When Linda Hirshman wrote about how "elite" (read: college-educated) women who stay at home with their kids frustrate feminism, it got quite a response from you all. Tonight continues a series of profiles of moms and whether or not they fit her profile - and whether they think feminism is dead in their own lives. Tonight, Larissa Brown.

Demographics
I grew up in New Jersey and went to an academically wretched Catholic high school, then in the same town to Drew University, where I got my BA in Theatre Arts with a concentration in playwriting and a minor in Women's Studies.

I'm 37, married for 8 years, and Sebastian is 6.5 months old.

Career goals
I didn't have a career goal when I chose my undergrad major. I guess I imagined I'd be a professor someday, since that is a primary thing you can do with a theatre degree. When I graduated, I got a great internship at McCarter Theater in Princeton with some very talented and famous people, and that put me on a regional theatre administration path for several years. I worked at Virginia Stage Company for a while. I continued writing on my own, but being a playwright is a career that creates livable income for only a very few. So I have always realized that I would have to pursue two careers, in order to be an artist AND a something else that makes money.

I went back and got into the PhD program in Social Demography at Portland State University, and I loved the work, but again I started gravitating toward art and more creative endeavors and I left the program.

In relation to my current real career, which is as a visual artist, I did not get a degree. But when I finished my first "continuing ed" sculpture class at Pacific Northwest College of Art I was incredibly hopeful of succeeding as an internationally known and respected artist.  However, cute enough at the time the highest goal I could think of was to someday be in a group show in a gallery.  Martin makes fun of me for that particular lofty goal all the time.

Schedule, Finances
I now - as always - have the two careers, creative and money-making.  Both are self-employment situations.  I work very part-time as an artist (about 1 day per week), and currently have work in two upcoming shows in Rochester and Cleveland.  I just finished a commission for North West Businesses for Culture & the Arts.  I also work part-time as a grant writing consultant, at this time for just one client (The Library Foundation in Portland, Oregon).  My grant writing career is my money-making career.  In a calculated attempt to springboard me to making enough money per hour that I'd only have to work part-time to pay our bills, my husband (a writer) and I co-authored a grant writing book.  It has done incredibly well, and has achieved that level of recognition and pay for me. So I pay the regular family bills, and at this time make the most money in the family, at my 2- to 3-day per week consulting job.

The thing about consulting is I don't get paid if you don't work.  And since I'm the primary regular breadwinner that was a challenge we had to plan for when Sebastian was born (and I'd been on bedrest for 6 weeks too). I ended up taking exactly one month off.

I am making much greater pay than earlier in my career, but exactly the same amount as before Sebastian was born (he is only 6.5 mos).

Martin, my husband, is a writer. He has a couple of book projects in the works, and he writes magazine articles, most recently for Cat Fancy, American Spirit, and Air & Space Smithsonian.  His income is more episodic.  We generally use it for the extras, such as vacations or when we needed a new car before Sebastian was born, and for the taxes.  Both self-employed, we pay a lot of taxes.  When we first met, I was in college and he was an intern at the Smithsonian in Maryland. Neither of us made any money to speak of. Then he made more than I did (he was consulting as a biologist for a while).  He helped me get my credit in order and get organized. We both supported each other's artistic efforts while doing consulting.  At some point, around the book, my hourly consulting rate surpassed his. Then he quit consulting altogether to focus on writing, for which he gets paid, but as I said more episodically than I do.

As a college student or recent grad living on my intern stipend of 50 bucks a week, I could never have imagined being as financially stable and making as much money as I do now.  As for my career, I could never have imagined it either. I had no ambitions toward being either a visual artist or a grant writer.

On work
I love working. I just hate being torn between so many big things. I often wish I could be like most normal people and have one career to focus on and cherish and feed and take for walks.  I could really rule the world if I focused on one career!  If I could I would quit one career (the grant writing), but I would always always work at being an artist.

The idea was always to work part-time at each career, so there was time and attention paid to the art, even though it is not a money-maker. That has gone somewhat by the wayside (I'm down to just 1 day of art per week, and sometimes I'm too tired for it). But I have refused to let that career disappear entirely.

Do you feel satisfied with your "choices"?
Yes.

Household work
Martin does most of the household work, and he takes care of the bills and taxes, and makes sure we all have health insurance, stuff like that.  (When I clean I break things.  Last time I did spring cleaning we literally had to buy a new stove AND a new microwave because I  broke them both.)  Merry Maids comes every 2 weeks.

Because of our various jobs and interests, we have a pretty formal schedule that splits our days caring for Sebastian completely evenly, with one family day each week when we go out to breakfast at Henry's, go to Home Depot or the nursery.  Ironically, on family day Sebastian goes to babysitting for 4 hours in the afternoon (so Martin & I can have some time alone but together).  No matter what day, the late night stuff is Martin's deal, and I'm the early morning, and we vary that when we get weary sometimes.

Social power and wealth
Our families were both suburban middle class, but their attitudes about money were completely opposite. His is a family of reasonable savers, who now have enough to help us with siginficant things like house down payments. My family made a bunch of money and spent it ALL, over and over.  But as far as socially, I'd say our backgrounds were very similar to one another. Our status as individuals is very even.

Why there aren't more women in the executive suite
Personally I think there are several reasons why women might not be in powerful positions.

1. We feel free not to be. That's my optimistic, idealistic response. We don't feel ten generations of social pressure to be the providers and the climbers.
   
2. It's still not possible for us to be. Especially in some fields. There is just the reality of discrimination based on sex.  It would be ridiculous to claim that it is gone entirely.
   
3. We get too sick of the bullshit to raise that high in a corporation.  Then again, so do many of the men I know. Among my close friends, very many of them have mixed up half-time work at home careers like Martin & I do.  None are "powerful." 
   
4. We recognize the value of our time, and want to use it doing various things that include family, as opposed to spending it all in one place (at work).  These are just off the cuff ideas. I don't have a thesis.

Reponse to Hirshman's quote: "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.
That's partially bullshit and partially right. 

I think full human flourishing involves creativity, a sense of accomplishment, recognition from others, connection, intellectual challenge, and a host of other things, these will do as examples here.  Repetitive tasks per se are not the culprit.  People of both sexes absolutely thrive on repetitive physical tasks.  It's why so many millions of people have taken to knitting like lemmings take to a cliff.  BUT, at the end of a repetitive task like knitting there is a final result, and the task has allowed you make something directly bringing to bear your creativity.  Whereas with something like laundry, you never get the sense of being creative, and you never get the sense of completing it.  The tasks that have been historically (in the past several decades, but not always) the domain of women are often those that are negative not because they are repetitive or don't make money or happen at home, but because they do not allow for a sense of accomplishment, creativity, and a connection and recognition from others.  It's not like a typical Fred Flinstone like husband is going to say Wow, great job on the laundry today.  (Though in fact, Martin & I both make a point of recognizing cleaning or other chores that we each do.  We say Wow, I noticed you did the kitchen, thanks.  It really makes a huge difference in our relationship. We also follow his rule to NEVER call the other person a term of endearment when asking for a favor. Like no "Honey, will you take out the garbage?"  It's not fair to draw on love when asking for work.)

* The task of cooking, BTW, is one that offers an immense sense of accomplishment and often gets recognized by others, so this just sort of proves my idea that her statement is partially bull, because there are certainly "feminine" chores (such as cooking) that allow for full flourishing of human creativity and potential.

"This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women."
That much I can agree with for sure.  Why would it be?

"Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust.  Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust."
This is where it's interesting.  First, men are assigned (by society?) to certain parts of the drudge work—the stuff that does not afford human flourishing because it isn't creative and doesn't have an end.  For example, anything that takes place outside the house: garbage, lawn mowing, recycling.  Second, yes (men) assigning such work to women would be unjust, if they were doing that, and some are. I know I'm in a very unusual situation being so balanced with my husband on childcare and with him doing more of the housework. I'm on a parenting bulletin board where I hear hundreds of women from across the US complaining about how their husbands provide them with chore lists and "help" take care of the baby by holding him while the mom takes a quick pee.  It's out there.  But third, "women assigning it to themselves" is where I think many people make a crooked leap, equating deciding not to pursue a powerful career with assigning oneself non-fulfilling drudge work.  The two are not connected.  Most of the mamas I know who've decided not to pursue a powerful career are doing something creative with at least half of their "home" time, such as journalism, creative writing, visual art, incredibly high quality crafts, amateur catering, photography, starting businesses, starting nonprofits, etc.  Not being a CEO is not the same as resigning yourself to doing nothing but poking away at the laundry slough for all time.

"Have a baby. Just don't have two... A second kid pressures the mother's organizational skills, doubles the demands for appointments, wildly raises the cost of education and housing, and drives the family to the suburbs."
I have heard this a lot around Portland.  Mostly parents of two who are saying to us, stick with one. You can still do what you want with just one, but you can't travel and stuff with two. We heard this so many times when we were pregnant.

"What [the NYT brides] do is ... bad for society, and is widely imitated... This last is called the "regime effect," and it means that even if women don't quit their jobs for their families, they think they should and feel guilty about not doing it."

1. It's not about being like some elite women who are "staying home."  It's about doing what we want to.  Who wouldn't want to spend some time each day with their children?  Why have children otherwise?

2. The guilty feeling is interesting.  I do think that is out there.  I mean, Attachment Parenting (and all the good, bad, and crappy that that entails) is very strong, among both the hipster Portlander types and the 60% of Americans who don't believe in evolution, if you take national bulletin boards as a sort of sample.  And it seems rather creepy to me that everything AP that is supposed to be best for your baby—breastfeeding, slinging all day long, cosleeping—is something
that requires the constant physical presence of the mother's body. There does seem to be some social mechanism at work there. But I don't know...