Domesticity and Femininity

[ISaySteadyOn]

I should say right at the off that I struggle to reply to threads I start sometimes because I am dyspraxic and often only have my phone. I usually do read along so I don't disappear.

I've been thinking about this for a while, but this is the first time in that while that I have managed to grab the computer and not my phone. I was reading a book about the history of suburban architecture and interiors (I am a giant nerd) and I had to put it down due to the authors' snide little asides about women's attempts to make their homes prettier or more comfortable by making cushions or firescreens or blankets.

It made me think, there is a lot of underlying contempt for domesticity in general. Why is that? Why is wanting to make your home look and feel nice such a horrible thing to want? Is it because it is usually left to women to do it and anything women do is automatically frivolous and stupid even if it benefits people? Or is there a further underlying contempt for the feminine and domesticity comes under the umbrella of femininity?

I was also thinking about housework threads. It is often made out that housework is really easy and should be no bother to anybody. I don't find that it is and sometimes I feel almost unwomanly that I struggle to learn all the different bits. And does that fall within contempt for domesticity? I don't know. I'm just musing here. Anyone else have thoughts?

Housework isn't simple but it is necessary.

Is being a garbage worker valued? Not particularly, though we all know it's necessary. That's a male profession.

Transport is another one, I don't know how well paid train drivers are (just that the tabloids think they're all millionaires) but I don't think it's particularly respected, though it is male dominated.

I think this is a complex issue where the status of women interplays with the effects of the class system.

The class system undoubtedly influences the value society puts on domesticity. People who had servants to undertake all the domestic duties within the household often would regard domestic work as 'beneath them' or not suited to their status. To this day, it is considered, by some, to be an upper / middle class trait to not put much importance upon having a spotless house.

With the class system giving a high status to professional positions, I think this compounds the low status given to domestic work done by women.

Isay I was taught domestic science at school (and I'm not LM Montgomery old either ). Some of it was very useful in fact.

We had a three term year in our school. Girls got Dommy Sci and Fabric and Fashion for two terms; boys got Technical Drawing and Woodwork for two terms; then we each got one term of the 'other' subjects. My school was considered very progressive!

In terms of this thread though, it's quite interesting. Dommy Sci very much taught life skills - how to read the fabric care label on a garment, how to iron (practical lesson no less), sewing, cutting patterns etc. Tech drawing and woodwork - I suppose could still be considered life skills but it is perfectly possible to get through the average life without being able to do woodworking. It is not perfectly possible to get through the average life without washing your pants. I'm not sure what that tells us though...

Wasn't there some rather expensive course that university students could take prior to going to uni? It involved how to make cheap food and perfecting the dastardly task of getting a duvet cover on by yourself.

I've always thought that compulsory classes for both girls and boys would be brilliant. Even if you separated them for the class. Woodwork, DIY, cooking, laundry, etc.

At my secondary school boys and girls both had to do home economics (basic recipes, along with general cooking techniques like peeling potatoes, and basic sewing and ironing) and we all also had to do CDT (basic woodwork, some electronics stuff, messing around with a soldering iron) until we got to Year 10, when we could choose either one to take at GCSE. 99% of the boys did CDT, 99% of the girls home ec. Predictably enough.

In fact, one of my major feminist awakenings came during a CDT lesson when the teacher actually said, "Boys, we have got a new machine, come here and see what it can do. Girls, carry on with your work."

But on the OP's question, I have a real internal conflict...

It is possibly completely due to socialisation, but time after time after time when I see single sex spaces the majority of girls' spaces have been decorated and some attempt made at keeping them nice, the majority of boys' spaces have been left at the lowest acceptable state.

I recently looked around a sixth form college with separate boys and girls common rooms. The girls had chosen to spend the money they were given on cushions, some nice pictures etc etc. The boys had spent it all on a table football and a new toaster. Similar story in the all boys / all girls student houses I can recall from university. (And a recurring issue on MN when two people move in together and have different standards of cleanliness - the vast majority of the time it is the female who has to drop her standards or do extra cleaning to tidy up after her male partner.)

Gah, posted to early!

My internal conflict is that this seems to be something innate, given the prevalence of the difference between male and female spaces. But, if we reject the "lady brain" arguments then should we also reject the "home maker" theory? Does socialisation completely explain this difference? I'm not sure...

And pregnant women "nesting" - definitely a "thing", I believe, so perhaps decorating our environment more generally is basically low level, permanent nesting...? And it is devalued in male / societal eyes, because it is female activity / frivolous / ephemeral?

Countess - counting for nothing really is an amazing book!
Olenna - I'm not sure you could ever separate out socialisation to look at if there's anything innate in it. And the socialisation in this area (as in most others) is just so all-consuming - I would start listing it, but I'm deluged by thoughts of exactly how many differing expectations for males and females are reinforced and contribute to girls liking nice spaces etc.
Anecdotally, none of the females in my extended family were much for cleaning and dad and uncles and granddads seemed to do most of the day to day stuff which is weird when I think about it. But I do think this directly influenced my own ability to 'just not see the dirt' though I was constantly reminded that I should be able to because I'm, y'know, a woman.

'Nesting' Will have had a practical purpose. Cleanliness, softness, etc, for the new baby.

Like you, Olennas I sometimes get conflicted because I can see differences myself which I'm not always convinced are down to socialisation. Though, I do believe that socialisation is incredibly subtle and massively effective.

In terms of men and women preferring a different environment - I posted the link below on another thread, but it serves here too.

Physically, women detect smells easier than men and they see colour on a more enhanced level. Which might account for their 'feminisation' of their surroundings. I think lots of us may have been in the position of showing a couple of swatches to our other half and he simply can't tell the difference even though it's screamingly obvious.

I don't think anyone can argue that man and women are different, biologically, physically and hormonally. The differences are small but have been exploited.

www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.livescience.com/22894-men-and-women-see-things-differently.html

I'm a don't see the dirt woman married to a tidier man...

Me too, Helen. But I am learning.