Distractions from Writing; Or How I Ponder the State of My Housekeeping Skills

I think when we began this blog, we said we would not complain about our lives (too much). Is that correct, my fellow Prudential Bloggers? Well, I would like to stick to that statement, but I must say at this very moment, our house is very messy. It is cluttered and in desperate need of a good, old-fashioned scrubbing. Part of the clutter comes from the nature of our professional lives. We here at Rosebud, PhD's house are historians and there is generally not an article we would not copy or book we would not acquire if it had anything remotely to do with our area of interest. ("Area of interest" can and has been defined broadly.) As I am in the midst of writing, my research files and books are literally all over the house. I dutifully pack it all away at the end of the work day, but we also live in a not so large place with little to no extra space for work. Hence, we have piles.

Now, if I were truly a dutiful and good wife, a virtuous wife for pity's sake, I would have discovered the best way to organize this mess and I would be a better housekeeper. While I cannot quote Proverbs 31, I am familiar with the description of the "perfect wife" and I definitely fall short. Most days, I do not feel too bad about that. One could re-write that to say wife and/or husband. Nothing wrong with Himself putting his hand to the distaff and making her name known at the gates. (And before we go too far, Rosebud, PhD's beloved husband does a great deal of the housework.) Yet, there is a little voice at the back of my head that judges me for not being better at keeping house. I wonder why that is? Is it because I have not moved beyond the expectations for women to be domestic divas? Women can be whatever they want to be now, but if their houses are not in order, there is something not quite right. Is that it? Is this a gender thing, or is this a larger maintaining civilization thing? Does it fall into the category of dressing appropriately when leaving one's house, maintaining one's yard, and generally being a conscientious and involved citizen? Will our society crumble to the ground if my house is cluttered, dusty, and messy? (I would rather not say dirty, because we do avoid throwing actual garbage around.)

Of course the answer for which I am looking is no. No, it will not fall to bits. What may happen, however, are two things. One, we will have to clean it up before we let the outside world in (or at the very least sweep the mess under the carpet); and two, I will stop letting the mess and commenting on it take my attention away from writing (which this afternoon it has, albeit temporarily).

Working at Writing, the Unglamorous Side of the Historian's Life

I have been engaged in a bit of writing. I find it curious that I when try to write, the words do not come easily. It is, well, work. At the same time, I find that I can write emails and various other things of the "non-work" variety with lightening speed. My writing becomes clever and without much effort I get from point A to point B without too many digressions and false starts. When I sit down to write, as I have today with parts of my first chapter, it takes me a better part of the day to concoct of meaningful paragraph. I may have exaggerated on the "meaningful" part. It takes a great deal of effort to organize the various sections, and draw together the notes on the research. The research is the fun and glamorous part. Sifting through archival records, reading secondary sources, finding new things--that is where all the excitement is. The writing takes time and one is called upon to provide meaning or a larger interpretation to all those bits of information.

Over the next few weeks, I will be writing more of this chapter. It is one of those chapters which sets the tone for the rest of the work. I also wonder if I am caught by the largeness of the whole project. This is my first endeavor post graduate school. I may, just may, be experiencing a bit of apprehension that I will not prove myself. In the field of history, so much depends on what one does as a young scholar. One must either publish the dissertation asap or several articles from it and a new book within a few years of graduating, or face fading into oblivion in the wake of the next batch of new young scholars. Ambition and fear of failure are powerful motivators, are they not?

I do enjoy my work, even when I have difficulties. I may be at the end of the day tired and frustrated by my lack of progress, but I cannot imagine another working life. I just wish I did it better, and faster.

Image from:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rbo/lowres/rbon241l.jpg

Again with the Double Standard!

If I keep returning to a particular blog and critiquing it for promoting the nineteenth century understanding of womanhood in today's political world, am I being redundant? If the answer to that question is yes, then I am guilty as charged. New Agenda, again, has raised the issue of how the world would be better if only women were in charge. In this post, Chris Jahnke argues that if women held more political offices, there would be fewer scandals of the Governor Mark Sanford nature. Why? Because women are better than men.

According to Jahnke:

If you want leaders for whom the people not power comes first, women are the best bet.
Want fewer embarrassing, distracting sex scandals? Elect more women.

This is idea that women are better than men may be something that we all say in conversation with each other, "that is so true," but it is troublesome because it continues the notion that there are two sets of standards for men and women and their behavior. Women are good and moral by their nature and men, may very well be good and moral, but this runs counter to their more animalistic natures. The dear knuckle-draggers cannot help themselves when they err, particularly in sexual matters. Women, on the other hand, are much better at all that. That Hillary Clinton would not "hit on the intern," as the author quotes, is admirable, but is it because she is more moral than a man? She is definitely smarter than those who have done so, but is it because of her gender? Her biology? When women have affairs or use their power to their advantage, the public outcry against them, one can argue, is much more severe than when men behave in this way. (Can we not hear "boys will be boys" and "don't hate the player, hate the game?")

I would argue that both men and women should be held to the same standard of behavior. Women have been and continue to be barred from true equality by this double standard. Now, I am not arguing that women should abuse their power, have sexual dalliances with underlings, or cheat on their spouses. Everyone, regardless of their gender, should behave themselves, follow the rules, etc. (I am and always shall be a stick in the mud.)

When I think about this issue, The Declaration of Sentiments comes to mind. (I am a historian, after all.) In 1848, at the Seneca Falls Convention, the authors of this document (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and others) were

Resolved, That the same amount of virtue, delicacy, and refinement of behavior, that is required of woman in the social state, should also be required of man, and the same transgressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman.

Granted we are in a different world than Antebellum America, but why is it that we have ignored the lessons of our foremothers? I do not wish to be too harsh with the New Agenda. I think what they have started and the potential for good for women's equality and feminism is remarkable and commendable. I wish, however, that we consider the extent to which true equality is achieved when women persist in claiming that women are just better than men. Unfortunately, this is a much more complicated issue. Jenny Sanford has possibly shown us how we should act.