Henci Goer’s article, How Childbirth Went Industrial: A Deconstruction, serves as a response to Atul Gawande’s article, How Childbirth Went Industrial. Goer criticizes Gawande for supporting the widespread use of Caesarian Sections and citing unreliable statistics about the safety of this procedure. Goer’s main point is that Caesarian Sections are being performed needlessly on healthy women in order to benefit the obstetricians and with little concern about the woman’s health. Obstetricians benefit from planned C-sections because they can be scheduled ahead of time so that the physicians know exactly when the pregnancy will occur. Also these procedures are relatively simple to learn and perform as opposed to older techniques such as the use of forceps. Using forceps successfully during childbirth was very difficult and considered an art by most doctors. The Caesarian section was used as a means of standardizing child birth so that all doctors could consistently perform the procedure successfully. Goer argues that despite the statistics and data available, C-sections are not as safe for mothers as natural child birth. She blames the misleading data on the fact that most of the statistics only account for the safety of the child during birth, and not for the short and long term damage the procedure causes for the mother. Some of these damages include, deep venous clots, pulmonary embolism, stroke, surgical injury to bladder, bowel, ureters, anesthetic complications, infection, chronic pain, infertility, ectopic pregnancy, uterine rupture, low birth weight and preterm birth, congenital malformation and central nervous system injury. In his article, Gawande praised obstetricians of the early twentieth century for experimenting with different birthing techniques without waiting for government approval or research trials to be conducted in order evaluate safety and effectiveness. When I read Gawande’s statement I was shocked to learn how little doctors cared about the safety of pregnant women. It seems ridiculous that not only would doctors be performing un-tested procedures on women, but that Gawande would approve of this practice. He sites the innovative procedures that arose from this practice but he never mentioned the failed techniques that led to the deaths of many women. I agree with many of Goer’s arguments; however I feel that in many cases Caesarian Sections can be the safest way to deliver a child. I strongly disagree with doctors performing C-sections on completely healthy women. In this case I do believe that doctors and women are more concerned with the short term benefits of this procedure and not considering the long term detrimental affects that Caesarian sections cause.
Both Presidential candidates have distinct views on abortion. Barack Obama is staunchly pro-choice and believes that it is important for women to have the option to terminate a pregnancy. Obama states, “I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions, in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy.” Barack Obama has also voiced his disapproval on the partial birth legislation passed recently by the Supreme Court. He states that this legislation violates previous legislation that protects the health of all pregnant women. The ban on Partial Birth Abortion disregards the health of the mother and focuses solely on the rights of the fetus and the moral issues behind the procedure. “As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient." John McCain on the other hand strongly opposes abortion and has recently stated that the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, should be overturned. Also McCain strongly supports the ban on Partial Birth Abortions stating that, “Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children...as we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life.” John McCain’s statement clearly illustrates his belief that a fetus’ rights are paramount to a mother’s rights.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Blog #9 - Smith, Crew
Andrea Smith’s article, Beyond Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life of Color and Reproductive Justice, discusses the underlying prejudices behind pro-choice and pro-life views. Smith does not explicitly support either view. Instead she uncovers the injustices surrounding both pro-life and pro-choice standpoints. In her first argument, Smith equates anti-abortion laws to the prison industrial complex. Time and time again, the United States prison system has proven to be a failure in not only rehabilitating inmates but deterring crime and addressing the social issues that promote criminal behavior. The failure of the prison system to deter crime is well known. Smith argues that the purpose of incarceration must therefore be to control the population of individuals of color, because a large percentage of jail inmates are either black or Hispanic. Smith states that prisons drain funds from beneficial programs such as education and social services which would be implemented in communities of color. These overlooked communities are left economically disadvantaged and more prone to high incidences of crime. Smith views the prison system as an extension of slavery that maintains white supremacy. The biggest failure of the prison system is that is serves as a temporary solution that does not address the underlying social conditions that foster crime. Smith states that the problem with the pro-life argument is that it serves to criminalize abortion rather than address the societal, economic and political conditions that promote it. The criminalization of abortion would most directly affect women of color who live in poor communities. Smith argues that women who live in poverty are generally more in contact with government run programs, such as public physicians and health facilities. So women who live in these neighborhoods and want to have an abortion must either avoid their physicians or risk encountering a government employed doctor who could have them arrested. Prisons do not deter crime; and anti-abortion will not stop women from having abortions because these laws will not address the underlying issues that force a woman to terminate a pregnancy. Instead of safely and legally going to a physician to have an abortion, women would be forced to undergo illegal and often times dangerous procedures to terminate their unwanted pregnancies.
On the other hand Smith contends that the pro-choice standpoint only benefits women in the middle an upper class. Legislation such as the Hyde Amendment restricts federal funding for abortions. Smith states, “Choice also became a symbol of middle class women’s arrival as independent consumers. Middle class women could afford to choose… According to many Americans, however, when choice was associated with poor women, it became a symbol of illegitimacy. Poor women had not earned the right to choose.” (395) Once again poor women of color are disadvantages and unable to experience the same benefits afforded to women of the middle and upper class. Another argument that Smith makes is that abortion is promoted in order to control the black communities. The pro-choice position supports the idea of eugenics in which reproduction is discouraged among individuals with genetic defects or with presumably undesirable traits. Privilege is a main theme in this article. Smith demonstrates how both pro-life and pro-choice views ultimately benefit white middle and upper class women and negatively affect women of color. I completely agree with her idea that the only way to truly benefit all women would be to address the social and economic issues that promote abortion.
In the article And So I Chose, the author Allison Crews discusses the failures of society to education and support women who have abortions. Crew’s emphasizes the right of all women to chose to have of not have an abortion. A woman has control over her own body, and the right of women outweighs the right of a fetus. Woman should not be granted the right to chose to terminate a pregnancy. Instead it should be considered a right that she is born with. Crews states, “Whatever our reproductive choices, nobody can ever deny us our right to them.” (149)
On the other hand Smith contends that the pro-choice standpoint only benefits women in the middle an upper class. Legislation such as the Hyde Amendment restricts federal funding for abortions. Smith states, “Choice also became a symbol of middle class women’s arrival as independent consumers. Middle class women could afford to choose… According to many Americans, however, when choice was associated with poor women, it became a symbol of illegitimacy. Poor women had not earned the right to choose.” (395) Once again poor women of color are disadvantages and unable to experience the same benefits afforded to women of the middle and upper class. Another argument that Smith makes is that abortion is promoted in order to control the black communities. The pro-choice position supports the idea of eugenics in which reproduction is discouraged among individuals with genetic defects or with presumably undesirable traits. Privilege is a main theme in this article. Smith demonstrates how both pro-life and pro-choice views ultimately benefit white middle and upper class women and negatively affect women of color. I completely agree with her idea that the only way to truly benefit all women would be to address the social and economic issues that promote abortion.
In the article And So I Chose, the author Allison Crews discusses the failures of society to education and support women who have abortions. Crew’s emphasizes the right of all women to chose to have of not have an abortion. A woman has control over her own body, and the right of women outweighs the right of a fetus. Woman should not be granted the right to chose to terminate a pregnancy. Instead it should be considered a right that she is born with. Crews states, “Whatever our reproductive choices, nobody can ever deny us our right to them.” (149)
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Blog #8 - Collins, Walker
In her article, Black Sexual Politics, Patricia Hill Collins discusses the ways in which history has contributed to the portrayal of “black sexuality”. Collins illustrates how women such as Jennifer Lopez, Beyonce Knowles, Josephine Baker and Sarah Baartman have strengthened the stereotype that black women possess an untamed, savage sexuality. In particular, Sarah Baartman, who in the early nineteenth century, was caged and put on display for the citizens of London to witness her most intriguing anatomical feature, her buttocks. “When ordered to do so, she leaves her cage and parades before the audience who seems fascinated with what they see… Baartman endures poking and prodding, as people try to ascertain for themselves whether her buttocks are real.” Baartman is portrayed as a sexual “freak” of nature, who is behaviorally and anatomically different form the white citizens of the Western world. The case of Sarah Baartman convinced many individuals that there was a distinct biological difference between white and black individuals, which contributed to the intense sexual nature of African Americans. Throughout history, the sexuality of black men and women has been emphasized to reinforce racial differences and confirm the superiority of white individuals to the black “savages” they colonize. Collins states that these sexual differences were used by imperialist countries to create a national identity, in which they were the pure, civilizing agents of the primitive colonies. In American society, black sexuality became the deviant form of white sexuality which was tame and wholesome. “The United States has been constructed in relation to the Black Beasts of Africa.”
An important point that Collins makes, is that most likely none of the four women (Lopez, Knowles, Baker, Baartman) described in the article necessarily knows how big of an impact they had/have on the portrayal of black women. Each of these women reinforces the stereotype that black women have a wild and savage sexual drive, and although they may not personally feel the effects of their actions they are negatively impacting black women as a whole. The point that Collins made reminded me of a discussion we had in class concerning the actions of some women as individuals and how their actions contributed to negative female stereotypes. For example when a women cries when she gets pulled over by a police officer. Crying may benefit her at the moment but overall she is negatively affecting all women and the way they are portrayed by men.
Along with her idea of “black sexuality”, Collins also discusses the paradox of sexual suppression. The sexual suppression in our society is considered a paradox because while sex is promoted by the media, sexual education and open dialogue are often discouraged. The lack of accurate information about sex leads most teenagers to accept what they learn about sexuality from television shows and movies. However the way that the media portrays sexuality, leads to the creation and maintenance of many stereotypes. For example, Collins attacks Montel Williams and Maury Povich for depicting black males and females as being sexually reckless, ignorant and permiscus. I agree completely with Collins argument. I think one of the major problems in our society is that discussions about sex are avoided, so children are forced to believe everything they see on television. Teenagers need to be educated correctly about sex so they are aware of safe sex practices and how to manage difficult situations, like pregnancy and sexual assault. Rebecca Walker writes in her article, Lusting for Freedom, that it is important to educate teenagers about sex so they are knowledgeable about birth control and abortion. Walker stresses the need for young women to explore their bodies and learn that bodily pleasure should not be avoided, but embraced as a privilege afforded to all humans. Discussing sex will not promote sexual activity among teenagers, but rather educate them on how to make sex a “dynamic, affirming, safe and pleasurable part of life.”
An important point that Collins makes, is that most likely none of the four women (Lopez, Knowles, Baker, Baartman) described in the article necessarily knows how big of an impact they had/have on the portrayal of black women. Each of these women reinforces the stereotype that black women have a wild and savage sexual drive, and although they may not personally feel the effects of their actions they are negatively impacting black women as a whole. The point that Collins made reminded me of a discussion we had in class concerning the actions of some women as individuals and how their actions contributed to negative female stereotypes. For example when a women cries when she gets pulled over by a police officer. Crying may benefit her at the moment but overall she is negatively affecting all women and the way they are portrayed by men.
Along with her idea of “black sexuality”, Collins also discusses the paradox of sexual suppression. The sexual suppression in our society is considered a paradox because while sex is promoted by the media, sexual education and open dialogue are often discouraged. The lack of accurate information about sex leads most teenagers to accept what they learn about sexuality from television shows and movies. However the way that the media portrays sexuality, leads to the creation and maintenance of many stereotypes. For example, Collins attacks Montel Williams and Maury Povich for depicting black males and females as being sexually reckless, ignorant and permiscus. I agree completely with Collins argument. I think one of the major problems in our society is that discussions about sex are avoided, so children are forced to believe everything they see on television. Teenagers need to be educated correctly about sex so they are aware of safe sex practices and how to manage difficult situations, like pregnancy and sexual assault. Rebecca Walker writes in her article, Lusting for Freedom, that it is important to educate teenagers about sex so they are knowledgeable about birth control and abortion. Walker stresses the need for young women to explore their bodies and learn that bodily pleasure should not be avoided, but embraced as a privilege afforded to all humans. Discussing sex will not promote sexual activity among teenagers, but rather educate them on how to make sex a “dynamic, affirming, safe and pleasurable part of life.”
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Blog #9 - Rupp, Rich
Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Experience by Adrienne Rich, is an article that discusses the means in which society imposes heterosexual relationships on women. Compulsory Heterosexuality is the assumption that women and men are innately attracted to each other emotionally and sexually. This theory establishes heterosexuality as the norm and undermines women’s sexual, political and social autonomy. Rich rejects compulsory heterosexuality by stating that women are inherently more loving and emotional than men. Therefore individuals of both genders should naturally be attracted to women. “If women are the earliest sources of emotional caring and physical nurture [mothers] for both female and male children, it would seem logical, from a feminist perspective at least, to pose the following question: whether the search for love and tenderness in both sexes does not originally lead toward women, why in fact women would ever redirect that search.” Rich further explains that women redirect their affection to men, because society promotes heterosexual relationships and rejects the lesbian existence because it challenges male dominance. Lesbianism is a “women identified experience” that embraces female power by rejecting the idea that women are the sexual property of men. Lesbianism is an “attack on male right of access to women” and a rebellion against our patriarchal society. However, the belief of compulsory heterosexuality is still widely accepted because of the stigma that has been attached to lesbianism. Rich sites pornography as one of the major reasons why lesbian relationships are considered “queer” and “sick”. Pornography degrades women and depicts them as entirely sexually beings devoid of any emotional needs or attachment. It promotes the belief that a woman is essentially a “sexual commodity” waiting to be exploited by men. Lesbian pornography on the other hand not only debases women but also portrays lesbianism as a spectacle that is neither moral nor natural. Rich blames pornography for creating a violent sexual atmosphere in which women are stripped of their dignity and autonomy. In her article, Rich also attacks our capitalist economy for keeping women in a subservient role. Most women are expected to have low paying service jobs (secretaries, nurses, child-care workers) and they are subjected to “perpetual sexual harassment” in the workplace. Women gradually become accustomed to the constant harassment and accept the male violation as normal.
Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality by Leila Rupp is an article that explores the history and designation of homosexual relationships as same sex sexuality. A major component to her article is the problem that arise from calling all homosexual relationships same sex sexuality. Rupp explains through historical examples that not all homosexual relationships are sexual in nature. For example, in ancient Greece older men would have intercourse with teenage boys in order to express their power and dominance. It has also been documented that women in history would dress up as men in order to escape female oppression and gain a higher status. These women would have to transform every aspect of their lives, including their sexual relationships, in order to become a convincing man. Rupp argues that in this case the relationships between two women may not have been sexual, but just a necessary means to an end. Another point that Rupp makes is that in history sexual relationships were not always dictated by the individual’s gender, but by their age or social status. For example in Athens male-male relationships were very common, and the major deciding factor for a sexual relationship was not gender but the age disparity between the two men.
Friday, October 3, 2008
News Flash #1 - When Mom and Dad Share It All
Article URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine/15parenting-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=when%20mom%20and%20dad%20share%20it%20all&st=cse&oref=slogin
Frye, Marilyn. “Oppression.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 7-9.
Why hasn’t the division of labor for men and women in the home changed in the last ninety years? This question is easily answered if we look at society and how it perceives men and women. The key lies in the gender roles that have been constructed as a means of developing a patriarchal hierarchy in which men are deemed the superior sex. These gender roles are not explicitly stated but ingrained in our society in order to dictate the ways in which men and women think and behave. In previous generations these expected gender norms have led to the creation of two separate spheres, the public and private sphere, which were each populated by different genders. The public sphere was the workplace, which was dominated by men, and ruled by capitalist ideals. The business world was considered too corrupt and dangerous for women, so “for their protection”, women were banished to the private sphere, or the home, where they could fulfill their maternal duties. The creation of a capitalist market transformed money into the most valuable and sought after resource in the United States. The jobs that paid the highest salaries were considered the most important, and the men that held these positions gained authority and power. The private and public spheres never overlapped, so as men in the business world were growing more powerful, the women in the home were being pushed aside and forced into a subservient role. The value of women’s work in the home began to steadily decline as the value of money increased. Although the concept of the public/private sphere has long been dismissed, its philosophy, that women belong in the home, is still present in society.
When Mom and Dad Share It All, by Lisa Belkin, is an article that addresses gender roles and the ways that parents try to rebel against the traditional model of household labor divisions. Belkin interviews three couples who strive to achieve an equal distribution of domestic labor between the husband and wife. This phenomenon has been called many things, from shared care to equally shared parenting, but one point that Belkin brings up is; why does shared care need to be designated as something other than parenting. Shouldn’t parenting entail equal responsibilities for both the husband and the wife, and why does society consider shared care to be such a novelty. Well the truth is that equally shared parenting is rare and it is different from traditional parenting. The University of Wisconsin National Survey of Families and Households shows that the average wife does 31 hours of housework per week while the average husband does 14 hours a week. (Belkin 3) When we look at the ratio for men and women who both have full-time occupations we see that the numbers change slightly but that the women are still doing the bulk of the work (28 hours wife: 16 house husband). When a women’s sole occupation is as “housewife”, it makes sense that she would be spending almost double the amount of hours working in the home compared to her husband. What is disconcerting is that even when men and women are working full-time jobs, it is still the responsibility of the wife to complete the majority of the household chores. However, these statistics are not new, and most men and women recognize the inequity between the division of labor and childcare.
So why do most of the household obligations still fall on the wife? Once again the key lies in gender roles and deep-rooted societal norms. Belkin sites three main reasons why the traditional division of labor is accepted among the general population. The first explanation Belkin gives is that compared to men’s professions, women’s occupations are considered more flexible and on average pay lower salaries. Therefore women are expected to work fewer hours and sacrifice their careers in order to devote more time to their children. Belkin supports her belief by stating, “How many people ask a pregnant woman if she is going to go back to work after the baby is born? How many people ask her husband?” Society just assumes that it is the women’s responsibility to forfeit her career in order to raise her children. Some people may disagree with this point by saying that women are not forced into choosing certain professions, and that the decision is completely up to them. However, this is not entirely true. From a young age women are encouraged to pursue certain hobbies and subjects that ultimately promote specific careers. There is an “unspoken assumption” that leads women to pursue certain occupations. This is why today, men dominate the fields of math and science and women are predominantly teachers and social workers. Secondly, Belkin attributes the unequal divisions of labor to a phenomenon know as the “frission of superiority.” The frission of superiority is much like the false superiority described in Marilyn Frye’s article, Oppression. Both articles describe this phenomenon as the false sense of dominance and gratification a woman experiences when she is in charge of the household and proves to be the more competent parent. Belkin states that most woman enjoy when their husbands ask them for help with household chores, such as the laundry, because it proves that they are the more capable. However what these women do not realize is that the frission of superiority does not raise women to a higher level, but guarantee’s that they will never escape the unequal distribution of labor that is so prevalent in households across the United States. Belkin’s third and final explanation for the unequal division of labor is that people are comfortable with what they know. Gender roles were established in our culture over a hundred years ago and people are comfortable with the idea that a woman’s chief concern is with the home and raising her children. The idea of shared parenting is so shocking and noticeable, because it challenges the traditional family paradigm and makes the husband equally responsible for household chores and child care.
In her three arguments, Belkin makes it apparent that gender is a major factor in the division of childcare and household labor. But to further support her conclusion Belkin studied and interviewed lesbian couples to observe what happens when gender is factored out of parenting. Consistent with her original hypothesis, Belkin found that lesbian couples make equal professional sacrifices and that both parents report spending about 6 to 10 hours fulfilling household duties. When a couple is composed of individuals of the same gender, neither parent is considered to be more or less superior to the other and each parent is equally responsible for child care and household labor. Belkin writes, “It is not clear, however, why lesbian couples split parenting more equally. Is it because you take gender out of the equation, or because women are better at sharing or because parents of the same gender see things more similarly?” (Belkin 12) To me the answer to this question is obvious. I believe that gender has everything to do with the equal labor distribution between lesbian couples. In heterosexual relationships, men feel less responsible for household duties because they gage the amount of time they have to spend time on child care by looking at other men’s behavior. Men look to their fathers and neighbors and emulate their parenting styles. So by imitating other fathers, they feel that they are doing enough as a parent. The only problem with this approach is that most men are not taking on enough responsibility as a parent, so the unequal distribution of labor remains constant. The few men who are engaging in shared care parenting will not change the distribution of labor on a widespread scale because the overwhelming majority of men leave most of the parenting responsibility to women. As long as most men continue to participate in unequal divisions of labor, the current parenting model will never change.
Shared care is an important and revolutionary idea, but unfortunately it is not easy to execute. Belkin illustrates through the relationship of Bill and Alex Taussig that equally shared parenting requires sacrifices from both the husband and the wife. In order for a shared care relationship to work, both parents can only work part-time jobs. This does not seem like a major problem, but with the current state of the economy it is extremely difficult to support a family on two part-time salaries. Belkin points out in her article, that the Taussig’s can only afford one car and that each week they have to alternate between who uses it. Alex states however, “The 10 percent salary cut that we each take is a price we consider worth paying, understanding that this is an option available to those who can make ends meet in the first place.” The ability for a husband to find a part-time also becomes a main obstacle to shared care parents. In today’s society, a husband’s main priority is considered to be his job. Most employers subscribe to this belief and expect that men will work full-time. As Bill Taussig realized, many employers are not even willing to look at a man’s resume if he has not agreed to work full time. Eventually however Bill was able to find part time work by negotiating with his employer. “What Bill realized was that he had the same right to flexibility as his wife, and he requested a four day schedule. While hers was granted automatically, his met with resistance, and eventually he just took it, by negotiating a paternity leave that he would parcel out one day per week for 10 weeks. When the ten weeks were up he just kept taking Fridays off.” Like many other couples, Bill and Alex Taussig did not stick with shared parenting, stating that it was just too much keeping score. However they did learn an important lesson, “the point is not to spit at gender for the heck of it but rather to think things through instead of defaulting to gender.”
Lisa Belkin addresses some major and controversial issues in her article, When Mom and Dad Share It All. She challenges the traditional parenting model and asks why society has defaulted to certain ideas and norms. Lisa Belkin, much like Marilyn Frye, develops the idea of societally constructed barriers that confine women to the home, and restrict mothers from escaping the duties of child care and household labor. Women are expected to shoulder most of the work at home, while men need only to be concerned with their careers. It is important for people to recognize why we have these general perceptions of men and women, and to challenge the foundations that created these societal norms.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/magazine/15parenting-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=when%20mom%20and%20dad%20share%20it%20all&st=cse&oref=slogin
Frye, Marilyn. “Oppression.” Feminist Frontiers. Ed. by Verta Taylor, Nancy Whittier, and Leila J. Rupp. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences, & World Languages, 2007, 7-9.
Why hasn’t the division of labor for men and women in the home changed in the last ninety years? This question is easily answered if we look at society and how it perceives men and women. The key lies in the gender roles that have been constructed as a means of developing a patriarchal hierarchy in which men are deemed the superior sex. These gender roles are not explicitly stated but ingrained in our society in order to dictate the ways in which men and women think and behave. In previous generations these expected gender norms have led to the creation of two separate spheres, the public and private sphere, which were each populated by different genders. The public sphere was the workplace, which was dominated by men, and ruled by capitalist ideals. The business world was considered too corrupt and dangerous for women, so “for their protection”, women were banished to the private sphere, or the home, where they could fulfill their maternal duties. The creation of a capitalist market transformed money into the most valuable and sought after resource in the United States. The jobs that paid the highest salaries were considered the most important, and the men that held these positions gained authority and power. The private and public spheres never overlapped, so as men in the business world were growing more powerful, the women in the home were being pushed aside and forced into a subservient role. The value of women’s work in the home began to steadily decline as the value of money increased. Although the concept of the public/private sphere has long been dismissed, its philosophy, that women belong in the home, is still present in society.
When Mom and Dad Share It All, by Lisa Belkin, is an article that addresses gender roles and the ways that parents try to rebel against the traditional model of household labor divisions. Belkin interviews three couples who strive to achieve an equal distribution of domestic labor between the husband and wife. This phenomenon has been called many things, from shared care to equally shared parenting, but one point that Belkin brings up is; why does shared care need to be designated as something other than parenting. Shouldn’t parenting entail equal responsibilities for both the husband and the wife, and why does society consider shared care to be such a novelty. Well the truth is that equally shared parenting is rare and it is different from traditional parenting. The University of Wisconsin National Survey of Families and Households shows that the average wife does 31 hours of housework per week while the average husband does 14 hours a week. (Belkin 3) When we look at the ratio for men and women who both have full-time occupations we see that the numbers change slightly but that the women are still doing the bulk of the work (28 hours wife: 16 house husband). When a women’s sole occupation is as “housewife”, it makes sense that she would be spending almost double the amount of hours working in the home compared to her husband. What is disconcerting is that even when men and women are working full-time jobs, it is still the responsibility of the wife to complete the majority of the household chores. However, these statistics are not new, and most men and women recognize the inequity between the division of labor and childcare.
So why do most of the household obligations still fall on the wife? Once again the key lies in gender roles and deep-rooted societal norms. Belkin sites three main reasons why the traditional division of labor is accepted among the general population. The first explanation Belkin gives is that compared to men’s professions, women’s occupations are considered more flexible and on average pay lower salaries. Therefore women are expected to work fewer hours and sacrifice their careers in order to devote more time to their children. Belkin supports her belief by stating, “How many people ask a pregnant woman if she is going to go back to work after the baby is born? How many people ask her husband?” Society just assumes that it is the women’s responsibility to forfeit her career in order to raise her children. Some people may disagree with this point by saying that women are not forced into choosing certain professions, and that the decision is completely up to them. However, this is not entirely true. From a young age women are encouraged to pursue certain hobbies and subjects that ultimately promote specific careers. There is an “unspoken assumption” that leads women to pursue certain occupations. This is why today, men dominate the fields of math and science and women are predominantly teachers and social workers. Secondly, Belkin attributes the unequal divisions of labor to a phenomenon know as the “frission of superiority.” The frission of superiority is much like the false superiority described in Marilyn Frye’s article, Oppression. Both articles describe this phenomenon as the false sense of dominance and gratification a woman experiences when she is in charge of the household and proves to be the more competent parent. Belkin states that most woman enjoy when their husbands ask them for help with household chores, such as the laundry, because it proves that they are the more capable. However what these women do not realize is that the frission of superiority does not raise women to a higher level, but guarantee’s that they will never escape the unequal distribution of labor that is so prevalent in households across the United States. Belkin’s third and final explanation for the unequal division of labor is that people are comfortable with what they know. Gender roles were established in our culture over a hundred years ago and people are comfortable with the idea that a woman’s chief concern is with the home and raising her children. The idea of shared parenting is so shocking and noticeable, because it challenges the traditional family paradigm and makes the husband equally responsible for household chores and child care.
In her three arguments, Belkin makes it apparent that gender is a major factor in the division of childcare and household labor. But to further support her conclusion Belkin studied and interviewed lesbian couples to observe what happens when gender is factored out of parenting. Consistent with her original hypothesis, Belkin found that lesbian couples make equal professional sacrifices and that both parents report spending about 6 to 10 hours fulfilling household duties. When a couple is composed of individuals of the same gender, neither parent is considered to be more or less superior to the other and each parent is equally responsible for child care and household labor. Belkin writes, “It is not clear, however, why lesbian couples split parenting more equally. Is it because you take gender out of the equation, or because women are better at sharing or because parents of the same gender see things more similarly?” (Belkin 12) To me the answer to this question is obvious. I believe that gender has everything to do with the equal labor distribution between lesbian couples. In heterosexual relationships, men feel less responsible for household duties because they gage the amount of time they have to spend time on child care by looking at other men’s behavior. Men look to their fathers and neighbors and emulate their parenting styles. So by imitating other fathers, they feel that they are doing enough as a parent. The only problem with this approach is that most men are not taking on enough responsibility as a parent, so the unequal distribution of labor remains constant. The few men who are engaging in shared care parenting will not change the distribution of labor on a widespread scale because the overwhelming majority of men leave most of the parenting responsibility to women. As long as most men continue to participate in unequal divisions of labor, the current parenting model will never change.
Shared care is an important and revolutionary idea, but unfortunately it is not easy to execute. Belkin illustrates through the relationship of Bill and Alex Taussig that equally shared parenting requires sacrifices from both the husband and the wife. In order for a shared care relationship to work, both parents can only work part-time jobs. This does not seem like a major problem, but with the current state of the economy it is extremely difficult to support a family on two part-time salaries. Belkin points out in her article, that the Taussig’s can only afford one car and that each week they have to alternate between who uses it. Alex states however, “The 10 percent salary cut that we each take is a price we consider worth paying, understanding that this is an option available to those who can make ends meet in the first place.” The ability for a husband to find a part-time also becomes a main obstacle to shared care parents. In today’s society, a husband’s main priority is considered to be his job. Most employers subscribe to this belief and expect that men will work full-time. As Bill Taussig realized, many employers are not even willing to look at a man’s resume if he has not agreed to work full time. Eventually however Bill was able to find part time work by negotiating with his employer. “What Bill realized was that he had the same right to flexibility as his wife, and he requested a four day schedule. While hers was granted automatically, his met with resistance, and eventually he just took it, by negotiating a paternity leave that he would parcel out one day per week for 10 weeks. When the ten weeks were up he just kept taking Fridays off.” Like many other couples, Bill and Alex Taussig did not stick with shared parenting, stating that it was just too much keeping score. However they did learn an important lesson, “the point is not to spit at gender for the heck of it but rather to think things through instead of defaulting to gender.”
Lisa Belkin addresses some major and controversial issues in her article, When Mom and Dad Share It All. She challenges the traditional parenting model and asks why society has defaulted to certain ideas and norms. Lisa Belkin, much like Marilyn Frye, develops the idea of societally constructed barriers that confine women to the home, and restrict mothers from escaping the duties of child care and household labor. Women are expected to shoulder most of the work at home, while men need only to be concerned with their careers. It is important for people to recognize why we have these general perceptions of men and women, and to challenge the foundations that created these societal norms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)