(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."