Zatera Ul

I found this article by Linda Hirshman through Joanne Jacobs, and it’s a real feminist stinker. It’s long, so you might as well go and read the whole thing first.

The blurb that goes with it is:

“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?

After reading only the first few paragraphs, I formed two hypotheses: The author had not read Dave Barry’s Complete Guide to Guys, and, furthermore, if she did read it, she would not laugh. Later in the article she is revealed to be a women’s studies professor, possibly retired, which is sufficient in my mind to confirm the second hypothesis. As for the first, near the end of the article she discusses something very similar to “Male Genetic Dirt Blindness” (identified by Barry as one of the differences between men and women), but gives Barry no credit, and discounts it as a rational reason for not entrusting housecleaning to the man of the house.

Despite being a feminist, she manages to perpetuate several anti-woman stereotypes. First, that women who are not bringing home paychecks are “not working at all”. Secondly, that housework and caring for children (for “elite women”, anyway) are degrading, demeaning, stifling, unsatisfying, unrewarding, unfairly imposed on them, and harmful to society, whereas slaving away for long hours (sometimes only being home long enough to sleep) to satisfy career demands or feminist agendas is not. Part of this is that she places much greater value on external rewards, such as money, career advancement, and political power, over more internal or private rewards like having a good family life, home-cooked meals, and a clean, well-ordered home. Finally, she seems to think that until women comprise 50% of the workers in every single profession and at all levels of power, we should all lie awake every night fretting about it.

She laments the slightly declining percentage of women that work full-time as “a loss of hope that the role of women in society will continue to increase.” And it “…tarnishes every female with the knowledge that she is almost never going to be a ruler.” As if the wife has no influence on her husband and community, and the mother no role in shaping her children! [Here I roll my eyes. I’m queen of this house.]

I’m beginning to think that there’s some hormone that happily married women have, even before the real maternal hormones kick in, that encourages us to homemaking and nestbuilding. Maybe rabid anti-home feminism is just a deficiency of that hormone. Certainly, I find more satisfaction in doing things around the house than in my so-called “elite” job. Not that I don’t enjoy my job, but the benefits of housework are more visible, tangible, and personal. For example, I have had a few research papers published in major physics journals, but it’s the bookshelf that I built, or the closet that I organized, that really yields daily, long-term benefits for me.

Hirshman’s proposed solution to the problem of women persisting in the practice of taking care of their own homes and children first is to insist that the career focus be pounded into their heads in college, that they should put the pursuit of money and power above all else, that if they must marry, they should choose men (young, old, loser, or at least liberal) who can stay home with the kid (no more than one) or pay for childcare, and that they should get used to living in a messy house. But she admits that “prying women out of their traditional roles is not going to be easy.”

Strangely, she ties this imperative to careerism to the liberal values of using one’s mind and talents, exercising personal autonomy, and doing good in the world. [Another eye roll.] As if there’s no way to do that at home. Well, I used plenty of my mind and skill when I was building that bookshelf–I was learning how to cut and chisel out dadoes, and I was planning the project around the scrap wood we had. Furthermore, when I’m working at home, I’m working for my own benefit and under my own direction–more autonomy than I have at my job. For this household, a bookshelf is a Very Good Thing. In the article, she derides the household manager as the person who wastes their talents on keeping track of the butter. Far from it! It’s a complex and challenging job, and also one that greatly affects my quality of life–I really hate it when we unexpectedly run out of butter.

Also, doesn’t personal autonomy imply the ability to make choices for oneself–choices like staying at home and doing things that feminists don’t approve of? We all have to work out the economics of home vs. career for ourselves. For some people, it makes sense to divide the housework and childcare nontraditionally. For us, it doesn’t yet. Who gave her the right to “pry” me away from what I freely choose?

Notice how she shows no notion of how love and service in the family go together. For example, I take care of the laundry, so my husband doesn’t have to worry about running out of clean socks. Without love, I suppose it would be drudgery, but with love, it’s purposeful. I suspect it’s going to be similar when we have kids (plural!)–love will ease the imposition of dealing with stinky diapers and things like that.