Betty Friedan’s analysis of feminism in her work, the Feminine Mystique is not relevant to the struggles faced by the women described in Annelise Orleck’s book, Storming Caesars Palace. The difference of perspective between the two authors is largely based on class. The struggle Orleck describes is that of poor women to gain recognition in the eyes of the government and be treated equally both as women and mothers as well as poor American citizens. Orleck argues that lack of education and adequate employment opportunities are the main causes of the widespread poverty amongst women of color. She also feels that lack of access to birth control was a factor. In contrast, The Feminine Mystique focuses on the issues faced by females in the middle to upper classes, the majority of whom were college educated. Freidan claims that these women were victims of advertising and rigid social roles and expectations. She feels that they were not allowed to meet their full potential as human beings.
In Freidan’s book, motherhood is depicted as a deterent to women’s process of self -actualization. Freidan quotes a Redbook magazine article “Few women would want to thumb their noses at husbands, children and community and go off on their own”.[1] Having a child meant one was instantly tied to the house, while the husband worked and interacted in the outside arena. The only expectations of the wife were that of housework, childrearing and being there for her husband at the end of the workday with a well-prepared meal. This provided a sense of security to most women. The housewives that suffer from Friedan’s mystique work in the home at menial chores offering little challenge or intellectual stimulation. Their work centers on the family’s well-being and happiness in such a way that was not possible for the mothers in Storming Caesars Palace. According to Freidan, this possession of education with little or no outlet was what created “ the problem with no name “ as it is referred to. The women in Annelise Orleck’s book, the majority of whom were immigrants to Nevada from segregated area’s throughout the south were involved in a battle against the state over their right to have and keep their children, as well as the right to provide them a decent upbringing. Orleck declares, “ In 1967, Congress gave Welfare departments power to remove children of AFDC mothers…”[2]. These women wanted the financial security to provide their children with the same parenting that Friedan denounces in her work. Many of those in Annelise Orleck’s work were single mothers trying to support large families with labor that was physically challenging and paid less then was adequate for subsistence.
One point that was shared between both groups was the importance of birth control. Both groups of women had large families but for very different reasons. The women Orleck speaks with had large families for a variety of reasons, large families meant more income as a sharecropper, there was no access to birth control and the women were often victim’s of sexual assault. Freidan’s women had large families because they needed to fill time with children to take care of while the husband was out in the workforce as well as to fulfill the social expectations of the woman as “happy housewife”. With access to birth control the middle class housewife could control when she started her family allowing time for a career. Those who were denied access to birth control in lower class groups were forced to try and support families that were to heavy a financial burden, keeping these women from being able to better their situation.
Both works refer to the root behind women’s plight as being that of a capitalist society. The changing economy of the post war era was one of affluence. There was also a great leap in technology and new goods that was left without a market. According to Betty Friedan, this hole was filled with the middle class housewife. Advertisers created a market of happy housewives using tools like their new washing machine that cut the time spent on menial task and allowed for more time to be spent attending to the families other needs. Freidan claims that the middle class housewife was vulnerable to this marketing because they were allowed no other goals in life other then to provide care to their family. This created a longing in these women to “professionalize” the work that they did around the house. The amount of time that Freidan’s housewife spends on her family was a luxury to the women Orleck spoke with. What to do with extra time could not be a concern of the lower class. Freidan offers little information about the plight of the poor or women of color. The women that Annelise Orleck spoke to were working women, not because they wanted something to do outside of the home but because many were single mothers of large families who needed to support their children. One woman who spoke with Orleck says, “The women wanted recognition of their work as mothers. They also wanted the state to stop punishing them when they worked outside the home.”[3] The social climate of the time was not very accepting of women outside of the house. This along with the harassment from welfare offices made it near impossible for Orleck’s mothers to find a meaningful job that provided both decent wage and security. Many of the jobs open to these women were extremely physical and offered little in reimbursement. This is very different from the life of the women in Freidan’s book. The chores of the middle class housewives were not satisfying. They had access to new technology that made their jobs easier and the women looked for more to do with their extra time.
The Feminine Mystique discusses at great length the effect of advertising on women, in particular housewives. Betty Freidan argues that due to the lack of involvement in activities outside the house the gap was filled with material products marketed to the housewife to make her life easier. “ [T]he professionalization is a psychological defense of the housewife against being a general cleaner-upper…”.[4] The role of a housewife was not an option for the women in Annelise Orleck’s book. Many of those women were victims of domestic abuse, abandonment by their husbands and large numbers of children. One can not ignore the irony that as the housewives of The Feminine Mystique were looking to give their roles as mother and housewife purpose through professionalizing their jobs in the house, those that Orleck spoke with were struggling to create a opportunity to give their role as mother some meaning despite their not being in the home.
Betty Freidan makes the argument that the higher education afforded women was partly to blame for their discontent. The Feminine Mystique argues that women were educated for careers that they were unable to have. Any women that fought her way into the career field were thought to be unsatisfied in their role as a woman. Many prominent psychoanalyst and sociologist unwittingly supported this notion. Sigmund Freud was relied upon greatly for this support as well as sociologist Margaret Mead. Mead felt that women should be satisfied with their role as mother and caregiver to her family. There was little attention paid by these fields to the lower classes of women and their struggles. Freidan ignores any implication these studies may have had for women of color or lesser class.
As a means of correcting the unhappiness caused by the unfulfilled potential of education, women’s colleges and colleges in general started mainstreaming women into a curriculum that provided little actual thought development and better prepared them for their role as housewives. As Freidan states, “More women…were going to college but fewer of them were going on from college to become physicist…stateswomen, social pioneers, even college professors.”[5]Many of the female college students spoken with by Freidan were only attending college till they found a husband. Those in Anelise Orleck’s book were struggling to get any support that might help them get a job that compensated well enough to support their large families. Most of the women interviewed in Orleck’s book were former sharecroppers who were denied any educational opportunity. Once in Las Vegas, they organized to fight for job training programs that might allow them an opportunity to a subsistence wage and job security.
There were few commonalities between the women focused on in these two books but they all shared a common struggle to be respected for the work that they did both in and out of the home. The women of Annelise Orleck’s work fought to be recognized as good mothers and equal contributors to society as members of the work force. Those of Betty Freidan’s work struggled to free themselves from the restrictive social stigma’s surrounding womanhood as[1] Betty Freidan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1963) 69
[2]Annelise Orleck, Storming Caesars Palace (Boston: Beacon Press, 2005) 96
[3] Annelise Orleck, Storming Caesars Palace (Boston: Beacon Press, 2005) 101
[4] Betty Freidan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1963) 309
[5] Betty Freidan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1963) 227
0 comments:
Post a Comment