the ill-tempered cavalier ([info]gillen) wrote,
@ 2009-03-09 19:14:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
My Beatified Laundrette?
The Vatican, apparently having decided that it just hadn't offended enough people lately, celebrated International Women’s Day this Sunday with a headline article in its newspaper, l’Osservatore Romano, championing the washing machine as the greatest instrument of women's liberation in the 20th century.

Titled The Washing Machine and the Liberation of Women - Put in the Detergent, Close the Lid and Relax, the article opines, "What in the 20th century did more to liberate Western women? The debate is heated. Some say the pill, some say abortion rights and some the right to work outside the home. Some, however, dare to go further: the washing machine."

In support of her claim, the author dredges up a quote from Betty Friedan, who in 1963 described "the sublime mystique to being able to change the bed sheets twice a week instead of once".

The article goes on to outline the development of the mechanical laundry washer from the 1700s to present, ending with the observation that it has been the development of household conveniences more than any other factor in the modern era which has allowed the development of, "the image of the super woman, smiling, made-up and radiant among the appliances of her house."

Public reaction to l’Osservatore Romano's "tribute" has been chilly at best.


While this is certainly not a new argument, the last time it was seriously advanced was well over 50 years ago.



(22 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]jk_fabiani
2009-03-10 02:58 am UTC (link)
The Vatican is terrified to admit its the pill/abortion rights.

Edited at 2009-03-10 03:03 am UTC

(Reply to this)


[info]kalaam
2009-03-10 04:03 am UTC (link)
I like the tag for this entry.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gillen
2009-03-10 04:10 am UTC (link)
That's not my tag, and looking at the sorts of tags have apparently been added to my entries, tagging is now turned off.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]kalaam
2009-03-10 04:11 am UTC (link)
Dammit. It was funny.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mothwentbad
2009-03-10 04:52 am UTC (link)
What did it say?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mothwentbad
2009-03-10 04:53 am UTC (link)
Ok, that's pretty hilarious. x-post to [info]atheism?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mothwentbad
2009-03-10 05:01 am UTC (link)
A link to an article or two would be sweet, too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mothwentbad
2009-03-10 05:52 am UTC (link)
Seriously, I almost think you're just making this up, but it would be too clever even for you!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]clockwork_jane
2009-03-10 07:46 am UTC (link)
As someone who has, for reasons of finance, been forced to do laundry by hand... it exceeds even MY tolerance for service, personal mortification and sheer drudgery. And I spin my own thread and live with a man who wipes his boots on my back. So, you know, the pill may be great, but it's hard to be liberated when you're banging a bedsheet on a rock, love.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]erotetica
2009-03-10 11:45 am UTC (link)
OMG YES

I have *also* done laundry by hand (for some Catholic monks, incidentally). SO BORING

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nicestems
2009-03-10 02:32 pm UTC (link)
my question is, why did women end up with the responsibility of laundry in the first place?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]gillen
2009-03-10 02:42 pm UTC (link)
And, if that assumption carried through the invention of the washing machine, in what sense did it liberate them?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nicestems
2009-03-10 03:29 pm UTC (link)
i wonder if the it has to do with raising children. childcare keeps women at home, and therefore relegates housekeeping chores to them.

the reason women stay at home with children is because of their protectiveness. men have exploited womens' love for their children because they realize that most women would rather take on extra responsibilities rather than have the children suffer.

i think in many cases men have exploited motherlove to gain freedom and power for themselves. to add insult to injury, the field of psychology has made motherlove suspect. men use motherlove to keep women at home, and then go out and make "scientific" discoveries about how women are irrational.

but it all boils down to a worldview...most men are about self-preservation, and most women love to the point of self-effacement. which way of being is more rational?

i think self-effacement is more rational, because it means you have accepted the reality of death. it means you are able to acknowledge another human being as being as important as yourself. spiritually and emotionally, i think you're in a better place than someone who puts themself first.

i think there is something essential about men and women's roles in marriage and childcare. but i think the situation got very screwed up, and this made women's lib necessary.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gillen
2009-03-10 03:04 pm UTC (link)
But, as to the first, I should think it a carry-through from our hunter-gatherer days. Almost all the daily tasks that would be performed close to the cave/hut have been inherited through the ages as the role of women. That prehistoric division of labour has proven astonishingly tenacious.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]gillen
2009-03-10 02:41 pm UTC (link)
No one is arguing that the washing machine is not a marvel of the age, a good and useful thing, or even an immense time- and labour- saver which has freed mankind to pursue other tasks. However, for the device to be said to have "liberated" women specifically, it would either have to have relieved them of an onerous task natural to them or lifted a social restriction that was not. It did neither. The (not-so-)hidden assumption of the Vatican being that the doing of laundry is somehow innate to the purpose of woman. But even assuming for the moment that assumption were valid, the washing machine did not free anyone from the task of doing laundry, it simply made that task much easier to accomplish. It was no more inherently liberating for women than the invention of the block-and-tackle was for dock-workers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mothwentbad
2009-03-10 04:09 pm UTC (link)
Someday, when fem bots do ALL of women's work, then women will be completely liberated. But not a day sooner!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]gillen
2009-03-10 04:26 pm UTC (link)
mmmm.... fembots.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]erotetica
2009-03-10 11:45 am UTC (link)
I must say, I agree with the Vatican on this.

(Reply to this)


[info]arhyalon
2009-03-10 07:05 pm UTC (link)
They may have a point...we forget how many hours of a woman's day used to be devoted to laundry. I'm always amused when I am reminded of things like this...it is so easy to forget.

My vote would be for the car, though.

(Reply to this)


[info]petercampbell
2009-03-10 09:31 pm UTC (link)
I can understand where the Vatican's coming from - I can remember my old great aunt telling me how she's get up at 4 in the morning, to work all day, before finally heading for bed at 10. It was all work, and much of it was washing. Ok, there's no reason why that burden should have been hers alone, but freeing women of that burden gave them a life and expectations that they maybe didn't have before. More important than the pill though? I doubt it. If they didn't have all those children, then there wouldn't have been all that washing...

(Reply to this)


[info]rottedgirl
2009-03-13 09:17 am UTC (link)
Thanks for posting this video, it helped me bullshit a paper!

(Reply to this)


(22 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…