Boys’ Club

 

       The idea of ‘domestic masculinity’ is something that had never crossed my mind, but once I started to think about it the more I realised just how widespread of a concept it was and still is. Growing up ten minutes outside of Washington D.C. my father, along with the fathers of many of my friends, spent most of his day during the workweek in the city. The weekends were reserved for coaching my sports teams, doing chores around the house, hanging out by the barbeque and working on odds and ends in the garage. I grew up in a culture surrounded by domestic masculinity. At the barbeques, dads would stand around the grill boasting about how hard the week had been and complaining about their new fix-it projects. It was like they were competing with each other, essentially saying, “As if my week wasn’t hard enough, look at what I have to do over the weekend,” like it was going to make them more manly than the others.

       “But, according to Gelber, by mid-twentieth century a potent mix of forces made the possession of “do-it-yourself” skills nearly de rigueur for such men. It was both masculine–expressing mastery over tools, and yet distinctly domestic—something done around the house, perhaps in the male-defined space of a workshop. Moreover, Gelber adds, such domestic masculinity seems to have been attractive not only to middle-class homeowners, whose ordinary workweek did not involve manual labor: Do-it-yourself activities “were performed by middle-class men acting like blue-collar workers and blue-collar workers acting like middle-class homeowners.””

       Domestic masculinity creates a sort of boys’ club. There are dads all over the country (I feel like whole concept is a predominantly U.S. thing) who stand around at barbecues competing with each other. Why is it that men need this sort of validation that “not only can I support my family throughout a rigorous workweek but I can also provide for them by performing these menial tasks on the weekends.”? And why is it that only certain activities fall under the domestic masculinity column. For example, it is a widespread assumption that the woman of the household does most of the coking. In my house, it is the total opposite. Yes my mother can cook and sometimes does but it’s my father who makes most of our everyday meals. I think that the repair aspect of domestic masculinity has been overshadowed by the competition aspect of it. One thing that seems to stay consistent is the fact that it brings men together, hence the boys’ club.

       “In both new and used bookshops it’s not hard to find home repair guides addressed specifically to women. It’s not unusual for them to begin with a bit of  pep talk…The very existence of such books and their messages of  “There’s no reason you can’t do this stuff too, ladies!” signal a history of women being considered unsuitable for such work, on the grounds that it is too demanding, or is something that would compromise their claim to femininity.”

       So why is it that domestic masculinity creates this sort of boys’ club for men, but women who work in the line of repair are ostracized and outcast from other women? Why is it that women are viewed as these fragile beings but also expected to be the backbone of the household? I feel like as a society we don’t really allow for people to be “that, and” types of people and that we sort of have to be “either, or” types. Sort of like, you can’t be girly AND like cars, it’s an either or type of situation that we’re taught from a young age. I think that this is because it creates this sort of uncertainty and does not allow for us to place people in the categories that we’ve come to understand. It’s a hard concept to explain, but I think that Spelman really tries to push her readers to think critically about the gender roles that the concept of “repair” creates and not fall into the traps that culture has set for us.  

Repa(pologies)rations

        According to Spelman, there are two different ways that we deal with the repair of the pain that we inflict on others. These two different ways are known as reparations and apologies. To Spelman, “reparations mean never having to say you’re sorry,” and “in order to apologize–really apologize, and not just utter some words–for something one has done or failed to do, one has not only to acknowledge responsibility for but express sincere sorrow and regret over this action or inaction.” At some level, I believe that this is true. To me, you’re not truly sorry for something unless you’ve owned up to what you’ve done and address it with the others involved. But I do not think that reparations and apologies are truly that different. I think reparations are simply a different, more complex, form of an apology.

“…it is not unusual to find both apologies and reparations requested in movements to redress serious and devastating harms…Apologies and reparation seem to complement each other in just the right ways, reparations testifying to the sincerity of an apology, apology providing evidence of a sense of personal responsibility for damages the cost of which reparations help defray.”

        To me, Spelman’s initial definitions of apologies and reparations are just too simple. Sure, she later gives an uncomplicated argument for how it is common to find apologies and reparations going hand in hand, but I think that all reparations require an apology. For me, the above quote sort of contradicts her original definitions. She separates these two ideas to the point where they are disconnected. But in order for reparations to be truly paid, I feel that it means the person must not only acknowledge their wrongdoing but offer assistance in the repair of what they’ve broken. They are forced to address their actions, take responsibility and be a part of the healing process.

“It is perhaps easy to to imagine why perpetrators of injustice might prefer to avoid the self-indictment entailed in a sincere apology’s expression of sorrow and regret for having harmed another. But by the way of examining the difference between apology and reparations as modes of repair, we shall here explore the possibility that the emotional coolness of reparations is precisely why the victims of injustice might not welcome apology, why groups who have endured systematic injustice might seek reparations un-accompanied by expressions of sorrow, regret, and other likely ingredients of the emotional tableaux associated with apology.”

        Initially, I read this quote wrong. Very wrong. I saw the words “self-indictment” and thought “self-entitlement.” But, it got me thinking, when a reparation is paid, is the person who’s paid that reparation allowed to have a sort of ownership over whatever it is that they’ve paid for? Do reparations make it easier to inflict harm on others simply because one is able to go back and repair the damage in a way? I searched the internet for examples, but came up empty. I think this idea struck me because it was something I had never thought about before but the more I thought about it, the more I could see it being a possible outcome. The thought has left me with a lot of questions and no answers, but I think it’s something worth thinking about. 

Repair: A Family Owned Business

     Many people do not consider being a housewife a real job. However, when Spelman puts the act of being a housewife into perspective, it is hard not to make the comparison between that of a repairman and a housewife. Just as a repairman, like Willie, repairs automobiles to function alongside with and to help out in everyday life, the job of a housewife is to provide the everyday necessities in order for those in her family to be a functioning part of society. Comparing the household to a repair shop is a brilliant way to truly delve into the similarities of a housewife and a repairman.

“I would like to venture that the history of the housewife–especially after the industrialization isolated household, and the women in it, from the rest of the economy–suggests that women’s work in the household has been to the larger society what the combined work of gas station, car wash, and repair shop is to automobiles. Though at the beginning of the twenty-first century there are severe cracks in its façade, the household (at least in what we breezily call Western industrial society) is designated as the default location for people to fuel up, get washed, clothed, and reclothed; it’s where they’re to receive the daily doses of repair and restoration necessary for them to keep on going, physically, mentally, emotionally, to keep on function as social animals (the continued importance of such tasks assigned the household is signaled by the use of the word homeless). Such activities, after all, have to happen somewhere.”

     However, I have found a few flaws in this comparison. It is typically viewed that in a household, after the husband returns home from work he’s done providing for his family for the day. He is able to unwind and take a break from his work. When children return home from school, they work on homework or play freely. The work of a housewife, however, is never done. She is on the clock 24/7 and typically does not get much help. A repairman is able to hire others in order to help out around the shop and to work on different projects. Speaking of different projects, repairmen can only work on so many cars at once. Housewives must handle the repair of all of her children, her husband, and most importantly herself. And once the repair is finished on a car, it is given back to its owner whereas the housewife is never truly finished repairing her family.

“The household functions–or is supposed to function–as a multipurpose repair site. It offers a pretty good microcosm of the variety of repair activities humans engage in, providing service on a nonprofessional basis that in many cases migrated outside the household to become the professional work of seamstresses, doctors, therapists, spiritual counselors, mediators, and judges. As Arlie Hochschild recently has argued, though “capitalism and technological developments have long been gradually deskilling parents at home.”

    Splitting up the act of repairing into different “activities” is something that is specific to the repair of humans. I like that Spelman states what a household is supposed to function as but ultimately adds that it often does not turn out that way. When thinking about the different types of repair work that have been outsourced from the household, Arlie Hochild’s point that it is “gradually deskilling parents” is in some ways true. It can sometimes be easier to see a therapist rather than talking to someone in your personal life or send your clothes to the seamstresses for them to be fixed instead of doing it yourself. This prevents people from learning how to do simple tasks themselves simply because there is always going to be someone out there willing to do it for a price. But sometimes, seeing a professional is the only way to seek the help, or the repair, that a person needs in order to be “fixed”.