First, I stumbled into the observations of Lisa at Amid Privilege. Her commentary on the depiction of smart women on television – or rather, their relative flatness as compared to their male counterparts – offers an interesting opening to a broader topic of discussion.
When it comes to men, endearingly quirky characters are tolerated and even admired – as long as they are of the brainy sort, or with other special attributes we value. Yet intelligent women are less than fully fleshed out on the screen. For that matter, if you ask me, smart women are frequently considered non-sexual, trying-to-be-a-man, or the one I’ve heard most often in my life – difficult.
But now I’m stepping out of my perception of media, and slipping into my own Reality Rolodex. Smart women are confusing, complicated, problematic. Also known as Too Damn Much Work.
And what about those of us who embrace both feminism and femininity, as if the contradictions are too confusing to process?
Even more so.
Mitt’s Missus?
Next in my morning reading, I opened my Sunday New York Times and enjoyed Frank Bruni’s article on Working and Women – addressing last week’s cheap shots taken at Ann Romney – not to mention our tendency not to be more thorough in our assessments of people, roles, or issues.
At least, that’s how I took it – all politics aside – except of course, for the sexual politics.
And yes, of course, with all that moolah, Ann Romney’s “mothering” doesn’t resemble the SAHM life for most women.
Mr. Bruni’s article touches on the (now wearisome) debate pitting Stay-At-Home Moms versus “Working” Moms. It offers a few specifics dealing with the barbs cast in the direction of Mitt’s Missus, not to mention the stereotypes around Hilary Rosen, who was the source of this ridiculous non-issue.
But there are assumptions a-plenty that remain disturbing. For example, the premise that staying at home and raising children isn’t work (trust me, it’s harder than going to the office); for example, the notion that a woman who does stay home and focus on running a household and parenting – exclusively – is less valuable than a woman in the workforce.
Are we really still dwelling in this particular land of stereotypes? Are we still making judgment calls about what a “smart” woman does or doesn’t choose? Will women wage war on other women, rather than standing up and recognizing each others’ contributions?
My Life (As a Woman); My Life (As a Person)
I am emotionally strong, selectively outspoken, tender to strangers and loved ones alike; I am curious, insistent, persistent, and single-minded when pursuing professional goals. I am adaptable, vulnerable, sensual, and sexual. I am smart, and I like that I’m smart, and have never pretended otherwise.
I am happier when I am in a relationship, yet I am whole unto myself. This hasn’t always been the case – and occasionally I fight my demons to maintain that healthy status.
I love my sons, raised with the shadows and friction that plague many single parent households. And I’m proud of them, and the men I believe they will become.
I have worked all my life – for pay – and suffer terribly during periods when I don’t receive compensation for my exercise of knowledge, skills, and experience. Like many men, I am more greatly undermined by periods of an inability to provide than by more routine sources of so-called upheaval.
Feminism Should be About Choice
Ann Romney’s choices may not have been mine – or yours – for financial reasons, or by virtue of your passions, your nature, your desire for autonomy. But I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Bruni that the principles of feminism were intended to be inclusive and expansive, not one-dimensional.
Sexual stereotypes? Gender-based barriers?
Our intention was to eradicate them, not shift the bashing. As Mr. Bruni explains:
What’s most bothersome about Rosen’s comment, though, was its betrayal of what the Democratic Party and feminism at their best are supposed to be about: recognizing the full diversity of human experience and empowering everyone along that spectrum to walk successfully down the path of his or her choosing, so long as it poses no clear harm to anyone else.
Isn’t it time we stopped the stereotypes and generalizations – and not just of women?
I am a woman who believes in choices for us all – the freedoms we profess to protect in this country, but have difficulty practicing in a tangible, consistent, or probing fashion.
Complexity in a Complicated Culture
Addressing the notion that managing a home and family equates to “never working a day in her life,” Frank Bruni writes about his own Stay-At-Home Mom. He points out that his Dad sweated the income while his mother was responsible for everything else. And that everything else did not include time off for good behavior.
Sound familiar?
He goes on to say:
… my mother also never worked a day in her life, at least not after she delivered the first of four epically needy, fiercely loved and ferociously grateful children…
I find myself reflecting on my college-aged kids.
Epically needy? Not in the least.
But would that a few years from now they will be able to see themselves as “fiercely loved and ferociously grateful.”
Yet perhaps the greater point is this: In assessing our politicians, their spouses, our bosses, each other – we ought to examine actions over rhetoric, consistency of positions, value systems exemplified, and our inherent complexity that involves more than the easy label, the stereotype, the assumption, or the sound byte.
© D. A. Wolf
I don’t usually comment on politics but after reading what Hilary Rosen actually said, I would agree with her. Her point was that Ann Romney can’t speak for women’s concern over the economy since she had what is today an economic privilege to not have to work outside the home (the words Rosen should have used) nor worry about the future of her children and whether they would be able to meet next month’s rent. I would suggest that Ann’s view of the economy is fundamentally different than a working mom that doesn’t have the choice to stay home due to economic hardships.
The article by Marie Burns titled “A Column About Nothing” on nytexaminer.com contains an excellent summary and points the finger properly to Mitt Romney’s view that he needs his wife as an “interpreter” to help him reach outside his gender. He is the one that is out of touch, not Hilary Rosen.
Of course she can’t act as Romney’s “economic advisor.” But then – could I, simply by virtue of having raised children as a “working” mother? Having raised children as a solo mother? Having lived through periods of unemployment, struggled to cover the bills, struggled to find work as a woman over 50?
I don’t consider myself qualified except as someone who is in touch with what products and services cost in my region and what it really costs to raise children, again, in my circumstances. But you might be surprised, batticus, at how the SAHM versus “Working” mom skirmishes continue even in subtle ways.
I’m no Romney fan, and I understand that “spin” takes over and gains a life of its own. But it’s remarkable how quickly we fall back on stereotypes, generalizations, and assumptions – without knowing the true character or experience of a person. And that’s the issue which I believe Frank Bruni is addressing, albeit somewhat tangentially.
Wolf, I really like that you pointed out how the notion of Rosen’s thoughtless remarks reflects on the feminist movement. I believe that 2nd wave feminism, with all the freedoms women finally found, brought an excess of criticism toward those women who weren’t choosing what feminists thought they should choose.
With our current wave, the 3rd wave, women are making a comeback and recognizing that feminism is broadly applied to women who stay home, work, live in poverty, in riches, etc. The remarks Rosen made and the subsequent SAHM vs. Working mom battles revisited has reminded many of us at the forefront that we must ceaselessly work to bridge the apparent gap between those two groups. To remind everyone that feminism is about women choosing regardless of whether those choices fit into the stereotypical “power women” category.
Here is a great letter to Ann Romney that makes the point to me. This is another manufacturerd conflict. Working moms and stay at home moms are different and one can see the others point of view but impossible to really see it unless you live it. Check out this article. It is to the point. Having done both, staying at home is much harder because the time to me went slower, I was bored more than not and was chomping on the bit to get out of the house and do something equally fulfilling with more adult stimulus. Also, I was not a tennis person, or a club person or a beauty person or a shopper. Staying home was exhausting but not as rewarding for ME as working. I went to work when my kids were 5 and 7 and in school for most of the day. It saved me and made me a much better mom.
http://www.classwarfareexists.com/letter-to-anne-romney/
Thank you for the link, Madge. It very succinctly makes the point – about socioeconomic differences, which do not fall neatly along SAHM or “work for pay” lines, as most of us realize.
For that matter, and I mean no offense by saying this, your inclusion of “I was not a tennis person, or a club person or a beauty person or a shopper” illustrates the dilemma. I might assume that you were in an environment in which other stay-at-home moms had the economic means to take free time and dollars to pursue tennis / clubs / beauty / shopping. But I don’t know your situation, and so I won’t assume. Just because a woman stays at home with children doesn’t mean she is affluent, and of course I realize you know this.
I know mothers who stay home because what they could earn by working outside the home isn’t enough to cover the costs of day care, the hassles of kid activities, the issues of children getting sick (as referenced in the letter you pointed me to), etc.
I do understand your point, and the validity of that letter (excellent reference). What offends me is that we still don’t recognize the work of parenting for what it is – work. As you yourself said, tedious, boring, not necessarily rewarding at times. Work. But work that isn’t respected any longer, that accrues no benefits (not that we do outside the home any longer), and has no dollar value associated with it.
And while my choices fell more along the lines with yours, the point is to take the judgment out of the choices. I suspect – as you suggest – the real issue is one of class/economic warfare, but women do seem to personalize it in ways that feel unnecessary – and unhelpful.
I really like what you say about how feminism should be a matter of choice. I’ve never thought of it quite like that but I completely agree. Do what you want – not what you feel you must out of social pressure. And everything is equally valued.
Exactly my point, Cathy. And I believe, the point that Frank Bruni makes in his article. Thanks so much for stopping by!
I have a lot to say about the Rosen v Romney brouhaha. First of all, I found it rather convenient for the conservative media to rise up for “women” after they have been behaving badly towards women’s issues. I believe what Rosen was referring to Romney’s class status and not her gender. I’d say a woman, working or not, that has to make ends meet with minimum wages know more about economic issues concerning the masses than people who don’t have to worry about money. I now have to with all due respect disagree with you that staying at home is not necessarily harder than working outside the house. When I see a generalized statement like that, I feel slighted for the double dose of work load I have to take on. I have to go to work, and when I come home, I have to do everything that need to get done. I am not playingthe violin asking for pity. I’ve made my choice. I’m not putting anybody else down by disagreeing with your statement. But I resent such easy negation of the extra responsibilities I have to bear. HOWEVER, if we are talking about staying home to care for BABIES, then yes, I will agree with you. My neighbors with kids who go to school from 8 to 3? No. Their work is not harder than mine.
It’s a worthy discussion, and I agree – it should have been about economic and logistical challenges, those challenges that will eventually run you down when you have no support of family, friends, or other systems (much less money). This is also an example of how easy it is to misunderstand each other, not to mention, how important precise language becomes.
Unfortunately, Rosen’s slip in using an expression like “not working a day in her life” plays into the beliefs of those who think that being a parent – stay-at-home or otherwise – is easy duty.
I have never been a SAHM without financial responsibility for at least half the household. During the years I was a SAHM, I was also a full-time work-from-home-office parent, which in some ways is ideal and others, insane. I have largely been a solo mom (for 20 years), with both financial and logistical responsibility, and no, I didn’t have family or domestic help, so I certainly understand what you’re saying. And I’m not in any way negating the additional responsibilities you bear – I’ve born them as well, and live the legacy of an ex who didn’t pull his weight leaving me to face… let’s just say… a lot of residual financial unpleasantness. I am not negating the extra responsibilities; I’ve shared them.
As for those with kids in school from 8 to 3, I will share my experience (and that of one or two friends). In spite of having full-time paying jobs as well, but allowed flexible hours and some of the time worked from home, we were expected to do the chauffeuring of other kids, volunteer at their schools, do the assorted “errands” for our spouses, etc., etc. A different sort of double burden. Ironically, we told ourselves we were lucky to have the flexibility, but again, little of it was valued, and rare was the night’s sleep.
The assumption that the SAHM or Work From Home Mom has 8 to 3 for tennis or manicures isn’t a good one. At least, in my world, it wasn’t the case. I will add that it was a relief when there were periods of going to an office, because the expectations of all the other “stuff” I was expected to do stopped, because suddenly there was the appearance of “doing real work.”
None of this changes the fact that there is physical, mental, and emotional work involved in parenting, regardless of who does it. We pay people to do it when they aren’t the parents (we call them Day Care Workers, Teachers, Babysitters, and so on); we neither pay nor value the time / work / skills when it is performed by the parents. And that – perhaps poorly – is the point I was trying to make.
I actually came back hoping I could delete my comment. I now have to apologize for misreading your words, something I realized as soon as I got off the train. You were comparing raising kids to going to the office, and not SAHM and working mothers. This makes all the more sense to me now that I got my senses back. Sorry for jumping the gun.
Totally no problem. (I suspect you’re overworked… ) 😉 Make the Hubs cook dinner and do Kid Duty tonight!
Incidentally, I agree with you about the appearance of the conservative right “rising up to support women” after, to use your words, “behaving badly.” (Such a nice way to put it.)