Bitch, Phd has posted a scathing feminist manifesto in response to an article on Alternet by Linda Hirschman entitled America's Stay-at-Home Feminists. In the article, Hirschman explores the phenomenon of highly educated women leaving the workforce to raise children, and the so called "glass ceiling at home" that keeps SAHMs relegated to second citizen status in the shadow of their economically powerful partners. The Bitch talks about household equality, encouraging feminists to cooperate on issues such as household chores and childrearing so that both partners can seek fulfillment in all parts of their lives by retaining social and economic viability.
I am a working mother and a feminist. Why then have I essentially taken on the role of primary economic provider and primary childcare provider in our relationship? One reason is because I "married down" as addressed by Hirschman in her article, where she describes this as a way to have women be economically powerful in their relationships.
How to avoid this kind of rut? You can either find a spouse with less social power than you or find one with an ideological commitment to gender equality. Taking the easier path first, marry down. Don't think of this as brutally strategic. If you are devoted to your career goals and would like a man who will support that, you're just doing what men throughout the ages have done: placing a safe bet.
R undeniably has less social power than I do because he is an immigrant with poor English skills. I am the reason that he was able to elevate himself to get some "status" by owning a business. When he sells the business, our positions will become unequal again as he returns to the regular job force he will have to contend with his lower job skills, and will most likely make less money than I do (as has been the case since we married six years ago).
I wouldn't say that my power in the relationship is necessarily equalizing because R finds it so unsettling. He goes out of his way to point out his value and fight me for control because he knows that can simply turn on my heel and walk out on him. I wield that power in our relationship. I also wield power as a mother in this society, because I would receive custody of our child in the event of a divorce. This incenses R... he hates it when I point out my power. Because society at large expects men to have that power, when the roles are reversed, men find themselves in a position of weakness and therefore react accordingly. While marrying down may grant you power, it does not necessarily grant you a meaningful, smooth relationship.
One of the ways this power inequality displays itself is in terms of who does the household work. For four and a half years I fought the good feminist fight to get my husband to do his share around the house. I lost. Dismally. It became an issue of divorcing, living in a very negative relationship, or just doing the work myself. The Bitch encourages feminist wives to be bitches about the housework.
And on this matter of housework, the "domestic glass ceiling": the best marital advice I have to give is be willing to be a bitch about housework. And do it as early as possible. Is your man going to divorce you if you insist he does his fair share? Then find out quick, before you have kids and it just gets worse. But probably he won't divorce you for insisting he do housework. So, insist. Don't fuck around with "housework strikes"--it'll drive you crazy before it does him, probably, and you'll cave. Don't get stuck in arguments about "who cares more" or "who just happens to be tidier" or "I just don't notice the mess, honey" or "I'll do whatever you ask me to"--all of which are excuses that mean "I don't think it's my responsibility to do housework, so of course I care less/don't bother/don't notice/will "help" if you think for me and tell me what to do." My advice is, go ahead and do what needs to be done. But let him know what you are doing every goddamn step of the way, and let him know that it pisses you off.
The only part of her advice that I didn't follow was to bail on him before we had kids. Since I chose not to do that, I essentially agreed unwittingly to be the one in the relationship who does the housework. It gets worse, though... because his standards are much, much higher than mine. We would have fights after I'd already busted my ass cleaning the whole house, about how I "hadn't cleaned" whatever. This aspect of our relationship sucks, and is the thing that I am most interested in changing. I hate it and it makes me a bad feminist.
Given the generally rocky state of our relationship, I would never consider being the stay-at-home parent. Ever. The risks are far too great for me. In addition, we can't afford it, so it's really not an option. Even if R becomes a stay-at-home parent after he sells the business, he will still be working part time on his cars or whatever. He is also willing to work multiple jobs and would be unhindered by a child if we were to divorce. If he were a SAHD and I died, that might be more of an issue because of his lower earning power, which is why I have a massive life insurance policy, but it's more for the Moosh's protection than it is for R.
In my case, "marrying down" made me a working mother. I cannot currently envision a situation where I will ever be able to stay home, even if I wanted to, which I don't. However, having two working parents injects more difficulty into the family, and a smaller family size becomes critical. Hirschman belives that the way around this is by limiting family size to one child.
If these prescriptions sound less than family-friendly, here's the last rule: Have a baby. Just don't have two. Mothers' Movement Online's Judith Statdman Tucker reports that women who opt out for child-care reasons act only after the second child arrives. A second kid pressures the mother's organizational skills, doubles the demands for appointments, wildly raises the cost of education and housing, and drives the family to the suburbs. But cities, with their Chinese carryouts and all, are better for working mothers. It is true that if you follow this rule, your society will not reproduce itself. But if things get bad enough, who knows what social consequences will ensue? After all, the vaunted French child-care regime was actually only a response to the superior German birth rate.
After writing this post yesterday, this part of the article really spoke to me, as an involved, working mother. Quite honestly, from a logical standpoint, at this time in my life, having another baby will set the clock back 3-4 years (depending on when Next Baby is born). Everytime I think about it, I cringe. All of a sudden it seems like with one child, the world is my oyster, but with two, the world might be my oyster when Next Baby is three or so, or it might not. Of course, one cannot predict the future, but the point that Hirschman is making here, it seems to me, is extremely valid. There are so many unknowns with the addition of another child, especially into a working mother's life, it almost makes sense to just stick with one until the workaday world realizes that a one child policy is not a workable solution.
I think Hirshman's arguments bring up a lot of good points about American society and its treatment of women and families. However, I don't agree that women fitting into the male-oriented version of success is necessarily a step forward. I, for one, wouldn't work 60 hours a week even if I didn't have kids. I am just not that committed to work. So my framework for success is not necessarily driven by the standard definition. I do want to see the American family and the American workplace work together so that women do not feel driven to leave the work force in order to care for their children adequately. In this case, the choices made by women are made to ensure that their families are taken care of economically and emotionally. It would be nice if we could honor both of those goals in the workplace.
Recent Comments