http://bitchmagazine.org/article/house-proud
So I think this article on stay-at-home daughters is really interesting. Fast synopsis: this particular religious movements such as the Christian Patriarchy Movement tru to go back to the “traditional” gender relationships in the family, where daughters are put in a position of wifes-in-training, and the males in the family have absolute power. Fathers give their authority to husbands, and women’s ultimate goal is to marry and to become the keeper of the home.
Although marriage life and being a stay-at-home mom is a legitimate choice for many women, these movement takes it a step further by regarding women, if not explicitly, the property of the men in their life, first their father and then their husband. It think that this is really interesting in context of the readings of this past week, when we discuss the idea of the construction of a nation as heterosexual. I think that this movement, in a different way, also wants to promote create a society based on hyperheterosexual ideals. By giving men the ultimate power in the formulation of the family, this movement is feeding on a type of cult of masculinity. The growing level of women’s independence can be seen as emasculating, and therefore as a threat to the stability of the society’s structure. The “prime purposes of feminism are to establish a lesbian-socialist republic and to dismantle the family unit,” echoing Pat Robertson’s notorious statement that feminism is a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.” Independent women are therefore a revolutionary tool that will destroy everything we love and cherish. Women keep their status as atavistic, and giving them greater power is dangerous: again, masculinity equals stability, femininity equals hysteria. Interesting when we think about revolutionary Russia and the way emancipated women and greater gender equality were seen as a symbol of the success of the revolution.
This article also reminds me of the trend of virginity balls, similar to debutant balls, but with the difference that the girls swear to their virginity and to their relationship with their father. Same idea, different presentation.
I think that the promoting of the idea of women’s ultimate goal as marriage links back to our discussion on the persecution of lesbianism. Lesbians were prosecuted less than male homosexuals, first because they are less visual as a subculture, and then because of the idea that lesbians would come to their senses, and go back to their heterosexual roles; their sexuality being defined by men.
I’m always torn when it comes to asking a girl’s father for her hand in marriage. Part of me swoons a little, and then I remember how transaction-like this gesture is. The father is handing over his daughter to a new man, like passing on a responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s very interesting to think about daughters as wives-in-training. This week’s reading on post-war Britain also introduced the idea of work as a training ground for wife- and motherhood. Even when women ventured into the public sphere, it was still thought of as an extension of the private sphere, so that certain occupations were considered well-suited for women, such as teaching and clerical work. These jobs allowed women to retain their femininity and adhere to conventional gender roles. Assisting a male employer would supposedly help a woman prepare for her role as a wife/caretaker. Additionally, women who were employed in traditionally masculine occupations (such as the police force), were often seen as sexual deviants.
Though we have presumable made progress since 1950s Britain, there are still traces of this thinking. Women are still the dominant gender that comes to mind when thinking about clerical roles. And women who work in conventionally masculine positions are often considered “butch” – perhaps because they are deviating from jobs that mirror women’s familial roles. It seems like even when women are employed, they can still work towards an ultimate goal of marriage and being a stay-at-home mom.
I, like Alex (who must be the most dedicated student in this class for blogging at 5:31am), would also like to connect this post with Tomboys and Bachelor Boys. The discussion of stay-at-home-daughters reminds me of Jenning’s discussion of “stay-at-home-lesbians.”
ReplyDeleteIn post-war Britain, lesbians who didn’t want marry men had few other “acceptable” (deemed so by society) life choices. Many lesbians entered the workforce, though even with their new-found degree of autonomy, they were still pressured to maintain femininity in clothing and behavior (especially those in traditionally feminine occupations such as teaching). Even if “career women” adhered to feminine ideals of clothing and behavior, society still viewed the workplace as an undesirable alternative to marriage and motherhood.
Single women without a job had little to no financial independence outside her family and therefore remained in the home or with other family members. Single daughters were often shouldered with the responsibility of caring for aging parents. The responsibility of caring for one’s aging parents (the one being left to care for one’s aging parents) was a common problem among post-war British lesbians (as evidenced by its inclusion in the lesbian interest magazine Arena Three).
One hopes that with the increasingly tolerant views toward homosexuality and greater occupational opportunities for women, the phenomenon of the “(forced) stay-at-home-lesbian” will die out.