The gender symbolism of
cleanliness characterises many a marriage. You know what I’m talking about. Women
are clean. Men are dirty. Cleanliness is associated with proper morals and
sexual purity. Dirt is associated with amorality and promiscuity.
Given these connections, it is hardly surprising that 20th century housewives were judged, largely by other 20th century housewives, according to how tidy they kept their domiciles. Many episodes of situation comedies in the 50s and early 60s featured women visitors covertly checking for dust, dirt, and grime has they moved through their host’s house.
Given these connections, it is hardly surprising that 20th century housewives were judged, largely by other 20th century housewives, according to how tidy they kept their domiciles. Many episodes of situation comedies in the 50s and early 60s featured women visitors covertly checking for dust, dirt, and grime has they moved through their host’s house.
Finding dirt was not
just an indication of carelessness; it conveyed laziness, depravity, a wanton
disregard for one’s family, communist leanings, and possibly an enthusiasm for
devil worship. Keeping a clean family home was the essence of womanhood. Things
have changed since then, but the remnants of this mindset still remain.
Stay-at-home, second
income, and single dads do clean the house. They understand the connection
between filth, microbes, and disease, and would generally prefer to avoid these
nasties. But that’s where it ends. We are still a long way from getting men to
think of cleanliness as the essence of manhood, and we may never get
there. Household cleaning for a man is
purely functional. It is stripped entirely of its symbolic meaning, and this is
perhaps one of the reasons why men’s standards for cleanliness are lower than
women’s – which has probably led to mild cases of marital discord from time to
time.[1]
[1] Cooper, Annabel, Robin Law, Jane
Malthus and Pamela Wood (2000), “Rooms of Their Own: Public Toilets and
Gendered Citizens in a New Zealand City, 1860-1940,” Gender, Place and Culture, 7 (4), 417-433.