1. Briefly explain the egalitarian myth that Hochschild documents in her chapter. What is emotion work and how is it related to this myth? Compare Holts' situation with your observations on the division of labor in your family or those of your friends.
2. Explain the concept of the “ideology of domesticity” described by Williams. What are the three constraints that domesticity places on the organization of work in our society? Based on what you learned from lectures and movies, did ideology of domesticity exist in hunters and gatherers societies? In colonial America? Use specific examples to support your answers.
3. Explain Williams’s argument about sex discrimination and the “free choice.” Do you agree with her?
4. According to Carrington, how does the household division of labor in lesbigay families compare to that in heterosexual families? In his view, what are the reasons for these differences or similarities?
Hochschild’s article describes the problem of a married couple in which the husband does not share his wife’s egalitarian views. An egalitarian’s ideal in a marriage is an equal balance of career and household duties for both partners. In this way, they each acknowledge the importance of each other’s outside work and the need to tackle housework and attention to children as a team, not burdening one partner with a “second shift” of work. Hochschild reveals that such an arrangement in today’s world is simply an egalitarian myth, in which women compare their situations with other women, and men with other men, rather than arriving at a truly equal state in which women compare their market and family work status with men. Career women of the 1970s and 1980s, in order to save their marriages, typically took on more household and childcare responsibilities, while rationalizing that they had equality in their marriages. They became “supermoms,” juggling careers and family, accepting whatever help they would get from their husbands.
In order to sustain the myth, the wife in Hochschild’s article needed to deal with the emotions that arise from the conflict between a cherished ideal and a contrary reality.
In my own family, my mom completed her master’s degree and worked as an educator for ten years. She worked while my dad was in professional school, saved enough money for the down payment of a house and to start his business, then quit her job to raise me and my brother. When we were growing up, she cooked, shopped and took care of the inside of the house as she continues to do. My dad currently does most of the yard work and washes the cars. He will vacuum once in a while. In light of Hochschild’s article, my mom instead of taking on a “second shift” decided to put her professional career on hold while my dad developed his own career which supported us financially.
As described by Williams, the ideology of domesticity is a gender system characterized by a division of market work and family work. In a partnership, the male takes on a demanding job in terms of time and labor, which leaves little or no time for housework and raising children. The female assumes role of caregiver and in doing so sacrifices opportunities to perform as an ideal worker.
Domesticity places three constraints on the organization of work in our society. The first is that employers are entitled to ideal workers without household responsibilities. The second is the husband’s right and obligation to conform to such a work ideal. The third is the expectation that the mother’s life should be structured around caregiving.
I believe that the ideology of domesticity, which refers to the division of labor between men and women and is based on the separation of home and work, did exist to a large degree in hunter and gatherer societies. The women gathered food close to their shelter and provided childcare, while the men traveled away from the home to hunt. The men, however, also contributed to household duties by building huts, making fires, and obtaining water. In addition, the men took charge of teaching their adolescent boys the skills of men. Roles were gender-related but absent of class distinction.
In contrast, the ideology of domesticity was not a part of life in Colonial America. Work was home-based and chores were shared. Women’s chores of spinning, weaving, gardening, canning, laundering, livestock-tending and soap and candle-making was recognized as significant work. They cared for babies, but men were responsible for children’s education and upbringing. When men were away, women took over as ‘deputy husbands.’ Women also held the same jobs as men—blacksmithing, tavern-keeping, and grocers—to name a few. They were not relegated to different spheres as described by the ideology of domesticity; they were simply regarded as inferior to men. Division of labor was not so clearly cut and work for both genders was inherently tied to the home.
Williams refutes the reality that it is women’s “free choice” to drop out of their ideal work positions and take on more household and childrearing responsibilities. She argues that they do so because the ideology of domesticity has organized market work in our society in such a way that women encounter powerful obstacles that are often not worth their emotional and physical well-being to fight.
The present system does not allow for women to perform as ideal workers in a man’s world. With men largely excused from the additional pressures of family work, the woman must choose to work two shifts if she chooses ideal work, or follow traditional women’s professions which have lower pay and are more friendly to finding time for household responsibilities.
I agree with Williams that the “free choice” may women claim to make is actually resignation to the current system of market work based on domesticity. Until the tide changes where both fathers and mothers are expected to share family work while employed in market work, one gender is unfairly forced into making concessions.
According to Carrington, the household division of labor in lesbigay families encounters similar difficulties to that of heterosexual families. It comes down to the fact that in some cases only one partner can follow the role of the ideal worker in male-dominated occupations. The partner who takes a job with fewer hours per week assumes household responsibilities. There is usually a concession or sacrifice made to support the partner who has greater opportunity to get ahead or perhaps has more drive to get ahead in his or her job. As in the case of heterosexual partnerships, one or both partners may choose to take a job more friendly to taking on household responsibilities: the so called female-identified professional occupations. As in some heterosexual arrangements, a small number of lesbigay families achieve equality on the division of family work by hiring domestic help. The similarities for both types of families are based on the reality of the work market. In both situations, one partner finds it necessary to adjust to that reality in order to preserve relationships.
No comments:
Post a Comment