Women's Work

TOLSTOY AND THE PURPLE CHAIR (HARPER 2011) BY NINA SANKOVITCH

HER CIRCLE has been using the Goodreads.com feminist book list for inspiration for several years. At a recent meeting, we discussed developing our own feminist book list. Marina and I are working on this project. Since we want our list to be a living, growing thing and not be limited to the classics of the canon, we’re exploring recently published titles. As part of this effort, I just finished Nina Sankovitch’s TOLSTOY AND THE PURPLE CHAIR: MY YEAR OF MAGICAL READING (Harper 2011).

The book is a memoir about a woman who immerses herself in family duties, volunteering and all sorts of activities to avoid the despair she feels when her sister, who was only forty-six at the time, dies from cancer. Nina, who describes a love of books and a family history of reading, has toyed with the idea of reading a book a day for a year. Within a few years of her sister dying, she realizes she is running from her grief and determines she will turn to books to find solace, meaning and in an effort to make some kind of peace with the seeming unfairness of her sister’s early death.

TOLSTOY AND THE PURPLE CHAIR contains a few “ouch” paragraphs where current feminist thought is concerned. At one point, the author describes her planning process to accomplish reading a book a day for a year, which includes ways to consolidate, enlist help for and shorten chores such as making dinner, helping with homework and keeping “clean underwear in every drawer.” I cringed reading that particular passage. “Why can’t her husband do all this stuff while she reads?” I asked the book. Then, “Her kids are teenagers, a few of them, right? Why can’t they cook?” All of this ends up happening as Sankovitch’s husband and children step in and handle household chores when necessary so that she can stick to her goal and meet it over the year. (Note: the author has not set out to write a feminist book, nor one that addresses poverty or privilege. She wants to share the story of how reading lessened her grief, how books brought her healing and how the words of others brought her peace. With this goal in mind, the book is for anyone who enjoys memoir, books about books or who faces the loss of a loved one.)

Ever aware of class issues as an undercurrent (and sometimes the elephant in the room) in feminism, I wasn’t sure what to make of TOLSTOY AND THE PURPLE CHAIR, at first. The author is clearly well-off enough to not have to work for pay, and in light of our current economic situation throughout the world, I admit I was a bit appalled when I considered the idea of someone taking hours out of her day to read books for an entire year. As I continued to read, I re-considered the nature of work for women and what I (and others) deem “valuable” or a “contribution.” As an exercise in challenging assumptions, the book would be a great one for a feminist discussion group!

On a related note, I heard a segment by Bill Littlefield on my local National Public Radio (NPR) station, WBUR. He spoke about the life of Myra Kraft, who was known mostly as the wife of a famous (American) football team owner. Littlefield met Mrs. Kraft at a charity event once, and his remembrance of that evening is eloquently recounted in his tribute to her. Her presence at this, and many other charity events, is what Mr. Littlefield stressed in his piece. He quoted a NEW YORK TIMES article about the extent of Mrs. Kraft’s active engagement with non-profit organizations, crediting her with changing the way philanthropic organizations and philanthropists interact.

Sankovitch’s book and the news about Mrs. Kraft forces me to ask questions for feminism to answer. Are all women “working” women? What is work? Is it merely what is done for pay? Is housework and childcare for our own homes and children work? Why do we value certain kinds of work over others? It is not just housework and childcare that seems under-valued, but also the work of women such as Mrs. Kraft? Is volunteering a “useful” and “valuable” way to spend one’s life? The author of TOLSTOY AND THE PURPLE CHAIR shares her reading by writing reviews of every book she reads in her book-a-day-for-a-year project. Is this work? Lastly, the underlying question is: who is qualified to answer these questions?

First published: http://www.hercircleezine.com/2011/07/28/womens-work/

Still Trapped in the Doll's House

PHOTO BY KATE ROBINSON

The subject of Ibsen’s A DOLL’S HOUSE(Goodreads.com feminist books #36) remains controversial and relevant over a hundred years since its original publication and theatrical debut. The play tells the story of Nora, a woman who decides she must leave her husband and children to find who she is. Women are particularly critical of other women who would, as they put it, abandon their children. Women understand and support fellow women who leave bad marriages and relationships, as long as the departing woman has her children in tow. Society allows the double standard of men leaving without condemning them in the same way.

Nora’s character, in Ibsen’s play, sees that she has sacrificed her identity, first to her father as she sought his approval, and then to her husband, whom she married in a continued effort to please her father. By the end of the play, Nora realizes she does not know who she is and decides she must leave to discover herself. Critics of the play remark that Nora is not exhibiting responsible, adult behavior by leaving, but rather claim she exhibits the impetuous behavior of a child. I believe these critics miss the point, since Nora leaves exactly because she is not developed as an autonomous woman. In fact, the play’s title tells us that Nora is not even a child, but rather an inanimate object: a doll within her marital and family homes.

In February of this year, Rahna Reiko Rizzuto wrote an article for Salon.com about leaving her children to pursue her career. The article and Rizzuto’s choice met with negative commentary by readers and was even taken up by the general media in the U.S. Ms. Rizzuto was called selfish and some readers even wished pain and suffering upon the author.

Ayelet Waldman published BAD MOTHER in 2009. Her book met with criticism from women who derided Waldman for her claim that she would rather have her children die than her husband, and her confessional statement that she loved her husband more than she loved her children. Interviews with Waldman addressed the negative public reaction to the book. Women accused Waldman of being a vile human being whose children, they felt, should be taken away from her.

As we consider the strides women have made over the last hundred years: securing voting rights, narrowing the pay gap, and increasing their ranks in executive, academic and other career arenas, they remain somehow still stuck in the doll house. Men leave without lasting stigma, stigma that is also not dished out by fellow men, regardless. When women “break ranks” and leave children behind, other women denigrate them.

I read a quote once (that I cannot locate now) that gets at the heart of the hypocrisy of this double standard. The quote talked about how we revere men such as the Buddha or Gandhi, who essentially leave their families to do great work, yet we never credit women who would do the same. It would seem that from the time of the historical Siddhartha Gautama, and likely before, men have been and continue to be lauded for their accomplishments, even if they can only perform these feats of greatness without a family in tow.

Women continue to be vilified for not being infinitely available to their spouses and children. Thus, A DOLL’S HOUSE resonates today as we designate women like Rizzuto and Waldman as outcasts. Rather than lash out at these women, we might better serve all women by getting to the root of what it is that bothers us so personally about their choices. I am just as guilty of indignation, as this was my initial reaction when I learned of a friend’s wife leaving their children. However, considering Ibsen’s play, Rizzuto’s article and Waldman’s book, I need to reflect and search for the real reasons I find women leaving their families so repulsive. Is my immediate reaction merely the result of societal conditioning? And, while leaving my children is not something I would consider for my own reasons, is it really something I should demand other women not consider? Why do we, as women and within Western society, condemn women for leaving their children? It seems simple to say that once one becomes a mother, a different standard applies, yet we do not exact this same standard from fathers whether they are contemporary men or historical figures. Why is this? What is it that we fear that causes almost visceral reactions to a mother’s leaving? There are no easy answers to these questions. It is only through dialogue and introspection that we might come to understand our reactions so that we might then also understand other’s decisions, thus finally freeing women from the doll’s house.

First published: http://www.hercircleezine.com/2011/07/21/still-trapped-in-the-dolls-house/

Let Freedom Glow

Lest you think I listened, even while flipping radio channels, to even a second of Rush Limbaugh, I got this information from the clip they played on an NPR segment from his show. Whew! Now, you know it's safe to read on...

The aforementioned NPR segment addressed the repeal of a bill that was enacted to phase out incandescent light bulbs due to their inefficiency. Of course, financial doom and gloom is the news of the day. Don't worry; Congress is not entirely focused on the nation's checking account and balance sheet. No, Republicans (who worked with Democrats to pass the light bulb bill initially) are making sure things like freedom to choose inefficient bulbs is not lost just because there are a few pesky fiscal issues facing the country.

Let me just make a little side trip here to make a comparison to a household for a second. So, if our checking account was bare (o.k., it IS bare, but that's another story) and it was not balanced, and we were already into our overdraft protection and almost hitting the limit (thankfully none of that is true), and then one of the kids came to us with a newspaper ad for Store "X" or something and proclaimed that they were phasing out the sale of some product, would we make time to run over protest the loss of a product of some kind while our financial situation was dire? Umm, no.

I know my personal-is-comparable-to-political example above is not quite the same as Republicans protecting our rights, especially the right to choose...WHAT? I know, "Republican" and "right" and "choose" are not usually words found in the same sentence. What the heck is going on in Washington?

O.k., so let me enlighten you (oh, I love puns!) about what Rush preached (let's call it what it is). In the preachy, rant clip on NPR, Limbaugh claimed that Americans do not like their right of freedom to choose to be taken away from them by the government. He really said that. If I hadn't been driving while listening, I most surely would have fallen off my seat in laughter at the utter preposterousness of his statement, especially it coming from him. Thankfully, I was driving so I was wearing a seatbelt. I also managed to stay on the road.

Of course, he was not talking about the rights of women or the LGBT population. He was not talking about having a choice about what goes on in your own body. He was not talking about equal marriage. He was not talking about rights to accurate, logical education. Light bulbs? Really? I was dumbfounded until I realized that as long as we are free to choose incandescent bulbs, we don't really need to have other choices or rights. Then, I thought for another minute and wondered why we needed ANY kind of light bulb if we are to keep everything in the dark and not shed light on complex topics or issues. Maybe Congress should ban all light bulbs so we are kept in the dark even more than ever. They can pass bills for the most opaque government on earth, for even dictatorships are sometimes more transparent and obvious than our democracy seems. Sure, they're violent and often include genocide of some sort. However, there's no SECRET about any of that. It's pretty "out there" for everyone to see.

Dylan said we don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows. Well, I don't need incandescent light bulbs to see through the Emperor's, Congress's or Rush's (same-old) clothes either. Let freedom glow, for sure. Let it glow from the rights and choices of Americans, not incandescent light bulbs.  

"Reading Women" Book Review and Reflection

READING WOMEN: HOW THE GREAT BOOKS OF FEMINISM CHANGED MY LIFE (PUBLICAFFAIRS, 2011)

In READING WOMEN: HOW THE GREAT BOOKS OF FEMINISM CHANGED MY LIFE (PublicAffairs, 2011), Stephanie Staal writes about feeling adrift after having a child. She looks to the feminist books from her undergraduate years as possible markers on a map so that she might trace how she came to the place she finds herself the first few years of her daughter’s life. Some critics complain the text is another “woe is me, motherhood is hard” book. While memoir is an apt description of READING WOMEN, Staal’s use of feminist literature grounds her book and allows her to ask important socio-cultural questions about the intersection of feminism and motherhood.

Staal doesn’t necessarily provide answers, other than what worked for her situation. This may frustrate readers who hope that the book will be a crash course in feminist literary theory along with a prescription for how to solve their own identity crisis, balance their own family and work lives, or improve communication within their marriages. What Staal does offer is a look at upper middle class marriage and motherhood with a feminist lens. Some criticize her for this, with reviewers, both lay and professional, claiming that Staal writes from a position of privilege. Since this is what she knows and lives, I say, “Why not?” No matter where one falls along the socio-economic curve, all families face housework and childcare issues. Staal never claims her goal is to solve the work-life balance of every socio-economic class. Rather, READING WOMEN is an example of feminism applied to the modern roles of wife and mother. The book is at its best when Staal tells us a little of the background of some of the feminist authors, showing that what they wrote and how they lived was often at odds. We then see that “theory” and “lived experience” often have a chasm between them over which sometimes only the narrowest of bridges may be constructed.

Regardless of income level, there is often marital strife about the division of labor where household chores and childcare are concerned. I’m not sure why, exactly, yet the burden of the household and childcare seems to be placed entirely on women by society. Just as Staal indicates in READING WOMEN, I, too, find that people view men’s performance of housework as a “gift.” Any childcare done by men earns “points” in some mysterious game, while a woman’s care of children goes unnoticed, assumed and expected. I wish I had that proverbial nickel for every time I’ve been told how “lucky” I am to have a husband who will “babysit.” All the hairs stand up on the back of my neck and I repress the urge to scream, “It’s not babysitting unless the kids he’s watching are not ours!” Caring for our friend’s son is babysitting, caring for our children is parenting. Period. It is this attitude, most often stated by women, that runs counter to feminism. My husband has never said or considered his solo care of our children as anything but his duty as a father and as parenting. He, too, bristles at the mention of men “babysitting” their own children. At work, he actually corrects male co-workers who claim they can’t do one thing or another over the weekend or at night because they are “babysitting.” This issue could be solved easily if both men and women stopped referring to childcare by fathers as babysitting and started seeing it for what it is and should be: shared parenting. The children are yours together, thus their care is performed by both of you.

To me, this all comes down to communication within a marriage. It comes from communication and interactions that happen while you’re dating, actually. It comes from talking about household chores, children, childcare and continuing to talk about these things as changes occur throughout life. A couple may start out with the husband commuting an hour to work each way every day, while the wife paints in her in-home studio, loves to cook and takes advantage of crockpot meals she can fix and ignore. Years later, a baby comes along. Her art is selling like hotcakes and his work is almost costing the family with his reduced salary in the recession and with the commute. Maybe it’s time for him to work part time or take on more childcare so she can pursue her career, which will support the family. Or, for another similar family, they now have a four-year-old who will eat nothing made in a crockpot, and the father telecommutes while the mother has been offered a position teaching art at a local college. Should all the meals still fall on her shoulders? As circumstances change, each person needs to take on new roles or alter old ones. This cannot happen without discussion. An egalitarian marriage cannot happen without women and men talking about what is and isn’t working, and adapting to change together through open, honest communication.

So, what do feminist texts have to tell us about being married or having children? It seems, not much. For the most part, it seems feminism has claimed marriage and motherhood as the downfall of women and feminist action. However, I can’t help but believe that without motherhood, feminism fails and that it is only through motherhood that feminism can truly thrive. We must raise daughters who use their voices, who are articulate about their thoughts and feelings and who can see the larger picture, the social situation in which they find themselves throughout life. We must raise sons who respect and realize the roles women might assume. We must raise sons who do not babysit, but rather father their children, sons for whom we do not always do laundry, but rather we teach to do laundry. We must teach our sons to wash the floor and cook in the spirit of self-care and care for their families, not as if they are doing a favor for a woman. Staal dedicates READING WOMEN to her daughter. I think she does so in the hope that the book will help begin a conversation and instill an awareness that makes her daughter’s life a little less confusing should she choose motherhood as part of her future. The first step toward that just may be that we no longer “read women” or ask our spouses to “read us” as women. Instead, we should take what we read from feminist writers and open our lines of communication with ourselves, our spouses, our children and other women.

First published: http://www.hercircleezine.com/2011/07/14/reading-women-incontext-looks-at-stephanie-staals-book/

Film: A Walk on the Moon

Wow, I am impressed! I loved "A Walk on the Moon!" The film is not new, yet it is worth checking out if you haven't seen it. "A Walk on the Moon" is set during the summer of the famous moon walk. This and Woodstock provide the backdrop for the story that unfolds. Pearl Kantrowitz is a mother left at an upstate New York camp for the summer, while her husband (as well as the husband's of the rest of the campers) commutes back to work in the City each week. Pearl is not merely bored with being surrounded by other wives and children the entire summer, but also feels like her life is not her own. She feels stifled by her marriage, feels like her husband cannot clearly receive the messages she's sending and that her life was cut short as their teenage daughter was the reason for her marriage, initially.

To his credit, Pearl's husband, Marty, is just as trapped by the life they live. He seems to handle it a bit better, and comes across as genuinely loving Pearl. He seems content with their life and marriage, despite that his own aspirations were cut short due to college being out of the question when he needed to work to support their family. Marty is, at first, incapable of growth himself, sure of the status quo and afraid to pursue anything else.

All of this leads to Pearl pursuing the "blouse man" (Walker Jerome). She and he have a passionate affair, far from the mundane reality of Pearl's marriage. Their relationship is consummated during the moon walk, hinting at the bold step Pearl takes exploring her sexuality. Later in the film, it seems Pearl would like the passion she finds with Walker to be shared instead with her husband. Yet Marty doesn't quite get the message.

Pearl struggles with her identity, lamenting early motherhood as stopping her before the starting gate was raised. Marty's mother is at the camp with the family, and she is quite an enlightened mother-in-law! Her character was somewhat unbelievable as I cannot imagine a prescient mother-in-law sensing an affair and not hating her daughter-in-law. She seems to keep her distance rather than interfere in any way. She is there to care for the kids and provide familial stability all while supporting both her son and his wife. Regardless of this less-than-realistic depiction of her role, she is a mother-in-law we can all dream to have, thus in a film, her character is something about which we might suspend our disbelief if only to enjoy what she represents; our wildest wish come true.

In the end, even as Marty comes to forgive his wife her transgressions, she is not let off the hook so easily. Marty asks her, "Who stopped you?" imploring her to answer for her actions responsibly to him as a partner in life. His question is not demeaningly stated, rather he asks her to meet him at a place of shared responsibility for the predicament of their life and marriage. He merely wants to know why she didn't try harder to get her needs across, since it seems his needs and desires actually mirrored hers. He wants to shed the staid nature of their lives and explore the new music and ways of thinking that are now iconic to the nineteen sixties in the United States.

It was nice to see the ever-familiar frustration of women as wife and mother pursued through a different lens than most films like this. There is no death like in the end of "Revolutionary Road," where it seems the entire family is punished for the dreams of the mother. Instead, we see the couple grow together, which is refreshing, even though this film is now over ten years old. I'm not sure how or why I missed this one the first time around, except that I was in the midst of caring for my then four and two year old children and movies were not on the radar. Check it out. You won't be disappointed.

May I Have Some Sugar in My Bowl?

This post looks at Erica Jong’s SUGAR IN MY BOWL: REAL WOMEN WRITE ABOUT REAL SEX (Ecco Books, June 2011). In this book, Jong has created a collection of essays about sex contributed by contemporary female authors. Before I write about the text itself, I want to address something that cried out for my attention in the introduction. Jong expresses astonishment that potential contributors would ask their partners, husbands or children before agreeing to write for her compilation. Did potential contributors specifically indicate they sought permission or merely consulted those who might be featured in such personal and intimate writing? To me, it is mutually respectful to at least warn an intimate partner that he or she might find details of a shared sex life in a published volume.

Most contributors to SUGAR IN MY BOWL use initials or pseudonyms to protect the identity of past lovers. This is not commented upon by Jong. I assume she and the writers consider it an act of respect for personal privacy. While the writer shares intimate details, she does not expose the other person who participated. I view “checking in” with a spouse, significant other or child before publishing personal details as the same kind of respect a pseudonym or initials of a past lover provides. Jong is surprised that more than half a dozen contributors indicated they would get back to her before committing to the project. Out of almost thirty writers, I do not believe this indicates an antifeminist trend. If any of the contributors read this post, I hope they might comment about whether they actually asked permission or whether it was more of an announcement or respectful disclosure. At the website for the book, there is a recording of a live interview Jong and some of the contributors gave. In this recording, Jong and the authors talk a little bit about this topic, however, it is not a definitive discussion of the issue.

I think of various times my husband or I have committed to something. We never obtain permission from the other, but rather inform and discuss whatever it is we will do. We give one another the respect of a little warning, a forecast of what is to come. Like one of the contributors to SUGAR IN MY BOWL, I wrote an erotic novel a few years ago. I plan to seek publication when the editing process is complete. While my husband feels a little strange about it because he thinks some of the sex seems eerily familiar in small ways, he would not discourage me from publishing it. Yet, I would never publish it without having had a discussion about it either.

Now to the task of describing Jong’s first edited text. When numbers of writers participate in a collection, it is bound to be quite varied and thus complex to review. Overall, the quality of writing is excellent. Each essay, story, graphic piece and script contribution is truly that, a contribution to the topic of real sex had by real women. So many aspects of female sexual experience and sexuality are touched upon, from a mother’s viewpoint of her school-aged daughter’s discovery of her own clitoris, to elderly sex in a nursing home. Each is given an honest, open and thoughtful treatment. Self-proclaimed prudish writers’ avoidance of the topic are poignant, interesting and provide a balanced, eye-opening view into another perspective. (Note: lesbian sex seems to be mostly missing, other than a mention or reference within otherwise mostly hetero- or bisexual essays.)

SUGAR IN MY BOWL is not academic in its approach, nor is it erotica. A few of the essays made me laugh, and several made me cry, sometimes from the humanity presented, in empathy for the situation, or in recognition of a shared joy. Then, there were pieces that caused stirrings I’d like to take care of later tonight if my husband’s pain from recent dental work subsides and my teenagers go to bed before he and I are too exhausted to do anything about my desire. Jong writes in the introduction that the “approaches are as varied as sexuality itself,” which is true. This makes the book a refreshing and new contribution to literature about women’s sex lives.

Whether you want “sugar in your bowl” or the thought of it is salt in the proverbial wound, you will likely find something to which you can relate in this book. Of course, that identification with writing is something we typically search for, isn’t it? I suggest you read it all so that you experience the richness of the vastly different viewpointsSUGAR IN MY BOWL amply provides. While the galley cover depicts multicolored gum balls in a somewhat vaginal, oval bowl, there is nothing “bubble gum” about this book. It is as “alluring and terrifying” as Jong claims sex itself is. It is an important, timely text. For this reviewer, Jong accomplishes her goal of editing a compilation that “embrace(s) our humanity without shame.” This is real writing by real women. Sex is the springboard and theme for thought-provoking essays about the vagaries of life.

First published: http://www.hercircleezine.com/2011/07/07/may-i-have-some-sugar-in-my-bowl/