As a blogger, I understand the value of asking an open ended question to spur debate, and I understand that the Washington Post’s On Faith feature presumes a degree of religiosity in its participants. But I still find it jarring for Sally Quinn to ask me “Does God Intend Women to Work?”
Rather than harp on that, though, I’ll stick with the substantive part of Quinn’s question.
This week in Doha, Qatar, I attended the Brookings Institution U.S.-Islamic World Forum. One of the papers presented was “on the impact of oil wealth on women in the middle east.” The author, Michael Ross, argues that the real culprit of the lower status of women in the Middle East is oil. That’s right. Oil. The concentration on the production of oil eliminates manufacturing, where women have the best chance for jobs. But more interestingly, because the average woman living in an oil-rich country does not need the extra income she stays home. Therefore the culture and society are dominated by men and women have much less political influence.
Do you think that if most American women did not need to work they would choose to stay at home? Is it in our nature? Is it what God intended? Of course, given the current state of the economy, we won’t have that problem in the U.S. for a long time! But I do think that our culture and traditions now encourage women to work outside the home, regardless of their financial status, and despite the fact that many of our faith traditions discourage it. Once women have a taste for running the world, there’s no going back. Or is there?
The way I see it, people like to work. Most people don’t love it, and they want to work reasonable hours for good pay…but most people are not really content to be idle. A housewife has a lot of work to do, but the typical workload (assuming you don’t have a large family) is probably considerably less than that experienced by women throughout most of world history, whether as farmers or as hunter/gatherers. There was a narrow period of time in the post-war period where many women did not need to produce income for the family. They didn’t need to milk the cows or slaughter the chickens or create clothes and crafts. Basically, they could stick to taking care of household and parenting tasks that were naturally of value and essential. But, when compared to rural women or women in the work force or women in the rest of recorded history, they had it pretty easy.
The funny thing is, they didn’t find the Laura Petrie experience all that fulfilling. So, I don’t think God gives a damn either way, but I’m pretty sure women were meant to work just like men. Although, it’s possible that God’s plan was fulfilled by Oprah Winfrey and the wonders of daytime television. Maybe we can run that theory by Sally Quinn.
What say you?
I should also point out that the Laura Petrie experience, as short-lived as it was (and as glorified as it remains) was aided by an onslaught of appliances that made housework much less labor intensive. A housewife in the 30’s (or anytime prior) would not have had time in her day to watch Oprah.
Most of the women I know have told me that all things being equal, they’d prefer to stay at home.
That said, maybe they’d go crazy after a month.
As for me, I am one of the apparently very few people who ARE content being idle. I’ve never really wanted to BE anything because I don’t really want to DO anything. I mean, I do of course, you need to pay the bills. But it doesn’t really matter what kind of job as long as the money is enough because I hate them all equally, being work.
I never realized this was unusual until recently.
Having done “all of the above” (home, work, work from home, work part-time and be home), I have to say that I like both in moderation. 🙂 It’s nice to have work outside the home , but not so much that I want it to be the prime focus of my life. And guess what? God has nothing to do with it.
I think it is unusual for people to not want to be productive in some way. I like to be able to look at something (anything!) and think “That’s done.”
It’s a BS question. Everyone works, the question is the nature of that work. What everyone seems to forget is that prior to industrialization pretty much everyone worked at home – having children was necessary to staff the house, making the wife the household director of human resources in addition to her other responsibilities. Industrialization eliminated the financial necessity of the family such that people could find a job on their own and survive, even thrive. That was the game changer, and it has nothing to do with “God’s plan for women” or any such nonsense.
Women, even in the relatively modern west have always put in long days, unless they had “help”.
The less arduous a womans chores were, the higher the cultural expectations of what she would accomplish. More appliances meant more elaborate meals and an increasingly obsessive level of cleanliness.
Then there was the increased expectation of mothering. Especially post Freud. It wasn’t enough to feed, clothe and reasonably nurture children, there was their little psychies to be considered – all of which reflected badly on mom, not dad, when the little dears were less than perfect.
If house keeping is less fulfilling than paid work, it is because it is not valued and offers no financial independence. A lot of paid work is as repetitive.
ps The whole use of of the “work” here pretty much implies paid work. And most of the work done in the world, especially by women, is unpaid.
Current attitudes about the appropriate work status for women need to be considered against the historical record, as well. In 1900, just 57% of adult women were married. In 2000, the percentage was 60 – not a great difference. However, in the middle of the century was a rise in the number of married women, largely due to increased rates of marriage in the 40’s and 50’s (peaking at about 70% in 1970). (Source is U.S. Census data).
Many current ideas about women and their work are an outgrowth of the public pressure for women to leave the workforce they entered during WWII, and be “keepers at home”. Women married at rates not seen before or since. The percent of women who marry has been in a fall since that rise, back to previous levels.
I’m not implying that current or historical marriage rates are valid for women throughout the world, just women in the U.S. (although rates in the English-speaking westernized nations weren’t greatly different).
That’s very interesting.
Most household work is boring. Most work in factory or mill is boring. Most work in agriculture is boring. In fact, most work is boring unless you love what you do and, then, it’s not work. As Larry Bird once remarked about playing in the NBA: imagine, they pay me for doing what I love to do.
With education widespread the odds go up that one can make the magical transition to doing what one loves. From that marvelous combination flows a healthy and happy life for men or women.
May all members of the pond discover what they love to do and Do It.
but isnt someone always going to have to do the boring work?
if i spent all day doing something i loved like and got p[aid well for it i wouldn thave time to do the crap work but id have money to hire someone to do that stuff….probably someone with less education and choices and they woul d not be living as well as i am with my wonderful fulfilling work all day and my increased resources to have fun.
the reason there are poor people is because there are rich people…and the only way to change that is thru communism and nobody really seems to want that…not even poor people….esp poor people….they all want the chance to win the lottery i mean make more money at jobs they love.
If we are speaking of God’s plan for women, if such exists, it’s worth mentioning Old Testament scripture on that topic. It speaks of a married woman, not others, however it differs a good bit from some of the conservative views of women’s appropriate role.
From the book of Proverbs, Chap. 31:
I find it odd that someone asking about “God’s plan for women” as Quinn did, would not reference that classic religious writing.
Wrong question, Sally.
What you are really asking is whether it is God’s plan for women to be compensated for the work they do.
There is a huge informal economy in which women work full time to produce goods and services of benefit to society. It’s called households and community service.
Is it God’s plan that men participate in this informal economy as well or must they always be bribed with cash?
Do you think that if most American women did not need to work they would choose to stay at home?
Define “most.” Personally, I think every woman with small children should stay home with them whether the family thinks they can afford it or not. But childless women? Single women? What would “most” of them do with themselves all day? Not everyone is self-motivated enough to spend their time productively.
Is it in our nature? Idleness is not a natural state; it conflicts with survival.
Is it what God intended? Who the fuck cares what gawd intended? The human race has gotten so out of whack with what that may have ever possibly been that the question is now utterly irrelevant.
stay home??????????????? all of them?????
i didnt stay home with either of my kids…the first one went to daycare while i finished college and grad school and the second went to work with me when she was 11 days old..since it was my business i had that luxury….she never spent a day in daycare and i think she is worse off from it…she is less sociable, less independent, less academically motivated, more fearful of tackling the world and things like travel and problem solving….i wish she had gone to daycare….im not saying some parents arent good at raising their kids and instilling those things in them but in my case i really think the village was better suited to raising my kids than i was.
i think people should have choices.
when you dont have choices you feel powerless…that is the real problem.
Girls are for work, boys are for love.
I don’t know/don’t care what was intended. We should actually be putting family first, and not just giving lip service to that pursuit. If parents choose to stay home with little ones, such a choice should be available, at least for a certain period of time. But we put the needs of business first, sending the drone workers to do their daily duties.
I believe that most parents (not just women) would choose to stay home for at least a time. As a father, I would have loved to do that. I’d rather spend precious time parenting my child than at work. I’m sure most would. And not because of what was allegedly intended.
I want to address both the question of women wanting to work and Michael Ross’s assertion.
My husband was a Mid-East expert attached to the American Embassies in various countries where we spent the better part of 20 years. Arab women do not work most usually because they cannot get jobs. I worked for Citibank in one country where there was me, two arab women and 50 men. The men were very cautious around the women and attempted not to have to deal with them. In Saudi Arabia, if women work, it has to be in an all women environment so there, women have created banks, hospitals, etc, where they can pursue careers. However, the availability of jobs in these enterprises is limited. In otherwords, Ross is seeing what he wants to see and not what the real problems for arab women are.
As for other groups of women working outside the home, particularly American women, they are too intelligent and creative to be happy and contented as a housewife. There is usually no stimulation (housework is really a rote activity) and, furthermore, in this current society where you can be happily married one week and divorced the next, what women wants to be caught without a source of income.
Seems to me the sex that got the uturus got the god-given duty to work. If God gave me that equipment and the joy in the sex act, then she knew I would have some work to do eventually.
Whether I find my work rewarding is up to me. Hopefully in our capitalist system, I can find some work that somebody else will find worthy of reward.
My question would be “Does God intend for us to judge other people?” Apparently so – it’s a basic human trait. Sally has certainly found some reward in it.
I like to watch animals to gain understanding about life. Watching Luna this past week has been pretty illuminating – what does she think about God’s plan for her? (sigh)
This subject has nothing to do with work or God’s plan.
Some women don’t want other people to raise their kids so if they are able, they chose to raise the kids themselves. And by the way if another woman raises the kids for her THEN IT IS CALLED WORK….and it’s definitely a low status, low paying career.
One thing is crystal clear to me…no matter what women do,… single with high powered career, married with same,married with kids and high powered career, single low status job, married, low status job, married with kids and a low status job…someone going to judge them as losers.
Shirley Chisholm said she experienced more discrimination as a woman than she did as a black.
There really is something to that.
Having been retired for a few years now, I have come to the conclusion that God didn’t intend for me to work. On the other hand, I don’t believe in God, at least I don’t believe in a God who gives a rat’s ass about what I do or don’t do.
Does God want women to wear thingies over their heads so guys in Afghanistan don’t get stiffies or does God want women to wear tight sweaters and torreador pants and spiked heels and wiggle about with martinis in their hands? It’s so hard to plumb the intentions of the Big Guy In The Sky. There’s so much noise in the radio receiver.
I am a little past the half-way point of a one year personal leave. I thought that, given the utter chaos of the school district where I teach, I would enjoy the down time. Boy was I wrong. I miss the daily interaction with my students and colleagues. I miss the commute. Hell, I miss the chaos.
I’ve been depressed for weeks (come on spring, bring the sun back). I’ve greatly enjoyed spending extra time with my son. I’m glad to have had the time to shed some weight and to get the house in some order. All in all though, I’d rather be teaching.
Wow, Toni – your experience sounds like the beginning of what happened to me staying home with my four kids for more than 20 years. I was so isolated and had almost no interaction with adults and became severely depressed and almost incapacitated with the fear of leaving the house. I’d go to the grocery store but that’s about it. I was stuck at home with no car and no money and even though I loved my kids to pieces, there were times when I was not a good mother to them. I was impatient and short tempered and sad all of the time.
I think if I had had the Internet back then and could have spoken to other mothers it would have been a big help. As it is, all of that time alone with toddlers just at the point in my life when I should have been expanding, made me contract and turn in on myself and stop growing. Now in my late 40s I have no desire to work, have no idea what my strengths are, have almost no confidence in myself or my ability to perform a function that someone would pay me for.
Oh SN, I can so commiserate. When I was about 12, my mother told me to have a career. She told me never to stay home full-time. She was sad so often.
The women in Saudi Arabia moslty have a lot of kids, but they also have a lot of servants. I think the main point is that they don’t NEED the extra money.
My experience as a father in the contemporary USA is that MOST women who are raising young children would prefer to spend a lot MORE time with their kids. And indeed, assuming they could afford it (which usually, they cannot), they would love to have more children than they do. BUT as the children get older, many of these women would prefer to be able to have something else to do. And money is always a concern.
Even for women who pursue a career because they really want that career, this can often be true. For example, my late mother-in-law, a pediatrician, raised three children and only regretted not being able to have more. And yes, her career was negatively affected by sex-discrimination.
What you say about the typical workload of mothers today is, I think, very debatable for a number of reasons. Yes, the total amount of work required today is no doubt less. But a hundred years ago, the typical middle-class family would have had a lot more children, and at least one servant. Working-class families would have had lots of children, and especially the older ones would do chores, contribute income, and help substantially with the younger kids. Neighborhoods (including shopping) were much more compact, and extended families commonly lived within very short distances. Sisters, cousins, grandmas would help mom daily with the smaller kids. — Today the nuclear family is the norm and much more is expected of parents. The kids need lessons, sports, activities, appointments of all kinds. Take them here, pick them up there. Doctors don’t even make house calls. Also, mothers vary a lot in what they try to do. Some like to cook and bake — that still takes a lot of time. Some try to do home gardening, sewing, whatever. Parkinson’s law: Work expands to fill the time available for its completion.
As far as working at “jobs” — in the past, there were a lot more family businesses and other small businesses, and women could often work at such jobs just by going downstairs or out back or down the street.
Finally — I am sure that, even if a mother does less physical work today than in the past, she is experiencing far more stress.
The women I associated with in Saudi Arabia had one or two children and lived in a commune setting with other wives of the husband. They were bored out of their tree and truly envied my freedom to either engage in a career or stay at home. Mostly they sat around and drank tea and gossiped about one another and shopped. Their favorite thing to purchase was gold because should they be divorced (only the husband was able to do this) they could sell the gold and have some means of support.
Booman,
You need to give yourself some time and sit down to read through Nancy Folbre’s Valuing Woman (Harvard Press 2008). She lays out the logic and the statistics of women’s work in the home, and the undervaluation of that work. In an odd way, the notion that it is ‘God’s will’ that women should stay at home responds to the very real need of society for loving care for children (and the aged). That care is by and large unpaid for, yet it is the well that keeps society and civilization going.
None of this makes the case for impoundng women in unpaid domestic work. It goes the other way — it makes the case for greater government support of an absolutely crucial social and economic task. Economists got it wrong. The purpose of economic activity is not producing more goods. The goods are an instrument to something more important, creating and promoting human capability. A lot of that creating is done by women for next to nothing. But just because it’s so, doesn’t mean has to be so.
sounds like an interesting book. thanks for the tip.
i say there is no god
and generalizations like these not only dont work but they waste time and energy on bullshit that doesnt move anyone closer to a life of happiness and serenity.
Why do we continue to debate this? I remember the grief my mother got when she went back to work when my youngest brother started school. Her salary at the local hospital was used to defray the costs of educational materials and equipment for my father’s Anesthesia department. She choose to work to keep her skills current, her mind stimulated and to help others. It meant she wasn’t home sometimes after school but coming from a large extended family that didn’t seem to matter. After my father retired she continued to work until her retirement. I know I got the “just a housewife” crap because I don’t work outside the home. I manage our household, volunteer with church, school,civic and charity organizations. Because my husband’s employer rewards volunteer hours I keep track. Between household chores (cleaning, maintenance, cooking etc), children’s sports and extracurricular activities, church work, red cross work, PTA, Homeowner’s associations, etc I put in about a 100 hours a week. I also keep my nursing skills current just in case by taking classes to keep current and volunteering with hospice. Does God mean for me (the woman, wife and mother) to be the caretaker of the family? My nature is such that I do. Was it something that I learned? Not really in that wasn’t the example I had growing up. Do I believe that this is something ordained? No, it was a choice my husband and I made together when our youngest child was born and working part time and our children’s needs were diverging. I am a deeply religious person who believes that our duty to God is to love one another. Women can do that either at home or at the workplace. Can we women cut each other some slack for the choices we make for our own lives and families? We all do the best we can with our lives and because God gave us free will it is all He asks of us.
Welcome to the Frog Pond, Terilianne. Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree with your sentiment that people shouldn’t be so judgmental of other people’s decisions.