« Avoiding Fatal Sleep | Main | What My Grandma Taught Me Or, Why Young People Need To Be Around Older People »
Just a Housewife: The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in America
This book, although written by the feminist Glenna Matthews, nonetheless has taught me a lot this week. I found it at the library here in Phoenix and discovered that some feminists may be working toward the same goals as we are.
The author starts out discussing the roles of women in colonial society. "Cooking was a purely utilitarian function and not a highly prized skill: there is no evidence to suggest that women thought in terms of 'culinary art.' Rather, they would put a meal to simmer over the fire in the open hearth and go about their other business. Hence, for a variety of reasons, in 1750 domestic chores were likelier to be approached as matter-of-fact routines than as occasions for displays of female prowess or possessing ceremonial meaning. The colonial home, then, was both essential and mundane, mundane because it had no transcendent functions. What is more, nothing in the culture reflected glory on the woman in charge of the home. Literary heroines of eighteenth-century British novels, for example, were noteworthy for their purity and gentleness and not for their domestic skills."
Toward the 1850s, however, things changed. According to Glenna Matthews, the Revolutionary War with its tea protests and such showed that the voice of housewives did, in fact, count for something in society. In addition, people discovered that it was in the home where children learned to view the world, mainly through the instruction of their mother, as the influence of the patriarchal society lessened. Education of girls began to be esteemed and with it all functions of the woman at home. Recipe books and ladies' magazines became popular as women started to see domestic expertise as a worthwhile skill. Catherine Beecher, an author of the time, said, "There is no subject so much connected with individual happiness and national prosperity as the education of daughters . . .The difficulty is, education does not usually point the female heart to its only true resting-place. That dear English word home is not half so powerful a talisman as the world. Instead of the salutary truth, that happiness is IN duty, they are taught to consider the two things totally distinct; and that whoever seeks one, must sacrifice the other."
The author then goes on to note that in today's society, household skills are not valued (but marketplace contribution is) – hence, no one wants to do them. If we were to bring back honor for domestic prowess, then men and women would both want to participate and we could have a nice, neat 50/50 split and all the work would get done. I disagree with the results she wants, but I love her premises, and that's why this book has been so enjoyable to read.
Unlike women of colonial times, I think home life is full of "transcendent functions" and has eternal impact on the lives it touches. Like the women of the 1850s, I agree that happiness is in duty. It's funny that feminists really don't care if some women are housewives or mothers – their only stipulation is that the women choose for themselves to be there. We daren't say that it is our duty to be at home! Suddenly that makes us somewhat less than free agents, the ultimate virtue in the feminist mind. I think the women of the 1850s (the time of the "cult of domesticity") had it right – happiness is in duty and whoever seeks duty will inevitably find happiness.
Posted by lilypress at March 11, 2006 11:50 PM
