Marianne Weber Oppression

As this essay has shown so far, there is inequality in who does what in the home but there is also inequality in decision-making; in deciding who gets what and how the family resources are shared out between them. Barrett and McIntosh note that mean usually make the most important decisions, the financial support from men is often unpredictable and they usually gain more from women’s domestic labour than they give back in return. Feminist sociologists Pahl and Vogler suggest that because of men’s higher earnings women have more financial dependence on their husbands and this is why men take more control over major decisions. Edgell agrees with this view and states that women only exert some control on less important decisions such as home décor. Finch argues that wives’ lives are generally structured around the husbands’, such as if the husband had to move for work, the wives would pick up and go with them, whereas it is unlikely that the husband would follow their wife for work.

David Farber’s in his book The Age of Great Dreams, the realm of women in America was restricted every aspect, from domestic life to the workplace. Women were anticipated to tail one path (Farber 62). That was, to get married in her 20s, have a family rapidly, and commit her life to domestic chores. As one woman at the time pointed out, women did not really anticipate much from life. That was because she was there as a keeper to both her husband and her children. Therefore, spouses held full responsibilities of child care and housekeeping thus, spending up to 50 hours a week on home errands. They were legitimately subjects to their spouses thru head and ace edicts, and lawful they were not entitled to any of their husbands ' finances or property, beside a constrained ideal to appropriate support. Husbands, on the contrary, were allowed to keep an eye on their wives’ income and property. If in any case the marriage failed, a break up was hard to acquire, as no fault separation was impossible, hence, coercing women to demonstrate wrongdoing with respect to their partners in order to get a divorce.

Many believe that gender roles are the only way for a family to prosper in a society where men provide for the family financially and women keep the house in order. The idea that a family must “have enough money to sustain a certain standard of living before they can decide that one member must stay home to raise the children”(Source C) is factual to a certain extent. There are many more ways to provide for a family and both men and women do not necessarily have to abide with societal roles. Women can succeed outside the house and men can contribute more within the house. However, the main thing that hurts women is they experience “pay gap, occupational segregation, denial of promotions to leadership, glass ceiling in different professions, increased casualization of women workers” and “lower levels of equation and work opportunities”(Source A). Society has created this barrier where women have to battle these disadvantages to escape conforming to gender

In “I Want a Wife” by Judy Brady, the author argues that the roles of a wife are unfair and more demanding than a husband's, thereby they are treated as lesser than a man. Brady supports her claim by first, introducing herself as a wife, showing her empirical knowledge; secondly, cataloging the unreasonable expectations of a wife; finally ending the essay with an emotional and thought-provoking statement, “My God, who wouldn’t want a wife?” Brady’s purpose is to expose the inequality between the roles of a husband and of a wife in order to show that women do not belong to men and to persuade women to take action and stand up for themselves. Based on when this essay was written and since it is about the impossible expectations of a wife, Brady was writing to feminists in the 1960s in order to rally them to create a change in the way people thought.

The economics of intimate partner relationships play a role in patriarchy and the reinforcement of women abuse. Martin (1981) states that meritocracy is a discourse that everyone has equal opportunity in the workforce. It fails to recognize the barriers that prevent people from having the same opportunities as others. For instance, women face many social pressures that prevent them from working in the public sphere such as discrimination, sexism, being pushed down to apply for certain jobs because it dominated by males and may not have the physical requirement like body mass. Martin (1981) argues that capitalism supports patriarchal families and the idea that a woman's place is considered to be in the private sphere, the home, while a man is to be in the public sphere. Martin (1981) states that capitalism is about competition and succeeds when barring disadvantage or vulnerable populations including women from advancing to the top of the hierarchy so that people, predominantly white males, would remain in power. One strategy to prevent women from advancing in their career is to receive minimum wage and less income than men which therefore makes them easily replaceable in the work force. This defines women as temporary workers (p. 41). This leaves women economically dependent on men and gives a reason

Married women in colonial America were not entitled to their own property, were looked upon as completely dependent on their husbands, and felt the heat when it came to divorce (Document 4). According to Gettysburg College, men were seen as the “king and priest” of the household, which still holds true today in a sense. However, with time, women have gained more rights and have equal opportunities with males in the present-day United States.

Before all the changes happened for women. “Women were completely controlled by the men in their lives. First, by their fathers, brothers and male relatives and then once married, their husbands. A women’s sole purpose in life was to find a husband, reproduce and then spend the rest of their lives serving their husband.” (Smith, 2002) When a women married, “her husband had rights to

A woman’s greatest time of independence was before she married. When a woman married all of her property, any wages, and rents and profits from real estate went to her husband. Post-Revolution reform made divorce a little easier, but it was still rare. “… although women won greater freedom to divorce, married women still could not sue or be sued, make wills or contracts, or buy and sell property.” Some newly educated women (above the laboring class) were even able to work and make their own money prior to marriage. A common occupation for the post-Revolution woman was teaching. Even as some American women were enjoying their newly found economic freedom, most women still felt their proper place was in the home tending to their family.

Subsequently, women inherently participated in this patriarchal society. A residual effect was women were often subjected to emotion, physical, and/or mental abuse. Morally, divorce was not an option as “a good wife acts not for herself only…and not for her own gratification.” Errington argues “publicly being a wife and sustaining the marriage was women’s work.” (52). Under these circumstances, how successful a women was in fulfilling her role as a wife would prepare her for arguably the most important role for women; being a

Male dominance a subject that is a huge topic of debate. Societies have accepted male dominance because it has been tradition for culture. For my Hispanic culture it has been seen as a trait of my culture that a wife would be beaten by their husband. Women throughout history is have not been treated equal to men. Male dominance is a topic of huge debate. Societies have seen the unjust of male dominance and hear the stories of female abuse by males. Women were suppressed by males in many ways. Women were seen as just a symbol of a caretaker and a mother. Recently women are being more independent and gaining high position jobs but in male dominated jobs. A recent issue of debate is the wage gap of females and males. Also another topic of dominance

But even in today’s world, many researchers and professors still see some sort of link between marriage and the oppression of women. An article from Psychology Today, written by Professor Noam Shpancer Ph.D. uses modern data to demonstrate the argument that Stetson made well over one hundred years ago. Shpancer’s article, titled Is Marriage Worth the Trouble for Women?, is best summarized as extending Stetson’s arguments of marriage being oppressive in nature, while also bringing new information about the inherent fact that benefits to marriage like “increases in health, wealth, and happiness that are often associated with the status—go disproportionately to men,” (Shpancer 1). Shpancer’s article also provides clear indication about whether or not marriage is oppressive, and it “appears to provide support for the notion that women experience the institution of marriage as oppressive, in large part because it emerged from and still carries the imprint of a system of female subjugation,” (Shpancer 1). Shpancer’s work provides excellent insight for the topic areas of marriage, oppression, and so

It was a common understanding prior to this time period, that a family was only successful if each member fulfilled their independent and significant role. Men were expected to work outside of the home, their support for their family came from their labor and toil. Women were expected to work inside of the home, and their support for their family came from doing things such as housework, raising children, and fulfilling their wifely duties. Women’s work was often considered less valuable than a man’s, but it would not be until now, that women and men’s work and their skills both become trivial. The traditional customs that have been followed and practiced for so long have abruptly come to a halt since capitalism has been incorporated into American

Dominance is the power and influence an individual has over another. As masculinity is a valued asset in society, it also

If one were to look in to the trend of working women in America, it would be flabbergasting to see how far they have come since the 19th century. Working women have become a dominant force in the workplace. According to recent analysts, women now control 50 percent of the paid workforce (Pollitt). It is no surprise then that divorce rates have been steadily increasing directly proportional to the divorce rate. There is a clear relationship between the success of women in America and their ability to live independently. Due to this newfound independence, many women no longer feel trapped in marriages that they are not happy in or that they are being either physically or verbally abused. With nearly “80 percent [of women] contributing a major chunk of family income” (Pollitt), it is clear that women have now set the benchmark in equality. They are no longer

This economic contribution, argues Baxter (2002:406) essentially translates to an increase in bargaining power within the household, which is actualised by decreased involvement in domestic duties. Curtis (1986:180, as cited in Brines, 1994:657) suggests that the power differential occurs because women are expecting an ‘unspecified benefaction’ to be decided, and provided by their partners at a future date. This use of housework as a ‘social exchange’ (Brines, 1994:657) is problematic, in that the amount of accumulated housework performed by a wife outweighs the monetary benefit provided to the household by the husband (Sullivan, 2000:442).