Gender and Parenting: Babysitting the Norm

[Delayed] Feminist Friday: Tardy Slips are Ready

Traditionally, it was a woman’s role to raise a healthy family. Above all other things that a woman was supposed to accomplish, the care of her children was considered to be the most obvious indicator of her worth in society. She should nurture.

Men were supposed to provide a stable income. He should bring home the bread and the eggs. He would be valued according to the size of his bank account, the money in his wallet, and the possessions he acquired. He should provide.

The gender roles in American society were declared, and all people that veered away from this system were deemed abnormal.

Until WWII.

After the Second World War, women entered the workforce. Thus, women were no longer confined to the domestic sphere. They walked out into the public sphere. There, they were reborn.

(Keep in mind that poor Caucasian women and minorities had been working for many generations prior to this.)

Daycares were needed to care for children that were once raised by stay-at-home mothers. The industry boomed. Women needed the support.

Then, there would come times that women would need to attend work or they would wish to visit with friends. Men—the fathers—would stay at home to take care of their children. Taking over all of the responsibilities of the mother, fathers would need to feed, clothe, bathe, and nurture their children. They would become the nurturer while their wife was away.

Some men were fine with this. They enjoyed nurturing their children. They were proud.

However, some men found shame in this role. Some men found that being a nurturer made them feel unmanly and weak. They felt that caring for their children, in the way that a mother cares for her child, made them less powerful.

Therefore, many men declared that they were no more than “babysitting” their children. They would explain to anyone that found them caring for their children that they had to take care of the children because their wife was not present. It was actually their wife’s job. He, the father, was simply filling in.

The father would baby-sit, much like the way a teenager baby-sits your children while you are on a date with your spouse. The father would choose to say he was “babysitting” because the act did not imply that he was actually nurturing.

He did not want to admit to parenting.

Gender roles and norms dictate how we are seen in society. If a person adheres to their sex’s specified gender code they are seen as ideal. However, if the individual decides to adopt roles that are intended for the opposite sex, the individual is seen as unusual. Therefore, individuals often seek to rationalize the act of going against what society has deemed acceptable for their sex. For example, a man is deemed womanly if he nurtures his children. Thus, he adopts the term “babysitting” because the word implies he is not truly fulfilling the traditional feminine gender role of being a nurturer.

How do you view the concept of a man babysitting his children when he is obviously nurturing them? Do you feel that if men use the term “babysitting,” an unequal balance of power between feminine and masculine roles in parenting is created? In 2007, do you feel that a man is still pressured by society to take less responsibility in the basic care of his children (i.e. a father should not bathe and feed his children, but instead he should work in order to obtain the funds needed for the mother to do so)?

I open this debate up to all of Into the Inkpot’s readers, and look forward to all responses.

“Make Me a Sandwich”

I grew up in a small, country town. We had more cows than people. Our high school always supported Bring Your Tractor to School Day. We went fishing at the local park for entertainment, and many students always hung out at the local car wash (because there was nowhere more appealing).

I grew up bouncing from social group to social group. The problem was that I never really fit in anywhere. I wasn’t athletic, so I didn’t fit in with the jocks and popular girls. I didn’t have a passion for music, so the band kids never accepted me. The farmers didn’t relate to me because I didn’t raise crops or livestock. And, the other groups just didn’t seem to want me.

I became a floater. I drifted along, all the while, trying to gather and maintain a stable friend base. It wasn’t until my senior year of high school that I finally convinced myself that I had friends. They were punks. They valued themselves as rebels, living on the cusp of society. They drank, smoked pot, cranked up heavy metal music, and loved anything artistic. They were bonded together through rebellion.

And, I wanted to revolt with them. I tolerated anything they did because I felt like they were my only chance at ever being appreciated. I also drank. I also smoked a few joints. I also rebelled.

It would take me a few years before I would realize that none of us were actually leading a revolt. We had never formed unique identities, and we were never attempting anything revolutionary.

“We never formed unique identities.” That’s important. It’s important because at this point in my life I wasn’t actually unique. I didn’t know who Erina truly was. All I knew was that conforming to the group made me feel like somebody. Little did I know, compromising my soul for a few friends was hindering me from finding out about the woman that was breathing just below my flesh.

Besides, most of the people I knew weren’t actually friends at all. We all just played Leap Frog together. We’d constantly jump over one another, always trying to stay in the lead. We were all bitter. We were all hurting inside.

I never stood up for myself. Not then. I’ve always been a feminist. Or, at least, I’ve always claimed to be a feminist. I don’t think I actually realized what it meant to be a feminist until I attended fashion school. At first, being a feminist was just chic. It made me feel like I was part of something bigger and more important than myself.

When I was young, if I had understood the importance of being a feminist, I would have never let myself get involved with the troubles I did. I never would have let anyone talk down to my female friends. I would have never let any man threaten or hit me. And, most importantly, I never would have stood for the words “make me a sandwich.”

They seem harmless, don’t they? Those words: “make me a sandwich.” These words were spoken to me constantly. The male members of my (so-called) friends would utter these vile syllables to me almost every day. It was their joke. That’s what they said. A joke that I should tolerate, or else be accused of being uptight.

But, these words did hurt me. I don’t think I was being uptight by disliking the words. Those words, spoken in the tone they used, said to me that I was of no use except for providing them with their dinner. I’m not sure if they realize it (and they’d probably deny it), but they said those words to me because it gave them power. It placed me a step lower in the cultural hierarchy.

It made them appear more important.

Now, I was reduced to a task. No longer could I claim feelings, intelligence, or ambition. I was simply a tool. All women were tools. Women were cast down from the ranks of humanity and placed among slaves. They were not as good as men. They lacked all privileges and rights that men were granted.

That is what those words told me.

In Nazi Germany, political cartoons were often drawn of Jews. The artists would almost always stress the size of the illustrated Jew’s nose. Therefore, readers could make distinctions, and, depending on their race, would be able to find humor in what would be considered a ridiculous, odd, or humorous appearance.

The same principal was applied to African Americans. Historically, African Americans were often drawn with large, protruding lips. White Americans could see the distinction from themselves, and therefore, Caucasian individuals could find humor in the black person’s over exaggerated physical features. These images were offered in the society they originated from so that hierarchies could be defined.

Why is this so different from the way women have been portrayed? Is it fair that the majority of images you see of women are comprised of a beautiful housewife, complete with perfect posture and a gorgeous home? Women are almost always visually portrayed as homemakers or sex objects. In America, the image of the strong, independent, working woman is still fairly new. This is besides the fact that most women in America did work. However, race and class dictated that the working woman was never portrayed in the media. It wasn’t until WWII that working women were even given the faintest focus.

Images of cultural ideals are offered to society in order to define roles. These are often gender roles. Once gender roles are defined, a sexual hierarchy is established.

When a teenage girl hears the words “make me a sandwich,” she is taught that she is to serve. Every time a woman looks at a Skye Vodka add she is taught to be a sex object. If a woman turns on the Style Network she is bombarded with images of crafty women, dazzling beauties, and cooking cuties. Each of these images is an exaggeration. They are examples of cultural ideals. Thus, they are never able to be achieved, and perfection must always be strived for. Women are taught that real women can do all of these things. While there are movements attempting to inspire women (i.e. Tyra Banks’ “So What?” Movement), the majority of images presented by the media show the perfect female. She is tall, slender, breathtakingly beautiful, an excellent cook, a proper housekeeper, and has curve in all the right places. Furthermore, she will make you a sandwich. Not because she wants to, but because it’s her duty.

So I ask you, what should be done to destroy this cultural stereotype and give women the freedom to be imperfect? Can stereotypes even be destroyed? Should women accept their position in the cultural hierarchy or should women (and men) fight to see that both sexes are portrayed a bit more fairly? Should anyone even care?

I open this Friday Debate up to all of Into the Inkpot’s readers, and look forward to all responses.

The Happy Housewife Meets Academia

Feminism, a movement and theory centered on the idea that women should have equal rights to men, has long been a staple in American (and international) politics and culture. There is such a vast array of feminists that it is often difficult to settle on one uniform definition. Therefore, Feminism, like many other social and political ideologies, is comprised of numerous different viewpoints and translations.

The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, located in Texas, recently introduced a new area of concentration into their curriculum. The new addition is homemaking. Students are able to participate in classes such as “Orientation to Homemaking” and “The Value of a Child.”

Interested students must match one specific criterion; they must be female. Men need not apply. Their applications will only meet with rejection.

There is a large controversy surrounding the idea that the program teaches women that advanced homemaking skills are vital to success and happiness in life. Thus, advocates of this belief agree that women would be less inclined to enroll in studies that would earn a substantial income. Therefore, women remain transfixed on traditional gender roles, failing to advance the political and economic position of women in society.

Other individuals view the new addition to Academia as important to feminism. They base their argument on the idea that feminism seeks to give women the option to choose their own path in life. Homemaking is viewed as an active choice on the part of the female student. Therefore, if a woman chooses to enroll in this particular curriculum, she is actively selecting a future for herself.

I see no problem with a woman wishing to become a housewife. The women that do take on this job are often not met with enough respect. Managing a household, children, and a husband is a difficult task. It is no wonder that so many women suffer from forms of depression and anxiety. If you choose to be a housewife, you are deciding to heave a large amount of responsibility for many years.

If a woman wishes to take courses in homemaking, I support the decision. After all, I, as a feminist, personally believe that a woman should be able to make any decision that leads to her personal fulfillment, unless, of course, that choice is immensely harmful to someone other than herself.

The problem I have with this new line of coursework is that men are not able to participate. Due to this fact, I am worried that the coursework presented by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary actually is harmful in that it further instills the vitality of traditional gender roles in American culture.

Furthermore, I am worried that this area of study will not allow a woman the ability to acquire a job—with enough income to support her family—should her husband decide to declare divorce. If a woman with this concentration of study does decide to enter the workplace, I am wary to believe that employers will offer her a suitable salary. In addition, many employers may not take the degree seriously, and in return, will not take the woman seriously.

Overall, I would agree that the course does seem like a step backwards, only because it does not allow men the option to enroll. There are plenty of men that would enjoy the curriculum due to their personal desire to become a homemaker. These men are unjustly treated when they are denied access to education simply because they were born male.

I am skeptical that this area of concentration will also be incorporated into state college curriculum. However, I may be incorrect. With more and more women expressing their desire to be skilled in raising a family, capitalism may dictate that this area of concentration become mainstream. I only hope that women choose the courses because they will find happiness and satisfaction. Not because they are trying to desperately live up to the traditional cultural ideal of femine perfection.

NOTE: I open this topic up for debate. If you are my friend, please do not worry about offending my views. I will still respect and appreciate you.