“It is unlikely that the residential locations of these women were chosen with either their employment or these spatial restrictions in mind. To some extent ‘trapped’ in place, many women search for jobs from a narrowed range of possibilities” (155)

Reference: Hanson, S., & Pratt, G. (1995). Gender, Work, and Space. New York, NY: Routledge.

This week, my task was to read Gender, Work, and Space by Hanson and Pratt (1995), which explores the relationships among women in particular, their occupational opportunities and the places in which they inhabit. The area of research for the study was Worcester, Massachusetts, which according to the researchers reflects national trends regarding employment statistics. Some of the areas of interest in this book were the dynamics of male-dominated, female-dominated and gender-integrated occupations and how these occupations are mapped and become altered over time. These gendered divisions of employment are of particular interest to Hanson and Pratt in terms of how women are impacted and what this means for their career aspirations and opportunities. Other major topics of interest (which I will explain in greater detail when I break down significant quotations) that were explored in this book were the differences between men and women with regards to their distance from work and how this distance reflects the priorities of each gender (the vast majority of women did most or all of the housework and child-rearing, and thus often chose occupations close to home to be available to their family), the reasons and implications of women in part-time employment, the relationship between upward and downward mobility regarding women’s decisions to take child-rearing breaks, and the discrimination (as well as targeting) of women from and for certain jobs by employers based on sexist stereotypes.

The information collected in this book was through means of interviews that occurred in 1989 (although there has also been some information taken from other interviews conducted in 1987 included). Hanson and Pratt interviewed men and women from a variety of walks of life (as best they could, anyway: they acknowledged that the majority of the population in Worcester is white) from four main neighbourhoods: Main South, Upper Burncoat, Blackstone Valley and Westborough, all with unique geographical characteristics and demographics. Although the researchers opted for a quantitative mean of collecting data (using statistics and figures throughout the text), they acknowledge that most studies in their field are conducted by means of qualitative research and that their decision to use a more quantitative mean of collecting information left some gaps in their understanding. To counter this, however, the researchers do in fact include quotations from the individuals they interviewed to not only show the complexity of the issues they are investigating, but also to breathe some life into their statistics. So even though their research is overall quantitative, there are still some qualitative elements woven in to enhance the reader’s understanding of this geographical location and the people who live there.

I should also note that the quotations I have selected were not chosen as a means of summarizing the most important points in the book, but rather were selected for being the most important to my research topic. Hanson and Pratt include lengthy discussions about the relationship between space and both race and class especially. While I do touch upon this as I believe forgetting about different intersectionalities can be detrimental to research as it causes the researcher to fall into the trap of making generalizations often in favour of a white middle-class demographic, my main focus is on the differences between men and women with regards to work. Thus, the majority of the quotations I have selected and produced commentary/questions for are specifically aimed at illuminating my interests in gender relations first and foremost.

Before I begin my notes, I have a couple other concerns that I think are important to mention. This study was conducted in the late-1980s: can the information attained still be useful in a modern-day context? Pretty much all of the women in the study with husbands and/or children admitted to at least doing the majority of the housework (some of them did all of it). If this study was conducted today, would these findings still be legitimate? While I think it is still a major issue, my hypothesis would be that the sharing of housework has improved, but I will need further research to know for sure.

I also wonder if Worcester is really a good representation of the state. While it might be a fair representation of the United States, I want to know if it is comparable to Canada. I find Canada and the US tends to get muddled together and described in “North American” contexts as though they are the same country. I would be especially interested to read a book like this that explores a Canadian city to see if the findings are comparable.

Now that I have gotten my initial summaries and observations over with, I can get into some specifics:

“Typically the sectors and occupations filled by women tend to have lower income ceilings, poor benefits, and less career mobility” (3)

“The Marxist and socialist feminists who were engaged in this debate disagreed about whether the burden of domestic work was thrust upon women y capitalist or by men as patriarchs, that is, they disagreed about the relationship between capitalism and patriarchy, but there was general agreement that subordination within the home in large part explained women’s subordination in the labor force” (5)

Women’s unequal treatment in the home (being given the bulk of responsibility) is being argued to transfer to the workforce where oftentimes women do the same amount of work or even more than men but still get paid less.

“…[as a result of rising female waged labor] many men felt immensely threatened by the loss of traditional masculine jobs and were torn between rejecting new forms of employment as ‘girls’ jobs and resenting the fact that young women were taking these jobs while older men were left unemployed”

So based on this statement, apparently older men believe that they are more deserving of an occupation than young women? This isn’t just sexism, this is ageism as well. You make a wage to earn a living, and according to this statement older men believed they were more worthy of earning a living and supporting themselves than young women. Reading this I find it really hard not to throw my book against a wall at how absolutely idiotic that complaint is. I won’t even get started on their rejection of these supposed “girls” jobs…I don’t want to keep you here all day.

“The results of numerous studies documenting that women typically commute very short distances to paid employment suggest that this traditional definition of spatial labor markets, and by extension localities, is rooted in men’s experiences, particularly those of white, middle-class men” (13)

Does this statement have anything to do with binaries? Like when you think of women existing only in the context of men?

“In homogenizing the experiences of women (and sometimes combining them with those of all visible minorities), these accounts share a weakness with the literature on occupational segregation; they both tend to treat the category ‘woman’ unproblematically, and differences among women are only superficially explored” (15)

This quotation connects to my previous point about the problems with not considering other intersectionalities when studying the experiences of women: there are many other components, such as race and class, that contribute to a woman’s relationship to the world around her and it is dangerous to forget this.

Thesis of book: “…we are arguing that individuals are connected to others according to the city’s spatiotemporal layout in ways that make a difference to their experiences of gender, class, and race, among other social relations” (22)

“…feminists have long argued that theories are the products of embodied subjects, situated in the contingency and partiality of the theorist’s experience” (22)

I would definitely agree. All theories, no matter how “objective” they appear to be, derive from the interest of the theorist, and without that subjective interest, there would not be theories. There is always some sort of experience, curiosity, whatever…attached that leads to the development of a theory.

“Certain jobs, especially those considered most ‘skilled,’ were closed to women, usually by dint of men having organized to block women’s access to their jobs” (29)

“…the segregation of jobs according to gender, the low status and wages accorded to women’s work, the lack of opportunity for advancement or on-the-job training, the role of employer discrimination in shaping job opportunities—all faced Worcester (and American) women seeking employment in the late 1980s as they did in the early 1900s” (29)

Not much has changed. We often try to convince ourselves that they have, but fast-forward 35 years and we’re still in the same place!

“…Worcester resembles many other American cities; the imprint of immigration on urban neighborhoods and labor markets—and the role of this imprint in the gendering of work within the U.S.—is a reminder of how gender and work are shaped at multiple scales, from the global to the local” (43)

“Meagher (1986) traces these attitudes from Ireland to Worcester and attributes the enduring pattern to the abiding authority of the Catholic Church: married women were to be ‘sweet, good mothers,’ remaining at home to the exclusion not only of paid work but also of clubs and volunteer activities” (44)

Just like in Federici, the oppression of women in the workforce is being connected to the values preached by the Catholic Church. Once again, I am given yet another reason to not be religious!

“More than three quarters (77.4 percent) of the workers in health, education and welfare, for example, are women, as are nearly four-fifths (78.9 percent) of the workers in consumer services. By contrast, women comprise less than one-fifth of the workforce in construction” (58)

This quotation highlights the gender divisions of occupations: why do women dominate the sectors mentioned? I can understand construction to an extent because there is the argument that men are on average biologically stronger (not in all cases though…I’m a little skeptical about this as a fact and I will need to look into it) but why must occupations such as health and education be gendered? I think it all goes back to those stereotypical qualities of women as being naturally more caring and nurturing…which is of course pure bullshit.

“…women in female-dominated and gender-integrated occupations earn significantly less than do women in male-dominated occupations” (62)

This makes me wonder: the fact that male-dominated occupations earn more money than female-dominated occupations suggests that “male work” is more valuable than “female work,” which in turn also suggests that stereotypically male competencies (such as strength and rationality…as I write this I’m rolling my eyes…) are more valuable than stereotypically female competencies (the book mentions patience and “nimble fingers” as positive female qualities in the workforce). I want to know WHY, but I have a feeling that the answer will (ironically) be far from a rational one. If I were to guess, I would say this all goes back to those oppressive binaries that have worked throughout history to prize “male characteristics” over “female characteristics,” whether or not there’s actually good reason to do so or not.

“Female-dominated work is frequently perceived as being low status and dead end as well as low wage” (62)

I’m thinking that the reason for this might be to dissuade women from taking up paid employment and keep them in the home. This way, men would no longer be threatened by women potentially taking over their jobs, which, as we all should know…are meant for men (if it isn’t obvious…this is me being extremely sarcastic).

The following is a quotation taken from the Worcester Telegram in 1965, as quoted by Hanson and Pratt: “About 60 percent of Sprague’s employees will be women…They must have good eyesight and a high degree of manual dexterity, but the company will train them. The remaining 40 percent of workers will be men, many of them electronics technicians who must have the equivalent of a degree in electronics or chemistry from the Worcester Industrial Technical Institute at Boys Trade High School” (74)

It is especially interesting to me how women were specifically targeted to do the unskilled labour while they asked specifically for men to do the skilled labour: sure it was a different time, but it’s just funny to me how apparently only men can be skilled workers and only women can be unskilled.

“What does ‘available in this geographic area’ really mean? The phrase suggests that women’s labor force participation depends on the ‘availability’ of ‘appropriate’ jobs in the ‘right’ locations. In fact, geography lies at the heart of any understanding of how women’s situation in the labor market is different from (and often more difficult than) a man’s” (93)

When women are entering the workforce (especially if they have a husband and/or children to take care of), they have a lot more to consider when choosing their jobs that especially ties into geographical location. The women in this study on average desired their work to be closer to home so they could be closer to their families, while the men had no such concerns (this is explored further a little later on!).

“‘Urban life and men tend to be thought of as more aggressive, assertive, definers of important world events, intellectual, powerful, active, and sometimes dangerous. Women and suburbs share domesticity, repose, closeness to nature, lack of seriousness, mindlessness, and safety’ (Saegert 1980: S96-S97)” (94)

“…women were to be kept out of the labor force by being spatially removed to the suburbs…Distance, then, was to be the prime instrument used in isolating women not only from jobs but also from power and involvement in the body politic” (94)

Even though it may not be as common today as in the late 1980s, the fact that most middle-class homes only had one vehicle further contributed to women’s isolation and their need (if they did happen to decide to enter the labour force) to find a job close to home for either on-foot or public transit transportation. Also: who gets called when one of the kids needs to come home sick from school? The woman is obligated to be close by so she can be at the beck and call of her family at all times.

“We now know that this frequently documented gender difference [short commutes to work for white middle-class women versus longer commutes for men] to work holds only for whites and that it obscures important differences among women…McLafferty and Preston (1991) showed that the commutes of Latina and black women service sector workers were as long as Latino and black men’s commutes and were significantly longer than the work trips of white women” (98)

This quotation once again emphasizes the importance of keeping in mind racial differences. Even though white women on average have a shorter commute to work than men, this is not the case for Black and Latino women.

“…in contrast to women, men were much more likely to explain their very short worktrips by saying they simply did not like to spend time commuting” (99)

Of course, this has nothing to do with being close to their wives and children: men just don’t like sitting in traffic.

“Analysis of work-trip  length shows clearly that women work closer to home than do men and that women in female-dominated occupations work closer to home than do other women” (103)

“Most often the decisions women make about where to work—the decisions that lie behind their shorter work trips—are deliberate choices made within the context of constraints such as unreliable transportation, inadequate child care facilities, and husbands who are not equal partners in homemaking and childrearing” (104)

One of the most frustrating quotations I came across in the entire book was the following: “In the life stories that follow in this particular, woman after woman, modern Pauline after modern Pauline, tell of the perils of a long commute and the complicated arrangements that they have made –nannies, relying on friends within the neighborhood, compensating neighbors in the evening and on weekends—to offset their daily absence. Their husbands, who undoubtedly also commute, appear to feel none of the strain” (my emphasis, 120)

Why is it always the woman’s job to be concerned about the well-being of her children? Last time I checked, a baby is made with equal parts from the mother and father…and since the father escaped one of the most miserable parts of having children (carrying them and giving birth) you would think that they would step up throughout the child’s life. This, of course, is not the case: so while his wife runs around like a chicken with her head cut off trying to balance work, her home and her family, he is dilly-dallying by stopping at Tim Horton’s to grab himself a coffee before taking his time home (which happens to be 40 minutes away. And since he isn’t in a rush to get home to make dinner as it will be there waiting for him when he gets there, he can enjoy listening to the radio and never go a kilometer over the speed limit the entire way home).

“Studies that report that men are affected by their wives’ employment (Pleck 1985) find that their response comes in the form of increased ‘availability’ to their children, but not in terms of housework or more narrowly defined child care” (120-121)

Men apparently are more available for their kids when their wives work, but nothing else. This greater amount of “availability” to their children, I would speculate, comes through as pure obligation (“well, my wife is at work 30 minutes away so I guess I’m the only one who can pick up the kids from school”…this isn’t in the text, I just made up a scenario)

“…women who have never married are far less likely than are other women to search for a job from a fixed residential location and, with 32 percent of never-married women finding their residence after their job, their profile looks much like the profile of men” (125)

It seems that when you get married and have children is when you are forced to make some extreme sacrifices…especially as a woman! I think it is safe to say that this is even more reason to avoid marriage altogether!

“…residential moves that are prompted by a change in a partner’s job location have an impact on women’s job histories but not on men’s. Roughly 10 percent of the women in our sample had had to leave a job in order to accommodate a change in their partner’s job locations; not a single man had left a job for this reason” (127)

This made me really angry. I would hope that a finding like this would not come up if this study was conducted in Niagara Falls (for example) in 2015. Why is it always the women’s responsibility to pick up and leave everything for her husband’s job? And why are there no primary female breadwinners in this entire book? Once again, I hope that can be attributed to the time period in which this book was written. I want to have a successful career and if I got an excellent job somewhere in Toronto, for example, I would like to think that my husband would not hesitate to come with me (if I even do get married at this point…it’s looking grim!).

“Women who shorten their commutes after a childbearing/rearing break are more likely to experience downward occupational mobility. One in five women who shortened their commute by at least ten minutes experienced downward occupational mobility” (131)

These findings reflect the sacrifices women make to be closer to their children. For white middle-class women, in this study the researchers addressed that many could afford to take on part-time work because their husbands made enough money to allow it. In addition to that, these white middle-class women could also afford a reduction in pay by means of a change in occupation (once again) because their husbands make enough money to allow it. I know it’s not appropriate to “blame” anyone in these circumstances but I’m tempted to put some oneness on women here. It makes me really angry that many women then (and even today…) aren’t passionate about finding meaningful careers (and I’m definitely not generalizing here! I myself do not fit into this category) because they either want to be homemakers or think that their husbands will make the bulk of the money so they won’t have to worry about bringing in that almost six-figure paycheck that will support them and their four kids and golden retriever (there’s that analogy again!). I would be interested in investigating if this sort of thought process still pervades our society, and to what degree. I’ve heard of “gold diggers” and women in particular are always demonized for “going after a man solely for his money.” Like I said, “blame” isn’t the right approach to this…but I want to know who, or what, is responsible for these attitudes. I think Federici’s text shed a lot of light on that, but I want to know more!

“Glass (1990) found that as percent female in an occupation increases, jobs have less flexibility, fewer unsupervised breaks, and are generally harder to perform” (132)

Can this statistic be attributed to a patriarchal society’s underlying desire to push women out of the workforce and put them back in the home?

“This use of sequential scheduling strategy has implications for timing as well as the type of paid employment chosen by different household members. It is significant that in the majority of cases it is the woman who takes the less optimal or less ‘conventional’ time slot” (136)

The woman needs to be at home with the kids, which means that during the day they must be available for them. Thus, many of these women will take the “second or third shift,” which are either evening or overnight shifts, to make sure they are there for their children. My question would be: if these women are working overnight shifts and they have to be with their children during the day, when the heck are they sleeping?!

“It is readily arguable that we see patriarchal relations played out through these serial scheduling arrangements. Women tend to arrange their paid employment around the schedules of their husbands and children” (137)

“Anticipating that women will leave employment for childbearing/rearing, employers have indiscriminately slotted them into certain low-wage, dead-end jobs (Peterson 1989); similarly, employers, male workers, and unions have justified the exclusion of all women from certain job categories on the grounds that the job poses a danger to fetuses” (140)

What if I didn’t WANT to have kids?! And what if this supposed danger to a fetus is not a concern of mine, even if I did happen to get pregnant accidentally? Why does society think that they can make decisions for you based on their own moral code? In all honesty, this just seems like an extremely poor excuse to keep women out of the higher-paying jobs. My guess is that there probably isn’t much of a risk at all in most cases.

“The division of household tasks is starkly divided along gender lines…women carry out the bulk of the chores having to do with cooking, cleaning, shopping, and some aspects of child care, whereas men bear the brunt of yard work, and house and car repairs” (142)

It’s funny to me how the responsibilities of the woman are tasks that are all day, every day…whereas for the man, this is not the case at all. How often do you need to fix your car? How often do house repairs need to be done? Even for yard work…you’re not doing anything in the winter! What are these men doing on a daily basis? Oh wait…nothing.

“Men in households in which women are employed in male-dominated occupations are especially likely to contribute domestic labor” (144)

Fascinating! Could this be because the man somehow respects his wife more for doing what is often considered “men’s work” and is thus more sympathetic and willing to pick up the slack?

“Almost all women with high incomes have what can be termed ‘nontraditional’ family circumstances: they are single, divorced, or married without children. Only one woman in our entire sample was juggling childbearing with a relatively well-paying job” (151)

This is so incredibly depressing! If these stats were taken from this area in this time period, I don’t think we’d see the same results. But at the same time…when I think of my mother (who is the VP of Niagara Helicopters)…she is divorced, and her career did have something to do with the rift in my parents’ marriage. So maybe there is some truth to this finding…

“Women, we are told, are better suited for repetitive, precision tasks because they have dexterity and patience, and ‘men just can’t hack sitting there.’ On the other hand, women were protected from some better-paid production jobs because the workplace was too hot or ‘not a feminine environment’; they were excluded from others because of their assumed inability to lift 50 or 70 lbs.” (157)

“In general, employers know much more about the family circumstances of their female than of their male employees: one in ten employers could provide information only about women employees, and one employer told us that: ‘Marital status isn’t as much a part of a man’s identity’” (157)

I’m really not surprised by this…but that still doesn’t mean I can’t be angry about it. This quotation in particular will be really useful in my discussions about feminist marriage specifically.

“A woman at a footwear factory in Main South told us: ‘I’ve worked here for ten years but I’ve never been upstairs. That’s where the men are” (182)

“Because job information flows through gender-biased networks, the jobs women are most likely to learn about are the jobs that their female informants know about or have held, and, given women’s general propensity to work close to home, these job opportunities are most likely close to home” (199)

This is a classic example of women holding some responsibility for continuing the cycle of oppression: women are being placed in these mediocre jobs with help by other women!

“These women’s experiences [working in male-dominated occupations] also underline the continuing strength of patriarchal relations both at home and work, and the boundaries that restrict women’s access to male-dominated occupations. In Worcester, these boundaries are often permeable only through the consent, help, or reputations of male family members” (202)

Good summary of section: “…the use of local networks for job information—so prevalent among those living in Worcester—sustains local and spatially disjointed labor markets and sex-based occupational segregation” (204)

“Five years ago, cutting in the blanket department was a male preserve; now seven of the nine cutters in the department are women: ‘We women are taking over…Two women started in the shop before me…They [the men] weren’t too happy having women come in. They didn’t treat us too well” (206)

Why was this the case? Did these men feel emasculated? Threatened? In the context of a male-dominated occupation, the space has been made hostile to women as a result of the men’s “claim” to this space. The rise of female-dominated labour was already bad enough…but now men feel the need to defend their occupational spaces from the take-over of women to avoid more occupations being branded as “girl’s work.”

To go along with this…

“…male-dominated occupations to which women gain entry are often quickly feminized, and the wages then stagnate” (207)

It’s almost like once a woman enters a male-dominated job it becomes some sort of taboo for men…like the job has been cursed or something. Through female entry into these jobs, the job is thus branded as “girl’s work” and then no man will come near it. Do I even have to mention how incredibly stupid it is for this to happen? And why is doing “girl’s work” something of such shame to men, anyway? This sort of reminds me of those Always ad campaigns about doing things “like a girl” and how that has become an insult in our society. Why should doing anything like a particular gender ever be an insult?! Oddly enough, even girls get insulted when told they are doing something “like a girl”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJQBjWYDTs

“From an employer of a sheet metal company, we heard: ‘We are supposed to have 5 to 6 percent females by federal guidelines but we have only 2 percent. Our work is very physical. If there’s a woman on the job, who gets the bathtub on the second floor?’” (208)

I’ve always wondered about the sexist assertion that men are stronger than women. This might be true in many cases just from a biological standpoint, but if a woman can prove that she can keep up with the men then there is no reason that she should be excluded from the work. Besides! I’ve seen women who could probably single-handedly carry two bathtubs at once...and I know for a fact that all men do not have the same amount of strength as these women!

“But when Westborough employers did indicate that they value women employees for certain qualities, they emphasized personal ones: they mentioned that women are hard working, dependable, loyal. These are rather positive, respectful, perhaps ‘wifely’ characteristics” (210)

Excuse me while I try to hold back my vomit…

“One of the reasons that so few Main South employers hired women to work on the evening or night shifts is intrinsically related to the characteristics of the place: it has a reputation as a dangerous part of town” (212)

Sounds like another excuse to me! If a woman is willing to brave these supposed “dangers” then that should be up to her, not up to the employer. This passage also suggests that women are apparently incapable of defending themselves and they assume that men can be hired in these positions because they are men and are automatically safe from these “dangers.”

Once again, we can’t forget the implications of class and race: “…middle-class women can afford to work outside of the home part time; local firms in Westborough offer part-time hours  to attract female workers; part-time work is then more readily available to middle-class women. Local employment opportunities then support and enable a particular middle-class ideal of arranging mothering and paid work” (215)

“We find, for example, no evidence that women take jobs in female-dominated occupations as part of a long0term strategy to maximize their life-time earnings; rather, taking such jobs—and taking them close to home—is usually part of a time-management strategy to meet the simultaneous, and very immediate, daily demands of earning a wage and caring for a family” (223)

One of the key, overarching questions of this book: “Are women disproportionately in low-paying, dead-end jobs because they choose them and because they have less education, fewer ‘skills,’ and less work experience, or because employers discriminate against women by assigning them certain jobs while reserving better-paying jobs for the men?”

An important concluding point: “Certainly the women we interviewed in Worcester did not see themselves, or present themselves, as victims. They were actively making decisions about how best to sustain themselves and their families. Yet they were making these decisions within the existing (and often very constrained) structures of family, friends, employment opportunities, and place” (225)

PLACE MATTERS!: “Women in different places live different schedules of work, have different work experiences and concerns. Mothers in different parts of the city are familiar with different child-care arrangements and household divisions of labor; they live in different moral culture and have different beliefs about what are acceptable ways of combining parenting and waged work” (227)

“‘There's got to be more than kids and housework,’ and I can remember fighting my inner self trying to say ‘I'm not happy,’ and being a pain in the neck to live with (Monica, age thirty-nine)” (32)

Reference: England, K. (1993). Changing suburbs, changing women: Geographic perspectives on suburban women and suburbanization. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 14(1), 24-43.

England conducts her research by interviewing 30 white women between the ages of 23 and 64 living in the Westerville and Worthington suburbs in Columbus, Ohio. While of course a flaw of this research is that there were no other racial groups represented, England addresses the fact that 97% of the women living in these suburbs are white. Her intent in conducting these interviews is to challenge the idea of suburban women being the victims of “spatial restraints” (25) in their home environments and to portray them as “knowledgeable, strategizing agents” (25)

“Given that gender is central to the allocation of resources, facilities, and opportunities, feminist geographers argue that it is essential to the structuring of urban spaces: the location of residential areas, workplaces, and transportation networks and the overall layout of cities reflect a patriarchal capitalist society's expectations of what types of activities take place where, when, and by whom” (24) 

This quotation validates what I learned in 3P74 and also in Federici’s text: capitalism and the reproduction of gender norms are synonymous with one another. Our society runs on the idea that in order to keep up with capital, men and women need to continue to carry out their specific gendered roles.

Argument of paper: “Unfortunately suburban women are usually presented as the innocent, passive victims of a built environment. I argue that this oversimplifies the complex interrelationship between people and spatial structures. First and foremost, people are agents with reproductive and transformative capacities. Thus, suburban women should be viewed as active and strategizing people able to alter their sociospatial relations and create neighborhood support networks to better meet their needs and those of their families” (24-25)

“…the state, property developers, planners, and architects have underwritten and designed postwar suburban housing and neighborhoods based on patriarchal and heterosexist assumptions about ‘appropriate’ gender roles and subsequent social practices. The ‘private’ sphere of consumption/reproduction, home, family, and domesticity being the domain of women, and the ‘public’ sphere of production, waged work, and political activity being associated with men” (25)

“In the suburbs White women were offered a new vision of the family, one based on the conspicuous consumption of mass-produced goods and services in pursuit of an arcadian life-style, away from the ravages and harsh reality of production in the central city. They became all-purpose, high-value, low-cost housewives whose job was to maintain a detached, single-family dwelling as a private, safe haven for the emotional well-being of their family” (25-26)

Women were almost brainwashed to feel important thinking that their responsibility to purchase all of these household goods for their family and provide for their family was their only purpose in life. I was having a discussion last night with my mom about feminism and she cautioned me about looking down on women who choose to take on the homemaker role for not going out and “doing something bigger” with her lives (that was how she described it). She told me that a big part of feminism is women doing what they want to do with their lives and not feeling obligated to conform to certain roles as a result of patriarchal societal influence (she actually said “…without being forced by a man” but I jazzed it up a little there to include institutional forms of male dominance). I of course agreed with her, and said if that’s what a woman really wants to do with her life I would never judge. I didn’t want to get into a full-blown discussion (it had been a LONG day) but what I had wanted to say and did not end up saying was that it is a difficult situation because you have to wonder how many of these women are actually doing what they do because they are passionate about their role, or because they feel obligated as a “labour of love.” I think that’s where things get complicated, and just as tradition was discussed in the last article, I think a woman’s feelings of obligation to be the woman her mother was (which for a lot of women, is the traditional homemaker) plays a large role in these “passions.” Thus, while I’m all about women choosing their own way and doing what they want with their lives, I have to be critical of where these desires came from: are they really their own, or do they stem from a deep-rooted history of oppression?

“Suburbs were built farther and farther from the central city, where most of the paid jobs were, meaning that men's commutes grew longer, decreasing the amount of time they could spend with their families. This, in turn, increased the isolation felt by women, especially as there was often only one car, which was used by the men commuting to their jobs in the central city” (26)

This is really interesting. Women were pretty much deserted on their own little island, often home alone all day if their children were school-age. The separation between the suburbs and the city with only one vehicle in most homes made it essentially impossible for women to seek work: how could they, when their husband had the car and neither one of them would be home in time for when the children arrived back from school?

“…some women felt that marriage had ‘rescued’ them from the tedium of paid work and the controlled environment of their parents' home. They felt that it was a form of independence because they actually had some autonomy and control in their own homes. Many remarked that as middle-class, White women they had been brought up to believe that marriage, motherhood, and full-time domesticity were something to aspire to” (33)

Coming from the perspective of a white middle-class woman, I can definitely relate to this way of thinking. I am twenty-two years old now and live at home because I decided to go to university locally for my program. It’s really difficult for me because just as England suggests, I really do feel trapped at times in my own home: I don’t have the money to live on my own yet, but at the same time many of the opinions of my parents are now beginning to clash with my own as I’m forming my own belief and value system. With regards to the part about being brought up to believe that marriage and motherhood are things that I’m supposed to be aspiring to, that has always been the case for me! Since coming to university I’ve been questioning if my dreams of marriage and children are actually my own, or if I’ve been made to believe that that is what is going to make me happy. As much as I love the idea of being on my own and out of my parents’ home, I question if this newly-acquired independence is actually an illusion whereby I would be moving from one place of oppression to the next…

“Being career-oriented was particularly prevalent among the younger women. In contrast to the older women, they talked of being brought up to expect to earn their living and to pursue a career” (35)

I think this quotation really reflects this transitional process that seems to have started in my parents’ generation and is now advancing into my generation. In addition to being told that I would one day be married with my own kids for as long as I can remember, I have also been taught that I should always try my hardest in school so I can get a good job someday. My parents have always drilled the importance of school into my head, and so now I find myself struggling to negotiate these two desires: to be a career woman, and a wife and mother. Is it possible to have a successful life in both the public (work) and the private (home) sphere, or does one need to take a backseat to the other? If I want to be extremely successful in my career, that probably will mean working at least five days a week and for long hours: will I be able to juggle this life with my desire to have a family someday?

A quotation from Clare, one of the women interviewed: “Anyhow with my education and upbringing I want to work. .... Housework has never interested me and being a stay-at-home mom would never satisfy me. Kyle's [her son] at an accredited child-care center, and though I still worry about him, I can see the difference his being there is making. He's very confident and outgoing; it's doing him good” (36)

I can definitely relate to Clare’s comment. Housework has never been something I’ve been interested in, and for that reason I’ve been butting heads a lot with my step mother because I don’t see the purpose of making a bed every day that is just going to be messed up again a minute later. I also think that her comment about her son’s progress in a child-care center is really interesting because it shows that having a mother around all the time is not necessarily the best way to nurture a child’s development; sometimes it is better to have the child out of the home and placed into social settings than it is to keep them isolated within the home.

A quote from Sylvia, another interviewee: “My husband does not help in the house. He always did do better at things like taking the kids to the park. He's often out there with all the neighborhood kids. If I asked him to hang a picture or wash the floor he'd look at me like I'd asked him to go to the moon. He never learnt that stuff, he isn't interested” (38)

It’s interesting to me that Sylvia’s husband does “better at things like taking the kids to the park,” meaning that he will only do things that he finds enjoyable. This is the nightmare relationship that I fear: of course it’s nice that he takes his kids to the park, but the fact that he doesn’t participate in any of the less-enjoyable tasks around the house is inexcusable. No one is truly “interested” in washing the floors but you do it because it needs to be done. For me, if there’s no cooperation and whoever I’m with isn’t willing to pull their weight, I’m done!

“Andrea (age twenty-seven) and her partner Mark had two children, five-year-old Gail and three-year-old Joey. Andrea commuted five miles to work. All of this suggests that her heavy domestic obligations had restricted her job search to areas in close proximity to her home. But this was not the case. Instead, the children were taken care of by their maternal grandfather and their father who worked at home” (39)

This quotation serves as a reminder that times are definitely changing: while still not terribly common, more men are becoming stay-at-home dads and becoming involved in the child-nurturing roles that were once solely the responsibility of the mother.

“Because societal expectations about gender identities are literally fossilized into bricks and mortar they will continue to partially constrain the possibilities open to women. However, it must be remembered that suburban women are not just the passive victims of this process, they are also agents, and as such can actively create strategies and neighborhood support networks to better fit their changing roles and responsibilities” (40)

“…variations in women's employment rates are crucially influenced by local social and institutional ideas about what men and women ought to do” (475)

Reference: Duncan, S., & Smith, D. (2002). Geographies of family formations: Spatial differences and gender cultures in Britain. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27(4), 471-493.

In this article, Duncan and Smith investigate the causes for the differences in relationship, family and work dynamics (with a focus on gender performances in particular) in various spatial regions throughout British households. Their intent is to determine why some areas subscribe to more traditional divisions of labour (male breadwinner, female homemaker) and relationship and/or family arrangements (such as with the nuclear family, including married parents and children) while others do not.

Similar to how I analyzed Federici’s book, for this article I have also broken down what I believed to be the most significant quotations and added commentary for any additional thought/question/connecting idea.

“…geographies of family formations have important implications for normative expectations, social behaviour and social policy” (471)

“This differentiation [between different European countries] within national social policy regimes supports Pfau-Effinger's argument that both variations in women's uptake of paid work, and the different availability of welfare services associated with these (public childcare etc.), result from differences in deep-seated and long-lasting gender cultures about the position of women in families, and how they should combine caring and economic work” (472)

This quotation reminds us that one of the major factors in the creation of policies is culture. Policies are bred as a result of the beliefs about how (in this case) a family should function and what is important that stem from dominant culture of the society.

Purpose of paper: “Our purpose in this paper is therefore to describe the nature and level of regional and local variations in family formations within one country, using Britain as an example” (473)

Even though they are using Britain as an example, British cultural practices are comparable to those in the West (which would be my focus). It is for this reason that I have selected this paper and think it will still be quite useful in my research.

“…we speculate as to how this family geography may be related to the existence of regional gender cultures” (473)

This quotation emphasizes the relationship that exists between “family geography” and gender cultures.

Methodology: “…the paper is based on 'extensive' research, where we use statistical data to describe overall patterns and distinguishing features in the British geography of family formation” (473)

“Most part-time paid work by partnered mothers in Britain…can be taken as an index of withdrawal from a paid worker role in that it is usually seen (by both partners) as supplementary to a caring role” (474)

Being a mother, homemaker and the primary source for nurturing overall is seen as the more important job for women to carry out regardless of having a part-time job. The part-time job is merely “supplementary,” a helpful add-on but not the woman’s main focus.

“…we do claim that, for most, part-time work indicates withdrawal from a worker role in a social and cultural sense. Partnered mothers who work full-time also usually carry out much more unpaid caring and domestic household work than male partner” (474)

“In some places mothers are generally seen as mothers caring for children at home, maybe with some part-time paid work when the children are at school. In other places mothers are seen as workers, where children are cared for by others in work hours” (475)

This really caught my attention! How women are labelled and perceived in society changes based on where they are from!

“This index sees the social response to childbirth, by couples, as a good indicator of the evaluation of the value of marriage in parenting, and, through this, as an indicator of how far parenting has become 'individualized' rather than 'conventional'. Cohabitation without marriage is now accepted, and practised - at least for a time - by most social groups and strata in Britain” (475)

In this example, Duncan and Smith acknowledge that we have made some social progress, but I’m not convinced. If I lived with a man, had a baby with him, and decided not to get married, I would probably spend the rest of my life answering the question, “why are you not married?” from my friends and family for the rest of my days! Even though common-law is now much more rampant in Western society, this does not mean that everyone is happy about it, or even accepting of it. I’m wondering what the differences would be for women compared to men in the decision to remain unmarried: how do people respond to women in this choice, and how do they respond to men? My hypothesis is that they would be very different, with the woman getting more questions concerning fears from family members about the well-being and stability of her children. I don’t have any support at present to back up this claim, but based on what I’ve learned so far, it doesn’t seem terribly far-fetched.

“Cohabiting outside marriage as a parent, although not generally seen as necessarily inferior, is less accepted and less practised than childless cohabitation” (476)

This quotation goes along well with my previous idea! Cohabitating unmarried people with children are less common than unmarried childless couples. Why is this the case? Why do people feel the need to get married when they have children? What do married parents add to a child’s life that unmarried parents cannot provide? I think it all goes back to social stigmas attached to unmarried parents. Also, for some reason people think they need a ceremony, a party and a piece of paper to be committed to another person and without it, that commitment is not as strong.

“For example, mothers in west inner London - a high status and economically buoyant area - may usually have full-time jobs, but they tend to stay within marriage as far as having children is concerned” (481)

What is the purpose of marriage in the context of a “high status and economically buoyant area”? Assuming that many of these women would be fine supporting themselves, I think this further proves my assertion that marriage is a social activity rather than an economic one. People do not want their children going to school and having to explain that their parents are not married!

“In contrast an 'adult worker' region shows low MEEs [ie. fewer instances of the traditional breadwinner-homemaker labour division], as well as generally lower FC [ie. “family conventionality,” which refers to the married couple with children as opposed to a cohabitating couple with children]  scores. This is composed of the working class, former cotton towns of east Lancashire. Here women were traditionally full-time workers in textile mills and had achieved greater social power in households, trade unions and in local politics by the 1930s” (484)

“…geographical differences in partnering and parenting practices, as indicated by the MEE [Motherhood Employment Effect, as described above], FC [Family Conventionality, also described above], TC [Traditional Household Index, which describes those who follow and neglect the social norm of the heterosexual couple with a dependent wife] and FR [Family Restructuring index, which measures ‘spatial patterns in departure from marriage as a partnering and parenting form’ (473)], are bound up with the history of gendered divisions of labour in the workplace and the household, and with current class, ethnic and religious distribution” (488)

This quotation highlights the various intersectionalities that come into play when analyzing gendered divisions of labour at home and in the workplace. In addition to intersectionalities of class, ethnicity and religion, Duncan and Smith also make note of the fact that history also plays a role in how these relationship and family dynamics function.

“Established patterns of gendered work would then set traditions in which later gendered divisions of labour would develop. For example, in areas where women had long been exploited as a supplementary and ill-paid labour force in agriculture (as in East Anglia) women would remain in similar status jobs even when, as in this example, such areas entered a boom based on services and high-tech manufacturing” (489)

Tradition plays a large role in the reproduction of gender roles. This statement works well with what I am interested in because tradition is a huge issue for me when it comes to my struggles as a vegetarian. I come from an Italian family and of course, meat is a huge part of the culture. My refusing to eat veal on a special occasion, in a way, is like breaking tradition. This deep-seated desire for people to conform to traditions (whether that’s for nostalgic reasons or just because it’s the only thing they know, I can only speculate) I believe is a massive detriment to enacting social change. It’s comfortable, and so people stick to what they know.

Important point: “It is not just spatial divisions of labour that define women's role, it is also people's own gendered expectations, negotiations and demands about what being a woman or a man is, and what they should do in consequence. These understandings are not only informed by current or past economic conditions in local labour markets, but also by other social relations in households, neighbourhoods and community networks” (489)

“…different countries and regions have established different trajectories as a consequence of the differing balance between alternative concepts of the normal and ideal family, and of what is 'the proper thing to do' as far as women and men, and in particular mothers and fathers, are concerned” (490)

“…more particularistic explanations of spatial differences in partnering and parenting practices can be related to the history of gendered divisions of labour in the workplace and the household, and linked to current class, ethnic and religious distribution” (490)

Overall, this article has served as a reminder that there are many different factors that contribute to how gender roles are carried out: the history of the region (which encompasses tradition) as well as intersections of class, race and religion all play a role in determining what men and women “ought to do” (475). It is also important to note that making generalizations is dangerous, and it is necessary to study a variety of geographical regions in order to avoid this pigeon-holing process. 

Books and Articles of Interest

This week, my task was to compile a list of books and articles that I would be interested in reading throughout the course of my research project. Most of the titles I found are geography-based, but there are also some that have more of a sociology or a psychology slant. Regardless, since geography is such a multidisciplinary subject, I think what I have selected will still be useful as I will be able to take a geographical approach to them. 

While most of the following references are of works that are more general to the issues of feminism in various spaces (home, work, public and private sectors, etc.), I was able to find some works that are more specific to my topics of feminist relationships and marriage, as well as the gendering of vegetarianism:

Adams, C. J. (2010). The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. London: Continuum.

Bondi, L. (1992). Gender and dichotomy. Progress in Human Geography, 16(1), 98-104.

Duffy, A., Mandell, N., & Pupo, N. (1989). Few Choices: Women, Work and Family. Toronto: Garamond Press.

Duncan, S., & Smith, D. (2002). Geographies of family formations: Spatial differences and gender cultures in Britain. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 27(4), 471-523.

England, K. (1993). Changing suburbs, changing women: Geographic perspectives on suburban women and suburbanization. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 14(1), 24-43.

England, K. (1993). Suburban pink collar ghettos: The spatial entrapment of women?. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 83(2), 225-242.

England, K. (Ed.). (1996). Who will mind the baby? Geographies of child care and working mothers. New York, NY: Routledge.

Federici, S. (2004). Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body and Primitive Accumulation. New York, NY: Autonomedia.

Ferguson, K. (1983). The Man Question: Visions of Subjectivity in Feminist Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fetterolf, J., & Rudman, L. (2014). Gender inequality in the home: The role of relative income, support for traditional gender roles, and perceived entitlement. Gender Issues, 31(3/4), 219-237.

Fraser, N. (1989). Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Hanson, S., & Pratt, G. (1995). Gender, Work, and Space. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hartmann, H. I. (1981). The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle: The example of housework. Signs, 6(3), 366-394.

Hovorka, A.J. (2015). The Gender, Place and Culture Jan Monk Distinguished Annual Lecture: Feminism and animals: Exploring interspecies relations through intersectionality, performativity and standpoint. Gender, Place & Culture, 22(1), 1-19.

Jacobs, J. A. (1989). Revolving Doors: Sex Segregation and Women’s Careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

McDowell, L. (1999). Gender, Identity and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Merriman, B. (2010). Gender differences in family and peer reaction to the adoption of a vegetarian diet. Feminism & Psychology, 20(3), 420-427.

Nast, H. J. (1998). Unsexy geographies. Gender, Place & Culture, 5(2), 191-206.

Nelson, L. (1999). Bodies (and spaces) do matter: The limits of performativity. Gender, Place & Culture, 6(4), 331-353.

Personal Narratives Group. (1989). Interpreting Women’s Lives: Feminist Theory and Personal Narratives. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Robinson, K. (2007). Marriage migration, gender transformations, and family values in the ‘global ecumene.’ Gender, Place & Culture, 14(4), 483-497.

Rose, G. (1993). Feminism and Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Saegert, S. (1980). Masculine cities and feminine suburbs: Polarized ideas, contradictory realities. Signs, 5(3), 96-111.

Spain, D. (1992). Gendered Spaces. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Valentine, G. (1989). The Geography of Women’s Fear. Institute of British Geographers, 21(4), 385-390.