Domesticity

Megan Lynch
Marriage and Fam Blog
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.
Hochschild documents a very interesting case in her chapter. She describes a family called the Holt family. Both mother and father are employed and have a young son Joey. Nancy, the mom hopes to have a family and a career, balancing both of these “spheres” with her husband. Her husband Evan, makes more than 2/3 of the family’s income and believes that the time he should spend on “domestic activity” is less than the amount his wife feels is appropriate. It is a constant battle for the two of them. One that leaves Nancy feeling less important, making her feel as though her time is of less merit and value than her husbands. Also, because of Nancy’s constant and strong connection with her son, her husband Evan has a weaker relationship with his son. Nancy wants an egalitarian marriage, however she is constantly racked with feels of resentment and irritation with her husband. Nancy wants to exist in a household in which housework, cooking, and child raising duties are equally shared and balanced between husband and wife. The article points out observations of the Holt’s neighbors, seeing Nancy as working as much as a single mother. As a result, it seems as though Nancy works “two shifts.” She and her husband work the first shift from 8am-6pm and then she begins her second shift upon her arrival at home. Nancy grows frustrated with her lack of “leisure time” and her husband’s abundance of it. Nancy tries to instate a sort of schedule, to make their household duties fairer. However, Evan eventually slacks off and avoids them, getting angrier with his wife’s suggestions. This led to “emotional jabs.” Nancy commented on her husband’s lack of concern with domestic life, and became enraged at any comment he would make about her own work around the house. Nancy’s own personal fear of becoming like her mother, a woman who had little independence and was forced to concentrate solely on her place in the home daunted her. On the same token her husband fears a lack of control over his wife, and a seemingly unequal balance at their at home culture. The problem becomes a “push and pull” situation and eventually both feel that they are taken advantage of in one way or another. The problem sadly becomes a “family myth.” Eventually Nancy begins to avoid the problem and rationalizes the problem at hand. She tells herself that they have worked it out, separating their spheres into an upstairs/downstairs world. This “family myth” of equality is rationalized to avoid divorce and more conflict. Nancy, still however resents the divided labor but emotionally she can’t take the burden of it. She still works the two shifts, the first in the career field the second in her home as well as the emotional work of raising a son and caring for his needs. She resigns herself to believing that everything is okay, what Hochschild describes as “emotion work” in which she works hard at feeling “the right feeling she wants to feel to make and keep everything fine,” (46). She continues with this denial, and eventually is forced to reduce her own time at work- becoming more and more resentful. I found this article very interesting. I definitely recognized similar characteristics in families I know. However, I must admit that I am very lucky to come from a different type of home. I believe that my parents truly have an egalitarian marriage. I don’t think that it is a myth at all. I believe that it is possible, because I have seen it in action. My mother and father both work and yet have both equally been involved in raising me and my sister Kelly. My dad will go grocery shopping, clean the house, do the dishes and run errands. In fact, there are times when my dad does more stuff around the house than my mom does. If that is the case then my mom will make up for in another aspect. They never complain or argue about it. I strive to have a marriage like this as well. I know it is possible, as long as both parties are willing to cooperate.

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.
Williams introduction sets the stage for her full article that follows. She begins by supplying the reader with a definition of the “ideology of domesticity.” This ideology stems back to a time in which men and women’s roles were separated and decided by their gender. It was believed that men belonged in the market because of their innate sense of rivalry with others and serve as the “breadwinner of the family.” For women, believed to be of a more emotional and morally suited personality, it was idealized that they find their “work” in the home; raising the children and tending to relationships and housework. This was believed and held as a standard for decades. In fact, a recent poll was taken of today’s society and about 2/3 of the population are still in accord with this ideology. Unfortunately, this ideology has a negative impact on today’s society. It affects single mothers, divorced mothers and married mothers. It is difficult to live as a women in today’s society as they are divided into two categories, “mommy” and “other.” Domesticity is not by any means extinct in today’s society, it is slightly changed but largely still supported by people. Williams states the three constraints, “Divorce is a well-known linked…with domesticity’s system of providing for children’s care by marginalizing their caregivers…Second by minimizing father’s involvement…Third, domesticity takes a toll on men by pressuring them to perform as ideal workers in an age when that often requires long hours of work,” (3-4).
I believe that the ideology of domesticity definitely was in existence for the hunters and gatherers as well as the colonial Americans. From the movies and articles we watched it was evident that men and women had specific jobs or roles which were expected of them in society. The men had their distinct duty, to hunt and gather and take care of supporting the needs of the family- needs such as food and shelter. However, the women were expected to raise the children and take care of their futures. The family structures remained the same generation after generation. It was a male dominant society, although everyone’s labor was valued. For example, the groom is expected to hunt for bride’s parents and women in general produce more food 60-80% of the supply. Both men and women are involved in the building of huts and fires and getting water. Children have more responsibility in this time, and they are forced to grow up faster. In colonial America it was slightly different. There was a division of labor between the sexes but in general all work was done in or near the home. There is a shift in the idea of marriage, it becomes a focus of the community as a whole. For example, there is a night courtship in which men and women are separated in different barns. There is definitely a distinction of domesticity in colonial times. Men would have jobs, work as apprentices and tend to their land. Women would assist, but in lesser extent. They would be involved in domestic work such as cleaning and cooking.

3. Explain Williams’s argument about sex discrimination and the “free choice.” Do you agree with her?
Williams discusses the idea of “choice rhetoric” and free choice in her article. She says, “If women were to choose the same work patterns as men then they could and would evener more skilled occupations, and the male-female wage gap would be substantially more reduced.” Women are discriminated against all the time. Williams believes that courts use discrimination and argument that women “lack interest” in what have been accepted as male positions. She however believes that women’s roles at home should have no affect on their job work. She believes that by women using “free choice” as a means of feeling discriminated is only valid if women actually make this choice. She describes situations of the “ideal workers” talking about a time when both parents remained at home and then explains the transition into women in the workfield. She talks about a time when women were defined “by their inferiority” and hierarchy within the family existed. She then segue ways into the feminist era in which women challenged their roles as domestics in the 1960s, hoping to gain equal access in the job market. She also explains about the expectations of men in terms of supporter and breadwinner. I think that the argument is valid. It is extremely difficult for women to go against the norm and not experience challenges and hindrances. She writes, “choice concerns the everyday process of making decisions within constraints. Discrimination involves a value judgment that the constraints society imposes are inconsistent with its commitment to equality,” (37). I agree with Williams when she talks about how easy it is to get sucked back into “default mode.” I think in order to promote change and improvement people have to become and stay active. Choice rhetoric forces women to decide whether they want to remain as ideal workers or ideal mothers. I don’t think this is fair at all and I think in order for discrimination to stop women need to start going against the norm and following what they desire.

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?
Carrington’s article describes situations in lesbigay families and compares them to heterosexual ones. Carrington uses interviews and studies in order to get a grasp on numbers and societal patterns. He discusses the common myth that lesbigay families are representations of egalitarianism. Because of stereotypes and societal expectations lesbigay families are often expected to show a different pattern or standard. However, Carrington points out that lesbigay and heterosexual families are faced with many of the same issues and problems. For lesbigay families there is often a blurred line, failing to make a distinction between “what they consider equal and what they consider fair,” (83). Both types of families struggle to find equal and fair balance between both parents. For lesbigay families it is especially difficult because of gender roles. For example for lesbians it is often difficult to find a balance between paid work and identity. “In a number of lesbian families…compensation comes in the form of personal appearance and fashion.” I think he states his explanation of invisible domesticity well when he explains, “First as previously suggested, they do it to avoid the stigma associated with violating gender expectations. Second, and perhaps more significantly, they do it to avoid conflicts and to preserve relationships existing in a broader socioeconomic context that does not enable families to actually produce much equality,” (88). It is clear that families struggle with similar issues despite what type of relationship they are in. No matter how one looks at it there are always issues of gender imbalance and balance that couples must tend it. While one would assume that the balance would be better in lesbigay families because of their “equalness” in gender, it is clearly not the case since it is nearly impossible for both sides to participate in a completely egalitarian manner. Carrington explains that it is nearly impossible for the primary breadwinner of the family to not feel some sort of need for control. There is still a sense of tradition that looms in all families, homosexual and heterosexual.