ahem-hem.
this from amazon.com's write-up of linda hirshman's "get to work: a manifesto for women of the world."
A former attorney and professor of philosophy, Hirshman labeled child care as a low-status job and urged all women to rejoin the work force in her now infamous American Prospect article "Homeward Bound."
Now she's back, using statistical research and convincing anecdotal evidence to challenge the politically correct assertion-as well as the moral, value and economic judgements inherent therein-that children, and ultimately society, benefit when mom stays at home.
In her attempts to "restart the revolution," Hirshman spotlights the emptiness of "'choice feminism,' the shadowy remnant of the original women's movement," that puts the freedom to choose before progress or equality.
"Stay-at-home moms do not like to hear that the sacrifice of their education, talents and prospects to their spouses' aspirations and their children's needs was a mistake," writes Hirshman, "so they contend the stay-at-home decision cannot be judged." But by making that "stay-at-home decision," Hirshman contends, women are creating, collectively, their own glass ceiling, in the end harming society as a whole by keeping educated, affluent women hidden at home.
don't tell the kids, but we're wasting our time on them. thoughts?
11 comments:
The fatal flaw in Hirshman's argument can be found in the argument that "choice feminism" "puts the freedom to choose before progress or equality."
Problems:
1) What does she mean by "progress?" And why is "progress", whatever it means, good?
2) Why is equality good? We all agree that it is, but if you think for very long about why, I suspect you'll find that it's related to human dignity and fulfillment. There isn't anything intrinsically good about being equal to someone whose equal you don't want to be.
There are two ways of seeing the term "equality:" it could mean equality of choice and opportunity, or it could mean substantive equality. Given that she derides "choice feminism," it seems clear that for Hirshman, "equality" in this context means "equal numbers of women playing significant roles in the workforce." But being in the workforce isn't at all desirable if you don't want to be there.
Hirshman seems to argue that it is more important to have women assume traditionally powerful roles than it is for those women to make choices that fulfill them. That means she's treating them as political pawns rather than ends in themselves. (Either that, or she doesn't think that women who choose to stay home are honestly making that choice. In which case she doesn't trust them to make their own decisions.) Either way, I think her views are demeaning to women.
Wow. My little rant seems to have come off as far more strident and obnoxious than I meant it to. I've been doing too much legal writing today -- sorry about that.
And on that note, back to do more law. Can I go to bed now?
some organizations (n.o.w., probably) vehemently defend a woman's right to choose to abort a pregnancy - on the grounds that she has sovereignty over her own body - while passionately fighting against the sex trade. what happened to the sovereignty? why can't a woman choose to rent herself out?
the implication is that some choices are so irrational that they must have been made while under duress, brought on by poverty or, well, brainwashing. hence "freedom of choice" cannot and should not extend to such so-called options.
ok, so hirshman thinks fulltime child-rearing is another such example. no woman in her right mind would abandon her rational - and, therefore, "human" - talents to perform natural - and, therefore, "base and animal" - functions.
it's both cliche and slightly (?) hysterical to invoke "brave new world", but it does seem that she wants humanity to craft a society that involves a great deal more specialization. dear Ford, where will this lead us???
...and speaking of specialization and work, here's a question:
If it's unseemly for women to stay home and care for their children rather than joining the working world, is it equally unseemly for them to work as nannies?
After all, if it's not ok for women to stay home with the kids, then either a) all stay-at-home parents should be men (in which case Hirshman is not advocating equality, but rather female "supremacy"), or b) some parents need to hire nannies. She argues that child-care is a low-status job: should no women do it? Should all nannies and primary caregivers be men? Or does the job acquire legitimacy when you get paid for it?
Or should we just not breed?
I'll amend my above comment to add day-care workers to the list of possible caregivers. But I think the point still stands: either all child care providers should be men, or it's ok to care for a child because you're getting paid for it (but not because it's your own child), or Hirshman's argument is misguided.
first of all, paul, i think sleep is important. and i highly (and rather hypocritically) recommend getting plenty of it each night.
secondly, in an interview with stephen colbert, he suggested just that. "why doesn't each woman just move over one house and take care of those kids?" hirshman's response was that then at least they'd get social security and a pension. so, maybe she's open to that, at least in a tongue-in-cheek context.
watch the first bit of the interview here
I don't like the idea that no choices can be judged...some are just bad. It's a bad inference to go from the idea that each person should have freedom of choice to the idea that all choices are equally worthy. (I think you likely agree)
That said, I have no idea what to say about women staying home vs. working. I do know that it's not at all easy to come back into the workforce after staying home, unless one wants to work for minimum wage...
I was wondering about Paul's question too. *Someone* has to look after the children...
please refer to messenger comments... how are you?
Justin
I recently read an article in McLean's magazine that talked about the problems associated with career-oriented women not choosing to have a family. With many western families now sporting a family size of one child, we are not procreating enough to replenish ourselves. This can lead to a number of problems.
1. Whereas before an older generation could depend on 3 or more kids for their support in their retirement age, now the burden of family support falls onto one child's shoulders.
2. The retirement of the majority of workers and less workers to fill in those gaps will slowly cause economic instability as businesses will have a harder and harder time growing because of the shrinking market.
3. The strain of being the only supporting child will cause grown only children to work more, thus procreate less, thus contributing to a downward economic spiral.
McLean's wasn't saying that women should be stay at home moms but rather the governments should make it more accessible for parents to have a larger family. Maternity bonuses for women are a part of it. The article suggested more paid time-off for women, as well as some for the fathers. It suggested more support too, for larger families from the government.
...and this is where it gets dark...
4. The problem with career oriented women not having families is that these are the smart, self-motivated, well-balanced female members of society that are not procreating. Instead of these women having the children it is those who do not have the same genetic tools or motivation to reach the same level of excellence. Thus the problem is not necessarily getting women to have babies, but getting the right women to have babies.
Well, what about that?
wowzers. that is a terrifying point. it is, in fact, contrary to our evolutionary instincts to continue as we are. what is distracting us? are we self-destructing?
"The problem with career oriented women not having families is that these are the smart, self-motivated, well-balanced female members of society that are not procreating."
Is Macleans assuming that stay-at-home-moms are stupid and lazy?
Post a Comment