Femininism, Domesticity and the Fundie Appeal

[Soldier of the One]

OK, it's a slow Sunday, I am bored and I decided to de-lurk a bit (and might shrink back into the shadows at some point). So bear with me :)

In the 'feminism'-thread, fundies_like_zombies posted an interesting link to an article in the Guardian about 'divine domesticity':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... g/22/women

I may have written about this during previous de-lurking posting sprees, but it's a topic that keeps on fascinating me from a personal and feminist perspective and that ties in with the appeal of Christian fundamentalism.

The article basically talks about how young women are reaching back to more 'domestic' times and embracing a '1950's domestic goddess' persona. The article discusses various POV on this phenomenon with different (self-defined) feminists chiming in. Some feminists find this trend empowering while others find it harmful.

Of course, this article touches on a deeper and far more fundamental discourse in feminist thought including first, second and third wave feminism. But I'll not go into that and let people do that who know far more about the topic than I do :)

Basically, I am interested in looking at the social circumstances prompting such an 'embrace' of domesticity. I see parallels with Christian fundamentalism.

- Nostalgia and yearning for 'simpler times'. I think many people feel overwhelmed by the technologically-integrated and advanced lives we lead. We tend to idealize past times, noting them as 'simpler and kinder'. This may or may not be true.

- Thrift and recession: many people feel the crunch of the crisis and are devising ways to cut back and become more home-centered. Making from scratch is not necessarily cheaper although it certainly can be. In any case, it gives people a sense of control in a world where we have very little control.

- Family-values: with a high divorce-rate (no judgment here, just an observation) and 'broken families' (whatever that means), I think many people yearn for family stability and domesticity may be seen as a way to help cement that.

I think all the above can be very legitimate reasons for embracing domesticity. Domesticity can be a good thing. We are not just our careers or professional aspirations. Making home-life a priority in a consumerism-driven world can be a positive asset. Ultimately, human relationships are our most prized investment.

Yet, as a feminist, I am wary to let the 'burden of proof' rest on the shoulders of women. Why shouldn't men enjoy being 'domestic' just as women? Men can enjoy being cooks, keeping a nice home and celebrating loved ones in the home too.

In fact, I think one of the primary goals of gender egalitarianism is to give people options. If a man wants to embrace a role that is more 'feminine' according to traditional assumptions, go for it. If a woman wants to embrace a role that is more 'masculine' according to said assumptions, go for it. And if either gender (or anything in between) is comfortable embracing 'traditional' roles, that's fine too as long as there is not a social expectation that everyone is required to do so.

Now comes the part where Christian (or any other type of religious) fundamentalism steps in. The VF catalogue caters to people's yearnings for simpler times and domesticity. But immediately and very rigidly places to 'burden of proof' on women's shoulders. Yet, because we are still socially conditioned to perceive of the domestic arts as feminine arts, women (and men) fall into the preconceived assumptions that Christian fundamentalists portray.

But it's tragic, really. Not only is it harmful to individual women (and men) and to society's long march towards gender equality and social equity, but it is also harmful to all the goodness that can be found in simple living and domesticity. Challenging rampant consumerism, recycling, thrifting, environmental consciousness, focusing on family and human relationships, healthy and organic eating, creating a warm and welcoming home environment are all wonderful things IMHO. But they should not merely be the terrain of (extreme) social conservatives.

Thoughts?

[edited for riffles]

[Phyllis Stein]

I am a feminist and have a career. I'm very grateful for the opportunities that have been afforded to me by the strides in womens' rights over the last 40 years.

I do very little when it comes to domestic activities, though I do take a certain pleasure in cooking and other typically female activities.

The bottom line though is that we should be able to accept the notion that women, in general, are more interested in domestic pursuits, if that is the case when women choose it from a buffet of options. I hate the idea that fundies use this natural tendency (for the general population) to put women in domestic prison and systematically chip away at our rights, but if more women want domestic-centered roles and the choices still remain, I say let them be who they are without a lot of teeth gnashing and brow beating.

[Eponine]

In fact, I think one of the primary goals of gender egalitarianism is to give people options. If a man wants to embrace a role that is more 'feminine' according to traditional assumptions, go for it. If a woman wants to embrace a role that is more 'masculine' according to said assumptions, go for it. And if either gender (or anything in between) is comfortable embracing 'traditional' roles, that's fine too as long as there is not a social expectation that everyone is required to do so.

I think this is the key here. If a woman, especially a self-proclaimed feminist, wants to do her idealized 50s domestic thing, has the means to do it, and has examined her reasons for wanting that lifestyle, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. As long as she recognizes that not all other women want to do it, and that's a valid choice too.

I mostly agree with your list of reasons why people choose to do this, as well, except that the nostalgia is not a new thing, it's always been there. People have always looked back to "simpler times" no matter what period they lived in, and they've always idealized the "good old days." If a feminist is going to choose this lifestyle, I do think it's important to realize that the ideal they're trying to get to has never been the norm.

This is a sore spot in the fundie ideology, I think: they refuse to acknowledge that their ideal has never been achievable for most of the population, so they do believe that any family can do it. It's just another example of how their poor educations fail them.

So if a woman's partner is okay with it, her family has the means to go with that lifestyle, and she's not doing it because she thinks that's the way women "should" behave, I don't think there is anything wrong. However, it seems too easy to get sucked into blaming yourself if your effort to live out the ideal fails. It fails a lot of the time, and I think women put this upon themselves and it ends up hurting them. No one should end up like Betty Draper.

[Soldier of the One]

Eponine,

I completely agree with what you wrote and thanks for 'amending' my statements.

Nostalgia is almost always based on an idealization of the past. Do I think things were better fifty years ago? Sure. But things were also a lot worse!

You also alluded to something else that is important to note: there is a distinct 'petite bourgeous' feel (come on, JesusFightClub, I am waiting for you here! :lol:) about the particular type of domesticity they hearken for. 'Victorian domesticity' for the majority of Victorian women did not mean sipping elegant cups of tea in corset dresses. It meant a life of poverty and drudgery. And bloody hard work.

I think it is all about awareness. If we choose to flirt with the domestic art, we should consider these in the larger context of our hard-won liberties and rights.

And let's not forget that we need not always use the feminine pronoun 'she'. I am sure there are plenty of men who want a quieter and more domestic life. But gender essentialism and patriarchy denies them that too because then they are not 'manly men' and deemed failures.

[fundies_like_zombies]

reading all sorts of random articles....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/art ... -boss.html

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-n ... e_1_551535

http://modernretrowoman.com/2011/07/06/ ... -in-place/

http://modernretrowoman.com/2011/07/06/ ... -in-place/

Google!!

[Soldier of the One]

Yay! Thanks, fundies_like_zombies! (Your username always cracks me up :lol:)

[mbeezer]

I'll let you in on a little secret of mine - I've always wanted to be a SAHM. My mother was a SAHM before she and my dad divorced and I know it's a lot of hard work. The longest I was ever able to stay home with my kids was for 7 months when I was between jobs. It was the happiest and most fulfilled time of my life. My husband's mom was a career woman who traveled for work, she would have been miserable being at home cooking and cleaning.

Women have a lot more choices now than when I was growing up. A lot of us, me included, work because we need two incomes to keep our families fed, clothed and housed. We don't spend indiscrimately, nor do we take lavish vacations. We just live in a very expensive area of the country (suburbs outside DC).

[Aislynn]

I know a lot of women (in my fundie/fundie lite circles) who claim they want SAHMhood but when you actually ask them about it they admit it's because of things like they don't feel smart enough for college or SAHM seems easier or safer or being a SAHM is more culturally accepted/less of a risk. Or they are just unmotivated and want someone else to bring in the bacon and simplify their life for them. My sister absolutely embraces the last reason as the basis for her desire to be a SAHM.

Then again I know a few women who truly only desire to be a homemaker. I agree - it's about having options. Exactly as you said - as long as everyone is not expected/required to fit some imagined societal norm.

[emmiedahl]

I was really into the homekeeping/domesticity thing for a while. I think it was because my mom was so hardcore anti-domesticity for most of my childhood. My father and later my stepfather helped out, but there was no one really in charge of holding down the homefront. Things like matching socks and homemade food were rarities. I loved being able to have a really comfortable, beautiful home. I don't know if I am typical, but I missed out on those things so I yearn for them.

I am not criticizing my mother; I think that the natural response for first wave feminists was to reject society's expectations. My mother focused a lot on her education and career as a giant Fuck You to the Donna Reed image she was raised with. I don't have that baggage so much. I think it is fine if women choose domestic bliss, but that we have to be careful that it does not define our gender.

[meda]

I was really into the homekeeping/domesticity thing for a while. I think it was because my mom was so hardcore anti-domesticity for most of my childhood. My father and later my stepfather helped out, but there was no one really in charge of holding down the homefront. Things like matching socks and homemade food were rarities. I loved being able to have a really comfortable, beautiful home. I don't know if I am typical, but I missed out on those things so I yearn for them.

I am not criticizing my mother; I think that the natural response for first wave feminists was to reject society's expectations. My mother focused a lot on her education and career as a giant Fuck You to the Donna Reed image she was raised with. I don't have that baggage so much. I think it is fine if women choose domestic bliss, but that we have to be careful that it does not define our gender.

I was thinking this same thing, my mother's generation had to fight the Donna Reed thing so hard; My poor mom, it actually twitches her out when she visits and I serve her a made from scratch meal. She really does not get that I can be a person who bakes, sews curtains, and is at the same time a lawyer who out earns her headship. oh well.

[MamaJunebug]

But it's tragic, really. Not only is it harmful to individual women (and men) and to society's long march towards gender equality and social equity, but it is also harmful to all the goodness that can be found in simple living and domesticity. Challenging rampant consumerism, recycling, thrifting, environmental consciousness, focusing on family and human relationships, healthy and organic eating, creating a warm and welcoming home environment are all wonderful things IMHO. But they should not merely be the terrain of (extreme) social conservatives.

Thoughts?

SoldierOfTheOne, thanks for posting this. I confess the entire thread TL;DR in entirely, but I do have a response to the bolded words, above.

If it helps, I am a rather extreme social liberal (economic conservative, but that's another story). And I try my hardest to do what you wrote (bolded). And many of my similarly liberal friends do, as well.

Take heart, my friend! 8-)

[Brainsample]

Part of the issue with the patriarchy movement is the influence of Calvinism and Dominionism. There is a bit of a tendency to theocracy and a merging of all aspects of life, even the banal ones, into one big blob which is called "spiritual." Everything concerning family is turned into some kind of holy rite or sacrament and becomes its own object of worship in some cases. Fertility, gender, childbirth, homebirthing, homeschooling.... Then you have the Calvinist influences that were present during the Confederacy, and they merged the war effort and their nationalism with patriarchy and their version of theocracy (along with slavery and patriarchy and homeschooling, too). Dabney saw gender issues, slavery, homeschooling, religion, and his civil right to secede from the Union as religious rights and did not distinguish much between these things. Those who feed upon that Confederacy and pro-agrarian stuff will pick up on that Calvinistic theocracy stuff.

Then consider that the Christian woman is urged by Paul to not forsake her family and her home. It was not an exclusive thing and did not prohibit women from being active in business or other vocations, but it was an admonishment to take care of their families. Husbands should not be out forsaking their families either! But Paul was addressing a specific problem issue, not necessarily always writing mandates for all people under all circumstances, and those passages are often misinterpreted that way.

So there is some understanding and a path to spiritualizing some of these things out of context. And we tend to make sense of the world by relating similarities in one area of life with unrelated ones. Our right brain makes all kinds of those types of connections and is one of the ways we learn. So I think it is just a pitfall of being human that we tend to get stuck in our perspectives which are limited, and we do tend to make our understanding of the world a cohesive whole. Add the idealization of previous times and the "good old days" in there, and it can get pretty complicated. Then live a xenophobic and isolated life because fear mongers manipulate you for personal gain so that they can sell you a product, and you're a prime candidate for a whole lifestyle. If you live a balanced life and seek to do so in all you do, this is less of a problem. But patriarchy is about extremes. They don't seek balance but rather rail against it.

[Soldier of the One]

SoldierOfTheOne, thanks for posting this. I confess the entire thread TL;DR in entirely, but I do have a response to the bolded words, above.

If it helps, I am a rather extreme social liberal (economic conservative, but that's another story). And I try my hardest to do what you wrote (bolded). And many of my similarly liberal friends do, as well.

Take heart, my friend! 8-)

Thank you, my friend :)

I would also like to add that my HUSBAND enjoys domesticity as well! He does as much cooking and cleaning as I do and considers it normal. We both prefer a clean, tidy and cozy home. We love a well-prepared and beautiful meal. We love 'staycations'. We're warm, affectionate, romantic and cuddly. But that's the thing; it's BOTH of us.

Yet, the expectations of the world may very well consider my husband 'effeminate' because of those qualities. It just so happens that my (very heterosexual) husband is confident about these things and doesn't care about how a sexist culture defines him (or his wife) but that doesn't mean it is right for him to be branded as such. In this sense, gender essentialism limits him as well. My husband would LOVE to be a SAHD for a couple of years and God willing, we might be able to pull this off one day. But I can already feel the impending judgment of the more regressive elements of our culture if we'd let people know that he'd be a SAHD.

Like I said: true freedom is freedom from any kind of 'essentialism' or reductionist worldview which tells people to 'live a certain way' because they are ontologically deemed to 'be a certain way'.

Sorry if this response is a bit rambling :)

[ilovetchotchkes]

I consider my self a stay at home feminist momma.

Here's the thing. I desperately wish I had a career that I loved. That i woke up every morning saying "OYH YEAH! LETSGO!" But every career that i'm "qualified" for bores me to the point where I literally tick off the minutes i'm there with cross hatches as if i'm in prison. So my husband works and I stay home with Mr Squish. We analyzed who made more money when I got pregnant. It was him. Had it been me, HE would have quit his job and become "mr mom". (daycare was never an option. I would have been making a bare $200 more than what I was getting paid a month and it just wasn't worth it)

However, I'm not the picture perfect woman of domesticity that the fundies LURVE. Oh hell no. Yes, I garden a lot, yes I do home canning from said garden, however, that's more of a "GEE THIS IS A REALLY FUN HOBBY" thing and less of a "i must be perfect housewife. Cleaning? domestic chores? HAHAHHAHA I hired cleaning ladies. My husband helps out as much as he can~ he's the dishes and doggie poop pick up man. I do the laundry because he's honestly afraid to screw it up after he's washed a red sock with the white sheets four too many times. He's fine with folding and putting away, but the only thing he'll do is a diaper load because he asked me to (and I did ) write out explicit step by step instructions for cleaning them.

I want to raise my son to know that the woman (or man) that he loves can do ANYTHING they set their minds to. Women are different physically than men, we can do different things, like pushing out babies, but we are just as good and just as equal. And that he is to treat them with love, respect and equality.

I thank G-d every day actually that my little spitfire child was given to me instead of some fundie family. I shudder to think of someone raising him to be a patriarch.

[Sola]

I'm an atheist, feminist, psychologist, crunchy-leaning-on-the-side-of-hippy who loves being home. Since I cut my hours right down to part-time after my surgery I have more time for doing the 'domestic goddess' thing. Not that that means I have a tidy home!

For me it's something that I enjoy; I love cooking, I love knitting, I love gardening, I love sewing and crochet too. These are things that I enjoy to do in my 'me' time.

For me, the link to feminism means that it is all about having the choice. I choose to cut down my hours, I chose to spend more time at home, I choose to spend time on my hobbies. Sixty years ago I wouldn't have had that choice; I would have been forced to be a housewife as very few women, particularly women of my social class, went to university and fewer still had careers after having children.

It's not about deciding to turn back the clock to the 1950's (although I do love 1950's fashion!), it is about having the choice to do what I want to do, whether that be a career woman, a housewife or stay at home mother.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Ditto to the OP.

Allowing women the freedom to choose life outside of the home is only one part of the struggle for gender equality.

Another aspect is allowing men the option to do more in the domestic sphere.

I was amazed by the attitudes that my dh has faced due to his desire to be a hands-on father. When I had my first miscarriage at 16 weeks, 13 years ago, both my father and FIL were quick to let him know that he could still go and catch the flight to the conference that he was supposed to attend the next day, and they would make sure that I was okay. We're still married today because he let them know that there was no way that he was leaving, and that HE had also experienced a loss and needed some time to grieve.

When baby #1 came along, he took parental leave for 3 months, which he was legally entitled to do. He got reactions ranging from "why would you want to do that?" to "Well, I gave birth and was back at work 2 weeks later".

[Avalondaughter]

People also don't realize that idealized 50s life is simply the upper class and middle class women. Fundies will hate to admit this, but much of that image comes from what was seen on TV, or by people who grew up in the 50s (who doesn't see their childhood days as a happier, simpler time?) Not much of that image is represented by what actually happened. Women did have jobs and college degrees in those days. My grandmother worked a full-time job and my grandfather who sold life insurance scheduled his business around taking care of the kids and shopping and cooking.

I am meticulous about a clean house and I love to cook. I'll never be more domestic than that. I can't knit, sew, or craft worth a fig. I don't have a yard for gardening. We all have limitations. I don't love my job, but I know if I had kids I would not want to stay home with them indefinitely. I love the feeling that I'm contributing when I work and I also want to enjoy the ocmpany of adults.

[Soldier of the One]

I'm an atheist, feminist, psychologist, crunchy-leaning-on-the-side-of-hippy who loves being home. Since I cut my hours right down to part-time after my surgery I have more time for doing the 'domestic goddess' thing. Not that that means I have a tidy home!

For me it's something that I enjoy; I love cooking, I love knitting, I love gardening, I love sewing and crochet too. These are things that I enjoy to do in my 'me' time.

For me, the link to feminism means that it is all about having the choice. I choose to cut down my hours, I chose to spend more time at home, I choose to spend time on my hobbies. Sixty years ago I wouldn't have had that choice; I would have been forced to be a housewife as very few women, particularly women of my social class, went to university and fewer still had careers after having children.

It's not about deciding to turn back the clock to the 1950's (although I do love 1950's fashion!), it is about having the choice to do what I want to do, whether that be a career woman, a housewife or stay at home mother.

This. Right there with you, Sola. I just need to learn to crochet so that I can crochet my own feminist-egalitarian-Jewish yarmulkas :dance:

And yes, Yes, YES on the 1950's fashion - which I actually think is more body-positive than today's fashion.

[Soldier of the One]

Ditto to the OP.

Allowing women the freedom to choose life outside of the home is only one part of the struggle for gender equality.

Another aspect is allowing men the option to do more in the domestic sphere.

I was amazed by the attitudes that my dh has faced due to his desire to be a hands-on father. When I had my first miscarriage at 16 weeks, 13 years ago, both my father and FIL were quick to let him know that he could still go and catch the flight to the conference that he was supposed to attend the next day, and they would make sure that I was okay. We're still married today because he let them know that there was no way that he was leaving, and that HE had also experienced a loss and needed some time to grieve.

When baby #1 came along, he took parental leave for 3 months, which he was legally entitled to do. He got reactions ranging from "why would you want to do that?" to "Well, I gave birth and was back at work 2 weeks later".

First off, I am sorry about your miscarriage. I cannot imagine what that is like. But YES on this entire post. You are *so* right. This is exactly the thing that bugs me about a lot of gender-essentialist assumptions. The quasi/pseudo-egalitarian attitude that 'it's OK for a woman to have a career if she desires' but men still get pretty much ostracized if they are the ones who want to be a hands-on dad or 'stay at home'. Why should a man have to be 'tough' in obviously emotionally distressing situations? True equality means that both genders can express both 'weakness' and 'strength', both 'work' and 'stay home'.

Good for you, though and good for your husband. Yay! :D

[Soldier of the One]

People also don't realize that idealized 50s life is simply the upper class and middle class women. Fundies will hate to admit this, but much of that image comes from what was seen on TV, or by people who grew up in the 50s (who doesn't see their childhood days as a happier, simpler time?) Not much of that image is represented by what actually happened. Women did have jobs and college degrees in those days. My grandmother worked a full-time job and my grandfather who sold life insurance scheduled his business around taking care of the kids and shopping and cooking.

I think you make a very important point here, Avalondaughter. When it comes to romanticizing a nostalgic past, we tend to forget the inherent class bias involved. There was nothing 'domestically divine' or 'glamorous' about living a working-class life of hard, hard work. And this applies to any fantasy of the past, be it Victoriana or the New Look.

[Angri-la]

(who doesn't see their childhood days as a happier, simpler time?)

Me. I prefer making my own decisions and not spending my Saturdays out in the cold with a fist full of bible tracts, dressed in horrible outfits. I am much happier with my domestic god (who makes a better home than I ever could), and my darling daughter, than I was as when I was one of 8 of my Dad's offspring.

I also did not think high school, though I did go to one outside the home, as "the best years of my life", as I was told I would. I guess maybe I am just one of those lucky so and so's who likes being a grown up better than an adolescent or child.

[Dev83]

Me. I prefer making my own decisions and not spending my Saturdays out in the cold with a fist full of bible tracts, dressed in horrible outfits. I am much happier with my domestic god (who makes a better home than I ever could), and my darling daughter, than I was as when I was one of 8 of my Dad's offspring.

I also did not think high school, though I did go to one outside the home, as "the best years of my life", as I was told I would. I guess maybe I am just one of those lucky so and so's who likes being a grown up better than an adolescent or child.

I am right there with you on the bolded. I actually think it would be sad to consider HS the best years of your life though...I can't imagine graduating and thinking "Well, its all down hill from here!"

I have great memories from my childhood, and I know that I idealize a lot of it, but I was very lucky to have been blessed with a happy one.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Unless it was completely hideous, most people have rosy childhood memories, and that makes them falsely believe that it was the most wonderful era for everyone.

On an old board of mine, some younger posters insisted that things are "far worse" today than when they were growing up. They were born in the late 1980s! I had to tell them that I remembered cities being MORE dangerous back then, and provided the stats to back it up. Didn't make a bit of difference to them.

I thought about my own distorted memories. In my mind, the 1970s were a wonderful time when I watched Leave It To Beaver (reruns), lived on a quiet street in the burbs, listened to great music and nothing worse than bad fashion ever happened. Then, I started to look at what was happening in the rest of the world. Those cute pictures of me on my 2nd birthday, having cake with the family? I had no idea that my future husband was screaming in a bomb shelter in Israel because the Yom Kippur War had just started. That lovely photo of me and my friend dressed in purple and enjoying a gorgeous spring day? It was taken right around the fall of Saigon. I also didn't know anything about psychedelic drugs, the sexual revolution, economic woes, the OPEC crisis, the killing fields of Cambodia or various protests. It's true, though, that the music was good. And the fashion was just unfortunate.

Here's an even more dramatic example: Last February, we took the kids to New York, and went to the Ground Zero site. I was floored when my then-8 yr old and 7 yr old asked me "Mommy, what's 9/11?" My middle child was born a year later, and it had never occurred to me that she could somehow NOT know about it, or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In her mind, though, the past decade was just about Disney shows, her friends, her school and her own little world.