It angers me, then, to read the views of Nancy J. Hirschman, and fellow feminists, who, in various ways, over-complicate some things that I feel are pretty common sense and basic: First, that many (if not most) women would want to nurture their small children and build a home, if they could afford not to go to work when the child is very young—unless they, of course, have been brainwashed by feminism to think that this is a non-progressive choice and actually care about such things more than the welfare of their children. Second, that a young child is truly best cared for in a home setting, with a parent (their parent, preferably, and in my opinion, their mother, as the top preference, certainly for those under a year who should be breastfeeding) providing their care and nurturing. Third, that life is long and a woman can choose to take a 3-5 year "sabbatical" to care for her young child and get him or her off to a strong start, then jump back in and build, or rebuild her career or a new vocation/profession.
(For those women who would choose to have more than one or two children, I'd say they would really have to be able to carve more time than the 3-5 years out, then, and a career might not be as realistic for a while, or forever, if you're going to do right by your kids, as more children require more of your time and attention, naturally. Further, in today's ecological climate I bristle a bit at those who choose to have several children. I wonder about their environmental awareness, their awareness of the level of attention children need and their hubris in thinking they are either so great they can handle it or they are so great that it is somehow their right to overpopulate the world with their wonderful seed. But, that is another post, and I digress...and I must be careful not to judge—too harshly—and I realize that last bit was pretty judgmental).
The staunches of these essayists call for "true feminists" to put their babies in daycare so they can carry the torch for the sisterhood. Equal pay, workplace rights, etc. etc. are more important than their children, who can easily be cared for by a low-wage daycare worker or nanny or whatever. Especially the well-educated should do this. They should not squander their education. Thing is, why work if you don't have to? Moreover, why work if you don't want to (and don't need to)? This post is going to run out of steam because I'm already on to other things, but I felt like I needed to sort of get this one out and get it posted so if anyone was interested they could see the link and read the essays.
There is a good one up there by Shannon Hayes, author of Radical Homemakers, a book I read recently, coincidentally, that has all kinds of inspirational stuff about breaking away from the work-a-day world of the extractive economy and instead doing work that builds up the "Earth Community." In her essay, she says "The Real Battle is Elsewhere" and this really resonates with me. She says, "Worrying about the fight for equality in an extractive economy is like attempting to save a sinking ship by mending a sail. Neither sex is winning the fight. "
And, she says, "The race to see who can bring home more of them has left us bereft as a nation. We lead the world in reckless consumption, we are in the midst of a depression epidemic, we are no longer one of the healthiest populations, we work more hours than residents of most other industrialized countries, and we have one of the highest school dropout rates in the industrialized world.
The sad irony is that as we worry about who gets to climb higher and earn more money, income disparity grows larger, and, for most, the bottom line never seems to improve. Household net worth dropped dramatically in recent years, and Americans’ personal savings rates currently hover at just above a paltry 3 percent.
I agree with Hirschmann that negotiation for shared domestic responsibility is important. But it seems that the scorekeepers are always authorities external to ourselves—especially employers who stand to gain from our struggles to prove who will be the more loyal slave."The problem is when you politicize something like motherhood and take it beyond the individual relationships and try to make it a weapon in some wage war for equality, you destroy individuals' rights to do what they want to do. Isn't feminism about women doing what they want to do and not being forced to do something else? Children and mothers shouldn't be victims (again) in labor wars. It seems many in America (who are actually working) are overworked and are compelled either by some intrinsic competitive pathology or by fear of unemployment to be squeezed by employers. That, and they work too many hours because American corporate culture is highly wasteful (another digression, another post, a great conversation among experts on this on the NYT website).
For my part, I feel like I am lucky, during my kid's early years, to have a husband who makes most of the money, allowing me to have a more laid-back job from home, but who is still is very hands-on with our kid when he is home. When she is older, I will ramp back up with the outside earnings (we often joke, too, about me being a VP—because I am to some extent ambitious—and him staying a steadfast civil servant with lots of vacation time to spend with her).
Again, one of the things that bothers me so much about some of the feminist rhetoric is that it ignores that there are seasons to life and that staying home with a small child does not necessarily mean a woman is finished with pursuing any kind of career forever. In fact, I think the difficulty of jumping back in is often over-stated by hard-core feminists (either that, or I am just not aiming for that high-level of a career when I do go back, actually).
Going back to work has been on my mind alot, lately, which I'll address in another post. But, for now, I cherish my time at home and know I am doing a wonderful thing for my daughter.
Posts
