SANDRA WRITES:

I have been following your blog from the very beginning and I like it very much. You come across as a very intelligent, well-educated person. There is a question I’d like to ask you, concerning your thoughts on traditional family as you are one of the few voices on the Internet defending housewives. 

It seems that housewives nowadays are attacked both from left and right. Feminist attack on housewives is nothing new, of course, but during the recent years there emerged a new generation of bloggers who claim to be antifeminist, but attack the traditional homemaker quite viciously nonetheless. 

Their arguments can be summed up as follows:

Some claim that the traditional family never really existed as before Industrial Revolution both men and women worked and earned an income and the modern division of labour did not exist. They argue that Industrial Revolution created an artificial division between home and workplace with men leaving home for the factory and wives turning from producers into consumers. Thus, what we call traditional family is not traditional at all, but rather a Victorian innovation which is responsible for modern feminism. 

Another argument is somewhat different. It admits that women used to be home and they performed an important role as housekeepers, but, according to that point of view, the role became obsolete after Industrial Revolution since now we have washing machines, vacuum cleaners and dishwashers which means that women have basically nothing to do at home, unless they have very small children or homeschool. 

The third argument commonly used is theological. The famous Proverbs 31 Chapter in the Bible speaks of a woman who makes linen and sells it, thus, it is said, the Bible commands every woman to earn an income. The more conservative version of this argument is that a wife must have some sort of home-based business. 

Now I know that some women have to work. Sometimes it is necessary that the wife earns an income because the family can’t live on the husband’s wages alone. Some women are business-minded and like selling things on ebay etc. However, what about those who aren’t interested in having a home business? What if the husband makes a good living? What if he is opposed to his wife earning an income of her own, no matter how small? This last group makes you feel guilty if you spend some time reading a book instead of selling stuff on the Internet. 

Some of the new anti-feminist bloggers seem to hate traditional women even more than feminists do, basically saying that a male breadwinner role is akin to slavery and describe housewives as women watching soaps the whole day while the oppressed husband slaves in coal mines. 

Í’d like to know your opinion on this.

Laura writes:

Thank you for writing.

I think you are absolutely correct. The homemaker is besieged on all sides. She is besieged not only by the extreme positions you mention but by the endlessly wishy-washy, noncommittal stream of opinion that says everyone can do everything all of the time as long we acknowledge in words, not deeds, that men and women are different and that we ourselves disavow feminism. You’re allowed to be a feminist as long as you say you’re not one.

The idea that there was not a clear division of labor between men and women until the Industrial Revolution is an oft-repeated fallacy as one can see throughout Western history women were primarily responsible for the rearing of children and there was no comparable period before the 20th century when large numbers of women left their children for most of the day in the care of others.  There was a clear division of labor in agricultural families, with men doing the heavier labor and handling business and property matters and women handling mostly domestic affairs and childrearing while also sharing in farm tasks.

The argument that the homemaker became obsolete with the advent of washing machines and dishwashers fails to look at a few important factors. One, the education of children is more time-consuming in an advanced society and the advent of domestic machinery has in no way lessened the work of preparing children morally and spiritually for adulthood. This is such a basic and important concept that it deserves repeating. Children are not machines. No amount of technological gadgetry will eradicate their need for guidance, love and training. [For a look at all that children require, I recommend my post “Excellence in Parenthood.”] Children have not changed in their basic psychological nature and given the cultural environment it arguably takes more work to raise them well because of an anti-child culture. And, children still get ill often even though these illnesses are less likely to be fatal.

Marriage remains an emotional bond that takes hard work to maintain. Despite the Industrial Revolution, couples persist in needing time for sex and love. Dishwashers haven’t left them with enough time for those things, at least as far as I know.

Additionally, the modern home has needs that earlier homes did not have, such as the tending and maintaining of all those machines, the paying of many bills, the driving to who-knows-where to get who-knows-what, and the filing of massive amounts of paperwork. Many, if not most, mothers do not have extended family close by to lend a hand.  There will always be some homemakers who do very little, either because they have paid help or because they are lazy. Good for them. But for most of us, the care of a home, the making of meals, the tending of clothes, the work of creating bonds with extended family and neighborhood, the maintenance of church and school or homeschool activities – well, it’s enough to make a person exhausted just thinking about it. The idea that homemakers have nothing to do because they have dishwashers and electric mixers is stupefyingly stupid and everyone knows it except the young and naive. I know some women who have been in a constant state of depression for years because they are trying to do too much. They are always overwhelmed and their lives are colorless and arid.

Part of what you are encountering here is women who are affected as much as anyone else by the denigration of motherhood and marriage. The work that goes into being a mother and a good wife is considered a beautiful hobby, but not the center of life. Women are afraid of fully supporting these things because it makes them look weak and dependent. Women are deathly afraid of appearing dependent and it’s no surprise given the pressure from all sides and the understandable fear that men will not support them in these traditional roles. So they justify their existence with home-based businesses or frenetic volunteer activities. Some neglect their children even though they are home.

Mothers and homemakers need time to relax and to do things they enjoy. Why should they be consumed in work projects all the time? They are human beings too. Their lives and their marriages suffer from endless activity. I think some women return to careers because they feel that at home they are never allowed time off. They leave to get away from the work of home when really what they needed was to give themselves a break. And of couse, there are many interesting things to do at home, even for the most intellectual of women.

There will always be men and women who equate the male breadwinner role with slavery. The fact is, many men take pride in the position. Those who denigrate it are materialists who do not view the family as a spiritual unit and do not mind the boredom and suffocating tedium of a unisex life. The differentiation between the sexes adds something that cannot be measured or fully described: an excitement, a charm, and a language of intimacy that sets all of life aglow. Yes, it creates tension and disharmony too, but a man returning home to another man or a woman returning home to another woman is more prone to say, What’s it all about? Why am I doing this in the first place?

 My advice is to ignore these critics and realize they will always be there. They will never disappear as long as you live. Concentrate on your domestic island in full knowledge that you are doing the right thing.

                                               — Comments —

MarkMark writes:

During the 19th Century, women played a key domestic role in families. Anyone who says they didn’t doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Recently, I was riding my bicycle on the old Delaware Canal trail in Pennsylvania. They had a little history exhibit posted alongside the canal trail, which detailed life on the canal. On the boats, the father was the captain; he was in charge of everything. The kids helped out; boys tended the mules, while girls helped mom. Mom did the cooking, food preparation (there was NO prepared food then!), brewed coffee, etc. The wife on the canal boat, even though she was focused on caring and feeding the family, had a FULL day!

Laura writes:

When Alexis de Tocqueville visisted American in the 1830s, he noted the division of labor between the sexes. He wrote:

Thus the Americans do not think that man and woman have either the duty or the right to perform the same offices, but they show an equal regard for both their respective parts; and though their lot is different, they consider both of them as beings of equal value.  They do not give to the courage of woman the same form or the same direction as to that of man; but they never doubt her courage: and if they hold that man and his partner ought not always to exercise their intellect and understanding in the same manner, they at least believe the understanding of the one to be as sound as that of the other, and her intellect to be as clear.  Thus, then, whilst they have allowed the social inferiority of woman to subsist, they have done all they could to raise her morally and intellectually to the level of man; and in this respect they appear to me to have excellently understood the true principle of democratic improvement.  As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that, although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply – to the superiority of their women.

Rita writes:

I’ve also noticed that even though homemakers have more modern conveniences to help them in their homes, the cleanliness standard seems to constantly go up. The trend toward light or white carpeting (so hard to keep clean-looking, especially with children around), the minimalistic look where it appears no one lives in the house and so on. Also, although I don’t think it’s a bad thing, there is a not-so-subtle pressure on women (working outside the home or not) to cook more and more exotic dishes, where in the past, a simple meat, potatoes and a canned vegetable on the side meal was considered adequate.

Sandra writes:

Thank you for answering my question on your blog. I think you are right stating that some women try to do too much, and it is certainly true about frenetic volunteer activities. We all know ladies who are officially housewives but yet never at home, they are so busy with volunteering. Hospitality is all but disappeared since nobody has time for it. And I agree the dishwasher argument is stupid, yet it is used regularly. Maybe somebody should start a Relaxed Housewives Club, or Ladies of Leisure Organization to support women who allow themselves some time to enjoy life :-) I can only imagine the reaction of the feminists.:-)

By the way, I noticed that when I’m trying to cram too many activities in my day I become very stressed and react my frustrations upon my husband which certainly isn’t good for a marital relationship. Those bridge mornings and afternoon tea events were a part of what made the Western civilisation so beautiful, while nowadays women are advised by certain religious leaders to serve dinner on paper plates so that they won’t have to wash up and can devote the time to some money-making activity. I’m afraid we are going back to Dark Ages.

Laura writes:

Christian churches can be hypocritical in calling for stable families and yet demanding women be constantly taken up in volunteer activities. Of course, they do need volunteers, but sometimes there is activity for the sake of activity. Not everything churches do today is vital to the life of worship, which is what a church is for. Running a home is charity. The best thing a woman can do for others is make her home content. You are absolutely correct when you say that this frantic activity hurts marriages. Women become hellish to live with when they are stressed and a healthy sexual relationship depends on a woman having time and energy to respond to her husband.

This glorification of work and activity is something I discussed in my recent post “The Distracted Society.” It’s interesting to me that women are not accused of laziness if they are engaged in some rigorous exercise program or doing yoga. But they would face the charge of uselessness and decadent inactivity if they had tea or bridge parties in the middle of the day. They also aren’t accused of laziness if they are part of a book club, which offers the pretense of intellectual stimulation but typically is just an excuse for women to get together and relax.

The bottom line here is that the values of the wider culture can strongly influence a woman even if she is a stay-at-home wife and mother. We live in a highly materialistic culture. People want to see tangible results for every moment of human existence.

Laura adds:

You are absolutely right about hospitality. It’s a disappearing art form.

Clark Coleman writes:

The Proverbs 31 argument cited by your correspondent is a classic of ignorance. Perhaps those making the argument should tell us what percentage of a 168-hour week they believe the Proverbs 31 woman spent in activities that led to monetary payment. She made some linen, among her many activities. Do you suppose she spent 2000 hours a year making linen and selling it? Do people have any idea of what daily life was like in an agricultural society 3000 years ago?

Lydia Sherman writes:

I, too, have noticed a tendency on the part of some, to portray the Proverbs 31 woman as a working woman, who sells real estate (she considereth a field and buyeth it), a peddlar (she makes linen garments and sells them to the merchant), and spins (her hands grasp the spindle) yarn all day. It is true she bought a field, but does that mean she sold real estate every day? She made linen garments but does that mean she sat in a shop all day? Instead of seeing Proverbs 31 as a picture of a woman who lovingly looks after her family, moderns want to make her into a woman after their own image: a work horse whose main aim is to make money. 

Please follow and like us: