Reason.com
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|12.20.05 @ 7:51AM|#
Feminism, she argues, needs to become more judgmental and tell traditional women that their choices are bad for society (women won't achieve full parity with men when so many voluntarily leave the track that leads to power), and bad for them because the lives they're leading allow too few opportunities for ''full human flourishing."
So, she's basically at the opposite extreme to Phyllis Schafly ideologically and predictably similar in her totalitarian perscription. Heh.
|12.20.05 @ 7:52AM|#
BTW, wasn't writing this article a bit like shooting fish in a barrel?
|12.20.05 @ 8:00AM|#
...
Fish?
|12.20.05 @ 8:12AM|#
sexist,
Yeah, gilled vertebrates that largely live in water (salt or fresh or both depending on the portion of their life cycle they are in). :)
|12.20.05 @ 8:32AM|#
Hey wait, I learned from another thread that fish is what gay men call women.
Hak, I know you are married and living a heterosexual monogamous life now, but was that an exlamation from your past life?
|12.20.05 @ 9:02AM|#
The thing that I found most disturbing about this article, even beyond the totalitarian feminism, is the implication that the only way to have what Hirshman considers a "fulfilled" life is through your job.
Some jobs are quite fulfilling, and hooray for the people who have them, but far more jobs are simply a way to pay the bills. If, for instance, a Wal-Mart cashier is fortunate enough to have a husband who makes enough that she can stay home with the kids, what are the chances that this woman will think raising her children is less fulfilling than working a cash register?
I don't even want kids, but some of my friends have them and I have no difficulty understanding why they love staying home with their kids. And despite what Hirshman says, I don't think my friends are hurting me or any other woman through their choices.
|12.20.05 @ 9:10AM|#
The thing that I found most disturbing about this article, even beyond the totalitarian feminism, is the implication that the only way to have what Hirshman considers a "fulfilled" life is through your job.
As I think more about it, this bothers me for the same reason I'm bothered by those people who insist that the only way to be happy is to always have the trendiest clothes, or the latest shiny gadget--the idea that happiness and fulfillment must come from without, not within.
|12.20.05 @ 9:16AM|#
Jennifer,
Did you read the original source article? Its argument, and Young's depiction of it, aren't exactly the same.
|12.20.05 @ 9:18AM|#
Joe--No, I didn't, and honestly, I don't have the time right now. What did Cathy Young get wrong, do you think?
|12.20.05 @ 9:26AM|#
Jen,
You are the only person I know here that regularly quotes themselves.
|12.20.05 @ 9:27AM|#
Not quoting myself, Kwais--adding to what I said before.
|12.20.05 @ 9:31AM|#
I haven't read the feminist thing either.
But I have a feeling that I am going to find it annoying.
I do think that if a couple has kids, at least one of the parents should dedicate themselves full time to raising the kids. I mean they can do other stuff but their main job should be raising kids.
That can be the man or the woman. But it is up to them and they should understand what is involved and that the govt and the school cannot do it.
The school is not responsible for your kids education, the local police are not responsible for whether your kids drink or not, and the DEA is not responsible for whether your kids do drugs or not.
I might have gone off on a tangent here, I'll read the little feminazi's article to see if I am way off base.
|12.20.05 @ 9:36AM|#
Thats cool Jen, nothing wrong with it, just unique on these pages. I know a radio host that does it too, and it seems to work for him.
|12.20.05 @ 9:47AM|#
"Add to this the good evidence that the upper-class workplace has become more demanding and then mix in the successful conservative cultural campaign to reinforce traditional gender roles and you�ve got a perfect recipe for feminism�s stall. "
I love how she just ignores how sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have explained these gender roles by treating them as adaptations.
"It changed the workplace but it didn�t change men, and, more importantly, it didn�t fundamentally change how women related to men."
Might nature as opposed to nurture have something to do with it?
|12.20.05 @ 9:55AM|#
Emme--There was a Dilbert cartoon where the office workers had to watch a Sexual Harassment video, and one of the guys then said something like "Great! That half-hour video completely wiped out six billion years of evolution. Never again will I have a sexual thought when I see an attractive woman."
|12.20.05 @ 9:56AM|#
hilarious
|12.20.05 @ 9:59AM|#
There's alot here to mull over, but my reaction is that the feminist has a point in that our culture still does have stereotyped gender roles. So those that reflexively fall into the roles do in someway make it harder for those who attempt to act differently. Note that this issue also impacts men who want to stay at home.
However, that reality doesn't mean that we should use coercive force in any way to "correct" it. Even in the absence of the cultural gender roles, I would expect that women would choose to remain at home more often than men, just based on biology (the whole breast feeding thing just works better that way). And I agree with the poster who said that it is the parent's responsibility to raise their child, although I would say that it is their right to pay someone else to do it (although I generally find that attitude morally reprehensible), but they can't force someone else to pay for someone else to raise their kid. And as long as the last part is true, I think more people would raise their own kids (daycare is expensive, and knowing all the risks that come with it, I think most people would see the economic rationale to having a parent raise the children).
I see the feminist's position as one that needs to be heard, but one that can easily be taken too far and turned into a very bad thing.
|12.20.05 @ 10:02AM|#
Oh, and I completely share Jennifer's unease with those who equate happiness with career. My job is just what I do to allow me to have fun in the rest of my life. I don't expect my job to be fun, or overly fulfilling. I expect it to be work (duh!).
My family, friends, and hobbies are fun and fulfilling.
|12.20.05 @ 10:03AM|#
I opted not to RTFA but rather to STFA in American Prospect. It is an impressive writing feat that reading only every 10th word can still impart a level of patronizing condescension. During the '90s, I taught a course in sexual bargaining at a very good college. Does a really good college want to admit it offers a course in sexual bargaining? I would love to see the syllabus.
I can't wait to see how the Title IX advocates and others in favor of affirmative action begin to address the reality that we are trending towards an overwhelming majority of college students being women; even more so for black women. I can't wait to hear the backlash when women are denied admission for a less-qualified man.
When the only tool a feminist has is a hammer, everything starts to look like a male.
|12.20.05 @ 10:05AM|#
I do think that if a couple has kids, at least one of the parents should dedicate themselves full time to raising the kids. I mean they can do other stuff but their main job should be raising kids.
A quaint thought, kwais, but financially impossible for most people. It's hard enough to run a household on two salaries with no kids.
|12.20.05 @ 10:16AM|#
but my reaction is that the feminist has a point in that our culture still does have stereotyped gender roles.
But how much of that stereotype is based in biology? Is it nature or nurture that makes girls, on average, less interested than boys in sports?
I agree with you, though, that gender differences should NOT be the basis for coercive laws. So for instance, boys tend to be more into sports than girls. But this does not mean that boys should be REQUIRED to play sports, nor that girls should be forbidden.
It does mean, though, that when you notice that the number of girls in sports is less than the number of boys, maybe you should consider the possibility that this is NOT due to some secret gender-bias conspiracy.
Gimme Back My Dog|12.20.05 @ 10:23AM|#
joe,
Are you going to answer Jennifer's questions about the difference between the source article and CY's interpretation of it? I read the source and thought she represented it fairly well.
CY implies that the article advocates shaming traditional mothers and the article focuses more on teaching young girls not to become traditional mothers, is that what you are talking about?
Other than that, the failure of choice feminism, the advice to marry down and have only one kid is all in there.
|12.20.05 @ 10:23AM|#
emme, it's sloppy thinking to elide "evolution effects gender roles" into "traditional gender roles in our society are entirely the effect of evolution."
Jennifer, Young writes about the original argument as if, as you pick up on, the author was saying that only one's role in the workplace can give life meaning. In fact, the author identifies work as a, not the, experience that can give one's life meaning - and one that women have unequal access to.
|12.20.05 @ 10:26AM|#
In fact, the author identifies work as a, not the, experience that can give one's life meaning - and one that women have unequal access to.
Even if so, what is the point? If I give up MY job to raise kids, how does this take away another woman's access to that job? Is she complaining about a lack of equal access, or complaining that women who HAVE such access are not availing themselves of it? These are two distinctly separate complaints.
Gimme Back My Dog|12.20.05 @ 10:29AM|#
David,
It is impossible for most couples to maintain their current lifestyle on one income. This does not mean that it is impossible to provide food, shelter, medicine for a family on one income.
Kwai's point is valid. People should not have kids until one or both parents are able to devote their time to raising them.
(standard libertarian disclaimer that when I say people should do something, I am not advocating using force to make it so)
|12.20.05 @ 10:30AM|#
"emme, it's sloppy thinking to elide "evolution effects gender roles" into "traditional gender roles in our society are entirely the effect of evolution."
No. It's sloppy thinking on your part to equate what I actually wrote with what you assumed (incorrectly) I was saying.
I said she was ignoring any evolutionary roots to gender roles by not mentioning sociobiology but rather focusing only on the "successful conservative campaign to reinforce gender roles." Nevermind that biology could possibly play a much greater role than nurture. I actually read the article and not once is biology mentioned.
|12.20.05 @ 10:41AM|#
Jennifer, I agree that today, there really isn't much to the gender bias conspiracy thing. However, I have seen enough subconscious (not really the right adjective, but I can't think of a better one right now) sexism and racism to know that there still is some out there. And I think the latent sexism is more prevalent than the racism - I still know a lot of people who act very differently in their professional relationships with women than they do in their professional relationships with men. And I think all of these people would strenously object to being characterized as using stereotypes or being sexist.
The cultural gender roles still exist. And I think that they do reflect a natural tendency. But that shouldn't be used to cover for the fact that the culture does have them, and that they do tend to place extra burdens on those that buck them. Again, these burdens don't justify the use of coercive force on others, but in terms of how you act in matters of personal choice (such as giving to charities that provide scholarships for women who enter non-traditional fields, or to stay at home dad groups, or in personally boycotting a company that you think exhibits such subconscious sexism or supporting company that actively tries to counter the cultural gender roles). But it also means allowing others to choose to do things that you might not agree with.
Like I said, it's a valid point to bring up, but is also very easily abused and turned into a bad thing.
|12.20.05 @ 10:49AM|#
"Like I said, it's a valid point to bring up, but is also very easily abused and turned into a bad thing."
True enough. I remember reading something by Matt Ridley where he was arguing that whether homosexuality is natural or not should not be the end/all be/all when it comes to figuring out how society and government should treat gays since some of our natural instincts are things we'd want to reign in (or try to at least) rather than to let flourish.
Warren|12.20.05 @ 11:04AM|#
�Choice feminism� claims that staying home with the kids is just one more feminist option. Funny that most men rarely make the same �choice.� Exactly what kind of choice is that?
Actually, there are plenty of men who would make that choice, if only they could find a woman willing to support them. Women willing to marry down are few and far between. I for one, would be disposed to enter into such an arrangement. Unfortunately, a flabby 41 year old with chronic flatulence, is not likely to land a gig as a trophy husband (on the plus side I have sparkling wit and fabulous domestic skills, Oh and I clean up nice). None the less, even more qualified gents will find few opportunities. Just one example, of how the bias against women is exaggerated in general.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=1834
|12.20.05 @ 11:06AM|#
Stereotypes exist aplenty - maybe Jennifer has had similar experiences - if you are a woman who doesn't want kids, for example. The reaction you get is usually utter incomprehension, followed by pity or suspicion. People think you must have suffered abuse as a child, or hate children. (Actually, I think they're quite good on toast.) The idea that a woman might have no interest whatsoever in children has simply never occurred to them. If you're a man, however, no one vilifies you if you can't wait to get back to work on Monday and avoid the screeching hellions.
As to people raising their own kids, sometimes I think they might be better off hiring a professional. Maybe boarding schools should make a comeback. My .02.
|12.20.05 @ 11:22AM|#
Stereotypes exist aplenty - maybe Jennifer has had similar experiences - if you are a woman who doesn't want kids, for example. The reaction you get is usually utter incomprehension, followed by pity or suspicion.
What really used to infuriate me were the dimbulbs who'd give me a patronizing smile and say "Oh, you'll change your mind once you have children of your own." WHAT?!? What are you not GETTING here?
Ed|12.20.05 @ 11:26AM|#
I too offer my body in the persuit of stay-at-home bliss. Willing to move self into coastal manse of rich professional woman. Will take care of one human child. Will cook and have sex as instructed. Must have 2 days off per week. Inquire within.
|12.20.05 @ 11:26AM|#
"Great! That half-hour video completely wiped out six billion years of evolution. Never again will I have a sexual thought when I see an attractive woman."
Hee. Yes, that's right. Feminists will one day be able to make men stop looking at porn, and women stop wanting to hold infants.
So I've read what the other females here have had to say, and I'm of the same mind. Where did feminism go wrong? All of us seem to chafe at this extreme form. Just as "wanting to be a mommy" is a dirty phrase in some circles and "not wanting kids" is in others, do you gals agree with me that you sometimes are offended if someone calls you a feminist?
VM|12.20.05 @ 11:28AM|#
"WHAT?!? What are you not GETTING here?"
Jennifer: i think we all know what they're *not* getting. :evil grin:
Cartman has a better chance of nailing the prom queen.
or something like that.
|12.20.05 @ 11:31AM|#
Underneath our rhetoric we're just another bunch of totalitarian goof balls.
|12.20.05 @ 11:32AM|#
What really used to infuriate me were the dimbulbs who'd give me a patronizing smile and say "Oh, you'll change your mind once you have children of your own." WHAT?!? What are you not GETTING here?
Oh yeah, that one always makes sense. I don't want kids, but I'll have them and then change my mind about it AFTER I have them ... er, wait. (I always get confused at this point.) Besides, what if I had them and then *didn't* change my mind? Could I get a return label and just ship the little buggers back? Another favorite of mine is "You'll change your mind once you find the right man." Excuse me, but the right man for me wouldn't want kids either!
Interesting, isn't it, how these "intellectual" feminist debates ignore or marginalize women who don't want kids. You just can't fuel an argument if you introduce people like us to the equation - people who don't give a fig about the issue because we've avoided it completely. Not enough drama in it, and that wouldn't sell newspaper columns.
|12.20.05 @ 11:39AM|#
People should not have kids until one or both parents are able to devote their time to raising them.
The problem is that this is not an option for many working families. Poor mothers have always worked. Many families need two incomes to stay in the house with the good school district. Of course, they could move and homeschool, but not everyone is qualified to do that.
What I don't like is the implication that one is not a good mother if she is not a stay-at-home mother. I was raised by someone who spent a few years at home and then went back to work. She was someone good at her job who liked going to work, but at the same time we needed the income.
I applaud people doing what they feel is best for their children, but their circumstances don't work for everyone.
|12.20.05 @ 11:49AM|#
Jennifer,
"If I give up MY job to raise kids, how does this take away another woman's access to that job?" It doesn't. The issue being discussed is not the choices women make in the given circumstances, but the circumstances (social, cultural, and economic) within which they make those decisions.
"Interesting, isn't it, how these "intellectual" feminist debates ignore or marginalize women who don't want kids." Uh, yeah, Pirate. Those nasty feminists, always marginalizing women who don't want kids. Huh?
"(standard libertarian disclaimer that when I say people should do something, I am not advocating using force to make it so)" Standard rejoinder to standard libertarian disclaimer: feminist writers can also "say people should do something" without "advocating using force to make it so."
|12.20.05 @ 11:51AM|#
I have a (somewhat unanswerable) question that's a little off topic, but related to Alison's post. What is a working family? Aside from the super-rich who inherited their wealth, and the super-poor on full welfare between jobs, isn't every family a working family? Even if they are better off, someone's doing the work to make them that way. It seems that the phrase has become (and perhaps has been since the 1940s) meaningless.
Dave W.|12.20.05 @ 11:54AM|#
Where did feminism go wrong?
Feminism solved the problems it was needed to solve when half of med and law school graduates started being female. Now the feminism has solved the real problem, it should go away, with dignity and pride. Like Abolitionism. Unfortunatly, there are vested interests that want to let go in the case of feminism.
Feminism might have had some another valid function to perform if it had gone after Bill Clinton for his workplace sex harrassment. But Bill was a hottie and they let the issue slide. Too late to pick it back up now, and besides, the sex harrassment problem may not be that prevalent at places where normal people really work at real jobs. Sure ain't where I work.
|12.20.05 @ 11:58AM|#
Interesting, isn't it, how these "intellectual" feminist debates ignore or marginalize women who don't want kids.
In all fairness, Pirate Jo, the people who criticize my childlessness tend not to be feminists, but the type of misogynistic bastard who also says things like "Why are you a feminist, when you're pretty enough to get a good man?"
Gimme Back My Dog|12.20.05 @ 11:58AM|#
Jennifer et al,
In defense of the dim bulbs, they probably have heard other women swear they never want to have children, only to find the same women happily raising kids ten years later. People are very bad at predicting what they will be like in the future.
Alison,
If I lived in an condo with no yard and I told you that I wanted a black lab, you would tell me that I should have thought of that before I got the condo and it would not be fair to the dog. I think children deserve the same consideration. If having children is important to someone, they should get themselves to a place where they can provide the proper environment to raise kids.
|12.20.05 @ 11:59AM|#
"Interesting, isn't it, how these "intellectual" feminist debates ignore or marginalize women who don't want kids." Uh, yeah, Pirate. Those nasty feminists, always marginalizing women who don't want kids. Huh?
As a matter of fact, yeah - I see childfree women removed from the equation all the time, both by the left and the right. The entire debate seems to focus on women who have (or want to have) kids. Whether they are betraying their children by working full-time, or whether they are betraying the cause of feminism by staying home with their kids. Completely ignored are the one out of five women under the age of 40 who will never have kids in the first place.
|12.20.05 @ 12:03PM|#
Pirate Jo, standing up for women who don't want to get married, have kids, stay home, or otherwise conform to traditional gender roles is what feminism has been about since its inception.
You're actually complaining because a feminist had the gall to write about a different issue, one that doesn't directly effect you at this moment in your life? Get over yourself. If you need to find a feminist article standing up for childless women, don't worry - your local library will have several billion of them.
|12.20.05 @ 12:13PM|#
Pirate Jo, standing up for women who don't want to get married, have kids, stay home, or otherwise conform to traditional gender roles is what feminism has been about since its inception. You're actually complaining because a feminist had the gall to write about a different issue, one that doesn't directly effect you at this moment in your life? Get over yourself.
Not to speak for Pirate Jo, but I think the problem is more that a feminist has the gall to say that what she considers an "issue" should also be an "issue" for every other woman in her situation. It would be like me, writing sneering articles in which I say that all the legitimate problems of motherhood would be solved if only women were smart enough to stay childless, as I did. And furthermore, a woman who has kids is somehow betraying the Feminist Cause.
So she's upset that educated wealthy women sometimes choose to stay home with their kids? Does she really care about these women, or is she just afraid that someone will point to said women and say "See, that's what EVERY woman should do?" If her concern is the latter, then the problem lies with the misogynist critics, not the stay-at-home mom.
|12.20.05 @ 12:13PM|#
BTW, wasn't writing this article a bit like shooting fish in a barrel?
Actually, it's more like shooting a fish off a bicycle.
|12.20.05 @ 12:13PM|#
Pirate Jo, standing up for women who don't want to get married, have kids, stay home, or otherwise conform to traditional gender roles is what feminism has been about since its inception.
I don't think feminism has been about these issues in decades, since they were already accomplished a long time ago. Now feminism has become a bureaucracy (sort of like Mothers Against Drunk Driving) which, having achieved its purpose, keeps trying to come up with a new excuse for its prolonged existence. In the case of MADD, prohibition. In the case of today's feminists, landing taxpayer-sponsored daycare for women who want to have kids and return to work full-time.
|12.20.05 @ 12:29PM|#
Jennifer, "It would be like me, writing sneering articles in which I say that all the legitimate problems of motherhood would be solved if only women were smart enough to stay childless, as I did."
Actually, it would be like you writing an article (interesting how you JUST KNOW that the article sneers, without having read it) in which you discuss the social, economic, and cultural factors that push women towards having children, rather than being childless. The assertion that the author is accusing women of not being smart enough and other personal failings is entirely your and Young's spin, and is a mischaracterizatin of the thesis of the American Prospect article.
|12.20.05 @ 12:38PM|#
Here's the thing. Is this legitimately "the latest feminism controversy"? I think that what currently passes for feminism is so extreme that 90% of women in this country couldn't care less what they're spewing these days. This style of feminism has become irrelevant.
So, to make a feminist argument, I ask again, "What happened to feminism"? Feminism is supposed to be about improving the lives of FEMALES, not about some vague political ideal. Cathy Young may be one of the few modern feminists who tries to keep her eye on the real point.
|12.20.05 @ 12:39PM|#
Actually, it would be like you writing an article (interesting how you JUST KNOW that the article sneers, without having read it) in which you discuss the social, economic, and cultural factors that push women towards having children, rather than being childless
Tell me, Joe, does she simply observe these social, economic and cultural factors? Or does she complain about them, and either state or imply that they are somehow bad?
I am wondering what this woman would consider the ideal scenario, as well.
|12.20.05 @ 12:44PM|#
To re-repeat myself, Jennifer:
She offers her opinion about the social, cultural, and economic factors. She does not attack women for the choices they make in response to them.
liguist, icreasing the opportunity for women to have fufilling professional lives IS about improving their lives.
|12.20.05 @ 12:55PM|#
liguist, icreasing the opportunity for women to have fufilling professional lives IS about improving their lives.
Problem is, they're no longer satisfied with simply removing the legal barriers that once kept women out of the workforce, and now they want to perform acts of social engineering, while spending FAR too much time gazing into their navels and pondering mysteries like "Huh! Some women choose to stay home with their kids, even when they have other options! However can this be?"
|12.20.05 @ 12:55PM|#
Ah, but Joe, you forget that the number one prerogative of a feminist is to say to any man who disagrees with her, that he obviously has no idea what he's talking about because he's a man.
So, I dunno. Seems the women on this forum at least have a consensus opinion of the article.
|12.20.05 @ 12:58PM|#
"The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government."
What exactly does she mean by flourishing? And how to you guage that sort of thing? Why does she automatically assume that the family life is not as flourishing as the public sphere?
"This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. "
No she doesn't "attack" them. But there does seem to be a "there there little girl" type attitude.
And I really can't stand the whole "assigned to them" talk. I hate to repeat myself but she is ignoring any sort of biological explanation. That's just annoying. If you're going to talk about gender roles without even mentioning biology I'm just going to assume you don't know what you are talking about. It should at least be addressed in some way. Her article reads as if it doesn't even exist.
|12.20.05 @ 12:58PM|#
To make a shorthand version of what I said earlier: many modern feminists need to learn the difference between women being Required By Law to do the majority of the housework, versus women doing the majority of the housework because most men just don't care about it as much as most women do.
|12.20.05 @ 1:00PM|#
Yeah, you shouldn't have a large dog if you live in a condo. You should at least have a yard.
|12.20.05 @ 1:01PM|#
This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust
Translation: why, oh why, do these stupid women keep making these stupid choices that I find stupid? *I* am not fulfilled by staying home all day, so how can any other woman be fulfilled by this? It's not possible, I tell you! It's just not possible!
|12.20.05 @ 1:02PM|#
But there does seem to be a "there there little girl" type attitude.
Hehe. Do you mean a "patronizing" attitude? :-)
|12.20.05 @ 1:03PM|#
" quaint thought, kwais, but financially impossible for most people. It's hard enough to run a household on two salaries with no kids."
I don't buy that. Difficult, yes. Impossible for a few people, yes. Impossible for most? In the US, no less? Of course it depends on the paradigm you are using. Most of the people I've heard say that(anecdotal, I know) don't want to live in a smaller home, give up their Volvo SUV, wouldn't dare live in an apartment, go out to eat all the time, won't move to a cheaper location, etc...
Is it possible that what makes it "impossible" is that one has gotten inseperably comfortable living at the limit of their means?
|12.20.05 @ 1:04PM|#
Oh, dear, I feel that may have been a multiple post. Sorry.
|12.20.05 @ 1:06PM|#
Hey Joe, do you remember the various occasions when you said that I couldn't really discuss issues relating to parenthood, since I myself am childless and therefore not really capable of having a useful opinion on the matter? Why does the same rule not apply to your penis-bearing self in regards to this discussion?
|12.20.05 @ 1:06PM|#
"It's hard enough to run a household on two salaries with no kids"
Do you live in Manhattan?
Warren|12.20.05 @ 1:07PM|#
She offers her opinion about the social, cultural, and economic factors. She does not attack women for the choices they make in response to them.
"Here�s the feminist moral analysis that choice avoided: The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks -- is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, �A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.�
joe, what color is the sky in your world?
Ron Hardin|12.20.05 @ 1:10PM|#
The analysis doesn't start back far enough. The sorts of things that interest women are not like the sorts of things that interest men.
``Interest'' means to find engaging and satisfying, among other things.
If it won't hold your interest, you won't do very well, flourish, at it as a life choice.
As it happens, men like to do one problem at a time, ignoring everything, and go on to the next problem.
Women are engaged by complexity, and are not uneasy with one , two, or more ongoing problems at once, and are in no rush to solve anything. Relationships thrive for them.
Each sex has all the talent you want to do what the other does, but lacks the interest in it.
So you get no women in mathematics, for instance, to speak of ; even though they can be good at it. It takes too much out of life for them.
pointers if you're interested http://home.att.net/~rhhardin9/vickihearne.womenmath.txt
It's more than plumbing and social constructs.
|12.20.05 @ 1:14PM|#
Most of the people I've heard say that(anecdotal, I know) don't want to live in a smaller home, give up their Volvo SUV, wouldn't dare live in an apartment, go out to eat all the time, won't move to a cheaper location, etc...
I know that, at least where I live, smaller homes are not available due to zoning laws, moving to a cheaper location means living in a shitty neighborhood and sending your kids to a shitty public school, and living in an apartment your whole life is not usually economically wise--is it not better to buy a house, so that someday you can pay it off and live rent-free? And have actual assets?
My boyfriend and I, a childless couple, have a combined take-home pay that is far more than the median pretax income for a family of four. I suppose, in theory, we could raise two kids on our salary, but we would do nothing more than simply exist. No luxuries, and god help us if ever there is a month with an unexpected expense, like an expensive car repair or something.
|12.20.05 @ 1:28PM|#
Most of the people I've heard say that(anecdotal, I know) don't want to live in a smaller home, give up their Volvo SUV, wouldn't dare live in an apartment, go out to eat all the time, won't move to a cheaper location, etc...
I know that, at least where I live, smaller homes are not available due to zoning laws, moving to a cheaper location means living in a shitty neighborhood and sending your kids to a shitty public school, and living in an apartment your whole life is not usually economically wise--is it not better to buy a house, so that someday you can pay it off and live rent-free? And have actual assets?
My boyfriend and I, a childless couple, have a combined take-home pay that is far more than the median pretax income for a family of four. I suppose, in theory, we could raise two kids on our salary, but we would do nothing more than simply exist. No luxuries, and god help us if ever there is a month with an unexpected expense, like an expensive car repair or something.
I also wonder what gives anyone the right to tell a two-income parent household "Dammit, one of you should stay home and simply accept a lower standard of living! What's wrong with having constant financial worries, anyway? How dare you look at your life and think 'I would like to have more.' No! Shut up, Think of the Children and stop being selfish! Be poor!"
|12.20.05 @ 1:32PM|#
Most of the people I've heard say that(anecdotal, I know) don't want to live in a smaller home, give up their Volvo SUV, wouldn't dare live in an apartment, go out to eat all the time, won't move to a cheaper location, etc...
I know that, at least where I live, smaller homes are not available due to zoning laws, moving to a cheaper location means living in a shitty neighborhood and sending your kids to a shitty public school, and living in an apartment your whole life is not usually economically wise--is it not better to buy a house, so that someday you can pay it off and live rent-free? And have actual assets?
My boyfriend and I, a childless couple, have a combined take-home pay that is far more than the median pretax income for a family of four. I suppose, in theory, we could raise two kids on our salary, but we would do nothing more than simply exist. No luxuries, and god help us if ever there is a month with an unexpected expense, like an expensive car repair or something.
I also wonder what gives anyone the right to tell a two-income parent household "Dammit, one of you should stay home and simply accept a lower standard of living! What's wrong with having constant financial worries, anyway? How dare you look at your life and think 'I would like to have more.' No! Shut up, Think of the Children and stop being selfish! Be poor!"
|12.20.05 @ 1:34PM|#
This server sucks.
|12.20.05 @ 1:39PM|#
If having children is important to someone, they should get themselves to a place where they can provide the proper environment to raise kids.
But only a small fraction of people can afford this kind of lifestyle. So by this logic poor and working class people should just do without having children. The idea that it's your kids or your job doesn't work for most of this country. It would be easy if most people could look at the bottom line and decide that kids don't fit in the calculation. But the desire to have and raise children is something that defies financial logic.
Working families don't mean that children are doomed to a life of drugs, crime and unhappiness. Kids are surprisingly resilient. Both parents working while raising children is not an ideal situation, but working families can be healthy families.
|12.20.05 @ 1:39PM|#
This server sucks.
|12.20.05 @ 1:39PM|#
Anyone who hasn't read the source article needs to skip down to her "solutions" segment, where well-educated women marry well-established geezers or young, broke artists so they can stay in the work force to help the team further its social engineering objectives. Hi-larious stuff.
Joe: "Jennifer, Young writes about the original argument as if, as you pick up on, the author was saying that only one's role in the workplace can give life meaning. In fact, the author identifies work as a, not the, experience that can give one's life meaning - and one that women have unequal access to."
Nope. The way I read it, Hirschmann acknowledges that women, educated ones at least, have access to the workplace similar to that of men, but that choice feminism has allowed them to make the incorrect choice of exiting the workforce instead of staying on and furthering the cause. Furthermore, she suggests that such choices aren't really consenting, but rather they're societally enforced delusions.
|12.20.05 @ 1:42PM|#
People should not have kids until one or both parents are able to devote their time to raising them.
The problem is that this is not an option for many working families. Poor mothers have always worked. Many families need two incomes to stay in the house with the good school district. Of course, they could move and homeschool, but not everyone is qualified to do that.
What I don't like is the implication that one is not a good mother if she is not a stay-at-home mother. I was raised by someone who spent a few years at home and then went back to work. She was someone good at her job who liked going to work, but at the same time we needed the income.
I know that fathers are just as capable as mothers to opt out, but social pressure is very balanced on one side of that equation.
I applaud people doing what they feel is best for their children, but their circumstances don't work for everyone.
|12.20.05 @ 1:46PM|#
My two cents having scanned everything above:
I am an athiest homeschooling mother of two. I think the problem here is a lack of respect for Individual Rights. I am not a feminist, I am an individualist. I think people's choices should be respected unless they can be proven harmful to others. And feminists are just full of it. Years ago when a gal who had just had a guy disciplined for having a picture of his wife in a bikini on his desk sent me a picture of a buff, naked guy from her work email, it made me determined to make this distinction.
I think women who do not have outside lives do themselves a terrible disservice. Which is why I am involved in theater production and community work. I also telecommute and do bug testing that way part time.
The only thing I have to say to those opting not to have children is this: A lot of intelligent people have really good, logical reasons not to have children. They think they are too selfish, not financially able to give them everything, et cetera. Those are good reasons. I only ask them to consider this: Intelligent people like you need to be breeding. If not you, I respect you, but I just want you to hear this. A lot of mediocre and below minds are having and raising lots of children. It scares me to death to look at the entitlement generation and think about them running things when I am old. This is why my husband changed his no-child stance. This guy really puts most dads to shame.
(And he telecommutes full time, and helps me raise, care for, and educate the kids, too. I am probably gone from the house more often than he. We are a completely unconventional family with no stereotypes in our roles.)
So, I view raising and educating my children as a very important career and my way of possibly making the world a better place.
I would go absolutely mad, though, if my brain didn't do things in the adult world.
As for the financial aspects, we have a laughable income to raise a family of four in Seattle on. However, we don't do credit card debt, have reasonable, used vehicles, and have no interest in keeping up with the Jones'. We're doing just fine.
Have I covered it all?
|12.20.05 @ 1:54PM|#
When I visit my stay-at-home-mom friend over Christmas, I wonder what she'd do if I told her that the only reason she stopped commuting into the city each day and chose to stay home with her baby instead is because she was brainwashed into thinking that's what she really wanted?
I think, at best, she would call me an arrogant bitch who needs to stop assuming that the right choice for me is the right choice for every woman.
|12.20.05 @ 2:02PM|#
Jennifer,
I hope that I didn't come off as an arrogant bitch.
|12.20.05 @ 2:07PM|#
Someone Else--
I didn't get that impression.
nmg|12.20.05 @ 2:13PM|#
joe says
She does not attack women for the choices they make in response to [social, cultural, and economic factors]
and
The assertion that the author is accusing women of ... personal failings is a mischaracterizatin of the thesis of the American Prospect article.
But if you actually RTFA you are treated to this:
"Finally, these choices are bad for women individually."
"We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society, and is widely imitated"
"Worse, the behavior tarnishes every female "
"They have voluntarily become untouchables." !!!!
"The family ... allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing"
"Prying women out of their traditional roles is not going to be easy. It will require rules."
She even lays down some "rules" about marriage and childbearing for women who aspire to be proper feminists, which are both hilarious and frightening at the same time. She becomes a caricature at this point, urging women to "marry down" but recognizing that "Because money is such a marker of status and power, it's hard to persuade women to marry poorer. So here's an easier rule: Marry young or marry much older."
So she comes full circle advocating women to become gold-diggers and marry older rich guys who will have enough time and wealth to give them freedom to work? Or something like that.
She then continues on by lambasting women who aren't primarily focused on making money. I'm not joking, go read the article. She harshly criticizes women for "idealism on the career trail" or for taking volunteer or social-service work when they should be focusing on becoming high paid partners in law firms. You can't make this stuff up.
She continues with her "rules":
"Here's the last rule: Have a baby. Just don't have two. ... A second kid drives the
family to the suburbs. But cities, with their Chinese carryouts and all, are better for working mothers."
Yes, she is in full caricature mode now. Oh horror of horrors you might end up in the suburbs without any good Chinese takeout you poor foolish women you don't know the HARM you're doing to yourselves.
The paragraph then degenerates into incomprehensible references to the French encacting social engineering programs to compete with German reproductive rates? I think she's unhinged at this point
It is true that if you follow this rule [one child only], your society will not reproduce itself. But if things get bad enough, who knows what social consequences will ensue? After all, the vaunted French child-care regime was actually only a response to the superior German birth rate.
At this point I became rather frightened and confused so I stopped.
No, she's not attacking women for their choices, not at all.
nmg
|12.20.05 @ 2:20PM|#
Holy shit, nmg! In her own way, she sounds even worse than the hardcore conservative stay-at-home-mom enforcers. Consider: if your only two choices are "All women should become Mommies to be considered worthwhile" or "All women should become highly-paid professionals to be considered worthwhile". . . .well, I don't like the first choice, but at least with the first choice you won't be excluding about ninety-five percent of the female population from the "worthwhile" category.
Shit. I'm childless, but I've never had anywhere near a six-figure income. Shit! Fuck! I've betrayed the feminist sisterhood, as well as myself! Aaaaagh!
Warren|12.20.05 @ 2:21PM|#
nmg,
Quite so. In fact, looking back over joe's comments, it would seem that it is he who misrepresents the article. Indeed he seems to have turned a blind eye to its central thesis.
|12.20.05 @ 2:35PM|#
Sheesh, talk about a banality in search of a controversy...
|12.20.05 @ 2:37PM|#
"A lot of mediocre and below minds are having and raising lots of children. It scares me to death to look at the entitlement generation and think about them running things when I am old."
Hey 'Someone Else,' I'm not speaking for myself here, but wouldn't this actually be a reason NOT to have kids? You see intelligent people having fewer and fewer kids, and welfare losers having more and more of them, and decide you don't want to dump some poor, lonely soul with a brain into that mess? Do you want YOUR kids to be stuck with the tax burden of all those mouth-breathing dullards? Maybe some people are just opting out of the gene pool before it gets to that point.
|12.20.05 @ 2:50PM|#
I think the problem is that feminism has essentially won, and now seeks more battles to fight -- and those battles must be fought and won, whether they make sense or not. It seems to happen to all social movements after they essentially triumph. For those with a crusader's temperament, there's nowhere left to go then but to the fringes.
Mildly OT, but remember the Dworkin obituary thread? Well, a few days after the thread died, a few Cyber Sisters found it and added their comments mildly defending Dworkin. And joe picked up a groupie! (See very end of thread.)
|12.20.05 @ 2:52PM|#
linguist, "Ah, but Joe, you forget that the number one prerogative of a feminist is to say to any man who disagrees with her, that he obviously has no idea what he's talking about because he's a man." I don't think you know what the term "feminist" means.
Jennifer, "Translation: why, oh why, do these stupid women keep making these stupid choices that I find stupid?" That's not a translation; that's a hallucination.
As for your second question, yes, I would give greater gravity to the opinions that a woman offers about the experience of being a woman, than to the opinions a man offers about being a woman, as a woman can draw from personal experience. In neither case, however, is the less-experienced party wholly without the capacity to contribute to the discussion - however you might wish to distort what I said in the thread about the storybook.
Warren, the sky in my world is the flushed rosy-brown of your mothers nipples after a good spanking. Any other smartass questions?
Jennifer, again, "I know that, at least where I live, smaller homes are not available due to zoning laws, moving to a cheaper location means living in a shitty neighborhood and sending your kids to a shitty public school, and living in an apartment your whole life is not usually economically wise--is it not better to buy a house, so that someday you can pay it off and live rent-free? And have actual assets?" Why are you attacking - ATTACKING!! - people who live in small houses? What's up with the "there there little person" attitude?
|12.20.05 @ 2:53PM|#
I know I, for one, certainly lay awake at night worrying about the life choices that Harvard-educated women superlawyers make.
|12.20.05 @ 2:55PM|#
BP, if she's saying that "such choices aren't really consenting, but rather they're societally enforced delusions," then she's not really arguing that educated professional women have equal access to the workforce.
(This goes for nmg, too, who doesn't seem to have the firepower to recognize that the author doesn't describe the "bad choices" as entirely voluntary, but as socially imposed.)
|12.20.05 @ 2:57PM|#
"I think the problem is that feminism has essentially won, and now seeks more battles to fight "
I think that depends on what you mean by feminism. The Andrea Dowrkin/ Naomi Wolf/ Margaret Mead radical-feminism has not won. In fact I think that ever since E.O. Wilson published his bombshell of a book, it's been taking a beating and is no longer taken seriously. In fact it's considered bad science.
|12.20.05 @ 2:58PM|#
Joe, did you read NMG's comment at 2:13? This woman wants to shove her choices down other women's throats. In my previous example about the "small houses in bad neighborhoods," I did not suggest that we use the force of law to prevent families from living in them.
|12.20.05 @ 3:01PM|#
This goes for nmg, too, who doesn't seem to have the firepower to recognize that the author doesn't describe the "bad choices" as entirely voluntary, but as socially imposed
I voluntarily wear makeup and fix my hair when I go outside. Well, at least I thought it was voluntary, but I realize that it is actually socially imposed--after all, I don't fix my appearance when I'm at home alone. I only do it because I have a desire to meet society's expectations of what Looks Good.
Joe, what programs do you think we should implement, to protect me from this delusion of free choice that makes me spend upwards of ten minutes a day dealing with purely cosmetic matters?
|12.20.05 @ 3:02PM|#
Libertoid Argument 1: If you say one choice is better than another, you are attacking the people who make the wrong choice.
Libertoid Argument 2: If you identify social pressures that drive people towards making choices you deem less desireable, you are calling them idiots.
Libertoid Argument 3: Libertarians aren't incapable of moral and social thought; we just don't want the government to impose solutions by force. We love free ranging inquiry about what is better and what is worse among private people, and efforts to convince other people to make better voluntary choices. How DARE you suggest otherwise?
It gets old, people.
|12.20.05 @ 3:06PM|#
Jennifer, I did read nmg's comment at 2:13. The one in which he lists the voluntary choices the author encourages women to make. Please find the "shoving down people's throats" part for me - the part where she would use the force of law to, for example, compel women to have one child, live in the city, apply for high-paying jobs, or marry "properly."
|12.20.05 @ 3:11PM|#
I can't wait to hear the backlash when women are denied admission for a less-qualified man.
Actually, this is already happening at some of the more competitive schools. A friend of the family who works admissions tells me that more than a few schools have quietly instituted affirmative-action type programs for men in their undergrad admissions. She seemed to think that if they hadn't done it, their percetages, already slightly off kilter at 60-40, could have gone as skewed as a 70-30 mixture in favor of women.
|12.20.05 @ 3:14PM|#
Please find the "shoving down people's throats" part for me -
Sure, just as soon as you explain how the following quote should not be taken to mean that Hirshman is criticizing women who made what she calls the "wrong" choice:
The privileged brides of the Times -- and their husbands -- seem happy. Why do we care what they do? After all, most people aren�t rich and white and heterosexual, and they couldn�t quit working if they wanted to. We care because what they do is bad for them, is certainly bad for society, and is widely imitated, even by people who never get their weddings in the Times.
|12.20.05 @ 3:14PM|#
"I think the problem is that feminism has essentially won, and now seeks more battles to fight "
I think that depends on what you mean by feminism.
What I meant was 1970s-style, "treat individual women as individuals, not as stereotypes," "don't irrationally discriminate against women just because they're women," equality-of-opportunity feminism. Not the Dworkins kind that seemed to become more prominent in the 1980s.
Nowadays almost everyone, men and women both, are the first type of feminist -- or at least know enough that they'd better at least pretend to be or be. The latter type is the kind that makes women embarrassed and protest, "I'm not a 'feminist' but ..." before make a true old-style feminist statement.
|12.20.05 @ 3:22PM|#
"Libertoid Argument 2: If you identify social pressures that drive people towards making choices you deem less desireable, you are calling them idiots."
It's really the only way to interpret the gotten-old-a-long-time-ago Hirschmann argument:
If quantifiable numbers of women make carefully considered lifestyle choices, they're caving to societal pressures and not expressing a true, constructive will.
|12.20.05 @ 3:23PM|#
Stevo, I agree with you, but I'd go further and say that these nouveau feminists are in their own way just as bad as what the original feminists were trying to fight. The idea that every woman has to have a professional career, and if she doesn't she's not just hurting herself, but hurting society? How the hell is that qualitatively different from saying "Any woman who selfishly refuses to have babies is hurting society?" It isn't--in both cases, you have prissy bluenose moralists insisting that anyone different from them is somehow inferior.
Like the late and unlamented bitch Andrea Dworkin, who would insist that every time I have sex with my boyfriend I'm just being oppressed and am too goddamned stupid to realize it.
|12.20.05 @ 3:29PM|#
Part of the problem is that we have rediculous ideas about raising children. First, there have always been working mothers. In fact, mothers worked a hell of a lot harder in the past than they do now. You think my grandmother living on a farm in Kansas in the 1930s before things like dishwashers, wall-mart, and most electric appliances didn't work? She and the woman of her generation worked harder than most of us today can even imagine. Yet, somehow, the children got raised even though their mothers didn't spend three hours a week at todler yoga and another five running the car pool to soccar practice and dance classes. People today idolize and live through their children rather than raising them. If people men and woman both would put some perspective in their lives and stop overraising and doting on their children, they might find that it is easier to have a career while also having a family.
|12.20.05 @ 3:34PM|#
Jennifer, she's clearly criticizing their choices, and the impact of their choices. But by delving into the social, economic, and cultural forces at work, she shifts the blame off of them.
Your turn.
BP, I don't think one has to be an idiot to be influenced by social forces; we all are.
|12.20.05 @ 3:39PM|#
In her simplistic analysis, Hirshman ignores the social impact of working women who don't follow a rigid model of success
Amen. She's apparently missed the recent trends whereby women are starting to outpace men in the medical and legal profession and the other recent trends where women are as likely as any one to be entrepreneurs.
That's the trouble with basing your whole premise of success on the CEOs of fortune 500 companies.
If any thing, women are leading the charge in alternatives too being a CEO of a fortune 500 company.
If anything, some of the gains by women professionals and entrepreneurs have helped redefine just how success is viewed.
Lot's of people these days (not just women) see success at the expense of involvement with their family and community as little success at all.
|12.20.05 @ 3:43PM|#
Jennifer, she's clearly criticizing their choices, and the impact of their choices. But by delving into the social, economic, and cultural forces at work, she shifts the blame off of them.
I don't see how Hirshman's comments like "they're hurting society" can be considered "shifting the blame off of them."
It's no different from any moralist--"You are not directly hurting anyone, but because I don't like your choices I will accuse you of hurting Society." So Hirshman can tell my stay-at-home mom friend that SHE is hurting society, and Pat Robertson can tell me that *I* am hurting society, and if there is any justice in this world Hirshman and Robertson will hook up and die by choking on each other in flagrante soixante-neuf, as Florence King once said.
|12.20.05 @ 3:58PM|#
Jennifer, 'I don't see how Hirshman's comments like "they're hurting society" can be considered "shifting the blame off of them."'
You fell into the same hole during the "insanity defense" thread a few weeks ago. You're arguing that outcomes are directly related to moral culpability. Now, as then, I disagree. And, more relevantly, I think Hirshman disagrees as well.
And as much as I like the Florence King line, I think you're proving my point about the Libertoid Arguments - "social progress should be made through discussion, exhortation, and voluntary changes of behavior; now stop exhorting me to change my behavior, you fascist!"
Warren|12.20.05 @ 4:00PM|#
Warren, the sky in my world is the flushed rosy-brown of your mothers nipples after a good spanking. Any other smartass questions?
joe,
Nice retort. I notice you still refuse to admit you are wrong about the author's harsh judgment of women whom chose family over career, despite numerous unequivocal citations.
|12.20.05 @ 4:04PM|#
A lot of people in this world are uncomfortable with people making choices they would not make. I have more than a few female friends who, if they met a guy rich enough, would ditch their careers in a minute and never look back to raise a family. A have other female friends who have no desire to have children. Others who are in the middle, maybe take a year or two off when they have a child but would never want to be a stay at home mom for more than short time. There is a reason why woman tend to start their own businesses more than men. Part of that reason is that it allows to be more flexible with raising their children.
I think a few extremist feminists, Dworkian and Catherine McKinnen most notably, had some real deep seated issues with the nuclear family and were more interested in its destruction than they ever were in really empowering woman with choices. When most woman didn't choose to renounce men, marriage and family, people like Dworkian never forgave them for it.
|12.20.05 @ 4:10PM|#
Warren, my son,
"I notice you still refuse to admit you are wrong about the author's harsh judgment of women whom chose family over career, despite numerous unequivocal citations."
Shall I explain, again, the author's, and my, point about social pressures and cupability?
No, I shan't. You either get it by now, or not.
|12.20.05 @ 4:11PM|#
I think a few extremist feminists, Dworkian and Catherine McKinnen most notably, had some real deep seated issues with the nuclear family and were more interested in its destruction than they ever were in really empowering woman with choices. When most woman didn't choose to renounce men, marriage and family, people like Dworkian never forgave them for it.
I think that's part of it, but I also think a lot of them fell into the Harrison Bergeron trap--confusing LEGAL equality with actual, physical/mental/emotional/intellectual equality. As in Hirshman's case--it's not enough that women have the opportunity to work outside the home; they MUST work outside the home, or else they are hurting society. And in Hirshman's view, it's probably sexist to say that a new mom might decide that spending time with her baby is more fulfilling than spending time in a law firm.
|12.20.05 @ 4:26PM|#
"And in Hirshman's view, it's probably sexist to say that a new mom might decide that spending time with her baby is more fulfilling than spending time in a law firm."
In addition to your point, I have to agree with what another poster said - how many people find "fulfillment" through their jobs, anyway? I think I have a better job than a lot of people - it's somewhat interesting, the company has a cool culture, and I like my boss. But personal fulfillment? I find the financial independence to be quite nice, but work is something I do in order to get paid, so I can live indoors and eat food. Given my druthers, I'd rather volunteer at an animal shelter, take cooking classes, or ride my bike 50 miles a day.
Jennifer, it doesn't surprise me in the least that a lot of women find fulfillment elsewhere. It's easy to point to childrearing as the scapegoat for women who find fulfillment in other activities besides work, but if it wasn't childrearing, it would be something else. Work is simply too boring for the vast majority of people - even the educated ones who are well-paid. Because let's face it, if work was fun, we wouldn't have to get paid to do it!
Warren|12.20.05 @ 4:27PM|#
joe,
In the passage I quoted, the author equates sacrificing career for the sake of family with being willfully illiterate. No accusation of culpability there. Nope none at all.
|12.20.05 @ 5:00PM|#
Pirate Jo, women like Hirshman are just the left-wing equivalent of dicks like RObertson and Falwell: "I have a certian idea of how you should live. You are not meeting my standards. Therefore, since there is no specific human being I can accuse you of harming, I will accuse you of harming society as a whole."
Joe, if you're still here--since you don't think Hirshman is being judgmental in saying that stay-at-home moms harm society, does this mean you won't find fault with Pat Robertson when he talks about how gays are harming society?
nmg|12.20.05 @ 5:45PM|#
This goes for nmg, too, who doesn't seem to have the firepower to recognize that the author doesn't describe the "bad choices" as entirely voluntary, but as socially imposed.
No, she never says that. Not once. Not even close. But here is a passage where she comments on mothers who change their child's diapers:
They have voluntarily become untouchables.
Notice the word "voluntarily".
Yeah, that really conveys the notion that their choice to stay home was "socially imposed".
Here's another quote about those vile women who think they can guiltlessly opt out of the lawfirm track:
Women must take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.
Hmmm. Yeah I really get the sense that she is sympathizing with these poor women who have merely been "socially imposed".
Hirschman also seems unduly obsessed with women becoming lawfirm partners.
.. that alone would have been enough to raise the percentage of female law partners above 16 percent in 30 years.
and
It defies reason to claim that the falloff from 40 percent of the class at law school to 16 percent of the partners at all the big law firms is unrelated to ... blah blah...
Not sure why it's so damn important for women to become high powered lawyers but that is literally the ONLY example given by Hirschman of an acceptable career track for women. (She does cite a female MBA but only as an example of a woman who commits the egregious crime of not valuing money enough).
No, far from merely commenting about social forces that undo a woman's choices in life, Ms. Hirschman is actually pointedly blaming all women who aren't lawfirm partners with 1 or 0 children, living on Chinese takeout and married to a young struggling artist or an old wealthy codger. In fact she explictly prescribes this path as the solution to the "failure of choice feminism"
I re-read the article closely but I can't find any quotes blaming "social forces" for the fact that some women do not choose this path. Isn't joe the one always taking posters to task for assuming they know what he thinks? It appears he knows what Hirschman "really" meant even though she wrote the exact opposite.
Hirschman also seems to think that Sex and the City is a documentary as she cites it TWICE for examples of women's behaviour, which I found almost as disturbing as the nonsensical passage about socially engineered birth rates in France or whatever she was talking about.
nmg
fyodor|12.20.05 @ 6:17PM|#
"social progress should be made through discussion, exhortation, and voluntary changes of behavior; now stop exhorting me to change my behavior, you fascist!"
Well, if someone "exhorts" someone else to change their behavior, they'd best have damn good reason. I haven't read every word on this post, but Jennifer addresses the exhortations in question with a very substantive argument, that the exhorters in question fail to point out any concrete harm done to any individual and then cover up this failure with vague claims of "harming society." I submit that such does not come close to meeting my loose standard of "damn good reason," best I can tell. While calling such exhorters "fascists" (did anyone really do that?) goes a bit far, it's only natural to take offense to people telling others how to live. Again, in lieu of damn good reason. Libertarians recognize the legal right to exhort others in such a way, but that doesn't mean we have to like it any more than anyone else does. As long as we reply to words we don't like with more words rather calls to legal sanction, there is no contradiction such as joe glibly asserts.
|12.20.05 @ 6:21PM|#
But here is a passage where she comments on mothers who change their child's diapers: They have voluntarily become untouchables.
Better to let the nannies become untouchables, then? Or do we keep all humans "touchable" by letting babies wallow in their own shit? Jesus, what the hell is Hirshman's problem, anyway? If someone's going to be that filled with spite and hatred I'd prefer they just come out and admit it, rather than dress up their hatred in "I'm trying to help society" garments.
Here's my new theory: Hirshman is not a real woman, but actually a misogynistic man who is trying to undermine women's rights by creating a misogynist's parody of what feminism is all about: feminists just want to turn women into men!
Damn. Do you know that I baked cookies last weekend? That's not drug slang or anything; I baked actual, non-metaphorical cookies, with chocolate chips and everything. For the Man In My Life. And my job isn't anything high-powered.
Perhaps I should hate myself. Hirshman would say so.
|12.20.05 @ 6:35PM|#
On the other hand, the Man In My Life is currently cooking my dinner. I guess it all evens out.
|12.20.05 @ 7:06PM|#
Jennifer,
I really hope that you change your mind about having children. This world needs more good mothers (and the good children that they raise). I don't know how old you are, but maybe biology will nudge you in that direction someday. But of course, your choice is your own, and I respect the choice not to have children. No one should have a child unless they really want one and are willing to spend the time required to do it right.
|12.20.05 @ 7:11PM|#
Oh, and my two cents:
Work sucks! Men have known this for ages. That's why it's called work and not play. When will feminists figure this out?
I'd rather raise a child than work any day (and I work from home, make decent money, and the work is tolerable).
|12.20.05 @ 8:12PM|#
I enjoy going to work right now.
If I won the lottery, I'd still work, preferably here, part-time.
Of course, this is a candid photo of the office where I work. (The gang saying "hi" when I stroll into work in the morning.)
|12.21.05 @ 1:52AM|#
"Yes, life with no significant activities outside one's intimate circle is incomplete." -Cathy Young (in a rare moment where I disagree with her.)
Why? Whose definition of 'incomplete' are we using?
"I think women who do not have outside lives do themselves a terrible disservice." -Someone Else (above)
The 'I think' makes the comment palatable, but still don't see particularly why.
|12.21.05 @ 10:03AM|#
Jennifer,
"Joe, if you're still here--since you don't think Hirshman is being judgmental in saying that stay-at-home moms harm society, does this mean you won't find fault with Pat Robertson when he talks about how gays are harming society?"
Indeed.
Also, It's OK for some batty feminist to go off on stay-at-home-moms, see, that's just discourse. (and why ever would anyone associate the ranting of a feminist with government action? I just can't imageine...) Just don't dare disagree, you might be called something horrid like Libertoid!
Furthermore, somehow criticizing the feminist argument was equated with wanting to censor it. Ironic, that. Pot Kettle Black and all.