"The Yellow Wallpaper" and "Women and Economics"

I found Nagra Navpreet's discussion interesting because of the way she connected the two readings written by Gilman. I definitely agree with her points regarding the woman in "The Yellow Wallpaper" having a lack of economic independence. Despite this, she secretly does the things she wants, such as writing, against her husband's wishes. In some ways, this shows she has a degree of independence in the way she acts and thinks. Both her brother and her husband claim that she is only suffering a temporary nervous depression, and this is similar to how in "Women and Economics", a woman's male relatives or husband dictate her economic status. In both cases, men have the power to control how a woman is perceived. In "The Yellow Wallpaper", she is seen according to how these two physicians in her life portray her through their diagnosis, and in "Women and Economics", whether a woman is seen as wealthy or poor depends on the male figure in her life and his ability to provide.

Vanessa, thank you for your comment. I think you are correct in pointing out that the main character in "The Yellow Wallpaper" does write in secret and have her own ideas about what disease she has. She does show some independence despite her husband and the other males in her life such as her brother controlling most of the decisions about her life.

One thing I think is missing in "Women and Economics" is what women can do to become economically independent. Although, she talks about how women are economically independent when they earn their own money and are able to be self-sufficient, she also points out that being paid for maternal duties and housekeeping relegates women to the status of house servants. Although she argues that women's work should have an economic value placed on it, it creates the problem of reinforcing inequalities in labor between genders as you would not normally see men in the position of nanny or housekeeper. Can we think of any sort of solutions to address the problem of placing an economic value on house labor so that women in these positions aren't diminished to the status of servants or hired help when this kind of work is paid?

In response to Lian, I would consider that looking at house work as an inequality and looking for a solution through this framework is problematic in itself. Looking at house labour as something that should have economic value may not be the best alternative to finding equality, which is a slight disagreement from Gilman's hypothetical proposal of paid house labour (done by the wife). The problem of inequality regarding house labour brings us to the root of the problem and that is society's history of patriarchal household ideals. In my opinion this gendered problem requires an upheaval in order for household labour to become fair for both co-owners. With a balanced relationship both partners should be able to create equal responsibilities, whether its one person do all of the household services or a shared duty. As it stands most women in society are pressured to perform more household duties than men, and these responsibilities need to be shifted to a more egalitarian model.

I believe that the reason women go through lack of economic independence is because women were relying on men when they were not able to join the work industry and I believe that is why it was missing in the "Women and Economics" that women can be economically independent. The idea of men being the breadwinner in all society hinders this idea that women in our contemporary society can as well survive on their own and become the breadwinner in their household. In the "Yellow Wallpaper" her husband is controlling her to express her feelings and her writings so she doesn't become a good writer and become what she wants to become, she expresses that if she writes, she can get better but her husband won't let her do it because this would make her become a good writer which would make her have conflict with her husband's labour work.

I agree. I believe that in the past, because men and women produced different amounts of labour in the workplace and in the household, it was more economically efficient to have women produce household labour while having men produce workplace labour. But as women begin to meet and surpass the level of educational attainment that men achieve, the argument that women should still remain economically dependent on men becomes obsolete. This economic dependence might have been the most rational thing to do in the past, but the same can not be said today. I believe that men and women should equally contribute to household and workplace labour in order to be most productive.

I would agree with Christopher's point that men and women should share an equal amount of workload in the household to maximize productivity to an extent. However, this may not always be the case as it depends on whether men and women choose prioritize work or family.

For my second theory essay, my theoretical hook is an example of a woman whose husband has to do more household work than her. When Anne-Marie Slaughter was appointed the first woman Director of Policy Planning to the US State Department from 2011 to 2012, she was only able to return home on the weekends from Washington, DC to Princeton, NJ to her two teenage boys. In her opinion article written in The Atlantic magazine, she proposed that "women can have high-powered careers as long as their husbands or partners are willing to share the parenting load equally (or disproportionately)". In Slaughter's case, her husband - also a professor at Princeton university - spend more time with their children at home more than herself. After 2012, Slaughter quits the civil service job to spend more time with her children, stating how "my desire to be with my family and my conclusion that juggling high-level government work with the needs of two teenage boys was not possible."

Thus, I believe that sharing the household workload is to be determined by each individual couple as it is impossible to make a generalization that the workload is to be shared equally.

As much as I see your point, I cannot agree with the argument that the narrator of "The Yellow Wallpaper" has some degree of independence. Although it is true that she writes when nobody else is at home, I view this very fact that she has to secretly do something she desires as a complete lack of independence. The narrator even mentions that she now finds writing tiring, not because of the very activity but because of all the hassle and hiding she has to do in order to write. Not having the power or right to do something one wishes at a place and time one desires is one of the furthest things from independence in my opinion.

I think one of the reasons why a large number of women do not have economic independence is due to the religion or traditions. The division of labor in the past did not encourage women joining the workforce. While the husband in a family has responsibility to do the breadwinning part as a support to the family, women were left home taking of household work and taking care of their children. As this kind of division of labor lasted for so many decades, it brings difficulties for women in the contemporary society to become completely independent. Such change in division of labor seems to violate the social norm.

I agree that women lack economic independence is due to how the society is set up. The most successful women in the past are housewives, as seen in Betty Freidan's writing. Therefore when women want to go into the labour force, they are stepping out of the norm, and thus discouraged to do so. This causes this group of people to reply on their husband solely, which leads to a lack of economic independence.