Feminism has failed. Why? Women are staying home with kids

by Sarah Gilbert (Subscribe to Sarah Gilbert's posts) Nov 29th 2005 3:20PM

The goal of feminism, many Gloria Steinem fans agree, is to shatter the "glass ceiling" and get equal numbers of women in positions of power - in CEO and CFO positions, as senators, congresswomen and governors, in the cabinet, as managing directors of investment banks and partners at law firms. Women are slowly but surely moving toward "equal pay for equal work." There are more women than men at universities, and enrollment of women in law schools and business schools is slowly increasing. But feminism, it's failed, and Linda Hirshman of the American Prospect says it's because the glass ceiling still exists - at home.

When Melissa sent me the links to this story, and some of the blogosphere's response, at first I thought: this is another one of those made-up controversy pieces. I no longer think it's made up - there's a real controversy here - but it's between Hirshman's "rules," and the lives of the women she profiles, and the larger society - the reality as I perceive it. The critics, who are incensed, point out that Hirshman's so-called "data" comes from interviews with 35 women who advertised their weddings in the New York Times' Sunday Styles section - hardly a representative sample of the world. In fact, Hirshman points out, most of them quit their jobs before baby. Nobody - and I mean zip, zilch, zero - that I count among my most powerful and capable friends quit before getting pregnant. I graduated from a prestigious Ivy League MBA program. I should be part of her sample. Right?

When I think of my friends and mama role models, a lot of them are combining work and family. My good friend Liz, who had baby #2 a few weeks ago, was working for CSFB right up until labor. Another buddy from business school just got in touch with me last week, and I found she was already working fulltime only six months after the birth of her first son. Meg Whitman is the CEO of eBay despite having two boys and a husband whose career is similarly demanding. Although my own career has changed gears a bit in the past three years, I�m still pretty much on track with my goals - although I have taken work that pays less in order to balance it with child rearing, my resume is still full of �chief� this and �VP of� that.

Those of us who are staying at home are working there - that counts every one of the mamas who work for Weblogs, Inc. We�re at home, but we�re writing, and many of us have other careers that keep us occupied when we�re not thinking about Blogging Baby.

But those of us who are at home, why do we stay? Because (a) we can�t find affordable, quality day care and (b) we can�t find a job that will accept our skills flexibly. By �flexible,� I don�t mean �flex time� or job-sharing or any of the other ways women have found to work part-time in typically non-managerial roles. I mean, flexible, as in, work four hours a day from the office and eight hours a day from home. I�d be perfectly happy with a job like this.

Hirshman doesn�t think that�s why we�re staying at home. No, she says, we don�t want to work flexibly. We just don�t want to work. �...elite women aren�t resisting tradition. None of the stay-at-home brides I interviewed saw the second shift as unjust; they agree that the household is women�s work.� Laura from 11D points out that this is somewhat of a stretch, analysis-wise. �The Times Brides never planned on working in the first place, says Hirshman, social scientist extraordinaire. Hirshman has managed to isolate the most conservative group of elite women and, boy, does she hate them.�

Most of Hirshman�s story, I could have agreed with. But she had to go there. She had to play the blame game. All of us - those of us mommies who are college educated, that is, and especially those who stay at home - we�re all complicit in ruining the world for feminists. Meredith O�Brien, Boston Mommy, is surprised to find herself a named defendant in Hirshman v. Mommy. She writes, �Who knew I was a 1950sesque Stepford wife with no sense of self, that I am making a future populated by powerful women in places like the Oval Office or executive board rooms extremely difficult by working from home and working part-time (which is considered �not working seriously�)? If it weren�t for articles such as this one, how would I know that I�m doing a disservice to The Sisterhood, that I�ve made the wrong choices and that, in my Sesame Street induced haze, I�m now a vacant shell of my former career-oriented self?�

I didn�t know. I didn�t know that I, by working from home and watching my kids, I was contributing to the decline of feminists everywhere. Because I write marketing pieces from home for $30, or $40, or $50 an hour while Everett watches Cyberchase, instead of billing $250 an hour as a consultant for Bain (hi, Jaime!), I�m complicit in the destruction of feminist. Who knew that I was causing the lack of women in sufficient numbers in law firm partnerships, the void of estrogen in the boardroom. Who knew, indeed.

Source

Comments (22)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Jen 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

I really like your take on this article. I don't agree with the notion that because we stay home we are doing it out of laziness or because "that's the way it is because the man says so..." That's bull! I too worked in a full time career up until I had my son. I made the CHOICE to stay home because I didn't feel the childcare available to me was affordable nor competent enough for me to go back to work full time. I also chose to work from home part-time. It's NOT easy! There are no 15 minutes coffee breaks or 1 hour lunches with the "gals" in the office. It's hard work that is non stop - but I do it because I have chosen to put my son first and I'm very happy and satisfied because of it. I don't feel as if I am missing out on anything in the workforce because I am developing in many new ways as a mother and CEO of this household :)

http://www.youngparentsmagazine.com/
http://creditcards.youngparentsmagazine.com/

Andie D. 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

While I was in the workforce, I noticed that the men had an upper hand when it came to promotions and pay. I've seen it slowly get better, and I've seen more and more women in higher positions.

Just because I choose to be a SAHM doesn't mean that I spit in the face of feminism. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I am grateful that I have the CHOICE to be a SAHM for now.

Ann Adams 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

What am I missing here? In the 50's and beyond, our choices were limited unless we were willing to work 3 times as hard for 1/3 the pay. Even then, the ceiling was firmly in place. It still is, but it's slowly improving.

Feminism was, or should have been, about options. If women prefer to and can afford to stay home, why shouldn't they. Education is never wasted. Many of the women in the higher brackets spend much of their time as volunteers. Even if they don't, it's their right to live their life their way.

It wouldn't be mine.

We have so many choices now even though this country hasn't progressed far enough with flexibility and affordable child care. Working from home is expanding as it should be.

Single? Single with kids? Married with career and no kids? Married with career and kids? Married and no career? There seem to be a great many options now.

That's certainly what I was aiming for back in the Gloria era. For me it was about opportunity. Feminism hasn't failed for me, it's just opened doors. What we do with the open door is up to us.

laura 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

I find it funny too that these survey participants always attend top notch schools. What about those of us who work and went to a state school? Was feminism not for us?

I am going to work part time after my child is born, but that is mostly because I am finishing up my Master's Degree. Ideally I would like my husband to work part time as well, but he just took a job where that is not possible.

I am a civil engineer and really like my job. I work in a male dominated profession and do fairly well at it. My bonuses are higher than the men I work with.

Feminism did that for me. It also made my husband my partner, not my meal ticket. It has given me a life that will be better than my mothers. I share house responsibilities and will eventually share childcare responsibilities.

Heather 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

I thought femminism was about the right to choose to say home or work or do both if you wish. If a wmoan stays home she isn't selling out or repressed. Maybe she want's to be at home with the kids. I work because I have to. If my husband made enough money that I could stay home. I would quit my job tommorrow

Ethel 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

I agree with all the comments, and for myself I am in quite a quandry. I have a masters in science, specifically biochemistry. This meant that while I took the long road to get there and had meant to get a PhD as well, I was getting up there in years and I did not have a partner either. I had already planned that by 35 I would either have a child by myself or be married with kids, becuase while being Christian I am an absolute believer in evolution and want my wonderful (to me) genes to carry on.

So, getting where I am, I did not have the career that I wanted so economically the only option is for me to stay home as I would be starting from the bottom having just graduated and wanting more then one child. I also know that I have pretty much given up my career anyway becuase to get out of the game of biochemistry is death since it changes so rapidly. Ideally I would be the breadwinner and my husband would stay home becuase there is just not the mental stimulation raising a child (it's different) that I get working on logic problems in the lab.

Whats my point? For myself, and I think many women this is a no win situation. Our time spent at home to raise a child, or just recover physically from childbirth is a consequence of our desire to reproduce and being female, and of no value to our country. It isn't just issues about feminism, I believe it is also our country's lust for more money and better productivity, with an equal desire to ignore that workers are human with lives, families and falibities. Workers in general are not valued anyway, why would moms be? Until our cooperate world recognizes that nurturing family and valuing workers makes for a greater payoff, most of us are going to be staying at home raising our kids becuase it is the most sensible choice available.

And all I ever wanted growing up was to have a career and a family, to be my own person and not need a husband but be banded with him out of choice. I would greatly prefer to be working in a lab when I could and having my family. But, as it is, there are no jobs like that nor childcare that would work that way for me. And until my husband will give up his pride and start nursing, I am stuck suckling my kid on my own. Well, I guess a hairy chest isn't so nice to snuggle up to if you're a baby.

Christina 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

I agree with Ann that education is never wasted. Even if it is "only" used to help raise intelligent, well-educated children, then it is worth every penny.

The article seems to only put worth on careers involving business or government. She practically shames women who think of working for social service agencies or doing volunteer work, because they can't get rich doing it. Since when is getting rich a primary life goal? If I have to sacrifice all my time with my family and friends to keep up with the rat race for more and more money, then I'd rather just be poor.

And she also has a rather one-sided argument. Yes, more moms are choosing to stay home or work part-time only. But statistics also show that more and more DADS are choosing to stay at home as well. I didn't see any articles criticizing men for staying home with their children and hurting the earning power of their sex.

Maybe it's just that as a society we're beginning to care less about material gains and realize we want to focus more on shaping our familes instead of letting someone else raise our kids for us.

Andy E 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

There has been a lot of hype over the supposed move back to SAHM but all the articles I have read have been anecdotal or used small sample sizes. It would be interesting to know whether there really has been an increase nationwide in the percentage of women with children who are not working outside the home.

There's a great danger in drawing conclusions from small samples (especially if it's from your own social circle) and in the absence of real, statistically significant data I think we all have to question whether this supposed trend is for real.

L. 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

Chistina - exactly. This is another one of those, "What about the DADS?" articles.

Oh, this article just pissed me off in oh-so- many ways.....

I don`t know what she`s talking about when she says, "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."

My response to the first part of that is, "Huh? Less flourishing? Says who?" And my response to her last sentence is, I am a SAHM with an au pair, a housecleaner, and a gardener. I don`t need her pity, her scorn, or whatever else she`s trying to express there.

Buried in her article is this gem: "It is also possible that women are voluntarily taking themselves out of the elite job competition for lower status and lower-paying jobs. Women must take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions."

Why, YES! Exactly! As a matter of fact, I DO take responsibility for it! Do you hear me complaining about quitting my job, or do you hear HER complaining about it?

Lauri 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

Wow! I am so much more powerful than I ever thought I was! By choosing to stay at home with my children, I have effectively taken away the rights of women and put an end to everything every feminist before me worked so hard to gain. Incredible!

What really made me laugh was the comment about me choosing to stay at home because I "don't want to work". HA! Has this woman ever spent any time at all, even a day or two, taking full responsibility for and trying to raise 3 kids, one of whom is Special Needs? "Don't want to work". What a laugh!!!

And is it really better to send your child off every morning to a day care? I don't believe it is.

Aside from the arguement about who a child should be with is the financial situation of the parents. I have a BA in Psychology and Child Development. I worked as a Social Worker until the day my oldest daughter was born 11 years ago. My husband is a Chemical Engineer who makes it very possible for me to stay home with our children. Why shouldn't I be the one to raise them? It makes NO sense to send them out to be raised by someone else. However, about 2 years ago I started thinking seriously about returning to my career. After figuring out how much I would be spending by going back to work (day care, new wardrobe, lunches out, gas and car maintainance, the cost of eating dinner out more and lots more convenience foods, etc...) and subtracting that from the salaries offered by the jobs I would be applying for, it would actually COST us money for me to return to work! Now, if you want to blame the death of the Feminist Movement on anything, THAT should be it! The fact that college educated women like myself cannot afford to work.

VERY Sincerely,
Lauri Smith

Laura 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

Often this issue seems more grounded in economics than personal choice.

Heather posted "I work because I have to. If my husband made enough money that I could stay home. I would quit my job tommorrow."

Christina said "If I have to sacrifice all my time with my family and friends to keep up with the rat race for more and more money, then I'd rather just be poor."

And Ann said "Single? Single with kids? Married with career and no kids? Married with career and kids? Married and no career? There seem to be a great many options now."

If you peruse the NYT Weddings pages, you might wonder how much in common you, Average American Mama, have in common with those Ivy League babes who have Married Well. Not to succumb completely to stereotyping, but for them, I suspect that choosing to be a SAHM is just that...a choice. Economically, they can more than likely afford to make that choice and stay home with their kids. Or have a nanny and do Good Works.

However, if you are poor--U.S. poverty guidelines notwithstanding--you must work. Single mom? You're working, maybe more than one job. Blue collar married with kids? You're working, too. Middle class, upper middle class, you probably have a choice, depending upon your debt load and partner's income. If you owe, you work. Everyone has financial obligations to meet. Everyone might not be able to make the choice to stay home, finances be damned. Your income might be all that stands between you and losing your house. Or not making a credit card payment. Or a car payment. When you're financially secure, it's just easier to make the choice to work or stay home.

Are economics the tipping point for SAHMs? That would be a topic worth exploring, a survey worth doing. Anecdotal evidence, bah. Personal stories, not so scientific. But a nice statistically sound sample across demographics? That would be interesting.

sarah gilbert 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

Laura, I hear what you're saying, and agree wholeheartedly - and yes, these personal stories that are the scope of our blog are, sadly, limited in their statistical weight. I'd love to see scientific studies conducted on income and career choice (although I think we all know what we'd learn).

Laura, 11D 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

Thanks for the link and the input, Sarah.

I'm glad that I wasn't alone in finding this Hirshman article outrageous. I'm going to distill everyone's comments and have American Prospect publish the rebuttal.

Ann Adams 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

I should have added another paragraph about women whose choices have been removed by poverty. (That would have been me when I was young). Single, 3 kids, etc. I had a job, not a career.

I was mainly concerned in this particular case about the sudden attack on women who can and do choose to stay home, no matter what their financial status. It's as valid a choice as any other.

The attitude that somehow they are "less than" is not feminism or certainly not the feminism I fought for all those years ago.

Tamyu 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

I don`t always think the choice to be a SAHM is related to finances. Obviously, if you are a single parent, you are going to have to be working. If you are in debt, you also don`t have a choice. But in the cases of a husband not making enough - I have seen a lot of women who work for that reason, yet their husband makes more than my own.

I am educated, as is my husband. Prior to having my son, I worked and made more than he does now. Even with expensive childcare and all the other costs, I believe we could have a higher standard of living if I were to return to the workplace. I just personally feel that as long as it is financially feasible, I want to be the one providing my son`s care. I believe that he deserves as much motherly time as possible. It has meant that we needed to cut some corners and reduce some unnecessary expenditures, but I feel that providing my son with 24-hour motherly care is worth it.

We certainly aren`t "wealthy" at this point, and probably never will be, but that is our choice. Why pay someone to care for my child, while worrying about whether they are doing a good job, when I have the option of doing it myself? I guess it really does come down to having options.

In the article, I think that what is trying to be said is that by choosing to stay at home now, women are lessening their chances later on. Making themselves look less serious, less reliable in a workforce. Is that true? Who knows. I take full responsibility for my choice to leave the workplace. If I can`t return to a career at the level of the one I left, it is indeed my problem. If this inconveniences other career women, too bad.

I thought feminism was about having choices, having the option to work - and by extension the option to NOT work. I don`t believe that a society that forces women to give up motherly duties even when they WANT them is any sort of advancement. It`s all about having a choices. Having only one option - to work - is no better than only having the one option to stay at home.

cdl 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

I agree with Laura 100%-we need to be clear this debate is rooted in middle and upper class families only. As a product of a working poor family I see this debate differently than others it seems.

Although the article dimisishes motherhood in some aspects I think she is also correct in others. There are many women who stay home despite their eduction because they believe it is their duty as mothers. The notion of being a stepford wife has come back with full force with my generation (gen x) esp amoung the elite.

I have been to the park to check up on my nanny and been scorned by the SAHMs who are there with their own kids. I have been at cocktail parties where the working outside the home moms are in one room and the working at home moms are in the other-and neither group will speak to each other.

I have always thought this was a city thing, but maybe it happens everywhere-this divide among moms, but it does not happen in a vaccum. We have come to understand motherhood as the important task it is, but have we come back to the madona model?

amanda8 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

I agree wholeheartedly with what others have said. As a mom who has done both - sahm and working full-time mom, I have a view of both sides of the issue. We underwent some major life changes that led to me being a sahm. My husband quit his job and went back to school (well, a residency, which does pay a little). Although our income was reduced to about a quarter of what it had been, we made changes. We sold our house, we traded 2 cars in on one to lower the payment, we changed our lifestyles. We could have more money to go out to dinner, see movies, shop, travel, etc. if I went back to work. But then, I would miss my children too much to do those things, which would be done without them. Basically, some of this is about economics. I am LUCKY that I am at home right now. I am going back to work at least part time in June, because my husband is starting a practice and will not have an income. Being a family is about making it work. Financially, emotionally, whatever. As a Mom, a wife, and a professional I have to do what works for us. That role has changed constantly since the birth of my first child 3 years ago, and will continue to change. We are kidding ourselves if we believe these choices are entirely up to us. Economics, society, family dynamice, and many other things contribute to this. I guess what I am getting at is that this deluded woman has no idea what she is talking about. Not a clue. I would be willing to bet that she has more than enough money, no children, and feels "sexually repressed" in her field.

Jenny 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

My gut feeling reading this article was that the author had never been a parent and had also never worked in today's Corporate America and had no idea how all-consuming both can be. For me, the original NYT article on "opting out" came a lot closer to my reality. Today's corporate world demands 24/7 loyalty, especially as one moves up the ladder, and it is draining and often not terribly life-affirming. Staying home with a child gives a good excuse to leave the corporate environment before it sucks one dry.

I had the biggest problem with this paragraph in Hirshman's article: "Finally, these choices are bad for women individually. A good life for humans includes the classical standard of using one's capacities for speech and reason in a prudent way, the liberal requirement of having enough autonomy to direct one's own life, and the utilitarian test of doing more good than harm in the world. Measured against these time-tested standards, the expensively educated upper-class moms will be leading lesser lives."

I believe that good parenting does "more good than harm in the world" and I can't really say that being a good corporate employee does the same. I made my choice, and I'm much happier with my "lesser" life.

Anna V. 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

Well, then, I am an enemy of Feminism because I do believe MY role is to be at home with my children. Now where did I put those fuzzy slippers and bon-bons...

Ann Bartow 12-18-2005 @ 6:50PM

Thanks for a great post about this. I linked to you here:
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/002468.html

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments

How To Submit Photos:
If you'd like your children (any age will do!) featured on ParentDish, upload photos into the ParentDish Flickr Pool. Be sure to read our main Flickr page for more information.