The great housewife debate

Of the many misconceptions floating around about feminism, the one I hear most often is that feminists don’t respect housewives.\nThe debate erupted again only a few days ago in Russian class, of all places, as we read and discussed a ’90s interview with Naina Yeltsin, wife of Boris Yeltsin. In the article, Naina discussed her domestic duties with the journalist; she talked about Boris’ favorite dinner (Ural-style pelmeni), caring for her kids and grandkids and her apartment in Moscow. \nSome of the class found the interview offensive. In broken Russian, some of the class argued that the interview glorified and reinforced the traditional woman’s role of caregiver and domestic provider. Others said, don’t hate on Naina – she is happy to be a homemaker and it is unfair to criticize her. \nNevermind that we were talking about Russia, or that Naina’s interview might have been contrived for political reasons: The issues the interview raised for an American class are what’s relevant. The class outlined the two sides of the American feminist housewife debate: either that women shouldn’t be confined to domestic roles, or that women can be homemakers if they want to (so shut up).\nBoth arguments are right. And wrong.\nThe perceived anti-housewife feminism has roots in the American early ’60s, when suburban, educated, white, upper-middle class woman Betty Friedan wrote “The Feminine Mystique.”\nFriedan’s book spoke to the other women like her, who had been reared in the socially dynamic ’40s, watched their mothers replace men in the workforce during World War II, worked themselves or had gone to college. The progress flickering in the eyes of young women was soon extinguished by the socially repressive ’50s. When men returned from war and there was no room for women in the workforce. And so the discourse of happy homemaker was propagated to prevent women from infringing upon men’s roles. \nFriedan and her generation felt a certain existential malaise at home. (It was the Existentialist ’50s, after all!) And so Friedan declared emancipation from the drudgery of housewifery, and the “Second Wave” of feminism erupted on the scene to become one of the major social movements of the ’60s.\nSince then, feminism has expanded beyond white picket fences on suburban lawns; but nonetheless the Friedan-feminism of liberation from traditional feminine roles remains predominant in the common perceptions of feminism.\nFeminism is a diverse school of thought; there is no definitive word on what it is and isn’t. Even so, I am certain that feminists do not intend to condemn homemakers; we intend to criticize the social beliefs and institutions that have historically defined gender roles. In the past, this has meant criticizing the social factors that prevented women from entering the public sector and workforce. \nTherefore it is not true that feminists disapprove of homemaking as a profession or condemn women who work inside the home. On the contrary, feminism has expanded the roles of women and provided choice and respect when it comes to choosing a career, whether it’s at home or not.