'New Domesticity' Is a Step Backwards for Women

December 5, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Reader, beware the seeds of a pseudo-retro trend sown on the Washington Post Outlook pages about a week ago by a 29-year-old woman:  a "new domesticity" which elegant writer Emily Matchar hopes will come to a kitchen or garden near you.

When I say you, I mean my female friends. Men, you have nothing to lose or fear from this new cultural bugaboo. A few chickens in your backyard, maybe, but the eggs are just so perfect for Sunday brunch. It all adds up to beautiful nonsense.  

What, haven't you heard of  "urban homesteading" in Brooklyn and other places where the cool congregate?  Matchar paints a snug picture of her own jam-making, her friend's bee-keeping and the DIY (do-it-yourself) spirit she sees sweeping across America's younger households. To be clear, Matchar means knitting, baking bread, growing and drying herbs, and raising sheep. She did not specify alpacas but I'm sure they fit into her pastoral vision of "reclaiming" women's work at home. 

[Find out about the women of the Senate.]

"Suddenly, learning the old-fashioned skills of our great-grandmothers seems not just fun, but necessary and even virtuous," Matchar wrote in a lead Outlook essay. Up close, her disarming portrait idealizes social history and would actually take womankind a leap backward. The prevalence of "stay-at-home moms" who are educated professionals tends to sideline women as well.

Ironically, Matchar went to one of the nation's top universities, Harvard, where it may be easy to take social progress for granted. The retreat she recommends for women into deep domesticity is more like a defeat of what women like the suffragettes fought to gain a century ago.  

Hold the line there for a contrast.  At 50, born the same summer as President Barack Obama, I belong to a generation that witnessed so many barriers to women coming down. Some Ivy League universities and select colleges such as Amherst opened their doors to women, as did the military academies and professional schools, all during the '70s.

[See photos of Obama behind the scenes]

As a girl, I remember my avant-garde mother, a professor, subscribed to Ms. magazine from the inaugural issue, as a symbol of the women's movement. The daughter of a traditional homemaker, my mother gave her daughters a great sense of scope and possibility. But the bittersweet struggle for equal rights was handed down, too. 

I might add that home schooling also tends to sideline women. Every so often a cultural kissing cousin comes along as if to undermine the progress made since 1920, the year "Votes for Women" finally gave us a place in the public square of American democracy. The Roaring '20s were like oxygen to women, but the dance wasn't supposed to stop there.

Don't get me wrong, I love making my grandmother's ginger cookies (with bacon grease!) and the chocolate cake recipe from the days she and her three sisters baked for the men working summers on their Kansas ranch (roughly when Alice Paul was working for woman suffrage). The quilts in her bedrooms speak worlds to me. And yes, she canned a mean glass of jam from my grandfather's raspberry garden.

[Read Washington Whispers: USDA Aide Joked About Obama Garden Failure]

But there's no need to make a fetish out of all that. We must pursue progress for women, given all we have been given.  A retreat to privileged domesticity may not be all it's cracked up to be.

Finally, a word about Michelle Obama, who arguably exemplifies the trend Matchar heralds. Have we heard a word about her education at Princeton or her career as a Harvard trained lawyer? I don't think so. Her vegetable garden is hip to "new domesticity" and her focus on her two children has apparently kept her from speaking out on anything more controversial than childhood obesity and military families. Jacqueline Kennedy, first lady when I was born, had two small children, but made much more of lasting impact with the White House restoration. Mrs. Obama has spent a lot of time on her wardrobe as well, but curiously, she's not a game changer as a champion of women's progress.

Just don't take this retro trend any farther, please, Mrs. Obama. Hold the line.

Tags:
feminism,
working women,
Michelle Obama

Reader Comments Read all comments (17)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

As a 24 year old living in a "domestic partnership" with my boyfriend for two years now I have to disagree with you. I'm am not a woman who has ever wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, nor do I plan on having kids in this decade of my life. I really don't enjoy cooking, I do like baking and crochet, and my cleaning skills are sub-par. Quite honestly my boyfriend would be a better home-maker. But the diy skills and ideas that are being promoted in this movement are not anti-feminism and are also used by men. And during our hard ecomomic times it just makes sense to stretch your dollar and make things you need rather than waste money to buy them. Now, in our society it isn't only women being boxed in, it's everyone. I don't have the money to go to Harvard or the credit to even get loans to go back to school. My options have not been limited by the diy movement, they have been limited by the generation before me with their greed, which I guess would mean you?

Stephanie of FL 3:54PM February 06, 2012

Domesticity, new or old, is no more a step backwards for women than it's a step forward for them.

I seriously wonder if this article was written by a man because its totally patronising tone towards women and what it thinks of as "feminine" or "domestic" pursuits.

What's so wrong about domesticity?

Anyone who thinks that being a housewife, cook, gardener or whatever is automatically a doomat needs to start trying to live in the real world!

Donna Barber 9:54AM December 13, 2011

I don't think you have any right to tell women what should be important to them. If a woman wants to invest herself in home schooling or raising chickens, that is her choice. Those things may not be important to you, but corporate success isn't important to me. To liberate means to set free, not to impose a new set of constraints.

Kelly of PA 2:59PM December 12, 2011

Jamie Stiehm

Jamie Stiehm

Jamie Elizabeth Stiehm is a writer and journalist in Washington. For 10 years, she was a reporter for the Baltimore Sun and, prior to that, the Hill. She is working on a biography of Lucretia Mott.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Get God Out of the Gay Marriage Debate

The government shouldn't tell churches who they should marry, but neither should churches tell the government which marriages it can recognize.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Latest Video

advertisement