(A poster from See Red Women's Workshop)
Because a
woman’s work does not have monetary value, it has moral value. Gill Valentine
(2001) in Social Geographies: Space and Society, writes that “Domestic ideology
was such that housework became understood not just as a set of chores, but as a
moral undertaking” (p. 67). A woman’s ability to take care of the home was a
representation of her womanhood overall. If a woman is gentle, clean, kind,
caring, etc. then one of her ideal uses would be to take care of the home, and
through the home, her family. If she is bad at her job, and therefore her
purpose, then what kind of woman is she? Is she a woman at all? This reminds me
of the argument that a woman without the ability for female biological processes
is not a true woman, also known as a form of biological determinism. A woman’s
organs or reproductive processes are not what makes her a woman, her identity as
a woman is what makes her a woman. Using this biological determinist approach as
a place of comparison, a woman’s ability to do work within the home does not
make her any more or less than a woman. This narrative, that something can make
or break a person’s identity as a woman is one that has, historically, been used
as a tool to oppress women.
Through homemaking, a woman creates and preserves
the homeplace into a meaningful space for her family. Bell Hooks (1990) in her
piece “Homeplace: A Site of Resistance,” that Black women specifically have
rendered home a site of resistance against racial oppression. Hooks writes,
“Since sexism delegates to females the task of creating and sustaining a home
environment, it has been primarily the responsibility of black women to
construct domestic households as spaces of care and nurturance in the face of
the brutal harsh reality of racist oppression, or sexist domination” (p. 42).
Hooks writes that black women would work both inside and outside of the home,
working for white people or in the fields, streets, etc. Black women were able
to both tackle the private and public spheres, while still creating a site
of resistance against their oppression.
The division of labor that separates
women from working outside of the home and isolates them inside can be an
explanation for why there are still fewer women within the workforce. In the
article, “The gender gap in employment: What's holding women back?” (2017), the
International Labor Organization discusses this issue in a way that is easy to
understand, providing readers with written information, graphics, statistics,
videos, etc. regarding women and work within the public sphere. One graph that I
thought was interesting was titled, “How do different factors impact the
probability of women to be in the labour force?”
When reading through any of the
articles mentioned, what was at least one piece of information that intrigued
you the most?
Works Cited
Seeredwomensworkshop, See Red Women’s Workshop, https://seeredwomensworkshop.wordpress.com/. Accessed Sept. 2024.
“The Gender Gap in Employment: What’s Holding Women Back?” InfoStories, International Labour Organization, Dec. 2017, webapps.ilo.org/infostories/en-GB/Stories/Employment/barriers-women#intro.
Following the class discussion, you correctly pointed out the role of women in the home. I find your article presents a good analysis of gender roles and labor division. Though you primarily focused on European and African-American contexts, it would be interesting to expand this analysis by incorporating perspectives from Asia or South Asia, where similar gendered labor division dynamics exist.
ReplyDeleteIn many South Asian societies, the concept of "a woman’s place is in the home" is deeply embedded in social, religious and cultural traditions. Women's roles in the household are often justified by notions of honor and duty, linking the value of their domestic work to the moral fabric of the family and community. In countries like Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, women's domestic labor is often compounded by their participation in the informal economy, which remains largely unacknowledged in labor statistics.
The pressures of upholding moral values tied to home and family are further intensified in patriarchal societies where the expectations of women’s “purity” and “modesty” reinforce the idea that their place is in the home. However, as Bell Hooks argues in the case of Black women, South Asian women have also turned their homes into places of resistance. Women’s movements, including those led by grassroots organizations, have empowered women to challenge the limitations of domesticity, using home-based industries or collectives to support economic self-sufficiency. For instance, rural women in Bangladesh have utilized microfinance to start small businesses, demonstrating that the home can be both a center of care and a platform for economic agency.
For me you effectively explores gender roles in a Western context, adding South Asian perspectives would give a more global and nuanced understanding of the intersections between gender, labor, and morality.
Your blog highlights an insightful exploration of the historical and general roots of the gendered division of labor, emphasizing how domestic work has been devalued in capitalist societies. The way you connected this devaluation to moral judgment on women’s caliber amused me very much. To answer your last question, the insights from Gill Valentine’s Social Geographies particularly attracted me, as it mentions housework not just as labor but as a moral responsibility tied to a woman’s identity. It makes me crazy to think about how the expectations of societies are used to question a woman’s ability depending on her performance of household duties.
ReplyDeleteFrom my point of view and the discussion in the class, I think several other factors are very influential in the home as a gendered place concept. Apart from the Western countries, power dynamics and control within households often place men in authoritative roles, limiting women’s creditability. The reinforcement through media and religion further shows gendered norms by portraying women as primary caregivers and men as providers, embedding these concepts deeply in society. In most developing countries, gendered pay gaps restrict women to lower-paying jobs even though they have to work the same as men, which ultimately results in their economic dependence on men and re-establishing the idea that their role is within the home. Therefore, I strongly believe that addressing these embedded inequalities is very essential in achieving the desired gender equality in both domestic and public spheres.
This comment is from Jemima, but for some reason the website won't let her post! Here is her comment:
ReplyDelete"This is a lovely blog post that brings up some important points about how home is gendered and how that affects women's jobs, work, and sense of self.
You talk about how women's unpaid housework lowers the value of their work. The article on homeless women who work as prostitutes on the street is an interesting contrast to this. These women are doing sex work, which is usually done by women, in public places, which makes it hard to tell the difference between paid and unpaid work. According to the article "Alternative Cartographies of Homelessness," women who were homeless were treated more harshly because they were seen as whores than as "homeless." This happened even though the real size of the "homelessness problem" was not taken into account (May J. et al 2007).
This reminds me of Ghanaian market women who sell things on the streets and in markets. They are very important to the economy of Ghana. These women do public work that still has domestic, usually female undertones, like selling food and other things that people need around the house.
Even though they get paid for their work, it doesn't always feel appreciated, and they don't have any social protections like official job benefits. Additionally, market women, like the homeless women in the cited text, blur the lines between public and private work by doing their jobs in unofficial, outdoor settings and by using business skills that are an extension of their household roles. People look down on them, some think they are unintelligent or even morally questionable for doing this kind of informal work in public places. Because they don't work in the formal, salaried economy, their important contributions to economic survival are often undervalued. This is similar to how the homeless women in the story are wrongly labelled as prostitutes instead of being understood for their more complex situations."
One super interesting piece from the ILO's article on "The gender gap in employment: What's holding women back?" is the 20% unemployment rate for women in Northern Africa and the Arab States. This is an insanely high number and yet, it comes with the recognition that most of these women are still working, just not receiving compensation or employment benefits. This is correlated to both socioreligious gender norms and limited economic opportunity for all citizens of those regions.
ReplyDeleteOne piece of wording in your article that I disagree with is "woman’s work does not have monetary value". You capture the idea that domestic work is valuable in your argument and especially in the poster from See Red Women's Workshop. On one hand, woman's work not having monetary value is true, in terms that it receives no financial compensation, but on the other hand, revenue could NOT be generated without the uncountable hours of work preformed (traditionally by women in socioeconomic landscapes divided by sex) in the domestic sphere. As such, I believe woman's work DOES have monetary value, it was just always diverted away from them. This is really just an argument over a minor wording. Conceptually, you nailed this topic!
Hi Brooklyn,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your view on this topic. The saying, “A woman’s place is in the home,” is so pervasive in our society. You can find this labeling anywhere you look, conversations, movies, and books. For one example, I remember reading a home repair book from the 1960s that belonged to my grandfather. On multiple occasions, the book referenced constructing parts of the home in specific ways to “make it easier for your lovely wife to clean.” This was quite appalling to read, yet it shows just how easily this message infiltrated every part of life. The authors would never have suggested that the husband clean the shower. They could’ve also left identity out of the sentence and stated that it made it easier to clean for everyone. This highlights the one-sided views of not only authors of the time but also publishers and readers.
This is just one example of how this message penetrated every aspect of life. I think this is important to analyze because it allows us to take a more critical approach to the ways we address this issue. The International Labor Organization article that you cited explains that one of the steps to creating more equal opportunities in the workforce is to eliminate discrimination. One of the ways to do this is to consider how we discuss gender and gender roles in media. By continually promoting these traditional and harmful gender stereotypes, we perpetuate a system that does not value women’s work, in or out of paid sectors. If we change this representation, equality and value will become more normalized in society. While changes, like eliminating one word from a book, seem small, they can have a major impact on the way one learns about and perceives the world.
Hi Brooklyn,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post. One part that caught my attention was moral values vs economic value of women’s work at home and how this idea shaped gender roles. Back in my country Bangladesh, I experienced similar expectation in my own family from early childhood where women were expected to learn household activities, not because they were less capable of working outside, but because that was seen as their "natural" role. My relatives used to insist my mom to teach us household work. This idea indicates that a woman's identity or value is determined by her capacity to carry out household duties, in a similar manner to how women are sometimes defined by their capacity for reproduction. Unfortunately, this belief is still in practice in many countries especially in Indian subcontinent. It got me thinking about how, even in modern times, these cultural and historical conventions still have an impact on gender equality at work and at home.
ReplyDeleteHi Brooklyn, I loved reading your thoughts on how gender roles are divided in society.
I agree with your point that women's association with home is a social construct shaped by historical, societal, cultural systems and institutions that have evolved all through time. These gendered labor divisions began with assigning men with outside work like hunting, trade or farming whereas women were made responsible to be in the house and take care of the family and home. This division was based on the physical strengths required for work and the need to raise children. Moreover, with time this division of work continued to be a social construct limiting women to the household chores. Different feminist movements tried to advocate against this social construct and demanded women to be in paid labor forming identities away from house chores and being more independent. In addition, things have changed to some extent in recent times but now the women are laid with double duties with work in and outside of the house.
As you raised concerns on how different factors impact the probability of women to be in labor force. I think there are several factors behind that of which social construct about gender labor division is the root of it. Second, women are not given equal educational opportunities and skills required for the labor force thus limiting them to be in home. Likewise, patriarchy is pulling women away because if they become the bread winner then they will also be decision makers which would steal the men’s autonomy and power in decision making. Along with that, in recent times safety is also a reason for this because there are many issues of harassment and exploitation in the workplace.
Hi Brooklyn! I really enjoyed reading your post.
ReplyDeleteYour discussion of capitalist ideology as promoting the devaluing of women in society is something that I had not considered before. In my mind, I had viewed sexism as a symptom of a male-dominated society, not an economic system issue. The explanation of women’s work being unpaid leading to that ideology is fascinating (for lack of a better word). I also really like that you used “moral value” to describe women’s work within the home. This post reminds me of the beginning of the semester when we discussed “doing gender”. Men are often praised for doing housework or taking care of children while women are expected to do so, “In a gender-stratified society, what men do is usually valued more highly than what women do because men do it, even when their activities are very similar or the same” (Lorber, 2004). Furthermore, black women are even more so oppressed by this ideology. As you mentioned, in Bell Hook’s article, black women were expected to work in their own homes, as well as the homes of white families; creating conditions for oppression, yet they used home as a tool to fight their oppression.
I find this ideology of women’s work being devalued and used as a tool to oppress women as stemming from an economic system to be intriguing. Although economic structures are certainly part of social justice issues, it is not the first place my mind goes. So to think about that on a deeper level was fascinating.
Hi Brooklyn,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog post. Personally, the issues of gender roles in society and the marginalization of women to the corners of the home has been a topic of interest for me. The ILO article sheds light on the persistent gender gap in employment, highlighting the specific challenges women face in securing certain jobs. One critical factor is the requirement of long work hours, which often conflicts with women's traditional caregiving responsibilities. This puts women in a difficult position, forcing them to choose between pursuing their careers and fulfilling their familial obligations. This gendered division of labor perpetuates the unequal burden on women, limiting their opportunities for advancement and financial independence.
Furthermore, the article emphasizes the importance of addressing the underlying societal norms and expectations that contribute to this gender gap. By challenging traditional gender roles and promoting shared caregiving responsibilities, we can create a more equitable workplace environment where women have equal access to opportunities and can fully participate in the workforce. This requires a multifaceted approach, including flexible work arrangements, affordable childcare options, and policies that support work-life balance. By taking these steps, we can move towards a future where women are no longer held back by outdated gender stereotypes and can fully realize their potential in the labor market.