So, Linda Hirshman is back in the news and in the blogs. Nobody pushes my buttons more than that woman, which may, of course, be a good thing. People like that can definitively get the creative juices going. Look what Horowitz has done for Berube.
I typed Hirshman into technorati last night to see what other bloggers had to say. The titles of blog posts ranged from “bite me” to “Will someone get this woman to shut up?” heh.
I’m not sure that I want to dissect all her ideas anymore. We’ve already gone over this territory many times before. Briefly, I think that her notion of fulfillment is too narrow. Like djw, I feel that she is pushing for an elitist feminism. I also have major problems with her methodology and vagueness of terms, which leads to much confusion. (Are we talking about middle class women, rich women, educated women?) I think she doesn’t understand modern problems of work, the increasing pressures of parenthood (car seats, anyone?), and the decreasing amount of support for families.
I guess what still bothers me about Hirshman and these lingering discussions is the lack of respect for the rationality of women. The facts are that women aren’t equally represented in positions of power in this country. This is a worrisome issue and deserves serious attention. A good number of women get off the fast track after they have kids. If women are dropping out of the elite workforce to care for their children, then they’re doing it for a good reason. Either they are opting out because they face obstacles that prevent them from working or they are opting out because they want to.
Roadblocks that force mothers out of the workplace may be patriarchal expectations from society, the continuing disregard for their fate by thoughtless husbands, an unforgiving workplace, etc… My career didn’t pay well enough to cover the costs of daycare in New York City for two kids. At that time, employment was an unthinkable luxury.
Women also may be dropping out because they choose the kids. The headline of Lisa Belkin’s Opt-Out essay was “Q: Why Don’t More Women Get to the Top? A: They Choose Not To” They stop working or take a part-time job in order to be home when the kids get off the school bus. They want to cook dinner for the kids, help them with their homework, leisurely chat with them about their day.
I don’t think we should stigmatize women who choose their kids over their careers. They might not be doing their share towards fixing that elite ratio, but who cares? Their first responsibility is to themselves and their children. Making good kids is a worth while endeavor. No better or worse than helping really rich people get even richer in the stock market.
It’s also silly to bow down before elite women (and men). Top lawyers and doctors and business leaders are there because they have unique skills, exceptional ambition, and the desire for material reward, not because they are self-sacrificing martyrs.
Hirshman and others seem to argue that to freely choose to mind children is irrational, an act of an insane person. Why else would you put yourself in a position of slave, a cleaner of diapers, a kisser of boo-boos? Especially when that labor can easily be farmed out to the less educated. The millions of women (and men) who do tend the tots full time or take a less ambitious job in order to put more effort into childcare are unworthy of mention. Their protests that they enjoy their work are to be scoffed at and questioned. They only think that their work is fulfilling, but they are too warped by the patriarchy to really understand things.
I’m not sure if obstacles or choice keep millions of women off the fast track and on the playground. Obstacles clearly must be removed. But if women are happily leaving the workplace, then deal with it. Maybe more men would choose this route, as well, if they had the opportunity.
We can either badger women to go back and take those elite jobs against their will or we can make parenthood more appreciated.
If we can trust women to make informed decisions about their reproductive rights, then I think we have to trust women to make rational decisions about marriage, children, and work.
Apt. 11d 
Beautifully said, Laura. You go, girl.
LikeLike
I’m tired of her. I think she suffers from a lack of imagination. She just can’t imagine someone choosing something so different from what she chose. She can’t imagine having a different set of values, measuring oneself by a different standard.
I “opted out” (though I’m far from elite, so I don’t think she’s really talking about people like me) because of insurmountable barriers in the working world after I had a child (not enough time off, no part-time options). Being a homemaker was my 2nd choice, but I surprised myself by discovering that it’s much more rewarding than my career ever was.
If there were fewer barriers in the workplace, more women would keep their jobs, I’m sure of it, and this would be a positive development. Though I enjoyed being at home, I think most women would prefer a balance, and in the long run most would have a better, more satisfying life with paid employment as part of the mix.
LikeLike
Yay, you are so eloquent. You tell her!
Sandra, I think you are right on the money–a lot of the so-called opt-outers probably wouldn’t have opted out if there were more options in between. Instead our work culture pushes women (and men!) toward an all-or-nothing decision on families vs. careers. And it’s important to remember that it’s not just women who deserve balance. I am reminded of Laura’s posts about the Battle of the Blackberry…
LikeLike
I want a balance, too. I don’t need a high powered job. Just a nice job at a cozy teaching college eventually, where I can get home in time to help the kids with their homework. I think most women want a balance, but jobs that allow for balance don’t make you a CEO, partner, or chair of the department at Harvard. If I’m home to help the kids with homework, I won’t be doing my part to fix the gender inequality at an elite job. Oh well.
Mrs. Coulter — nice going at LGM today. i wasn’t at the computer all day, but just caught up now. go girl.
LikeLike
I am one of the lucky women that can think of this as a quality of life issue. I know some women have no choice about whether they work or not. I stayed home for 12 years. That was my choice. Sometimes it was a sacrifice, but most of the time it was very rewarding. I now work part-time. This is a choice. I work a mediocre paying job because I love it and it’s flexible. I am doing work that matters. I agree with you on balance. The fact that one of us is home before 5 allows the whole family more time and energy. Enjoying my life and family is a higher priority to me than what some misguided woman in the media thinks.
Great post Laura.
LikeLike
Yeah, nice post. Very reasonable – I’m going to have a family soon, and I’m planning on starting a business where I can work with my wife, keeping the baby around almost 100% of the time. Does that hurt the bottom line? Only if finances are your bottom line – mine is family.
LikeLike
Laura, did you read this article in Rolling Stone? http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10464110/sex__scandal_at_duke/1
I thought it was an interesting parallel to the Hirshman debate. Are the women in this article making informed choices? Are they good choices? Maybe. Maybe not.
LikeLike
She pushes my buttons also. I teach part time, and left an intense job full of lots of stresses and a horrible commute. I am enjoying spending more time with my kids and there is no question that the quality of my life has improved hugely. (Except for the paycheck part!) I would agree that systemic issues were partly responsible for my leaving my job (men in charge who cared little about childcare issues, etc.). So it’s not that I believe my “choice” was not affected by other factors, outside me. Still, Hirshman seems so mean about it all! What’s her deal? She seems to have such a narrow perspective. I guess it gets her a lot of ink.
LikeLike
Great post. I’ve actually begun to hate the word “choice”. Lately it seems to imply that women and families make decisions in a vacuum, and that when they make the decisions they either feel completely happy or miserable. My observation of my friends says it’s usually different- the parents who have cut back on careers enjoy their children tremendously but still worry about what could happen if somehting happened to their employed partner. They also at times find it boring and tedious to take care of their children all day, especially when their children are toddlers. It’s interesting too, how parents who want to vent about their work with their kids often meet with the attitude of “that was your choice so shut up” while no one would dream of saying the same thing to someone who wanted to complain about their job or partner.
Another thing in the hostility toward stay at home parents, especially women, is envy. I think middle class women especially have a hard time admitting to themselves that they are envious. They often perceive (not always accurately) stay at home mothers as having more money or options than themselves but to admit such envy is taboo. Among some politicied academic types who know that most families get by with much less money than they have, to admit to being envious of someone who has more is a big taboo. Instead it comes out as hostility.
LikeLike
I’ve worked my entire adult life, and not for fun or self-fulfillment but so I could eat. I had my wonderful kids and sent them to fulltime daycare starting at age 3 months. And now, at age 44, I’m going to college part-time (I want to be an engineer, after being a legal secretary for 20 years). I still have a good 20 years or more to have an intense career.
LikeLike
Y’know, the first n times the books and magazine articles came out about how horrible it was that women who could choose to stay at home, or at least choose to take a family-friendly job, were doing so and it was so horrible for women as a whole, I added my two cents into the debate. (Mostly: every individual situation is different, dammit. Quit judging.)
But now that the debate has been ongoing for so long, I’m beginning to feel that those who keep positing this rather specious “be a workaholic or you’re a traitor to your gender” argument are mostly just p!ssed because a lot of folks are managing, more-or-less happily, without sticking it to the patriarchy (some would say sucking up to the patriarchy) for 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. Or maybe they’re just “la-la-la, not listening!” when they’re shown a successful lifestyle other than what they trumpet.
And of course there’s the fame and $, which are their markers for success, after all.
LikeLike
Hirshman does not push my buttons (Flannagan does, interestingly enough). I don’t disagree with most of your statements about Hirshman’s arguments (the one that suggests that women are behaving irrationally underscores an elitist view that I think troubles a lot of liberal arguments).
But, what you’re not addressing is the part of her argument that says that women who “opt out” are making an _economically_ irrational decision. I think this worry should make everyone who choses not to earn money loose a little sleep.
Much as I’d love to believe it, I can’t believe that divorce rates are going to change substantially. That means some substantial number of women who opt out are gong to find themselves pushed back into the workforce, less qualified than they would have been otherwise, and with children who expct a higher standard of living than can be provided in a divorced household.
bj
LikeLike
bj,
Women are generally the ones filing for divorce, I believe. Also, working wives file for divorce more often than do non-working wives. So women do usually know that there is going to be a divorce and are in a position to do some advance planning.
LikeLike
BJ,
When you are talking about women now in their 20’s-40’s, you can’t really argue that they don’t know divorce happens…often, even. They’ve seen it all around, all their life.
And if they are willing to take that economic risk by opting out, partially or fully, but nearly always TEMPORARILY, like Laura says, you have to respect their decision as adults. Just like you’d respect someone’s decision to stop being an accountant in order to follow their passion and be a sculptor who teaches part-time — even though it might be economically disadvantageous to them.
I think there is a huge difference between the (elite, educated, whatever) women today who knowingly and consciously choose to “opt out” in order to focus on their children for a certain amount of years, and plan accordingly, and naive 50’s housewives who expected to be taken care of for the rest of their lives. And I think Hirshman is incapable of making that distinction.
LikeLike
Kai – great news about school. How great that you’re getting ready to start your second career now. That’s one major advantage with starting young with the kids.
And, of course, this whole discussion is silly. The purpose of work is to pay the rent and the cable bill. Only a few people in the world can work at jobs that they love and command power/money. I’m not sure why should congratulate those people and berate everyone else.
LikeLike
Over here from BlogHer and just wanted to say that I love what you’ve written and the discussion via the comments, too. Great post.
LikeLike
Did anyone catch her piece in the WaPo Outlook section?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601766.html
Once again, she dismisses her critics as intellectual lightweights or religious conservatives committed to traditional gender roles. And she’s her usual charming self to boot.
LikeLike
Good catch, Mrs. Coulter!
A few points about the Hirshman piece in the Washington Post.
1. What is one to make of her insistence that she had NO idea that many women would resent her initial piece laying down the gospel according to Hirshman? For those just tuning in, Hirshman’s rules for educated women were a one child max, working in business not the public sector, and not doing liberal arts type majors. Incidentally, Hirshman, as she says in the WA Post article, has three daughters and is a retired professor of philosophy and women’s studies. As I’ve written before, it seems like Hirshman has had a very rich and varied career (she has a law degree, too) but she didn’t get where she is now by following the most controversial elements of her own advice. Instead of this latest piece strawmanning her oponents, I would have enjoyed a piece from her explaining her own career and how she got where she is today, perhaps comparing her own trajectory to one of her daughter’s, or some other young working mother with a small child or children–if that isn’t too terribly girly. It just doesn’t feel right that she is at liberty to criticize most of womankind while being rather grudging with biographical detail. It seems like she can dish it out, but can’t take it.
2. There has to be some misogyny involved when one hates so many women as they are, living the lives they live, and being the people they are now.
LikeLike
ow. That op-ed is why I feel sorry for her sometimes. She reminds me of a couple of my old professors. One in particular would have been totally baffled by the response. That generation of academics aren’t used to criticism. They’ve only been giving their papers to conferences of friends and needy students. To have the unmatriculated masses hammer away at her ideas must be galling. (go blogosphere. go democracy.)
Her ideas have drawn a lot of scrutiny for a lot of reasons. 1. She first put the paper out on-line. If it can be linked, it can be criticized. 2. She did get into a tricky topic. Motherhood is a raw topic. There are no easy answers about work and family. A whole lot of us in the blogosphere have been talking about it for a few years and trying to find a middle ground. 3. And there were a lot of problems with her arguments and research.
I’m not letting her off the hook or anything. But I feel like we should recognize that feminists of that generation did open many doors for us. To not have us go through them must be puzzling and enraging.
I would just prefer that someone asked why, rather make assumptions. Someone that sympathetically tried to understand mothers, rather than wag a finger.
LikeLike
The problem is that everyone wants to believe that they’re part of the “elite” that Hirshman refers to. Have you read her book? She’s not really addressing women who aren’t even making a living wage adjuncting; she doesn’t think your choice to stay home was “irrational”.
LikeLike
So who is she addressing–eighty women in NYC? My impression was that all you needed to draw her ire was to have an unused credential or two.
LikeLike
I read the WaPo. Great photo in the print edition, with devil horns drawn on her face! Newspapers on actual paper have their virtues. Yah,I think she’s lying with her claim to be surprised by the response. I think she had a pretty good idea what she needed to do to make a splash, and she did it.
And, you know, who’s going to wipe your ass when you’re 87 and incontinent, if you don’t have any kids? Somehow she thinks poorer, less educated women’s children will do that. Maybe she’s right, but it shoots holes in any universality to her edicts.
And (right on Amy P), yes, her reported life history is about as consistent with the ideology she is espousing as has been Phyllis Shlafly’s. I’d love to see the two of them go at it – two scorpions in a bottle!
LikeLike
My impression was that all you needed to draw her ire was to have an unused credential or two.
This is why actually reading the book is a good idea.
Wow, a surprising number of women with self-described elite degrees were taught very little appreciation for source material.
LikeLike
I’ve read her American Prospect article many, many times. She absolutely never defines the term elite. Does it mean highly educated women, like myself? Does it mean upper income women, not like myself? And even within that article, she slides from talking about women as a whole to elite women. I have no idea what the hell she’s talking about. Which makes this whole discussion nonsensical. People look for what they like in the Hirshman piece. I’ve heard four different interpretations of what Hirshman meant by choice feminism. If her article was more clear, we wouldn’t be in this muddle.
There are parts of her article that I agree with. It is difficult to maintain two high level careers and have kids. But. Duh!! She isn’t the first one to say this, so I refuse to attribute this idea to her. Hell, I’ve been blogging about it for years.
I’m so disgusted by this discussion that I refuse to make another post of it. Though I might keep this comment thread going for a while.
And, Karen, buzz off. I’m not in the mood to be nice. Of course, she means academics, too. Read her lecture to me and others in Higher Education a few months back.
LikeLike
I was amused by her (a) attribution of the majority of the criticism she’s received to right-wing religious fundamentalism (Laura, I never suspected you were part of the religious right – but then again, you have occasionally mentioned taking the kids to Mass, so you qualify) and (b) use of the real estate she was granted in the WaPo to glory in alleged martyrdom rather than actually push her book’s arguments, or even hawk the book itself (quite economically inefficient, if you ask me).
Laura, it didn’t seem to me that she was shocked to receive criticism. I think she wanted nothing more than to wind up on somebody’s blacklist, somewhere. It always struck me that certain academic types look at the McCarthy era as the glory days that they missed out on, and try to usurp the role of blacklisted martyr by any means necessary. Especially when they already have tenure.
LikeLike
Karen,
Many of us who are critical of Hirshman have been so since her Dec. 2005 piece in American Prospect, which like Laura, we have read and analyzed to the point of nausea. If you look at my earlier post in this thread, you will see a few points from that article which were fairly controversial–Hirshman advised women to shun the liberal arts and non-profits, go into business, and have only one child in order to have high-powered, high-earning careers. If that’s what you want, Hirshman’s advice is actually pretty valuable. However, for many or most women, the lifestyle she recommends sounds as self-denying and austere as a Carmelite convent–what if you really want that second baby, or heaven forbid a third or fourth one? So, a lot of women think that Hirshman is doing a disservice to feminism by making it seem so uncomfortable and counterintuitive.
LikeLike
I read Hirshman’s article not as a critique of the women, but as a critique of the social structures that force the women into stark lifestyle choices. She’s talking about having the same social power and social security as men; she’s not talking about self-actualization. I think the focus on elite women is exactly the point! At least some of these women who had high powered jobs until well into their 30’s enjoyed and thrived in those jobs, and they can afford to cut their work hours or change their job descriptions, and to pay other people to shop for the groceries and let the plumber into the house and do the laundry so that they can focus on the things that actually stimulate their brains – including nurturing their kids. The fact that every one of these women — who outwardly appear to have enough options to put together whatever combination of life elements they please — have opted out of economic/public life altogether tells me that at least some of them are not really “choosing.” And, yes, when you’re 28 or 38 and deciding to quit working you can absolutely weigh the economic and personal consequences in an informed and intelligent way. But do you really have enough life experience and street smarts to understand that tradeoff when you’re 20 and setting out on a career path where, down the line, the only economically viable option will be to quit paid work altogether because employment is an unthinkable luxury? That’s an excellent and joyful choice for a whole lot of people — but did you understand that you were making it way back when?
And don’t tell me to buzz off.
LikeLike
Laura GP – She is absolutely talking about self-actualization. What else does she mean by fulfillment? If she wants to talk about elite women that’s fine with me. Then she needs to do more research on elite women (beyond 30 people in the Times wedding section) and not refer to statistics that apply to all women.
She is totally critiquing the women themselves and not social structures. She continually says that government and business aren’t going to change, so women have to change. She mocks a woman for baking cookies with her kids.
I agree with you about the impossibility of knowing how your educational choices at 20 will pan out later in life. It’s a really good point. But Hirshman doesn’t make it.
I only tell rude people to buzz off. And only if I’m in a pissy mood.
LikeLike
have no idea what the hell she’s talking about. Which makes this whole discussion nonsensical. People look for what they like in the Hirshman piece. I’ve heard four different interpretations of what Hirshman meant by choice feminism. If her article was more clear, we wouldn’t be in this muddle.
Interesting threshold. Do you think there exists a text for which we could find four people with different interpretations?
And, Karen, buzz off. I’m not in the mood to be nice. Of course, she means academics, too. Read her lecture to me and others in Higher Education a few months back.
I was under the impression that your entire academic career consisted of adjuncting at a poverty-level salary; if I’m mistaken, I apologize. But I think the point holds — everyone with $20,000 in student loans from a private college wants to believe their education was “elite”, and therefore believe Hirshman that is talking to them.
LikeLike
Do you think there exists a text for which we could find four people with different interpretations?
Whoops – that should have been “could not”.
LikeLike
Karen,
So who is this elite that Hirshman is writing about? If it really is such a narrow slice of American womanhood that you can safely assume that none of the commenters on this blog or any mommy blog belong to that elite, what was the point of writing any of the articles, blog posts, etc. that Hirshman has devoted to the subject? It seems like a terrible waste of time–shouldn’t she (according to her own argument) be out there building bridges, creating software, etc.?
LikeLike
Just the fact that there is this confusion is a major weakness in her article/book. If you are going to talk about elites, then give me a monitary figure or profession that you are studying. Give the number of people that you are studying.
I think the study of elites is a fine project. There is sometimes a trickle down effect of elite behavior. If you are interested in the gender balance at the top ranks, then you have to isolate yourself to elites. But again, you have to clarify.
The trouble is that elites face more obstacles than Hirshman recognizes. I think she does mean academics in her circle of elites, because of that article she wrote for Higher Ed. (Link later) A full time tenure track job in NYC that I interviewed for while 8 months pregnant paid $37,000, which wouldn’t have covered daycare, transportation, and student loans. We were just starting off and couldn’t fool around with money. I just don’t think she gets the obstacles today.
And after staying home for a while, I grew to really to love it. My growing love of motherhood combined with a high needs second child, took full time employment off the table. I’m going to work part time next year and will return to full time the following year, provided all my ducks are swimming happily.
But my story is not important. I just brought it up, because there’s a lot of complexity to parenthood and work, which Hirshman neglects, because she really doesn’t have much sympathy for the subject.
LikeLike
Karen, I think she is definitely talking about women like Laura and like me. Laura made the “wrong” choice when she got a degree in a field that doesn’t have high demand, thus dooming herself to a lifetime of low-paying adjunct jobs. I waited a little longer to make my wrong choice, since I was making good money in a male-dominated field in the 1990s. There are times when I miss the money, but I don’t miss the life. I don’t know where Laura’s degree is from, but mine most certainly qualifies as “elite.”
LikeLike
“Do you think there exists a text for which we could find four people with different interpretations?”
This is social science, not literature. Good social science is clear. Good social science is not open to interpretation. Good social science is elegant. It is a mark of bad social science to have confusion about basic terms.
When you strip away all the bad social science in this research, all you’re left with is the nastiness.
LikeLike
Read this great post by Elizabeth about Hirshman. The comments are good, too.
LikeLike
I think Hirshman has lost it. She isn’t what I consider a real feminist if she thinks just emulating men’s traditional ways of working are a sign of progress, even though imitation may be the highest form of flattery.
She doesn’t take into account there are differences in women and men. Women carry the pregnancy, and women breastfeed. There are even hormones released during breastfeeding shown to increase nurturing responses. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests breastfeeding for at least one year — which usually doesn’t happen in the case of working moms, for obvious reasons. And after that, as Laura did, you may find you love being home.
Staying home has expanded, rather than limited by life. I have a better understanding of children and human nature. I meet and networked with a lot of interesting, at-home moms. And I’m now working from home part-time as a free-lance writer — something that wouldn’t have happened if I remained full-time in the workforce. It gives my writing a perspective not usually seen in the media.
My husband works no more than 40 hours a week and is an involved parent at home — he works in public radio and is a progressive who understands why I need to stay home. Besides we are all a lot less stressed, more creative since I’ve come home.
I think it’s strange that people worry about at-home moms making it harder for employed moms — supposedly because employers will not take women seriously. No one worries about how moms willing to take full-time employment have impacted those who want to stay home full-time — with both women and men in the workforce, wages are lower since there’s more competition, for instance. Nice for employers, tough on families.
In fact, family friendly policies are not encouraged, just more day care. But some women she caring for their children too important to delegate. And that’s okay.
LikeLike
I came across this post at blogHer. Great post! You aptly summed up my feelings on the issue. I’ve wasted my breath trying to make that exact point over and over at Happy Feminist’s blog, to no avail (and, after repeatedly beating my head against a wall, I think I may need to go the ER to get my massive head trauma taken care of).
Thanks for a little sanity on this issue.
LikeLike