“The history of American women is about the fight for
freedom, but it’s less a war against oppressive men than a struggle to
straighten out… perpetually mixed message about women’s role that was accepted
by almost everybody of both genders.”[1]
Collins uses the example of Southern Matriarchs who acted helpless and womanly,
yet were capable enough to run plantations while their men were gone. Collins
points out even daughters sometimes had to help with tending cattle and
cultivating tobacco, etc.[2] This passage
got me thinking about how gender roles are taught in the home. I have two sons
and a daughter and I tell them girls can do anything boys can do. However, actions
speak louder than words. When my daughter was climbing a tree yesterday, her
dad kept telling her to be careful and get down while he didn’t say a word to
her twin brother, who was also climbing a tree. Also, in twelve years of
marriage, my husband has NEVER cleaned the toilet and alternatively, I have
NEVER mowed the lawn. Gender roles are still evident and many of the same
attitudes exist today, that were prevalent in American history.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Limited By Social Traditions
“If their options were limited by their sex, it was
due to social traditions that had existed for so long that few questioned or
even noticed them.”[1]Even
today, these attitudes are learned. We take it step farther with ultrasounds
and modern technology that can tell the sex of a child even before the moment
of birth. Everyone always wants to know is it a boy or girl? Gifts given to the
mother are gender specific, pink outfits for girls, blue for boys. As a mother
of two boys and one girl I have seen this first hand. These gender roles we
give our children, either consciously or unconsciously, are difficult to avoid
even if we wanted to, because baby products are so typed by gender. Even the
diapers I used buy for my children had gender roles instilled on them; blue for
the boys and pink for the girl. What does this say about society? Have we come
as far as we’d like to think we have in terms of equality? Would you let your
son play dolls or paint his fingernails, would you let your daughter play
football?
[1]
Gail Collins, When Everything Changed:
The Amazing Journey of American Women From 1960 to the Present(New York:
Little, Brown and Company.2009). Kindle edition. Location 370 out of 8155.
Girls "...losing gracefully..."
“One year little girls were learning the importance of
losing gracefully, and the next they were suing for admission to the Little
League.”[1]
However, this didn’t really happen overnight. As the economy changed, a “higher
value” was put “on women’s skills.”[2]
The key to these changes was in changing attitudes towards women. Women needed
to be seen as important, capable, as contributors. We can thank Manpower for
the development of the Two-income family. The idea was to work and spend, in
order to acquire the “advantages of the two-income family.”[3]
As Collins points out, for the economy to continue to do well, consumerism was
essential.[4]
The desire for new houses, cars, vacations, college educations for children,
TVs, summer camp, washer and dryers were instrumental in women’s fight for
equal opportunities to work.[5]
However, in the 70’s and 80’s the economy slowed and for women “work [was] no
longer optional… [as women now] … provided a third of the family’s income.”[6]
Not sure this was the intended result, but it certainly helped women’s lib
along at a much faster pace.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Who Were the Key Progressivists?
The
Progressive Era was an age of reform. Labor violence, and industrial accidents,
combined with deplorable working conditions and a feeling that the trusts were
in control of people's lives, fueled the desire for reform. Both the
working-class and the middle-class were instrumental in these changes.
Shelton
Stromquist theorizes that it was the working class, via strikes, that
stimulated the progressive movement. "Workers were the agents in the
construction of a new urban politics…"[1] He
states that "mass strikes, political insurgency and the "social
crisis" of American capitalism in the 1890s created a unique set of
conditions that serve as a breeding ground for corporate consolidation and
social and political reform."[2]
The working class had motive to press for
changes because of the personal discomfort caused by difficult working
conditions, such as unreasonably long hours, poor safety practices and low wages.
The unions that formed were meant to help provide job security and fight for
better working conditions. Occasionally, violence occurred, such as during the
Homestead strike. "Strikes… Prompted the formation of cross class
alliances…"[3]
While
strikes "gave temporary span and direction to municipal progressivism,"[4]
they struck some middle-class Americans as almost too revolutionary. As
Stromquist points out, "class conflict and mass protest created conditions
that invited reform but did not wholly dictate the outcomes."[5] However,
the middle class supported reform, as they read about conditions and events in
newspapers and muckraking. The middle-class became worried about how the
working class situation was going to affect them. Beyond this, many
middle-class citizens were truly concerned for the working class and felt
compassion for them. They felt compelled to do something about it.
Maureen
A. Flanagan argues that the middle class, particularly upper- middle class,
white men and women, such as those that formed the City Clubs of Chicago, were
the key group or groups in shaping progressive reform. "It is commonly
accepted that male and female reformers in the first two decades of the 20th
century had different agendas for reform…"[6] Both
the men's City Club and the Women's City Club of Chicago tackled "problems
of garbage disposal, public education and police power."[7] However,
the women held a more humanitarian view of "well-being" [8]
and of "ensure[ing] moral and social order"[9]
through “Municipal Housekeeping.” [10] The
men, on the other hand viewed the city as a business and as such it should be
run like one. They were "thinking in terms of profitability in fiscal
efficiency."[11]
While the men’s clubs tended to look at the
issues through the eyes of a businessman, the women’s clubs strove to make the
world a better place through social reform. Regardless, reform was achieved
through politics. Often this took place at the city level, but increasingly, as
issues became more complex, it took place at the state, and even national
level. Therefore, as the working-class fought for better conditions, the
middle-class became concerned and worked to make big reforms through politics.
Together, the working-class and middle-class men and women worked hard to shape
progressive reform.
[1]
Sheldon Stromquist, “The Crucible of Class: Cleveland Politics and the Origins
of Municipal Reform in the Progressive Era.” Journal of Urban History 23, no 2. (1997):194
[2] Ibid.195
[3] Ibid.194
[4] Ibid.194
[5] Ibid.195
[6] Maureen
A. Flanagan, “Gender and Urban Political Reform, the City Club and the Women’s
City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era,” The American Historical Review 95, no 4 (1990):1033
[7] Ibid.1046
[8] Ibid.1045
[9]Ibid.1045
[10] Ibid.1046
[11]Ibid. 1046
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)