I recently read "The Making of Home" by Judith Flanders, a survey of how the idea of home has changed in the West over the course of the last five centuries or so. Part of the book looked at the structures of houses and the items that went into them (furniture, utensils, etc.), but the part I personally found most interesting were the second and third chapters, which included some interesting commentary on gender roles.
We take it for granted today that women and men have always been relegated to certain jobs throughout history - our nomadic ancestors had the men hunt and the women gather, and once we settled into civilizations, the men provided sustenance for their families while the women stayed home to keep the domestic sphere in running order. This book argues that those long-held beliefs are simply not true, and that the way we divvy up household chores by gender is a much younger tradition than we've been led to believe.
In the 1400s/1500s (which is about as far back as this book travels in time), everybody worked from home - men and women alike. Men tended to crops while women milked cattle, men chopped wood and brought wood in for the fire, women prepared the meals, etc. There were very few "jobs" as we think of them today. The wealthiest families might have men who worked outside the home - generally merchants or traders who would be gone for months at a time journeying around the world - but peasants and the bourgeoning middle class (which is the focus of this book) often used currency very rarely at all, and were more or less self-sufficient within their families or communities. Families produced and raised and prepared their own food on their own farms - anything they were lacking, they bartered for with their neighbors. Many also ran small "businesses" out of their homes (dressmakers, bakers, laundresses, etc.) for extra income (often bartered goods, but also currency) - but this was true for both men and women, and there was no distinction between who was "allowed" or "encouraged" to earn such incomes. So while there was certainly a gendered division of labor, it wasn't quite what we think of today, since both men and women worked at their own homes.
Then, the Industrial Revolution happened. Suddenly, workers were needed in places outside the home - in factories - and it was men who took on these jobs. For the first time, men were generally working outside the home, and women stayed behind to continue the work inside the home. Furthermore, men began earning actual money for their work, instead of just bartered goods. Work done at home (the work done by women) thus became undervalued. For centuries, the domestic sphere was the domain of both genders. Once the home was considered only a woman's domain, it was suddenly inferior to other options.
Here are some pictures of the text taken with my phone while I was reading:
Of course, this is all a bit of an oversimplification (obviously coins have been around for millennia, and if I've learned anything from art history classes, it's that sweeping generalizations about time periods and the art created therein make great narratives only at the expense of ignoring anyone who didn't fit "the style of the day"). Furthermore, all of this is only talking about the West anyway - with a particular emphasis on the U.K., the U.S.A., the Netherlands, and Germany (with a little bit of discussion on France, Italy, and Spain thrown in). So culturally, this book has a pretty limited scope.
But the takeaway I got from these chapters is, I think, interesting and applicable enough to forgive these possible issues -
Modern gender roles (and so many other "labeled" things) are so ingrained in our cultures that we forget how recently they developed. It has only been since the 1800s (less than 200 years) that men and women have been relegated to working outside the home and inside the home respectively.
And feminism has been around for guess how long? Yup. Since the 1800s. So to all those who think feminism is a "modern" movement, where women are all of a sudden getting up and complaining about their station in life - you're wrong. Women have been complaining about the unfairness of modern gender roles (the pay gap! the limited job opportunities!) since these injustices first sprang up. It's just taken a couple generations for us to start seeing some progress.
That was all chapter two (I believe). Chapter three also had some interesting commentary as it got into how the Industrial Revolution revolutionized domestic work.
Though it is true that a lot of domestic work was made easier by the machines and appliances that started to be manufactured and distributed in the 1800s/1900s, what is often overlooked as that these appliances covered what used to be the domestic chores of men. It makes sense when you think of it - once the men are no longer working at home, there needs to be another way for those chores to be done. One of the biggest physical chores the men typically did was cut the wood and maintain the fire. This fire was the only source of heat in the house, and also the method of cooking. Women did the actual meal preparation, but the men stoked the fire, so it was actually more or less an equal job labor-wise. With the advent of coal fireplaces, heating systems, and gas/electric stoves, however, men suddenly had a lot less they were required to do.
The inventions that made "housework" easier only made men's housework easier. It actually made women's housework harder, because it put more chores under the domain of "women's work."
Now it was the woman's job to prepare the food and cook it over the "fire" (the oven). And with the modern inventions of electric/gas stoves, meals were made more elaborate. When there was one hearth, everything was thrown into one pot. Every meal was stew. But with four or five or six burners, there can be different dishes all cooked at the same time. This means more meal preparation, and more cooking, which is - guess what? More work for women.
(Buy my stuff here - Etsy.com/shop/ArtworkbyAndreaArbit!)
Laundry was similar. It used to be that men helped with the laundry, because it was a very physical job. Water had to be carried back and forth, etc. With the invention of washing machines, this became "women's work" because the scrubbing and rinsing and wringing out could all be done at one place (even though the early prototypes were also very physical jobs, requiring hand-cranking to wring out clothing). This made more work for women, rather than less.
Cleaning, too. It used to be that nobody bothered to clean their house. (It had a dirt floor anyway - how would you even clean it?) But with the Industrial Revolution and Scientific Revolution, we learned about germs and disease and sanitation. Suddenly, cleanliness was stressed, and these chores, too, were relegated to women.
Even the sewing machine, which is one of the best known Industrial Revolution inventions for the domestic sphere, made more work for women rather than less. It used to be that there were fewer clothes - now that fabrics were cheaper and more readily available, everyone's wardrobes flourished. Instead of items made only out of wool, there was suddenly cotton. Housewives now had to know not just how to darn wool when something needed repairing, but to repair other fabrics as well. And once sewing machines were standard domestic fare, women were expected to make their family's clothing - instead of, as they might have done in the past, going to a dressmaker.
When everything is "easy" to do and readily available in every home, suddenly women were expected to do it all. The attitude wasn't even just "you have a sewing machine - you better use it"; it was more like "Sure, it's easier to go to the store and buy clothes (or bread, or groceries, etc.). But good housewives relish the hard work and do it all themselves."
You know what this made me instantly think of? Pinterest.
Pinterest is a patriarchal conspiracy. I mean, it probably isn't, but it really should be, because it does a damn good job acting as one. It's a series of "inspiration boards" that people (mostly homemakers, mostly women) are supposed to look to for inspiration. There's not much difference between inspiration and aspiration. We're not just supposed to be inspired by these boards and want to do all these things ourselves; we're also supposed to aspire to this ideal version of womanhood where mothers make all of their children's food from scratch every day, and make their own candles and soap and home decor, etc.
Sure, some of that is actually fun. I like to experiment with new recipes. And as an artist, of course I love me some good ol' arts and crafts time. But not only is it ridiculous to suggest that everyone has the time to do everything themselves, it also sort of devalues the people who try to do these things for a living. People start to think - why should I pay $50 for a painting, or $20 for a candle, etc., if I can make it myself?
I know I often fall into that trap. I think - if I can do something myself, I should. Homemade everything is better, after all.
Wait. Is it?
Actually, that's just what the patriarchy wants you to think.
Flanders talks about this in her book (though she doesn't quite say it in so many words). There was literal propaganda in the early 1900s (hell, there still is today) - often fueled by Protestantism, which valued that "hard work ethic" - that basically told women, "Sure, you could go to the store and buy a loaf of bread. But isn't the bread that you spend hours baking and perfecting yourself so much better for your family?"
It was said that to work hard and toil (unnecessarily) was to harken back to a "simpler" time, a "better" time. That is was "traditional." Quilting bees saw a resurgence. But the fact of the matter is, pioneer women never had time to do quilting bees - and they certainly didn't have the space to do them in their dinky one-room houses! Women were encouraged to "busy themselves" making "fritteries" that no one actually wanted because it was the work itself that was to be cherished.
But really, it was just that the men wanted women out of the way of "important matters." And so they pointed them towards fabric and shiny things to distract them, and guilted them into putting in hours on silly projects because that was what women had always done (except that it wasn't), and what God intended women to do (which, like, don't even get me started on what a load that is).
(White men did the same thing to black people. "Blacks have always been slaves. It's your destiny. It's how God made you. Now go break your back working my plantation while I sit here on my high horse.")
Ugh.
It's learning shit like this that makes me question everything I do. When I paint little watercolors and try to sell them on Etsy, am I just making "fritteries" that nobody actually wants, because I have been brainwashed by the patriarchy/the Protestantism I grew up with to believe that's all I am able to do? Should I give up watercolors and crafting and baking and other "feminine" interests I pursue as protest?
Or is belittling it ("all" I am able to do - as if there's a higher calling I should be/could be doing instead) only feeding into all this nonsense? Maybe switching to so-called "man's work" isn't the answer so much as elevating "woman's work" so they're at the same level.
Buy my watercolors so that they're not "fritteries" no one wants! Prove to the patriarchy that the products of woman's work are worth something! Maybe I should market my art like: "Donate money to fight the patriarchy!!! And also get a watercolor for your donation."
(Buy my stuff here - Etsy.com/shop/ArtworkbyAndreaArbit!)
Anyway, I'm getting off track.
What I wanted to say about Pinterest is that while it certainly has a lot of great ideas, it also perpetuates an ideal that literally no one can achieve, and thus creates another way for women to shame themselves and other women. Nobody needs to make their own soap. Soap is super available at every grocery store and pharmacy in every neighborhood, available at a variety of price points with a variety of ingredients, and even available now (like everything) for purchase online. If you're into the idea of making soap and you have the time and money to make it as a hobby, sure, go for it. I'm not knocking you. I paint watercolors. I bake cookies. But don't you dare try to shame me for buying my soap at the store, for choosing to take the "easy" way out. There are only so many hours in the day, and we can't all make all the things. Not only is it a waste, but it's a distraction.
And the patriarchy loves to see its women distracted.
I only recently got on Pinterest. I put it off for so long because I was afraid it would suck me into a black hole of guilt for stupid things like not making my own soap. But so far, I think I've managed to only use it for good. I'm on there to market my artwork (my paintings and colored pencil drawings link back to my Etsy page), and also to look for the occasional recipe idea. (I am trying to eat a lower-carb diet per my doctor's suggestion, because I have slightly elevated blood sugar and a family history of diabetes. Not that I have to defend my internet usage to you, Invisible Blog Reader.)
I don't think it's going to suck me in. For one thing, I read this book and had my Pinterest epiphany (Pinteriphany?), and now that I'm all worried making soap is just what that patriarchy wants me to do there's very little chance of me making my own soap. Ever. But for another, I think I'm more self-confident than I was even a year or so ago. I'm not as worried about what other people think of me, and I'm trying to be more relaxed with what I think of myself. There's not enough time in the day to do everything, and I'm at a point where I recognize that and can feel good about what I do accomplish without having to worry about what I didn't accomplish but should have.
And as for Judith Flander's book -
I probably did a mediocre job explaining what she said. I read this as a library book and returned it weeks ago, so I don't exactly have the pages here to double check (except for those two pictures I took on my phone) and I'm going solely off memory. So if you're interested, definitely pick up a copy and read Judith Flander's actual take instead of taking my word on it.
We take it for granted today that women and men have always been relegated to certain jobs throughout history - our nomadic ancestors had the men hunt and the women gather, and once we settled into civilizations, the men provided sustenance for their families while the women stayed home to keep the domestic sphere in running order. This book argues that those long-held beliefs are simply not true, and that the way we divvy up household chores by gender is a much younger tradition than we've been led to believe.
In the 1400s/1500s (which is about as far back as this book travels in time), everybody worked from home - men and women alike. Men tended to crops while women milked cattle, men chopped wood and brought wood in for the fire, women prepared the meals, etc. There were very few "jobs" as we think of them today. The wealthiest families might have men who worked outside the home - generally merchants or traders who would be gone for months at a time journeying around the world - but peasants and the bourgeoning middle class (which is the focus of this book) often used currency very rarely at all, and were more or less self-sufficient within their families or communities. Families produced and raised and prepared their own food on their own farms - anything they were lacking, they bartered for with their neighbors. Many also ran small "businesses" out of their homes (dressmakers, bakers, laundresses, etc.) for extra income (often bartered goods, but also currency) - but this was true for both men and women, and there was no distinction between who was "allowed" or "encouraged" to earn such incomes. So while there was certainly a gendered division of labor, it wasn't quite what we think of today, since both men and women worked at their own homes.
Then, the Industrial Revolution happened. Suddenly, workers were needed in places outside the home - in factories - and it was men who took on these jobs. For the first time, men were generally working outside the home, and women stayed behind to continue the work inside the home. Furthermore, men began earning actual money for their work, instead of just bartered goods. Work done at home (the work done by women) thus became undervalued. For centuries, the domestic sphere was the domain of both genders. Once the home was considered only a woman's domain, it was suddenly inferior to other options.
Here are some pictures of the text taken with my phone while I was reading:
Of course, this is all a bit of an oversimplification (obviously coins have been around for millennia, and if I've learned anything from art history classes, it's that sweeping generalizations about time periods and the art created therein make great narratives only at the expense of ignoring anyone who didn't fit "the style of the day"). Furthermore, all of this is only talking about the West anyway - with a particular emphasis on the U.K., the U.S.A., the Netherlands, and Germany (with a little bit of discussion on France, Italy, and Spain thrown in). So culturally, this book has a pretty limited scope.
But the takeaway I got from these chapters is, I think, interesting and applicable enough to forgive these possible issues -
Modern gender roles (and so many other "labeled" things) are so ingrained in our cultures that we forget how recently they developed. It has only been since the 1800s (less than 200 years) that men and women have been relegated to working outside the home and inside the home respectively.
And feminism has been around for guess how long? Yup. Since the 1800s. So to all those who think feminism is a "modern" movement, where women are all of a sudden getting up and complaining about their station in life - you're wrong. Women have been complaining about the unfairness of modern gender roles (the pay gap! the limited job opportunities!) since these injustices first sprang up. It's just taken a couple generations for us to start seeing some progress.
That was all chapter two (I believe). Chapter three also had some interesting commentary as it got into how the Industrial Revolution revolutionized domestic work.
Though it is true that a lot of domestic work was made easier by the machines and appliances that started to be manufactured and distributed in the 1800s/1900s, what is often overlooked as that these appliances covered what used to be the domestic chores of men. It makes sense when you think of it - once the men are no longer working at home, there needs to be another way for those chores to be done. One of the biggest physical chores the men typically did was cut the wood and maintain the fire. This fire was the only source of heat in the house, and also the method of cooking. Women did the actual meal preparation, but the men stoked the fire, so it was actually more or less an equal job labor-wise. With the advent of coal fireplaces, heating systems, and gas/electric stoves, however, men suddenly had a lot less they were required to do.
The inventions that made "housework" easier only made men's housework easier. It actually made women's housework harder, because it put more chores under the domain of "women's work."
Now it was the woman's job to prepare the food and cook it over the "fire" (the oven). And with the modern inventions of electric/gas stoves, meals were made more elaborate. When there was one hearth, everything was thrown into one pot. Every meal was stew. But with four or five or six burners, there can be different dishes all cooked at the same time. This means more meal preparation, and more cooking, which is - guess what? More work for women.
 |
| Colored pencil still life by Andrea Arbit |
(Buy my stuff here - Etsy.com/shop/ArtworkbyAndreaArbit!)
Laundry was similar. It used to be that men helped with the laundry, because it was a very physical job. Water had to be carried back and forth, etc. With the invention of washing machines, this became "women's work" because the scrubbing and rinsing and wringing out could all be done at one place (even though the early prototypes were also very physical jobs, requiring hand-cranking to wring out clothing). This made more work for women, rather than less.
Cleaning, too. It used to be that nobody bothered to clean their house. (It had a dirt floor anyway - how would you even clean it?) But with the Industrial Revolution and Scientific Revolution, we learned about germs and disease and sanitation. Suddenly, cleanliness was stressed, and these chores, too, were relegated to women.
Even the sewing machine, which is one of the best known Industrial Revolution inventions for the domestic sphere, made more work for women rather than less. It used to be that there were fewer clothes - now that fabrics were cheaper and more readily available, everyone's wardrobes flourished. Instead of items made only out of wool, there was suddenly cotton. Housewives now had to know not just how to darn wool when something needed repairing, but to repair other fabrics as well. And once sewing machines were standard domestic fare, women were expected to make their family's clothing - instead of, as they might have done in the past, going to a dressmaker.
When everything is "easy" to do and readily available in every home, suddenly women were expected to do it all. The attitude wasn't even just "you have a sewing machine - you better use it"; it was more like "Sure, it's easier to go to the store and buy clothes (or bread, or groceries, etc.). But good housewives relish the hard work and do it all themselves."
You know what this made me instantly think of? Pinterest.
Pinterest is a patriarchal conspiracy. I mean, it probably isn't, but it really should be, because it does a damn good job acting as one. It's a series of "inspiration boards" that people (mostly homemakers, mostly women) are supposed to look to for inspiration. There's not much difference between inspiration and aspiration. We're not just supposed to be inspired by these boards and want to do all these things ourselves; we're also supposed to aspire to this ideal version of womanhood where mothers make all of their children's food from scratch every day, and make their own candles and soap and home decor, etc.
Sure, some of that is actually fun. I like to experiment with new recipes. And as an artist, of course I love me some good ol' arts and crafts time. But not only is it ridiculous to suggest that everyone has the time to do everything themselves, it also sort of devalues the people who try to do these things for a living. People start to think - why should I pay $50 for a painting, or $20 for a candle, etc., if I can make it myself?
I know I often fall into that trap. I think - if I can do something myself, I should. Homemade everything is better, after all.
Wait. Is it?
Actually, that's just what the patriarchy wants you to think.
Flanders talks about this in her book (though she doesn't quite say it in so many words). There was literal propaganda in the early 1900s (hell, there still is today) - often fueled by Protestantism, which valued that "hard work ethic" - that basically told women, "Sure, you could go to the store and buy a loaf of bread. But isn't the bread that you spend hours baking and perfecting yourself so much better for your family?"
It was said that to work hard and toil (unnecessarily) was to harken back to a "simpler" time, a "better" time. That is was "traditional." Quilting bees saw a resurgence. But the fact of the matter is, pioneer women never had time to do quilting bees - and they certainly didn't have the space to do them in their dinky one-room houses! Women were encouraged to "busy themselves" making "fritteries" that no one actually wanted because it was the work itself that was to be cherished.
But really, it was just that the men wanted women out of the way of "important matters." And so they pointed them towards fabric and shiny things to distract them, and guilted them into putting in hours on silly projects because that was what women had always done (except that it wasn't), and what God intended women to do (which, like, don't even get me started on what a load that is).
(White men did the same thing to black people. "Blacks have always been slaves. It's your destiny. It's how God made you. Now go break your back working my plantation while I sit here on my high horse.")
Ugh.
 |
| How adorable is this throw pillow from lookhuman.com?? |
It's learning shit like this that makes me question everything I do. When I paint little watercolors and try to sell them on Etsy, am I just making "fritteries" that nobody actually wants, because I have been brainwashed by the patriarchy/the Protestantism I grew up with to believe that's all I am able to do? Should I give up watercolors and crafting and baking and other "feminine" interests I pursue as protest?
Or is belittling it ("all" I am able to do - as if there's a higher calling I should be/could be doing instead) only feeding into all this nonsense? Maybe switching to so-called "man's work" isn't the answer so much as elevating "woman's work" so they're at the same level.
Buy my watercolors so that they're not "fritteries" no one wants! Prove to the patriarchy that the products of woman's work are worth something! Maybe I should market my art like: "Donate money to fight the patriarchy!!! And also get a watercolor for your donation."
(Buy my stuff here - Etsy.com/shop/ArtworkbyAndreaArbit!)
Anyway, I'm getting off track.
What I wanted to say about Pinterest is that while it certainly has a lot of great ideas, it also perpetuates an ideal that literally no one can achieve, and thus creates another way for women to shame themselves and other women. Nobody needs to make their own soap. Soap is super available at every grocery store and pharmacy in every neighborhood, available at a variety of price points with a variety of ingredients, and even available now (like everything) for purchase online. If you're into the idea of making soap and you have the time and money to make it as a hobby, sure, go for it. I'm not knocking you. I paint watercolors. I bake cookies. But don't you dare try to shame me for buying my soap at the store, for choosing to take the "easy" way out. There are only so many hours in the day, and we can't all make all the things. Not only is it a waste, but it's a distraction.
And the patriarchy loves to see its women distracted.
I only recently got on Pinterest. I put it off for so long because I was afraid it would suck me into a black hole of guilt for stupid things like not making my own soap. But so far, I think I've managed to only use it for good. I'm on there to market my artwork (my paintings and colored pencil drawings link back to my Etsy page), and also to look for the occasional recipe idea. (I am trying to eat a lower-carb diet per my doctor's suggestion, because I have slightly elevated blood sugar and a family history of diabetes. Not that I have to defend my internet usage to you, Invisible Blog Reader.)
I don't think it's going to suck me in. For one thing, I read this book and had my Pinterest epiphany (Pinteriphany?), and now that I'm all worried making soap is just what that patriarchy wants me to do there's very little chance of me making my own soap. Ever. But for another, I think I'm more self-confident than I was even a year or so ago. I'm not as worried about what other people think of me, and I'm trying to be more relaxed with what I think of myself. There's not enough time in the day to do everything, and I'm at a point where I recognize that and can feel good about what I do accomplish without having to worry about what I didn't accomplish but should have.
And as for Judith Flander's book -
I probably did a mediocre job explaining what she said. I read this as a library book and returned it weeks ago, so I don't exactly have the pages here to double check (except for those two pictures I took on my phone) and I'm going solely off memory. So if you're interested, definitely pick up a copy and read Judith Flander's actual take instead of taking my word on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment