Ignorance is domestic bliss

Hoo, boy. I just found Taryn Cox’s The WIFE blog, through which the self-described “well-travelled domestic expert” says she wants to “reawaken the soul and romanticism of ‘The Wife.’” I confess that I couldn’t actually read much of the blog because I couldn’t get past the fact that a) Cox is 26 years old, so – no offense – but wtf does she know?, and b) the “domestic expert” can’t correctly spell either “June Cleaver” or “stationery.”

Here’s the thing you may not be expecting me to write… In my fantasy life, I’m Martha Stewart. I get really, really happy when I have the rare opportunity to set a table for a formal dinner. When I go to the mall, I spend more time window shopping at Williams-Sonoma than at any clothing or shoe store. And I have zero problem with families who decide that the “Leave it to Beaver” route works for them (operative word here being “decide,” as in “choosing between many available options”).

But it pisses me off when privileged – and, sorry, but if you’re blogging about $22 dish towels you’re pretty damned privileged – people insist that the families who *aren’t* hosting tea parties for other ladies-who-lunch are doing something wrong. Newsflash: some women (and men) work outside the home because they like it. Some women (and men) work because they need the income. Some women (and men) are homemakers because that’s what works for their families.

But what *really* burns me is this myth that wives were in perfect shape back before the evil feminists made them all get jobs. Cox writes that her “role models draw upon the influences of iconic ladies of the 1940’s and 1950’s, who unfalteringly flaunted their femininity and proudly cared for their homes, husbands and children.” Well, as the old joke goes, “My, isn’t that nice?” Would you like to know what my grandmother was doing in the 50s? SHE HAD A JOB. My grandmother ALWAYS worked, because her family needed the income. The difference between her life and mine is that she was confined to low-income work, whereas I was fortunate enough to go to college and go on to an actual career.

Cox’s mythical 50s also completely ignore the reality of non-white women in America, who also have ALWAYS worked, and who were barred from both education and advancement by the very social structure that Cox loves so much. We’re talking about a social structure that legally and customarily prevented women from fully supporting themselves even if they wanted to – or had to (or maybe in Cox’s 50s, husbands never died, abused or abandoned their families?) For what it’s worth, the myth also ignores the fact that Jackie O, an idol of mine that Cox also claims as an influence, also had jobs both before her marriage and after her kids were grown.

The 50s myth is dangerous, it’s disrespectful and it’s inaccurate. And the proto-50’s myth-world is downright unattainable for most women in this country. It’s also a little sad that anyone would think that an unmarried woman can’t have a gracious, well-run household, too.

Cox is certainly welcome to her fantasy. But it is just that - a fantasy. Go ahead and blog about the high life. But please don’t tell me or anyone else that I should aspire to be one man away from welfare.

(Another for what it’s worth… Cox is really risking an intellectual property suit with subject tags like “Domestic Goddess” and “Things I Love.” Seriously, don’t mess with Martha.)