As has become clear in my research on the project, women's roles, too, never die. Once something has been predetermined to be a woman's "role," then no matter how many other roles are added, that role never dies. Take for instance, a conversation I recently had with my husband, after his boss had us over for dinner:
Me: "We need to have them over for dinner here soon."
Him: "Why?"
Me: "Because that's what you DO."
Him: "Why?"
Me: "They just had us over for a very nice dinner, and you feel no compunction to have them over to our house for dinner at all, do you?"
Him: "Nope."
He grinned and walked away. The point was lost on him. But it was clear that the role of "social manager" and "entertainment director" of the family was a responsibility I felt that was not shared. In the 40s or 50s, with the male as the sole breadwinner in the home, and the female as the homemaker and party-planner, this difference in perceived responsibility would be understandable. But, with equal or mostly-equal professional responsibilities for both spouses increasingly the norm in the majority of households, why is it that we cling to our historical roles? Consciously or subconsciously, one article argues that it is because we are acting as gatekeepers to protect our identity as nurturers- an identity threatened when we are at work all day.
Think about the identities that women have adopted over the years that we have not shed: nurturer, homemaker, beauty, virgin, professional- we must be both professionally accomplished, but adequately feminine and aesthetically pleasing. Strong, but slender. Sexually appealing, but not threatening.
It brings to mind another anecdote, this one from my neighbor. She and her husband work essentially the exact same jobs, with almost exactly the same hours. They have one child, she does all of the childcare. One day, at the end of her rope, she brought up to him that she was running ragged trying to work, take care of their spawn, do all the laundry, keep the house clean, make meals, etc. Because he paid a certain amount per month to get all of the yard work done (law mowed, hedges trimmed, various and sundry other tasks), she should it would be only fair if they were able to get someone once every two weeks to just clean the kitchen and bathrooms. Otherwise, she said, she would simply lose her mind. Keeping the house clean in addition to her full time job and everything else was just driving her over the edge. His response?
"But Honey, our house isn't that big."
Hm.
What other roles have women had historically that anachronistically carry through to today?
[1] She has kind of a dark sense of humor. As me sometime about the double cheeseburgers we ate in the waiting room of the cardiac ward while waiting for my dad to get out of a quintuple bypass. No kidding.
Thank you to www.momswhodrinkandswear.com for the pic. It's one of my favorite sites and should be one of yours too.
Thank you to www.momswhodrinkandswear.com for the pic. It's one of my favorite sites and should be one of yours too.
I hope your neighbor's husband was kidding, because otherwise he's an asshole.
ReplyDeleteNext time she should just hire the help -- then the burden is on him to argue why they should cancel the service. Then she could say, "Sure, cancel the service and clean the house yourself. It's not THAT big."
And I don't think the anachronism is in the role itself, but the lack of choice that both parties have in choosing the role they want. A father that would rather stay at home and work and his wife who loves her job as a surgeon is going to have a hard time of it from others who think that he's not being a "man" because he's not providing financially for his family with a paying job. Anachronistic role for him: breadwinner. If he goes to work because he loves his job, not anachronistic. If he goes to work and hates it but does so because it's his "role" as a man--anachronistic role.
A woman who loves cooking isn't stuck in an anachronistic role if she chooses to cook dinner every night for the family. But she is if she hates cooking and the other adult living in the house (her spouse, for example), won't split the obligation with her, or, knowing she hates cooking, he won't do something, like always clean the kitchen afterward and do all the grocery shopping, to make her doing all of the cooking less distasteful. If she is doing something she hates because it's her "role," there is the anachronism.
11 years ago, shortly after their 40th wedding anniversary, My Grandmother informed my Grandfather that she was no longer going to cook for the two of them. She had done it for 40 years, and now it was his turn. She told him she would resume the cooking after he did his 40 year shift. And, if he didn't like it, well then he was going to be very hungry.
ReplyDeleteHe has cooked every meal for the last 11 years.
By grinning and walking away, do you think perhaps your husband missed the point that you were trying to make, but instead made another one...He was releasing the burden of social enterprise to be spontaneous and free to be without reciprocity? Since it's his boss & he doesn't care, maybe you are now freed from your "role" to party plan. This time? :)
ReplyDeleteAnd what is the neighbor husband’s interpretation of the story? I bet it will differ greatly than the one you were told. The real truth can be found in between what they both say. We're all guilty.......
ReplyDelete"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe."- Andy Rooney