Recently, two of my friends (J and D) and I decided to start doing a course on Gender and Technology. We pick up readings for each week and then get together and discuss them. This is me turning this learning course into a blog opportunity.
Gender and Technology: Week 2
Work? What Work?
Well, we had our second week of discussion on the course, and the good news is that this time, we all did the correct reading (though J did have to make up by reading last week’s paper, which I’m happy to say she vented about as strongly as us).
Apart from a few initial tech glitches (which only highlighted the irony of the course as J had to ask her husband for help every time her audio went off), we had a rather interesting discussion. This week’s paper was about the impact that the industrial revolution had on the home, and in the lives of women in particular.
Here’s an overview of the paper:
There has been little study on the impact of industrialization on the home. Of this, the dominant belief has been the ‘traditional view’. As per this view, it was assumed that with the onset of new technologies and home appliances, the work of housewives reduced considerably, freeing up their time. However, ideologies did not shift, and as a result, women suffered from role anxiety, or entered the job market, or took to ‘burning their brassieres and demanding attention’.
The author of this paper (Cowan) challenges this view. As per her study, although new appliances might have eased the physical work involved in household work, it didn’t necessarily free up women’s time. Old tasks were replaced by new ones. Eg: As a mother, women had to prepare special infant formulas, sterilize their bottles, ensure they ate nutritionally balanced meals, consult with their teachers frequently, chauffeur them to extra lessons (help was less frequently available, and new theories on child care was increasing their responsibilities and expectations). The discovery of the "household germ" led to almost fetishistic concern about the cleanliness of the home, and as a result, clothing and linen had to be washed a lot more frequently than before.
However, it was not just the work that had changed / increased: it was the emotional expectation attached to this work. I’m going to use a screenshot of the paper here, because I think it conveys it best:
 |
| Excerpt from paper (yes, I had to highlight the entire para) |
Women who failed at these tasks were made to feel guilty or embarrassed: guilty of their sons go to school without a proper breakfast; guilt if their infants had not gained enough weight; guilty if the bathroom sink was slightly dirty; guilty if they failed to see the signs of an oncoming cold; guilty of their daughters are unpopular because of old-fashioned, or unironed or dirty dresses. Or embarrassed if their drains were clogged, embarrassed if accused of having body odour, and so on.
In some ways, the impact that the industrial revolution had on women was the opposite of what you’d expect from a labour force: instead of their roles becoming more specialized, there were becoming jack of all trades; and instead of the emotional context associated with the work disappearing, it was getting enhanced.
**********
While the paper in itself was interesting, it led us down a path of discussion that was far more intriguing: on the role of the housewife, and the ‘value’ we associate with it.
I remember many years ago, asking a class of 8th grade students to raise their hands if their fathers worked. Everyone raised their hand. Then I asked them to raise their hands if their mothers worked. Very few of them did.
When prodding further, we eventually reached this question: Why do you think that the work your mother does at home isn’t work?
There was no answer.
We’ve all been trained to think that ‘work’ is something that results in earning money: something that traditionally, the men of the house did. But the work that traditionally women did: cooking, cleaning, looking after the children, has never really been seen as work. We don’t think of it as work. The men don’t think of it as work. And sadly, the women doing it also don’t think of it as work.
Why is this important? Because when we don’t see something as an ‘economic activity’, we tend to de-value it. Never mind that it aids the other members in the house in partaking in the economic activity, it’s still something that’s largely been looked down upon.
And in the recent decades, the complexity has only increased.
Women across the world are entering the ‘economic workforce’. But even so, in many marriages, they are still seen as the primary person responsible for the home. This is further enhanced when they have children. It’s not uncommon for women to extend their maternity leaves and continue to be the person who stays at home and takes care of the child.
But why is this a problem?
Because we as a society still don’t see this as work.
As a result, many women in today’s world often find themselves caught between two conflicting forces: one telling them that they should put the home and family first, and that everything else can take a backseat; and the other telling them that taking care of the home and family aren’t valuable enough activities, and that they need to get back out to do the real work.
As J put it, the expectations (from others and now ingrained into the self) are overwhelming: ‘To be a better mother, to be a better housewife, to be well read, to have hobbies, to be well informed, to get back to a career. Because the core part of the work isn’t valued enough, so you’re constantly feeling the expectation to push yourself to do more. And nothing feels enough.’
In some ways, the cycle is never ending. The bar just keeps getting raised time and time again. And so you have examples of these ‘superwomen’ who do it all and with a smile - home, family, career, hobbies. But the remaining majority find themselves feeling more and more like failures, because society constantly tells them that their lives have now become so easy compared to what it was many decades ago, and that they’ve got the option to do whatever they want, and if these women can do it all, then clearly something’s wrong with them for not being able to do it as well.
Cowan wrote this paper studying the lives of middle-class American women in the 1920s, but it could just as easily apply today. There’s an assumption that with the onset of technology, household work has become easier. It has, there’s no doubting that. But the time that got freed up by technology has been filled up with countless other small tasks, all coming with ever increasing levels of emotional baggage and guilt tripping (ask any new mother).
But still, we don’t think of it as ‘work’.
******
This week's paper:
Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. "The 'Industrial Revolution' in the Home: Household Technology and Social Change in the 20th Century." Technology and Culture 17, no. 1 (1976): 1–23.
Some advertisements from 1920s:
(The next one is not directly connected with the theme, but couldn't stop myself from adding it).
