tjlee@iastate.edu (Lee Thomas Jennings) (11/16/90)
In <m0iYaAR-0000ieC@lsuc.lsuc.on.ca> smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) writes: >Society condemns women who choose not to have a boyfriend or husband. >Society does not condemn men who similarly choose not to have a >girlfriend or spouse. Unfortunately, this is true. And it reminds me -- what about the other way? Does society in general approve of men with girlfriends and women with boyfriends? What does society think about men who are married and have a family? ("He's settled down" or "domesticated.") About women who are married and have a family? (Is it still what they're "supposed" to do?) How about different segments of society? For example, among some, for a woman to get married and have a family is to take the easy way out. This view would anger married women with families! -- * * * * * * * * * Tom Lee | BITNET: TAB47@ISUVAX | Gentleness | "The Lamplighter" | Internet: tjlee@iastate.edu | - is - | IX Iowa State University| or: tab47@ccvax.iastate.edu | strength |
smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) (11/23/90)
In article <tjlee.658464541@du248-04.cc.iastate.edu>, Lee Thomas Jennings <tjlee@iastate.edu> writes: | In <m0iYaAR-0000ieC@lsuc.lsuc.on.ca> smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) writes: | | >Society condemns women who choose not to have a boyfriend or husband. | >Society does not condemn men who similarly choose not to have a | >girlfriend or spouse. | Unfortunately, this is true. And it reminds me -- what about the | other way? Does society in general approve of men with girlfriends | and women with boyfriends? What does society think about men who are | married and have a family? ("He's settled down" or "domesticated.") | About women who are married and have a family? (Is it still what | they're "supposed" to do?) How about different segments of society? Your comments seem to answer your own questions. Society in general does approve of mated couples. This can be seen in terms of tax legislation (benefits for male-female couples, especially legally paired ("married") ones), government and employment and insurance benefits, and social prejudices. It is correct for a man and a woman who are "paired" to accompany each other to social outings or parties, whereas "nonpermanent" couples, same-sex couples, or single females are not often accepted at e.g. dinner parties or company or organization gatherings. This is also occasionally true of single men, but only rarely. Society approves of people who are "permanently" paired, either as common-law spouses or legally married females and males. Society is also beginning to become progressive and tolerant enough to accept the legal and social validity of same-sex legally married couples, and my own society (Ontario) recognizes same-sex common-law pairs. The media, the house of mirrors reflecting a part of society, also approve of female-male couples that are in a dating relationship. Television ads focus quite often on such couples, or on males or females seeking out a partner of the other gender. These are generally aimed at younger adults, such as me. They exclude young men who do not chase after young women, they tend to exclude young men who are not dating, and, of course, they tend to exclude females altogether, unless they are selling e.g. tampons or maxi pads. Very little hot-media advertising is directed to young women. Those commercials which do focus on young women also exclude women who do not ape stereotypical men by "cruising" people of the opposite gender. On the other hand, cold-media advertising (and content), especially fashion(able) magazines, exclude women who are not involved in or seeking-out long-term relationships with men. So, yes, the voices of society do approve of "men with girlfriends and women with boyfriends", or people trying to have find such a mate. They do not approve at all of women and men who do not fit this mould, as they ignore these people entirely, if they are not ridiculing them. The mass media approve of "men who are married and have a family". They portray such people in commercial advertising and in television programming and in the reader's digest as traditional and respectable. Moreover, almost every t.v. protagonist is a married father. The rest seem to be men or infrequently women who are trying to meet the woman or man of their dreams, respectively. If Nielsen ratings are any indication, American society approves of these images, these stereotypes. It is interesting to note the reactions of advertisers and viewers when t.v. networks experiment by adding in less stereotypical, more realistic, nontraditional individuals or couples to their successful television programming. Certainly the ratings do not tend to suffer, but advertisers are loath to support such experiments, and almost always demand that the gay couple or the independent, unmarried woman who is not interested in dating be written out of the script, or changed. They tend to defend this pressure by suggesting that people have complained to them. Sure. While I think that society would approve of nontraditional pairings or unpaired people in general, there are elements in society who will not approve, and I think that most people are occasionally surprised when their stereotypes and prejudices are shown to be incorrect by the portrayal of progressive images. This surprise is regrettable, as it is simply a symptom of the "traditional" family portrayed on t.v. since t.v. broadcasting began. You ask if women are "supposed" to be married and have a family, and thereby answer your question about how society treats such women. Women are "supposed" to get married, and are "supposed" to have children. Society expects it. It fits the traditional image, the stereotype portrayed on television. When women choose not to marry or choose not to have children, they are not doing something they are "supposed" to do. Thus they are not good cooperative members of society, but are "radicals endangering family values". It is shameful. How about different segments of society? Sadly, black people, original North Americans, and certain immigrant, ethnic or cultural groups are marginalized by the media, and are, I think, rarely thought about. When for example, a major U.S. t.v. network produces a programme about blacks, they are almost always portrayed in traditional American situations and roles. The Huxtable family is as traditional a unit as the Keaton family. The relationships and the lives of these two families are very similar, and very traditional, and very reassuring to the promoters of "family values". I would not label the Cosby Show and its ilk as Uncle Tomism, but merely arch-traditionalism tempered by a small amount of welcome progressiveness. Unfortunately, very few nontraditional families are portrayed on t.v. at all, and certainly not often in prime time. A huge segment of the Canadian and American populations live in non-traditional families (single mothers or fathers, individuals sharing houses or apartments), and are rarely portrayed in television series, and hardly ever in advertising. They are thus never validated in the same way that traditional families are, and that is an atrocity. | For example, among some, for a woman to get married and have a family | is to take the easy way out. This view would anger married women with | families! Our society does not value work done in the home. I think it is incumbent upon feminists to work to protect, support and represent women who choose to work in the home raising children and managing a household. Their labour is unpaid, though it contributes to society and to a marital couple in the same way that a daycare teacher, house-cleaner or accountant would. They are reliant upon their marital partners for all financial support, and are entirely financially dependent upon her (or him). Essentially, work done in the home is slavery, and is not generally considered appropriate activity for an intelligent person. This lack of consideration, both financial and social, for women and men who work in the home is atrocious. It is, however, traditional, and fits the mould of the man as the breadwinner and the woman as someone who does nothing but cook, launder and watch daytime tv. If we as feminists are to fight for the right of women to choose to live the way they want, with the full support of society, and without hindrance or obstruction, then we must also help women who choose to work in the home, just as we help women who work outside the home. I suggest that one way to do this is to have either the government or the other partner pay normal wages to the spouse working in the home. When any labour is done, it should be paid, and paid in a way that meets the goals of gender-equality and the libertion of everyone from traditional stereotypes. -- Sean Doran <smd@lsuc.ON.CA> also seand@ziebmef.mef.org and /C=CANADA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/ID=ICS.TEST/S=TESTGROUP/@nasamail.nasa.gov
baranski@meridn.enet.dec.com (01/02/91)
From: smd@lsuc.on.ca (Sean Doran) Date: 23 Nov 90 07:56:20 GMT "I suggest that one way to do this is to have either the government or the other partner pay normal wages to the spouse working in the home." Sure, just remember to bill the stay at home for their share of the work they are doing, and allow any person to stay at home. Personally, I'm against it. First thing, the government will tax it. I'd rather have *more* people working at home, not being paid, not paying taxes, and being more productive in general. Jim Baranski