's decisions to work outside the home. When marriage is no longer something that is guaranteed to last and your husband is no longer required to support you after he divorces you, a woman needs to be prepared to economically stand on her own two feet and support herself and her children. Thistle points out that "the specific form given the new divorce laws represented the interests of those in power, not of women" and these changes "brought great economic hardship to women whose marriages ended" (p. 48-49). I also found it very interesting when Thistle discusses the changes in reproductive law and the fact that they often benefited men just as much, if not more, than women.
Finally, the Equal Pay Act (1963) sparked my interest as well. I am not aware of the details of this act, but I am aware of the currently persisting pay inequities along gender lines. Women still make less than men, and I am wondering how this is allowed to happen if there is such a thing as the Equal Pay Act. I would like to learn more about the details of this legislation and why it appears to be so ineffective.
Kingsley Davis, in "Wives and Work: A Theory of the Sex-Role Revolution and Its Consequences," discusses the shift of wives from home to workplace through historical and evolutionary framework. He finds that production being moved from within the home to away from the home to be the ultimate determining factor in this momentous shift. As soon as women could no longer be economically productive within the home, the role of housewife began to decline and become devalued by society. Davis also uses statistics surrounding the rate of wives entering the workplace to predict when 100% of wives will be in the workforce - he predicts somewhere between 2010 and 2030. Davis describes what he calls the "household economy" system and the "breadwinner" system and then explains the decline of both of these, leading us to the confusion of our current day. He predicts that the future will hold the "egalitarian" system, but we do not as of yet know what all of the downfalls of this system will be.
Davis' analyses of the "household economy" and "breadwinner" systems both were very comprehensive and accurate. I definitely agree that the breadwinner system is internally flawed and therefore was internally breaking itself down from the very beginning. It is an interesting perspective, also, to look at the center of economic production leaving the home as the determining factor in the decline of the housewife. I would definitely agree with this idea. In terms of identity and, again, self-worth, a person needs to feel productive and feel that they are making a sufficient contribution to their life and the world. Women went from essentially being the center of production and economic stability in their families to the mercy of their husbands and dependence upon their husbands' salaries. Davis also points out the loss of control experienced by housewives under the breadwinner system. Loss of control in one's life can also lead to extreme dissatisfaction.
In Davis' future vision of the "egalitarian" system, he sees more government intervention in family life and systems that support the working mother. While I do hope he is correct in these predictions, I also question whether or not our country will move in that direction. The U.S. has perpetually held an individualistic viewpoint that has spanned across all aspects of life. Included within this has always been the feeling that family matters are private and should be privately taken care of, with little to no governmental assistance. The raising of children, in particular, has traditionally been a private matter with as little governmental intervention as possible. While other societies hold the opinion that the raising of children is a public responsibility, the U.S. has always left family matters within the families themselves. If we can find a way to look at social policies that assist families as necessary to our society rather than as "taking charity" or as a sign of weakness that families need assistance, then I think we can move forwards. However, I am not sure that we will have real, concrete family assistance until we can alter our mindset as Independent Americans.
Finally, I questioned Davis' idea that the egalitarian system would run into problems because both men and women would be working outside the home with "strangers," which could lead to a higher chance of divorce because they would be associating with other people on a regular basis. I very much disagree with this point because I believe that in any healthy relationship the two people should have a world and an identity separate from their partner as well to avoid codependence. Personal space and separate worlds as well as the world they share is a good thing for any couple. Having a strong personal identity and self-worth is essential to every person and makes for a better relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment