Engels and patriarchy

Perhaps it’s no surprise that the man who described monogamous marriage at its best as “a wedded life of leaden boredom which is described as domestic bliss” might inspire some additional commentary. (He never formally married by the way). His cynicism about middle class marriage aside, is Engels’s broader argument about the material bases of gender inequality convincing? Or as David commented, only partly tongue in cheek, are men inherently jerks who subordinate women simply because they can? Rebecca has asked me to post the following in hopes of continuing yesterday’s conversation.

Right before the break, we discussed the impact of marriage on modern times and the role of women in past and contemporary marriage pairs. This made me think of an article I read in Ms. magazine awhile back. It discusses the role of the housewife in relation to the phenomenon of Desperate Housewives. I personally have never seen the show, but the large following ensures that I know a little about the plot. Basically, how does popular culture affect our understanding of what is acceptable in terms of marriage? A couple years ago, it was Sex and the City (another show I’ve never seen), which portrayed the ability of single women to live their own, independent lives. I know at the end, however, they all had their fairy tale ending, complete with true love and a man in the picture. Going from that supposedly independent lifestyle to Desperate Housewives seems a little backward to me. This may not seem directly related to Engels but am a fan of relating theory to present day life and how various things affect culture. Below is the link for the article in Ms.

http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2005/housewifewars.asp

Also, below here is Heidi Hartman’s article in Signs.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-9740%28198121%296%3A3%3C366%3ATFATLO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

About the issue of work…Engels demonstrates the division of labor as detrimental to women for several reasons. First, once men’s “work” starts being monetarily rewarded, they are given dominion over women’s “work” that is usually unpaid. Second, when men start working outside of the home, there is a clear demarcation of where supposedly valued work should be performed. Thus women get marginalized and their activities are deemed inferior. Jeanne Boydston’s Home and Work discusses this idea and analyzes the historic transformation of women’s value in the capitalistic society. I am just wondering how given this information and the ever present notion that housework is not actually “work”, how do we as supposedly enlightened people overcome this dichotomy? It’s rather depressing because still women do the majority of housework despite their increased participation in the “workforce” (which is a problematic term, but I’ll let it go for now).

Comments?

Ideology and Imperialism

Yesterday we began a very interesting discussion towards the end of class about the origins and nature of U.S. Imperialism. The debate addresssed intentionality – were policy statements and ideological constructs (like the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny respectively), mere window dressing to justify more sinister political and economic aims? Or did they represent sincere and well intentioned beliefs that went awry in practice? Or a combination of the two? Other questions had to do with distinctions among Imperialism, neo-imperialism, economic imperialism, etc.

It would be presumptuous of me to attempt a definitive definition of Imperialism. Additionally it would consume more time than I have available today. But I invite all of you to continue this discussion by posting comments.

Stuff

Over the last month or two I have been thinking a lot about stuff. This was prompted initially by discussions about whether our household needed more storage space or less stuff to store. I opted for the latter and began wading through a decade’s worth of unfiled or poorly filed paper, mementos, cassette tapes of dubious musical merit, VHS tapes filled with antiquated network programming, ill considered clothing, books I will never reread, and the like. Most of it was surprisingly easy to pitch except for the time it took to wade through it all. This process is still ongoing. But it has been liberating thus far.

Much more recently, my friend had her house burglarized. It was what you might expect – the sense of violation, the loss of items of great sentimental value, and the unmistakable stench of tobacco lingering in what had been a smoke-free home. As I toured local pawn shops with her in an attempt to recover her possessions, I naturally reflected on how a like experience would affect me. It has been a long time since I was robbed and, having been younger and poorer at the time, I had a lot less to lose. Having recently reviewed the bulk of my personal possessions, I asked myself, of what I retained what would be unbearable to lose? Obviously the health and safety of my loved ones comes first. Take my stuff, leave them the f— alone. But in the material realm, it boiled down to historical documents in myriad forms: family photos, letters, recipes, my Girl Scout sash (all those merit badges), my great-grandmother’s cookie iron, my kids’ artwork, my undergraduate papers, countless academic notes, my computerized data (yes, that’s backed up). Unique artifacts associated with my identity and intellectual formation would be the hardest to lose, especially those that are capable of reviving memories that have been buried beneath layers of more recent experience. However, as objects of consumption, most of what embodies my own personal history has little or no monetary value. The market values least what I value most. I find that strangely comforting.

And as a practical matter, I found a less conspicuous place to stash my earrings.