Linda Hirshman is a Stupid Bitch
Ed. Note: My sincere apologies if this entry is less pants-whizzingly funny and/or coherent than usual. By way of apology AND explanation, I shall first offer you an excellent new drink recipe:
"It's 9 PM On a Friday and I Don't Hear Any Screaming Coming From The Crib"
Dump handful of ice into red keg party-style cup. Fill 1/2 full of diet ginger ale. Fill to 1/2 inch below rim with high-octane rum, add floater of something frou-frou and sugary, like DeKuyper Ring Ding Flavored Schnapps (this step is crucial; it dampens the impact of the rum, lest your drink taste like the contents of a Puerto Rican drainage ditch).
On with the festivities!
I recently stumbled across this article. I'm not easily riled, but by the time I finished reading it, I was mad enough to make like a horned lizard and squirt blood out of my eyes. Hell, I'm thinking about retaining an unscrupulous and unlicensed plastic surgeon SOLELY so I can produce an indignant stream of ocular gore. The piece purports, in as many infuriating words, that women who forgo lucrative careers in order to raise their children are, A. Not acting under their own will, but rather being stymied by the domestic equivalent of the glass ceiling, and B. Idiots. A "lawyer-philosopher" such as Hirshman wouldn't phrase it quite that harshly (or succinctly), but the implication is all over the article like white on Wonder.
Before I commence ripping into Ms. Hirshman like a well-crusted filet au poivre, let's get a few things straight:
Disclaimer # 1: This isn't another repeat of the stay-at-home-mom/working-mom debate. That one's been rehashed so often that it really should be dumped on a plate and smothered to death in ketchup. This is a personal beef between Linda and I about how she apparently feels that my energy would be better spent schmoozing with diplomats instead of playing peek-a-boo and scrubbing mashed carrots out of the carpet. The menial, non-socially-validated child-rearing, however, is far more rewarding to me than anything which I accomplish from 9 to 5. I would have loved to stay at home with my son. However, in order to provide him with certain opportunities I felt were crucially important, I returned to mid-level drudgery shortly after he was born. I suppose this merits a double-dip of Linda's ire: I'm a wannabe opt-out who didn't even own a trim little power suit to BEGIN with.
Disclaimer #2: If anyone here happens to be friends with Linda Hirshman, I'm truly sorry... that she's a stupid bitch. *administers wedgie, runs away snickering*
Disclaimer #3: Seriously, though? this woman is vastly smarter and better-educated than me. If my brain and Linda's brain got in a fight, it would last about ten seconds. It would end with my brain splatting to the canvas in a puddle of cerebrospinal fluid and shame while HERS did laps around the ring, pumping its spinal cord in the air in victory. I fully anticipate having to retract this entry in a few days when it becomes clear that Linda's intellect, like the Borg, cannot be resisted and will assimilate us all.
Okay, on with the show...
Point the First: Hirshman's observation, during a "60 Minutes" interview, regarding women who exit the workforce to raise their children: "These are the women that would have gone into the jobs that run our world. These were the women who would eventually have become senators, governors. These women would have been in the pipeline to be CEOs of Fortune 500 companies."
Funny Rebuttal: Translation: "We didn't get Susie B.'s head stamped on all those useless fucking pseudo-quarters so you could sit at home discussing your children's bowel movements and seeing your true potential get sucked away like so many scattered Cheerios in the Hoover WindTunnel THAT YOUR HUSBAND PROBABLY BOUGHT FOR YOU!"
Serious Rebuttal: The jobs Hirshman cites- politician, corporate bigwig- are notable for their immediate connotation of power. She doesn't mention doctors, nurses, teachers or police officers, because those individuals, while widely admired, don't "run the world". How charming... a quest for equality has been reduced to jockeying for a good spot at the all-you-can-eat wheelin' and dealin' buffet. This wouldn't be so bad (best way to change the world is to run the world, no?) were it not for the fact that, in Hirshman's eyes, the opportunities made available to women in recent years aren't opportunities but ultimatums. We've gotten you a place at the ladder, it's implied, so you'd better fucking climb. That's what I find so appalling... the implication that, unless you rise as high as you can, as fast as you can, you're betraying both your gender and yourself. I don't appreciate having that mantle dropped on me like a cartoon anvil. It may be OUR cause, but it's MY life. There's a difference between supporting women's suffrage and marching them at Kalashnikov-point to the nearest polling place.
Point the Second: Hirshman is much better at spouting neo-feminist theory than she is at disguising her contempt for women who don't toe the party line. Here's a hint, Linda... if you're attempting to win women over, you might want to try a little harder not to portray them as confused, vapid and utter wastes of potential. You catch more flies with honey than with barely-veiled disgust.
Funny Rebuttal: One gets the impression that, when describing a woman who declined to be interviewed because she was baking pies with her daughters, Linda is mere seconds away from puking bile. First you're baking pies, then you're cooking a pot roast, and the next thing you know, John Q. Patriarchy and all of his poker buddies are pinching your ass while you scrub the Roasting Pan of Submission.
I wish this woman could get a glimpse of my life. Not ONLY am I underemployed, but I wash my husband's underdrawers with neither protest nor careful examination of gender roles (I prefer to use Tide). Oh, and I change 90% of the diapers, too. And fold them into origami shapes when I'm done (The Sailboat... of Poop. The Crane... of Poop). And, apart from when The Lotus Blossom... of Poop bursts open all over the beige carpet, I'M HAPPY. The mere thought of it is enough to make Linda's head explode like Andrea Dworkin's at a Vivid Video shoot.
Serious Rebuttal: I don't know that this one actually makes enough sense to merit a serious rebuttal. I mean, you're a feminist... yet it's pretty clear that you hold no regard for women, unless they're ladder-scaling high-achievers such as yourself. Didn't Camille Paglia already employ a similar schtick? How's about you try something new, like "She's a feminist... and ALSO a government assassin!", or perhaps "She's a feminist... and she's teaming up with an orangutan to take down a murderous drug syndicate!"
Point the Third: Like many overly-idealistic cerebral types, Hirshman is convinced that it's possible to alter the fabric of reality via force of will alone. After portraying family responsibilities as being roughly as pleasant as unmedicated oral surgery ("...repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks"), she ups the ante by claiming that there's no natural basis for women having traditionally assumed these tasks. Quoth Hirshman: "This less-flourishing sphere is not [their] natural or moral responsibility".
Funny Rebuttal: I'm sorry, I was too busy lovingly buffing my husband's bulging cranium and soothing my snot-nosed little Impediment to Personal Greatness to formulate a funny rebuttal.
Serious Rebuttal: Excuse-moi? I'm all for equal distribution of household chores. But I refuse to believe that women have historically kept house and raised kids purely by coincidence or because of an oppresive patriarchy. This may cause Betty Friedan to roll over in her still-warm grave, but "equal" does not mean "identical". In general, men and women each have separate and often quite disparate skill sets. Once again, in general (we've got more generals than a Civil War reenactment, folks!), women tend to be more conscientious and nurturing, two skills essential to domestic happiness. Plenty of women excel in traditionally male-dominated fields, and vice-versa. But I can guarantee that many of those same women handle the floor-vacuuming and skinned knee-tending at home, and not just because it's been cruelly foisted upon them. I shall now repeat a phrase so cornball that it should be patented by Orville Redenbacher, but which contains a kernel (ha ha!) of truth: you don't hear too many gravely wounded soldiers calling for their DADDIES. I Mom. I love it. It's a skill, no less legitimate or valuable than the ones I use to put strained squash on the table.
Well, faithful (well... until NOW, perhaps) readers... what say you? Have I misinterpreted this piece? Am I way out of line? Should I be burned on a pyre of old copies of "Our Bodies, Ourselves"?
"It's 9 PM On a Friday and I Don't Hear Any Screaming Coming From The Crib"
Dump handful of ice into red keg party-style cup. Fill 1/2 full of diet ginger ale. Fill to 1/2 inch below rim with high-octane rum, add floater of something frou-frou and sugary, like DeKuyper Ring Ding Flavored Schnapps (this step is crucial; it dampens the impact of the rum, lest your drink taste like the contents of a Puerto Rican drainage ditch).
On with the festivities!
I recently stumbled across this article. I'm not easily riled, but by the time I finished reading it, I was mad enough to make like a horned lizard and squirt blood out of my eyes. Hell, I'm thinking about retaining an unscrupulous and unlicensed plastic surgeon SOLELY so I can produce an indignant stream of ocular gore. The piece purports, in as many infuriating words, that women who forgo lucrative careers in order to raise their children are, A. Not acting under their own will, but rather being stymied by the domestic equivalent of the glass ceiling, and B. Idiots. A "lawyer-philosopher" such as Hirshman wouldn't phrase it quite that harshly (or succinctly), but the implication is all over the article like white on Wonder.
Before I commence ripping into Ms. Hirshman like a well-crusted filet au poivre, let's get a few things straight:
Disclaimer # 1: This isn't another repeat of the stay-at-home-mom/working-mom debate. That one's been rehashed so often that it really should be dumped on a plate and smothered to death in ketchup. This is a personal beef between Linda and I about how she apparently feels that my energy would be better spent schmoozing with diplomats instead of playing peek-a-boo and scrubbing mashed carrots out of the carpet. The menial, non-socially-validated child-rearing, however, is far more rewarding to me than anything which I accomplish from 9 to 5. I would have loved to stay at home with my son. However, in order to provide him with certain opportunities I felt were crucially important, I returned to mid-level drudgery shortly after he was born. I suppose this merits a double-dip of Linda's ire: I'm a wannabe opt-out who didn't even own a trim little power suit to BEGIN with.
Disclaimer #2: If anyone here happens to be friends with Linda Hirshman, I'm truly sorry... that she's a stupid bitch. *administers wedgie, runs away snickering*
Disclaimer #3: Seriously, though? this woman is vastly smarter and better-educated than me. If my brain and Linda's brain got in a fight, it would last about ten seconds. It would end with my brain splatting to the canvas in a puddle of cerebrospinal fluid and shame while HERS did laps around the ring, pumping its spinal cord in the air in victory. I fully anticipate having to retract this entry in a few days when it becomes clear that Linda's intellect, like the Borg, cannot be resisted and will assimilate us all.
Okay, on with the show...
Point the First: Hirshman's observation, during a "60 Minutes" interview, regarding women who exit the workforce to raise their children: "These are the women that would have gone into the jobs that run our world. These were the women who would eventually have become senators, governors. These women would have been in the pipeline to be CEOs of Fortune 500 companies."
Funny Rebuttal: Translation: "We didn't get Susie B.'s head stamped on all those useless fucking pseudo-quarters so you could sit at home discussing your children's bowel movements and seeing your true potential get sucked away like so many scattered Cheerios in the Hoover WindTunnel THAT YOUR HUSBAND PROBABLY BOUGHT FOR YOU!"
Serious Rebuttal: The jobs Hirshman cites- politician, corporate bigwig- are notable for their immediate connotation of power. She doesn't mention doctors, nurses, teachers or police officers, because those individuals, while widely admired, don't "run the world". How charming... a quest for equality has been reduced to jockeying for a good spot at the all-you-can-eat wheelin' and dealin' buffet. This wouldn't be so bad (best way to change the world is to run the world, no?) were it not for the fact that, in Hirshman's eyes, the opportunities made available to women in recent years aren't opportunities but ultimatums. We've gotten you a place at the ladder, it's implied, so you'd better fucking climb. That's what I find so appalling... the implication that, unless you rise as high as you can, as fast as you can, you're betraying both your gender and yourself. I don't appreciate having that mantle dropped on me like a cartoon anvil. It may be OUR cause, but it's MY life. There's a difference between supporting women's suffrage and marching them at Kalashnikov-point to the nearest polling place.
Point the Second: Hirshman is much better at spouting neo-feminist theory than she is at disguising her contempt for women who don't toe the party line. Here's a hint, Linda... if you're attempting to win women over, you might want to try a little harder not to portray them as confused, vapid and utter wastes of potential. You catch more flies with honey than with barely-veiled disgust.
Funny Rebuttal: One gets the impression that, when describing a woman who declined to be interviewed because she was baking pies with her daughters, Linda is mere seconds away from puking bile. First you're baking pies, then you're cooking a pot roast, and the next thing you know, John Q. Patriarchy and all of his poker buddies are pinching your ass while you scrub the Roasting Pan of Submission.
I wish this woman could get a glimpse of my life. Not ONLY am I underemployed, but I wash my husband's underdrawers with neither protest nor careful examination of gender roles (I prefer to use Tide). Oh, and I change 90% of the diapers, too. And fold them into origami shapes when I'm done (The Sailboat... of Poop. The Crane... of Poop). And, apart from when The Lotus Blossom... of Poop bursts open all over the beige carpet, I'M HAPPY. The mere thought of it is enough to make Linda's head explode like Andrea Dworkin's at a Vivid Video shoot.
Serious Rebuttal: I don't know that this one actually makes enough sense to merit a serious rebuttal. I mean, you're a feminist... yet it's pretty clear that you hold no regard for women, unless they're ladder-scaling high-achievers such as yourself. Didn't Camille Paglia already employ a similar schtick? How's about you try something new, like "She's a feminist... and ALSO a government assassin!", or perhaps "She's a feminist... and she's teaming up with an orangutan to take down a murderous drug syndicate!"
Point the Third: Like many overly-idealistic cerebral types, Hirshman is convinced that it's possible to alter the fabric of reality via force of will alone. After portraying family responsibilities as being roughly as pleasant as unmedicated oral surgery ("...repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks"), she ups the ante by claiming that there's no natural basis for women having traditionally assumed these tasks. Quoth Hirshman: "This less-flourishing sphere is not [their] natural or moral responsibility".
Funny Rebuttal: I'm sorry, I was too busy lovingly buffing my husband's bulging cranium and soothing my snot-nosed little Impediment to Personal Greatness to formulate a funny rebuttal.
Serious Rebuttal: Excuse-moi? I'm all for equal distribution of household chores. But I refuse to believe that women have historically kept house and raised kids purely by coincidence or because of an oppresive patriarchy. This may cause Betty Friedan to roll over in her still-warm grave, but "equal" does not mean "identical". In general, men and women each have separate and often quite disparate skill sets. Once again, in general (we've got more generals than a Civil War reenactment, folks!), women tend to be more conscientious and nurturing, two skills essential to domestic happiness. Plenty of women excel in traditionally male-dominated fields, and vice-versa. But I can guarantee that many of those same women handle the floor-vacuuming and skinned knee-tending at home, and not just because it's been cruelly foisted upon them. I shall now repeat a phrase so cornball that it should be patented by Orville Redenbacher, but which contains a kernel (ha ha!) of truth: you don't hear too many gravely wounded soldiers calling for their DADDIES. I Mom. I love it. It's a skill, no less legitimate or valuable than the ones I use to put strained squash on the table.
Well, faithful (well... until NOW, perhaps) readers... what say you? Have I misinterpreted this piece? Am I way out of line? Should I be burned on a pyre of old copies of "Our Bodies, Ourselves"?
Labels: Social Ishizzles, The Compleat Thumbscrew
posted by thumbscre.ws at
2/11/2006
42 Comments:
Maybe I misunderstood the feminist movement but I thought the point was a woman could do anything as long as she had the personal choice to do it. If she wants to work outside the home, she has that option. If she wants to work within the home - she has that option as well. And the crux of the movement is that women should not judge other women for the choice she makes.
I haven't read the article yet, but I will. I always need something to make my blood boil.
And thanks for the Paglia shout out - I miss when she was in the spotlight and telling me how much smarter she was than I could ever hope to be.
Don't forget to add your bra and thong to the pyre!
Hmmmm. I'm pretty sure she's TRYING to get people's eyeballs to start shooting blood, but she may also just be a bitch.
I am one of the women who feels saddened and maddened by the stuff that she describes in her article (didn't see the interview). It does inflame me, the "I'm still a feminist because I CHOSE this life!" argument. Yes, feminism to me means supporting women's choices in general. But -- and I know I will make some women mad -- I do believe that there are women who are taking the easy way out by opting out of the paid workforce. NOT that raising children and running a house is easy -- far from it -- but I have seen it used as a way to hide from the world, and from one's responsibility to oneself. Because while everyone believes that THEIR husband will always be there for them, it doesn't always work out that way. People get divorced, people get widowed, and then what? Who's stuck with the crappy resume and no retirement plan? There are women who are vitally involved and active in the world despite not having a paid job, but they have no safety net.
Many women don't mind doing the bulk of the work at home, and many men prefer it that way. Therefore for most families, this is the easiest path to take. But is it the best path? I don't think the answer to this is the same for everyone, but we shouldn't ignore the question simply because of we're all too afraid to be seen as criticizing each other's choices. And I do think that this situation -- families "agreeing" that the bulk of the work should be done by the mother -- is one of the factors forcing women out of the workforce in exhaustion.
Of course women and men are different. (And the women's movement in the 70's had a hard time acknowledging this.) But while these differences will show up in how we parent our children, I maintain that they should not show up in how we manage our households. If cooking and cleaning were more suited to women than men, professional cooks and janitors would be women. (In this vein, I am fascinated by the trend in medicine toward a majority of doctors being women.) I don't think the battlefield example holds up; if the soldiers dying in battle had been equally parented by their fathers, there's a good chance they'd be asking for their fathers too.
If I had a daughter, I would be disappointed if she decided not to go into a paid job. (I don't mean taking time to have babies for a little while; I'm talking about quitting forever.) And I want my son to see me to be as equal a participant in the world as his father is.
Oof, sorry, gone on too long.
I would like to see some photos of poop diaper origami.
DoctorMama: see, those are all valid, intriguing points, most of which I hadn't considered, some of which I agree with. If you could pull that off in the comments section of a BLOG, for God's sake, why couldn't Linda manage that in the pages of a major magazine (answer: wouldn't have sold as many copies, I'll bet)?
Firstly: I don't know why I didn't think to clarify this (it was probably the rum), but I was referring to women whose kids weren't in school yet. While I stand by my assertion that it's every woman's individual life to lead, I do feel that the majority of women would benefit by taking at least SOME kind of paid employ at that point. That probably changes things a bit.
Re: "easy way out". I hadn't considered that, and do agree that everyone has a responsibility to themself. But I do think a certain degree of risk is acceptable, assuming it's in the goal of personal fulfillment... which it's possible to gain from staying at home, even for less-than-noble reasons. All in all, I don't know if choosing child-rearing is a worse choice than majoring in Early Scottish Culinary Arts or Textile/Metalworking Crafts: Bedazzler Track.
Re: housework: I don't think cooking and cleaning are more suited to one gender, but I do think that household management (noticing and making sure that this stuff gets DONE) is, in general, more of a female discipline. However, I don't think that the person who sees that, "gee, the floor is encrusted with Gerber Puffs and cat litter" should always be the one to take care of the problem.
Re: "I WANT MY [INSERT PARENT HERE]!": not sure about this one, actually. I guess I'd have to see how children who had been parented by particularly involved, nurturing fathers turned out (which brings up another point: it may be a societal thing, but I don't encounter too many fathers as active/nurturing as most mothers). Anecdotally, Sam spends as much time with the rugrat as I do, and they're both obviously in love with one another, but when J.Q. is hysterically upset, only mom will do.
Re: daughter/paid work. I think I'd be disappointed there, too. Like I said before... I was referring to women who take TEMPORARY time off of work. Eventually, you need to reengage with the world, or risk being somewhat disconnected from it forever.
Re: going on too long. No! I was oh-so-delighted to get thoughtful comments on this issue rather than what I was initally expecting ("YA, SHE'S A BITCH!", "NO, SHE RULES! I AM NEVER VISITING YOUR STUPID SITE AGAIN!").
Poop-igami. It's still in the nascent stages. I've damn near perfected "The Longhorned Sheep" this week, though. Bless those stretchy little tabs!
I feel conflicted about this. On the one hand, I feel that the whole point of feminism is for women to have choices, including the choice to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term (or not), the choice be a homemaker (or not). You're not really a "feminist," in my opinion, if you're telling women what's wrong with their choices.
On the other hand, I see many of my friends, whose educations (at excellent boarding schools, then Ivy League colleges and professional schools) have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, almost immediately put their barely-fledged careers on hold while their kids are young. Often after only a few years of practicing law or medicine, they more or less "retire" for the foreseeable future so they can be with their families.
What seems objectionable to me about that choice is not that it's a betrayal of feminism, but that it's bad economics. They've over-invested in educations that provided only very brief careers for them. (Though the jury is still out with respect to whether they'll return to their careers in middle age.)
But then, I also have to say, I don't think the only point of an education is to make more money. Education makes you a more interesting person, a better parent, a better companion, more thoughtful and curious, more responsible in every way. These educations are very, very expensive, but it's hard to put a price on having an interesting mind.
Bloo-dee-hell. I have an Ivy League education, a masters in writing, and I still didn't have the choice to not work while my baby was at home all the time. I'm lucky that I could bring in some dough because I can freelance. But if my then-husband had been insanely wealthy, you betcha I would have stayed at home to take care of her anyway. My case is a bit odd because she was born two months early to save my ass from a stroke, and she could not be put into daycare at three months without grave danger to her life, but I STILL would have done everything in my power to stay home. And I DO NOT feel that this was somehow an enormous waste of money on my education. Mostly because I don't plan on being a 50-year-old soccer mom, because my brain would atrophy and I might start to resent the fact that I am the origin in our home of the Magically Full Underwear Drawer. But I had this kid in my belly for a long freaking time...it would have been a painful choice to NOT stay at home for a good part of this baby's life, making Chinese Good Luck Stars out of Huggies and taking blackmail pictures of the level of vitriol pureed spinach appears to have engendered.
I've only been reading your blog for a short while, but I'm very glad I found you, and it goes way beyond the Puerto Rican drainage ditch.
lee ann, I honestly don't know what you're driving at with your post.
Your writing jumps around so distractingly among various (apparently angry?) images that it's hard for the reader to get a bead on where you're headed.
For example, this passage is particularly confusing:
"I STILL would have done everything in my power to stay home. And I DO NOT feel that this was somehow an enormous waste of money on my education.Mostly because I don't plan on being a 50-year-old soccer mom, because my brain would atrophy and I might start to resent the fact that I am the origin in our home of the Magically Full Underwear Drawer. But I had this kid in my belly for a long freaking time...it would have been a painful choice to NOT stay at home for a good part of this baby's life, making Chinese Good Luck Stars out of Huggies and taking blackmail pictures of the level of vitriol pureed spinach appears to have engendered."
Is making "Chinese Good Luck Stars out of Huggies" a good thing? A bad thing? The reader is left to speculate that this activity is a tedious and pointless waste of time, but then, that seems to be the wrong conclusion since the reference to Huggies is a clear allusion to domesticity and you've just stated that you're sure staying at home was the right choice for you. In other words, the domestic images are filled with rage and loathing -- yet you seem to endorse the choice to stay at home. This juxtaposition is confusing for the reader.
Further, you suggest that being "a 50 year old soccer mom" would cause "[your] brain [to] atrophy." Here, you seem to state that childcare is not an appropriate use of your intellectual gifts -- contradicting your earlier position that it was not a waste of your education.
As for the "blackmail pictures of the "vitriol" engendered by pureed spinach -- this is confusing. The fact that "vitriol" ordinarily cannot be photographed leads the reader to think that this image is meant to refer to something that can be photographed, and is the result of consuming pureed spinach, i.e., the products of the child's digestion (again, a very negative image of childcare, and again, very confusing after you've just endorsed the decision to stay at home). Moreover, who is being "blackmailed," and how?
Your comment left me genuinely confused. The use of metaphor here generates somewhat unstable and contradictory meanings. The lack of transitions is also a problem.
Ya! Julie - you have achieved what Famous Julie (A Little Bit Pregnant) has - commenters who don't argue with you - but with each other.
I know it's hard to believe, but Mr. Feral is the civilized one in our household. If not for him, the damn floor would never get mopped. And perhaps it's the twin thing, but I'd say we're both equal partners in the nurturance--and one girl in particular is very bonded with her daddy. All that aside, that was a VERY irritating article, especially the bit about marrying "beneath" you so your partner doesn't have any career ambitions that might conflict with yours. WTF? Shouldn't careers and parenting be part of a discussion you have with your beloved, rather than a master plan that starts with your choice of college major? Yikes. And you were right on about her elitism--what about the teachers, librarians, social workers, who stay home with the babies and don't pursue their careers? I think the bottom line is that some people are more fulfilled by their work than others. If staying home with the critter works out financially for one of the parents, who maybe isn't that excited about his or her career anyway, is that such a big deal? BTW, I know three fantastic stay at home daddies. Are they letting down the workforce too? Yeah, my post is all over the place too.
It could just be that sometimes, even though I love my girls, that I am able to treat them, myself and my spouse better when I am not soley responsible for them 24-7. It so happens I do this by working while they are at a sitters.
Do we split housework evenly? God no. Will I climb into a position where I will rule the world? God no. Do I work in a male dominated field? Hell, yes. Am I going to get equal pay for my equal work? We'll see (but statistically, I doubt it).
Do I resent or regret the impediment that being my childrens primary caregiver is to my career? No. Actually, I don't. I've managed to pull my career out of the can a couple of times now and I'll continue to fight my way through. My career is not my primary definition of my life, and I'd be a pretty rotten person to live with if it was.
Wow, these are, like, the best comments EVER! I want to take all of you home, feed you each one of my cup-meltingly potent drinks and take sweet, sweet intellectual advantage of you.
I'm so glad you posted about this. It's an issue I've struggled with for several years. I'm 27 and of the generation that has received frighteningly mixed messages about a "woman's role" in society. What I took from it all, essentially, is that I am expected to juggle everything simultaneously. I should have the kick ass career and be the president of the PTA and grow organic food in my garden and have a house that would make Martha proud. My husband and I talk about having kids in the near future but we also talk about sending me to law school. I feel trapped because I don't want to have to choose but I don't feel I can do it all either. And there are no answers to the dilema, only guilt.
Hi Jul--I posted about this article and linked to your entry, but I can't find a way to make trackbacks work without having a blogger account. So I will just cut and paste my response here:
I must say, Hirshman’s obvious disdain for women makes it rather difficult to take anything she says about feminism seriously, especially once she gets to her creepy Machiavellian solution to domestic inequality (marry weak-willed old man or useless intellectual—hey! I was crafty enough to snag the Nearly, who is a poet. My first step towards world domination is complete!) I am also struck by Hirshman’s ability to pick and choose which bits of the status quo she challenges. She is quite certain that it is wrong for women to stay home with their children (at least if they are privileged, educated women—she doesn’t seem to care about the others, as they have no potential to squander, presumably) and feels there needs to be a sea-change in the distribution of domestic tasks. But she does not feel the need to challenge the structure of economic power, at least regarding which jobs are valued. She has no quarrel with the idea that jobs in politics and finance are the only jobs that wield true influence (and are thus an acceptable use of women’s capacity—although it is not clear what she thinks that capacity is, as she seems to view women as spineless, easily bewildered, and mired in a Quixote-esque idealism). She doesn’t seem to regard work in the arts, education, sciences, or the non-profit sector as far above needlepoint in terms of usefulness. And for all her assertion that the reasoning behind her arguments is about more than money, that it is about women using their minds in ways that are challenging and engage with the world—how much more engaging is the work of an executive as compared to that of a molecular biologist? Or an essayist or teacher, for that matter?
Really, though, I will be honest—what bothers me most is the implication that I am too brainwashed or dull-witted to understand the implications of my own choices.
I am really very much not smart enough to comment here. What frosts me about Hirshman is that it's such an upper-middle-class argument to have. What about women who are leaving their kids in substandard daycares so they can go take a bus for two hours to work at a job for $5.15/hour because they have to thanks to welfare reform? What about families who have no choice but for both partners to work? I would guess that's the majority of the population, and Hirshman and her ilk feel the need to whine about Ivy alumnae wasting their potential as if it's some sort of crisis? As if waiting a few years for these women's children to grow up wll derail the world, somehow?
Oh, man. Timely. Just finished having a rip-roaring fight with Husband about this--I'm behind on classwork because I've been using my childcare hours for doctors' appointments for the babies, and he stayed home sick today thinking he'd laze around and sip orange juice and I put him to work making Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon dioramas out of size 4 and 6 diarrhea diapers. Because I'll get fired if I don't catch up with my grading. So it looks like I'll be scaling back my courseload (like to one per semester) and giving up the childcare (which puts me back in the position of having no way to get kids to the doctor) and the significant leverage my income gave me in household discussions. Not that I make that much, but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick and we are always both glad to see my checks come in. A lot of that has to do a) my trust issues; I do not WANT to be without income, employment history, resume fluff, etc. JUST IN CASE and b) the fact that my husband USED to be such an ass that when I was home with our first child (if by "home" you mean in school full-time but not gainfully employed, no) he would do things without running them by me and claim the "my money my decision" b.s. "phallacy."
Both of us, meanwhile, have undervalued what I do around here in terms of mothering and wifing, because now that I can't do it (between the sick baby and the job) everything is falling to shit.
I want a wife. Want to come live with us? You can wear granny panties all the time and never shave and eat the last cookie out of the bag every time and even pick which way we orient all of the toilet paper rolls in the house. I'll take care of Husband's baser needs and my three kids; you be in charge of the housework and your one kid (although I may as the alpha female demand to raise him as my own, because damn that boy is cute).
See, not everyone has intellectually relevant things to say today.
I just finished reading the article. Her tone is so insulting that it makes some of her more valid points difficult to digest. And she has a very specific image of what defines success that seems, frankly, dated. Her frame of reference is so traditional masculine. But the issue of educated women dropping out of a traditionally male-dominated fields as they become mothers is certainly a hot-button issue for me and my friends, who are largely attorneys in NY on the cusp of motherhood.
I work; my husband is getting his phd, at which he also works very hard. But because he's home, he does the vast majority of the housework. When I come home at 8:30p, I cook dinner every night. We try to navigate these "roles" as best we can and we've talked about what will happen when we have kids. He'll likely do some part of daddycare when he's finishing up his thesis but I really want to take a year out; I certainly don't think that means I am abandoning my brain or my feminist cred. It is about choice, but it's also about working to redefine what a successful life is made up of -- to me, it's not just money, or prestige, or having a title in a male-dominated field. That is PART of it, certainly, but not the defining characteristic. I'd rather change the paradigm; she wants to women to excel in the old one.
I'm not suggesting we burn the establishment, but do I believe there needs to be a shake-up in family roles. Many guys I work with can't fathom taking a year out and feel jealous that women "get a green light" to do so. They also laugh when I've mentioned DK does all our laundry. (Oh, how pointless machismo gets my goat).
It's funny how I've changed my thinking. When I was 18, I came home from my first women studies course brandishing Of Woman Born at my psychologist mother, ranting that she sold out to the establishment by taking out 6 years to raise three kids. She explained how lucky she felt to get to do so and how her time as a young mother was so brief compared to her working life span and finished with this salvo: "Oh, and I've read Adrienne Rich as well, kiddo. She lectured at Barnard in the 70s." Ah.
Hmm.
I think it's interesting that there is such a debate-- the solution, as far as I can see it, is to make all jobs as valued as the traditionally male jobs. Women don't achieve equality by becoming men with boobs. They achieve equality by being women who do the same things men do, if they want.
I do think it's hard to say that women are betraying feminism by staying home because a lot of what I consider to be feminism is the fight to let women have kids at all. In academia, you don't get time off. You might get a semester longer to work on getting tenure-- but it's a bad idea to have kids until you're secure enough that they can't get rid of you.
This is bad.
"Women shouldn't take care of kids," is not too far from, "Women shouldn't have kids (because it's what women did when they were oppressed)." I don't care if oppressed women care for their families, cooked, cleaned, and composed poetry. I care about what I as a somewhat free woman can do. It's not going to involve any time off from work that isn't necessary (you take a year off, you can never get back in line, which is a problem worth fixing) but I'll do my best to let other people take time off.
See, Jul? Excellent discussion!
Though it would be kind of amusing to see a few "YOR BLOG ROX" comments. Aw, hell, I'll say it:
YOR BLOG ROX!!!
This is why I love reading these blogs (yours, Julie, Julia, Mare...) You have a grasp on reality that many have not. I agree with you whole-heartedly, AND I wash the clothes, the dishes, do the shopping, and I complain, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
It's not so complicated, really. We were married, we both worked. We had a child, and both of us felt it was important for one of us to be home with him. I'm a teacher. I make half (or less) of what my husband does. So, I am the one who stays home. As that person, most of the household chores fall to me. Do I enjoy it? Sometimes. Do I feel intellectually stimulated by it? Not really. I'm glad I have the opportunity to be with my kids, and there are moments that are priceless that I otherwise might have missed, but all things being equal, if I had only my mental happiness to worry about and not my family as a whole, I'd rather work. I liked working, I liked my job. That's why I picked it. But, there is this to be done so I do it. I think my family as a whole is happier with one parent at home. We are all calmer, more grounded, happier. Some days I am so jealous of my husband escaping the noise and constant need of being at home as he heads off to work! And sometimes, he says, he is jealous of our day spent picnicking at the beach or (horrors) baking a pie. When you get married and have children, you no longer have to consider what will make just you the happiest. You have to weigh what is best for you family as a whole as well, beacuse it is one of the most important things to you.
I fought this (staying home) for the first few years. It was so stereotypical... it went against everything I had believed growing up. But, once I stopped worrying so much about it and just did it, it was fine. Because, when it comes right down to it, you've got to do what is best for your day to day life. On your deathbed, do you really want to look back on your life and say, "Well, I took one for my gender and womankind!" No, you want to have lived your life the best way you could, making yourself and those you love the most happy.
As for the suggestion that you marry down in intelligence/ambition or up in age so that you can have the carreer you want? Well, that's just odd. If you are going to pick your mate to further your career, why do it at all? That's not really the point of marriage, is it? Well, it shouldn't be.
One of the things I struggled with when I decided to stay home is that I am putting all my eggs in his basket. His income, his retirement...if we divorce in fifeteen years I may well be screwed. However, I love this man, he loves me, we both love our family. This leap of faith might come back to bite me in the ass, but I wouldn't really want to have a marriage without the ablitiy to make it (the leap of faith).
Sheesh. Sorry so long.
Thanks for touching on this. This woman, and this article, really pissed me off, and I enjoyed your responses to her bizarre pronunciations.
I had so many issues with her that it's hard to know where to start...First, how exactly are the "Vows" brides emblematic of the American female elite? The drop-off in working that she attributes to childrearing could, I think, more easily be attributed to trust funds. Many of these women were likely raised with the assumption that they could work if they liked, but they didn't HAVE to. And if, as she said, many of them stopped working the minute the ring was on their finger, doesn't that say more about their warped expectations of marriage than anything about childcare? Her extrapolation from such a small, moneyed subset--that all well-educated women are glibly tossing away their degrees without a second thought--seems extremely strained to me.
Hirshman notes that "[w]omen must take responsibility for the consequences of decision." Um, I think we are. Those of us who choose (yes--CHOOSE--I foolishly persist in believing in free will, despite her exhortations that I've been brainwashed by the feminist machine) to modify our career paths or work schedules once we have children realize that there are going to be trade-offs in the workplace.
As for my marriage, though I don't have one of them super-fancy Ivy League degree, I have been practicing law for six years, and plan to take a year or so off when our first child comes this spring. My husband is, in every respect, my equal partner--even, notably, in housework. He would have gladly stayed home with our child, but we've chosen for him not to because (1) I'm selfish and really want that time with my infant; and (2) I make slightly less money than he does. I have my own work retirement plan and IRA, and live in a community-property state, so I don't see that I am putting myself at a notable financial disadvantage, either.
I'm curious how such a choice would make me a failure to feminism, especially considering that the feminist I most admire, my mom, spent our formative years largely at home, wearing her "ERA YES!" t-shirts while baking cookies and earning her PhD.
I'm having such a hard time getting past her focus on the elite as the sole carriers of the feminist torch that I can barely wrap my head around the rest of it. See, Meg, she doesn't care if you stay home. You don't have any potential for real power, so apparently, you don't matter. That really burns me.
The whole thing is just so patronizing. Ladies, ladies, ladies, see, this whole choice thing? I don't know what we were thinking. It's obvoius that none of you pretty Ivy Leaguers can be trusted to make the RIGHT choices, so here, let me outline some rules for you. That's bullshit.
The problem with staying home for a few years is that big fat hole on your resume that's labeled "Homemaker years." We don't place a lot of value on raising our own damn kids, and of course, since it's the woman who is most likely to take that hiatus, it's the woman's career that suffers. THAT is what she should have written about. How to make putting one's family first (oh the HORROR) an acceptable pursuit, so that all these fantastic, potentially powerful women might actually have a reson to return to the daily grind.
And really, what the heck is wrong with idealism? How are someone's talents wasted when they opt for a lower-paying yet meaningful job. As a fairly intelligent, decently educated, yet by no means elite, professional who has chosen to work in the non-profit field because, yes, I do BELIEVE in something, I really resent that. Almost as much as I resent the insinuation that just because I'd rather stay home with my son, I've bailed on feminism.
Um, hi! First-time commenter. Love your blog!
I think one thing I get pretty sick of is the emphasis on women, and where we go 'wrong' What about men, and the fact that they have fathered themselves some children? What about the responsibility that should be implicit in that? Why isn't there an outcry that some of the folks in power should maybe be spending a little more time with their kids?
I also think there's way too much empahasis on gender and not enough on temperament. Different people are good at different things; different people take joy from different things. My older sister stayed home with her children and has never worked a full time job, and that was both joyful and fulfilling for her. As for me, the one period of time where I exclusively looked after my children was one of the most difficult in my life. I adore my children, but I'm not a particularly patient caretaker. I'm very fortunate in that both my husband and myself work from home, so we're always around. My husband is, if anything, more patient with the children than I am.
I wish we weren't so all consumed by categories and the way people should or shouldn't behave. I wish we had more tolerance for complexity.
I had an interesting and fulfilling job (though not a high-powered one) when I got pregnant with my first child. Fortunately we live in an area where high-quality day care is available. Even though the cost of said day care wiped out most of my salary, I went back to work after three months for the simple reason that I was bored and lonely during maternity leave and I craved adult companionship as well as the work itself. I can't honestly say whether my kids would have been better off with me at home full time, since I'm not sure that a less-than-happy mom would have been better than the excellent day care and preschool they got. But if they hadn't liked it, I probably would have quit.
The other concern I had was that if I opted out of the work world for a while, how in the world would I ever get a job again? This really puzzles me in the cases of lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc., when you really have to maintain your skills and knowledge about your field. As it turned out, though I couldn't have known it at the time, it was a damn good thing I went back to work because I had great benefits and my husband's company later went under, so we would have had no income and no benefits.
All that said, it's no one's business to criticize other women's choices. Exactly whom are these highly educated women "letting down" by being stay-at-home moms? If anyone, their parents, for all the dough they spent on their education. Ideally, a woman should have all the options available to her and then pursue the choice that gives her the most self-fulfillment. The problems arise not from snotty critics like Linda but from financial circumstances, social stigmas for men taking time off, and the scarcity of part-time professional employment for both men and women. Things wold be a whole lot different if they could come up with a pill to make men lactate. Then at least THEY would have another option that's not available to them (at least until the kid is weaned).
Everyone: wow, these are some amazing comments... lots of wise, interesting things going back and forth here. *feeling as warm and fuzzy as a wheelbarrow full of chinchillas*
Alice: My knee-jerk reaction was to think, "Yeah, it'd be awesome if my husband could milk up the kid every now and again!" But upon more careful thought, I kind of LIKE the restraints that nursing puts on both the boy and I. It's like we're very, very closely tethered together, just for this short period of time. Reminds me of the "daemons" in Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy (basically, like getting to keep your own soul as an anthropomorphic pet). It hurt when your daemon went too far away from you. Of course, J.Q. is acting a lot more like an ACTUAL demon now, but still think it's kind of sweet that, even when ripping all over the place, he has to return to mama for a snack every so often.
I think her research was severely flawed. However, I do think that the issue of the glass ceiling at home is worth consideration. I also think that her "Rules" have some merit.
I do wonder how a single career mother fits into her universe, if at all.
I also have to wonder why she thinks that only those with the most expensive educations become executives, there are a great many executives out there that relied on their skills and ambition and sense of timing rather than the reputation of their school.
Jen (fertility now), thank you! I had a really hard time with her entire argument because she was basing it on the NYTimes Vows section. Yes, there may be one or two potential power players in the section every week, but if you know the code you know that the majority of these couples are uniting to consolidate power. Look at the schools these women go to, and you'll see that they're getting the exact right kinds of educations and mingling with the right people. Whether or not they have law degrees later is irrelevant, because they have been born and bred to marry well and stay home to raise children and support their husbands' carrers. When you're rising to the level of power that these men will, you need full-time support at home. That's what these women do. They are doing exactly what they've been raised to do (including the year or two working so they have the experience of a workplace).
In Hirshman's defense (did I just say that? Next I'll be defending Caitlin Flanagan--ha!) she does state that she's only talking about a certain high-level subset of women. However, I think she doesn't have a firm grasp on who these women are or where they come from. Bad, bad social science.
I wonder how she fits people like Madeleine Albright and other women who achieved power after staying home while their children were very young into the equation. Oh, wait--she doesn't.
I wonder how 100 female monkeys with iMacs would do on this topic.
I found the article just a tad venomous towards women who choose to stay home.
I think the author's difficulty (or maybe just part of it) is that she fails to recognize that a lot of what dictates if/when a mother stays home is the financial situation of the family. If your husband makes enough money for you to stay home, then why not stay home for five/ten/all years?
On the other hand, if working is what really compels you, then get a nanny or use your mother and go to work! In my family, I am the so-called "breadwinner" in that I make more than my fiancee does. I probably will continue to make more than he does, and when the time comes to have children, we've already discussed that in order to keep up our lifestyle, he'll probably have to stay home with the kids (or we'll get a nanny).
Neither of us has a problem with that. Would I like to stay home with them? Well, I have no idea (since I don't yet have them). But if Erik doesn't want to stay home with them, then I'm comfortable with having a nanny.
I just think that most people feel this issue is too black and white, when it's really shades of grey and what's right for a particular family. Feminism is doing what's right for YOU, without bowing down to a patriarchy. If staying home is right for YOU, then stay home; it doesn't diminish feminism.
I think what diminishes feminism is when a mother says to a daughter (or a husband to a wife) that it's a woman's JOB to stay home and care for the family. I absolutely disagree with that sentiment.
I read this article a couple of months ago and I think she has a point, but there are some big problems.
Overall, I agree with some of her points, especially equal division of work at home, which I think is absolutely key, but she seems to gloss over a huge gaping hole in her argument--most of the women she is talking about gave up hard-earned, successful careers, great incomes and all that go with it, to be at home with their kids. I don't buy for one second that they did it because of a lingering patriarchal model that brainwashes them into thinking they have to.
There seems to be a logical disconnect in the article: On the one hand we are to believe that highly educated and successful women are brainwashed to believe that they have to be housewives/stay at home moms but on the other hand we are told that we must convince women that the definition of feminism is achievement and success on male terms--making partner, vice-president, tenure, whatever.
Surely - as per several of the comments above - it's all about choice?! I am a very highly educated woman - a first class degree plus a masters - who has decided that pure economics and her child's wellbeing take a greater (and i do not mean ONLY) priority AT THE MOMENT, than my job. My husband's job pays the mortgage, and if I was at work (for people I no longer like or care about, who sap my soul), I'd be putting my child in care for 12+ hours a day, and I would be too tired at the end of the day to even hold my child, let alone refill the Magic Refilling Underwear Drawer. I do not think that this is good for my child, or myself. I have been doing that for 3 weeks now, and I hate every minute that my child gets upset WHEN HE LEAVES THE CHILDCARE BECAUSE HE'S THERE MORE THAN HE SEES ME!!! Surely that isn't right! So I choose to stay at home to care for him until he is of an age - probably school age - where he is emotionally more able to handle my absence and will not need me 24hrs a day. And my husband can d&mn well refill the underwear drawer on a Saturday. But I do intend to return to work, and do a damn good job. Just not now.
However the assumption in the article is that once mums stay at home with their kids, they have sealed their fate and will never work in the higher echelons of society again. Bull. My mother stayed at home with myself and my sister until I was 6 and my sister in school. At which point, she started working from home - as a newly single mum. And kept working. And schmoozed diplomats, CEOs, etc etc as part of her (own) business. She was an excellent role model for two daughters, AND an excellent stay at home mum. Now she's retiring, selling her own business with enough capital to retire with no mortgage and enough capital for another house in the bank. Tell me, how that is in any way bad?
I worked as a nanny/homeschooler when I was younger, and the mum I worked for was a stay-at-home for 12 years. Now she has a highflying job, as her kids have left school. Her multi-tasking abilities are second to none and she is very succesful at what she does.
So. You can have your cake and eat it... you just need to slice the cake a different way. To me, my mother and my previous employer are TRUE feminists. They did what they wanted, when they wanted, and both have succeeded.
My bet is that Linda Hirshman just doesn't like changing nappies. And just wants to validate her excuses.
as a fellow wannabe opt-out who didn't even own a trim little power suit to BEGIN with, i can relate to everything you say. is it betrying feminism if you work--but put your homelife infinitely ahead of your worklife--partner with your husband---but change 90% of poopy diapers and more or less micromanage all household chores--but are still HAPPY? Maybe I will sound low brow by saying this but isn't feeling happy and fulfilled (somewhat) the point of it all--wether that happiness is gained through ruling the world, being up to you elbows in poopy diapers or being underemployed and overworked but ultimately satisfied?
As I see it, her problem should be with the system/society that makes it impossible for a woman (a person of either gender, really) to take time off for personal/parental reasons and then expect to come back to career that matches their education and experience. Why would your education and experience suddenly be deemed irrelevant just because you took a year or two off? She should be railing against the system that allows this to happen, rather than the women who are caught in the middle of it.
Linda Hirshman is an idiot; she doesn't speak for all or even most feminists, and she is just making waves to promote the book she is writing. Great take down!
I got here from Zoot's link, and I just have to say wow! As a young woman (20) currently seeking my education, I am loving what I'm reading here! I believe it is true that feminism is the choice to do what you want, and because of my mom's freedom of choice, I am a product of a household where my dad chose to stay home with the kids. He was definitely not the "Mr. Mom" stereotype, but between him and my mom, it was definitely the better choice. My mom went on to become a high-powered exec and loves it. Though this isn't the path for me, it proves that it can work both ways. I am in college working towards my degree hoping that in about five years, I'll be a stay-at-home-mom. But between now and then, I'll be the major breadwinner (the boyfriend will be going through grad school). Just because I look forward to running a household doesn't mean I want be uneducated. If my family needs me to work, I want to be able to. Accordingly, if my children need help with a science project, I would love to use some of my hard-earned knowledge!
This is what i love about feminism today: choice.
Hmmmm. Your post is brilliantly written although I probably concur only on the main point: Her elitism is maddening. As for the gender roles thing, my husband runs much of the household and takes care of the baby more than me as he is probably the more nurturing one. And he works! (As do I, more hours than he.) This situation kicks ass except for the part about the work stress making me virtually psychotic. The thought of an alternative where I make the dinner and do the laundry and put the baby to bed all by myself makes me want to cry. Mommies or daddies staying home with baby? That sounds nice, if it works for you. Mommies doing almost everything? That seems like a great injustice.
It's me, Mollie.
Anyway, great writing, you thumbscrew, you.
I'm grappling with this stuff right now (the balance between being a domestic goddess and doing something meaningful and gainful in my community) too. I was never destined to be part of the elite this gal references, but in my own small way, I like to think I could matter in the world beyond my little abode.
But this is just it: matter how? If it's just about money, then go out and shake your moneymaker (brain, hands, tits, whatever) and bring home the cash. Because I came into the world with a good whack of dough, money has never been the big carrot for me. And I can't quite figure out why I feel so crummy sometimes about simply keeping house and kids.
I was raised by a woman who was born in 1939 and did the whole Ivy-league, PhD thing. She tried to be a SAHM when my bro was born in '64, but by the time I came along in '68, she was over it with a capital O. She hustled herself back into the workforce like she was on fire and needed drenching. My care was entirely delegated until I was about 9, after which time she assumed I could make my own dinners and do my own laundry.
I vowed I wouldn't abandon my kids the way she abandoned me, and choose my own capricious fulfillment over any sort of nurturing of kids I'd committed to raise. And what's with this idea that older kids don't need nurturing? Fuck, man, I needed her more at 12 than I did at 4, I think. And she was so overwhelmed and stressed out by the time she came home that she didn't even want to begin to hear about my small-titted, menarchesque woes. I was the saddest freaking latchkey kid you could ever imagine. But I sure as hell know how to use a toaster oven (I avoid Hot Pockets™ at all costs, though).
FF to today, here I am, married to an ex-lawyer who has been on a mid-life crisis break from employment for upwards of three years. We're finally facing a time when we need to bring in some sort of income, but we've both been home with the kids (ages 5 and 1.5). He has more earning potential, but I worked like hell to convince him to not be a slave to his career, to find his bliss. He's found it: not working.
At the same time, I'm getting antsy. I love being home with my 19 mo girl baby, much more than I loved being at home with the first kid at this age. Part of it is that there are two of us. Our kids would cry for us equally on the battlefield, although when they are pissed off about something, they always yell "MAMA!!" And I do feel the burden is squarely on me to micro-manage all things household, from cleaning the toilets to keeping the social calendar to procuring last-minute valentines for the whole preschool class. I'm beginning to resent that my entire life revolves around domesticity and wifery; I feel parts of me atrophying, dying even. But do I really want to go back to the office? Be like my mom? What is the balance?
Oh, boo hoo for me, little rich girl with too many choices. I know. Revolting. You started it, though.
Meredith, I feel for you. Because I think I think that many children ended suffering teh backlash of 70s feminism, the "'have it all' syndrome. I always think that you can have it all, just not all at the same time. We are constrained by biology- only women bear babies, and only women lactate.
When I decided that breast-feeding exclusively for at least six months was the only feeding option for my potentially hugely atopic babies (asthma, excema etc on both sides of family), I committed myself to a course of action that as an Oxbridge educated woman I 'should' eschewed at all costs. One of my 50-something university tutors really made me feel good about this decision at a time when I was shaky about it all: he exclaimed loudly when I said that I *just* at home with the baby, and said without a hint of patronising that it was the best job in the world.
Many of my female university friends have concentrated on careers, and are now, at 38/39, childless, likely to remain so (have not found the right partner) and unhappy about it.
Do I regret deciding to take a rocky and sporadic career path? Most of the time I don't think so. I agree with Mollie that children need you more than ever beyond 11-12, when they're trying to make sense of the adult whilst experiencing it at the same time.
For this reason, I decided to limit my working outside the home to times when we really need the money (I go out to do supply teaching), and am trying at the same time to build up a new career as a translator working from home (having just completed a Masters) just as my first child hits teenage.
I have never regretted not stepping on the corporate career ladder as my father thought I should do. The graveyards are full of people who were 'indispensable' at work, but you only get one go at parenting your children.
I think everyone comes to an issue from their own standpoint, and Ms Hirschman may well be actually regretting some of the choices she made.
Mollie, Mollie, not Meredith. Sorry!
This post has brought me so much joy, because the acid bath I received from reading the Hirshman article left me barely able to speak about it. Of course, Ms. Hirshman would probably say that my sudden inability to think and articulate comes from staying home with my Little Impediment to Personal Greatness (I love that so much I might change her name to that!).
But seriously...I think my biggest beef with the article is the emphasis on the importance of the market uber alles. Unless you are working as a Mistress of the Universe, you don't matter...and if you dared to go to an Ivy League college and didn't major in something Economically Viable, well...then you deserve to be stoned for crimes against feminism! Like an earlier commentator said, education serves many purposes, and preparing you for the work world is only one of them.
Not that I'm always madly in love with staying home, but I wasn't usually madly in love with being in the work force either.
It's just nowhere near as cut and dry as Hirshman makes it out to be.
Did I mention that I loved this post? I loved it so much I wanted to marry it and do its laundry as a symbol of my genuflection before the Patriachy.
Here, Here! I was foaming at the mouth after watching that maniac on GMA. I actually questioned my life for three whole seconds. I am one of those nuts that believes that women are suited to the job of raising children into people. The species depends on it. I guess she never believed that the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world. Why should we settle for equality when we had superiority to begin with. All I can think is that the men in her life never held her needs/wants in the trust that I have with first my dad and now my husband. I am a kept woman. So sue me.
Just wanted to point out that Ms. Hirschman would feel differently about staying home to raise children if there was more status to the position. Social props, you might say. If there was respect for the work, men would want in on the action and we would have a TRUE choice (which was her beef in the first place).
I'm so glad you blogged about this so I don't have to sort through the blood-red haze of fury to dig up an articulate rejoinder!
I suppose I'm the type of woman that makes Ms. Hirschman cringe - college educated with absolutely NO inclination to put it to good use. My lifelong aspiration has been to AVOID working so I could stay at home!
The most dispicable thing that she said, I think, is that bit about not being financially dependent on our husbands so we won't be left high and dry when they divorce us. What a depressing view of marriage! Am I the only person left in the world who believes that vows can be kept and a good man can be trusted?
Many of you are missing Hirshman's point. As career lines are now projected, dropping out leaves you out of the institutions where large money is made and/or large power rests. That's the point of her figures on law partners and tenured elite professors.
After your 1 or 2 children are grown, you will be 40 or 50 years old. Your life span will be 80 or 85. What will you do with another 40 years?
And what if your husband dies or finds a trophy wife, leaving you with subsistence and a minimum social security fund (currently about $600 per month). And welfare laws that only help for 5 years?
Watch the number of old women working and be afraid it could happen to you. Not to mention the boredom of isolation in old age.
So: prepare yourself to start a business or get a license to drive a truck or work as a nurse or a child care worker or a clerk for a doctor's office, etc, etc. Because that's what women do when their children leave...unless they have prepared for something.
Hirshman has the numbers and she argues well: "Choice" feminism leaves homemakers without many choices. Or haven't any of you ever worked a divorce hot line where prosperous women found themselves on welfare after he left?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home