The dreaded "Mommy Wars" usually pits working moms against stay at home
moms. It took the genius of Sylvia Ann Hewitt and Linda Hirshman to top
it off with a dollop of guilt. Hewitt began the baby panic with her
2002 book castigating us career gals with not having babies before we hit our ancient 30s. My all time favorite response was from
Tina Fey during SNL's "Weekend Update" where she says, "And Sylvia's right; I
definitely
should have had a baby when I
was 27, living in Chicago over a biker bar, pulling down a cool $12,000
a year. That would have worked out great," while her posse of Rachel,
Amy, and Maya had her back. In the latest volley in this massive
guilt-trip,
Christine B. Larson, laments how she
tried to be a good modern mother and work part-time, only to decide that it wasn't worth it.
Linda Hirshman
added to this guilt trip that not only are you sacrificing your
economic future by staying home (because you don't earn Social Security
and most don't invest in a retirement fund), but you are ruining it for
women in general. Here's her theory: When elite and highly educated
(IvyLeaguers ) quick their awesome jobs at law firms, investment
groups, and big business, that in turn teaches the HR departments that
women can't be trusted to stay at the firm despite a high salary and
all those hours they spend training you. What we get is the pay gap AND
discrimination against women in general. Here's one more reason for the
class wars to continue.
I was able to meet and hear Linda Hirshman
at the
National Women's Studies Association Conference in late June.
I'm not a fan of hers, but hadn't read her book and wanted to hear what
she really believed in person. People can always be misquoted, even in
their own writing, so why not hear it from the horse's mouth? Here are
my highlights of her presentation/performance (as a former trial
lawyer, she does put on quite a show):
- She's upset that feminists embrace the "whatever floats your boat" philosophy, summed up as 'choice feminism';
- Her
mistake with this idea is dealing with feminism as if we all subscribe
to the same doctrine. Yes, there are choice feminists out there, but
more to the point I believe there are more feminists out there that do
traditionally non-feminist things (Brazilians anyone?) and shrug it off
as their choice. Is staying home to care for your child synonymous with
getting all your pubic hair ripped out? I don't think so.
- Choice feminism = any choice by a woman is a feminist act;
- DING! Wrong. Look at the way that feminists in general vilify both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Condoleezza
Rice. Two of the most powerful women in this world and I don't think I
could find one feminist who would claim everything these women have
done, even in the last 10 years, has been a feminist act.
- Feminism IS judgmental - Embrace it - Own it;
- OK,
I'll give her this. We are judgmental. Everyone is. That's what
philosophy is all about, drawing lines, and tsking at those who go over
it.
- Judgment is tainted by Betty Friedan's mistake to exclude lesbians from the movement;
- I
don't think that judgment itself is tainted as much as we lost so much
valuable time dealing with homophobia and then proving ourselves to our
*** sisters that we could be trusted. Growing pains are never easy,
but I'd like to think we are a stronger movement because of it.
- The
term choice was used as a way to not say abortion in the early 1970s,
specifically when Catholics for a Free Choice was founded;
- It
might have started that way, but by the time I became active in the
mid-1990s, I felt that choice was a way to talk about more than just
abortion. Choice was an easy to way to encompass birth control,
sterilization, choosing to mother, choosing to give birth, etc. I can't
recall a time when I personally was only about abortion. I came to my
pro-choice stance via birth control issues and have since evolved to
think of myself as a reproductive justice activist.
- Families are not immune to judgment;
- Yes and no. Violence in the home...Totally worthy of judgment. *** feeding vs. formula...Nope. Am I judgmental about SAHMs?
Honestly, sometimes. It is mostly due to feeling that pressure to stay
at home, so when a few friends had their babies and stayed at home, I
felt a little left behind. But I was more upset that staying at home
was excused as the best thing to do because "I'm not that smart like
you." Um, yes, you are and in so many different ways than I could ever
be. I also get upset when I see husbands ofSAHMs complain when the
house isn't clean. Buddy, you try staying at home with a kid and see
how much you get done. I actually admire women who can stay at home
with the kids all day. I know I couldn't. I don't have the patience or
the creativity to entertain my daughter.
- Feminism has to show women how to lead;
- Feminism
isn't a church. It's made up of individual people who add to our
collective movement. We show each other how to lead, mostly by example.
Which is why we really hate it when anti-feminists trash day care while
they tour around the country dragging their kids around or leaving them
in the care of a nanny. A lot of what I consider feminist leadership is
walking the walk.
She constantly put down mommy bloggers for hating her. What she meant was SAHM-mommy
bloggers and I called her on it. She apologized. I then went on to ask
her how are we supposed to galvanize mommy voters to make change happen
in this country if she's alienating them from the feminist movement?
She waved a hand and said that they were already lost. It's true that
married women vote more conservative than their unmarried sisters, but
I'm not about to call them a lost cause. Mostly because I'm a married
mother who votes for theDems, I occasionally vote for the Green party.
It's
not that I think that people are dumb, it's that I know what messages
are out there in the mainstream media. Feminists are bad evil people,
right? They don't care about children, right? They are the reason our
society is falling apart, right? I truly believe that my blogging about
mothering issues from a feminist perspective just might change the
hearts and minds of those who run from the F-word. The Radical Right
co-opted the term family values, but does nothing to value families.
But herpfting married mothers as lost means she's banking on all the
unmarried moms to get out and vote. We can't rely on that because well,
if being a married mom makes you a busy woman, imagine how hard it is
to be single and getting out to vote. On page 4 of her book, she sets
out a 5-point plan (it's always a 5-point plan, isn't it?) on how to
"get to work" and #5 is "Get the government you deserve. Stop electing
governments that punish women's work." So which is it? Is the solution
at home or with government? One thing is clear, she has no faith that
business will change.
I
truly believe the problem with our country is that we believe in the
whole bootstrap theory hook, line, & sinker, even when we KNOW we
didn't get where we are today without a little help. So I get whatHirshman
is saying when she calls out the so-called best & brightest who
hold Ivy League diplomas who quit making policy and start making PB&Js
full-time. We do need high powered women at the top of companies, in
Congress, and producing TV & film. BUT we need feminist women doing
it ifanything's going to change. There isn't any guarantee that Ms.
Harvard is going to climb the corporate ladder and kick open the door
for other women or understand when a parent wants to turn in that
report at 8 pm instead of 5 pm so they can attend tee-ball.
The
work/life question won't be solved merely by adding women. Neither will
the pay equity question. Some might have to be solved on a company by
company basis. Some might need more legislation and government
enforcement. And yes, I totally agree withHirshman that men need to
step up to the plate (pg 1). I'm happy to report that my partner not
only steps up to the plate, but he washes it and puts it back in the
proper place.
Maybe I'm too sensitive, but I think that us
moms have enough guilt to last 10 lifetimes. This society should be
set-up so that parents, mothers and fathers, can make REAL choices
about work, life, and child rearing. Want to work? Great! Thanks for
adding to the GDP. Here's some affordable and quality child care. Want
to stay at home? Great! Thanks for helping raise the next generation of
workers. Here's some Social Security credits and mother's allowance.
Yes, my dear readers, I do believe that any changes will have to come
by framing the issue in terms of economics not what we really should do
to prove we care about children.
Instead of pointing the
finger at each other all the time, let's gather up our strength and
forces and point it at the government for not doing enough, in some
cases their job, at inflexible work places, and at the expectation that
either we want to work 80 hours a week or not. The men I know who are
in their 20s and 30s don't want to work an 80 hour week as much as most
women. We're not a lazy or entitled generation. We just want a life
outside our cubicles. Is that really too much to ask?
I did
end up getting her book. It was only $5 and I got it autographed. It's
less than 100 pages, so if you can, do pick it up. It's worth the read.
She has a lot of great ideas in there. I think her presentation style
is too coarse to lure SAHMs back into the workforce. For that, we'd need child care the way Rosie the Riveter had back in WWII.
X-posted to my new personal blog, Viva La Feminista.
NOTE: To comment on this or any blog here at Chicago Parent, you
need to register & log in at the top of the page. It's easy and you
won't get spammed!