Linda Hirshman's 'Get to Work' distorts Blogging Baby readers, writers

To be a complete individual a person must have love for others, a healthy curiosity, a moral value system and self-knowledge. Without these 4 elements in balance, I feel that life is incomplete. I feel that to ignore any one of those 4 components will leave a person unfulfilled. Women like Linda Hirshman are out of balance with themselves, she has been fighting and fighting for her personal moral value system that she has lost sight of the world around her.

She is grasping at straws to validate her theories if she pulls only selective bits and pieces of her detractor’s opinions to prove her point.

To have a full, complete life, a person must seek out stimulation from all areas of their life, home, work, education, nature and family. I can see how Hirshman might think that high level education is "wasted" on mothers of multiple children, its because she is not trying to balance her own life. It has become an all or nothing scenario for her and as most reasonable people know, all or nothing will often lead to nothing. An education and a career is only one facet of life. When a person dies, their life is summed up in a few words. To have those words be "she earned a good paycheck" do not sum up a complete life for most people.

Hirshman's theories tell a tale of a lonely woman, a woman lacking in love, lacking in self-knowledge and missing a curious and interested view of the world around her. I am horribly disappointed in ABC for promoting her inflammatory, faulted theories, as I expressed in my email.

To the readers here, it is obvious that caring about parenting does not dull ones faculties and that being able to make choices and feel unencumbered doing so is the prize of the feminist movement of our mothers (and mother in laws).

The warriors always have a different view of the war.

Reply

Dear Linda,

I am college educated and have two children. I "stay at home with them." I change diapers. I also write for a little website called "Blogging Baby" and freelance write. That means that, GASP, I am taking care of my children AND working for what I was educated.

Linda, I would like to take this opportunity to tell you to kiss my lily white, childbearing butt.q

Reply

Actually, Meg, Hirshman says in her Washington Post piece that she has three daughters.

I found myself wishing Hirshman would tell us more about herself, and her own life and struggle, instead of just pontificating.

Reply

Wow. This "Back to Work" theory is puzzling. What is the point of bringing other people down other than to get attention and get people riled up? There is so much that can be accomplished by banding together in a positive way, as women and as mothers, and it just doesn't seem the least bit productive to judge other people's choices. How on earth is this debate accomplishing anything other than making people mad at each other? There haven't been many blog posts out there condemning that author for her personal life choices, but lots of blog posts defending personal life choices of which that author doesn't approve. How can we as a group find a way to 1)ignore judgemental/attention seeking people (the media seems to love a good cat fight, especially where motherhood is concerned) and refuse to be brought down to their bullying level; and 2) know that our choices are ours, and are something to be proud of. As mothers we are the center of the universe for the people in our lives. There is nothing on earth more important than that. We have value in what we do, as mothers, as SAHMs, as WAHMs or as full time, out of the house working moms. We carry so much on our shoulders, let's give each other and outselves a break. The best thing we could do to make these types of judgemental people shut up is to ignore them. Hopefully, then, if there is no one to fight they won't be asked to be on TV, won't be interviewed in print and won't sell books. Maybe then they will go pick on somebody else and leave the moms alone.

Reply

Hirshman has 1 biological child and 2 stepchildren. What that means is that she can still say, "have only 1 child". However, I like to speculate and imagine that deep down she might feel her case would be stronger if she bore no children. I have no idea what her relationship with her family is like.

Reply

OK, I just re-read the comments and do see the value in defending our honor and the benefits of a healthy debate (and letting off some steam!) Thanks Sarah (great post, BTW.) Perhaps these discussions help fortify us, as it is obvious we will never change that author's mind (or those like her.) The cool thing is that it is abundantly clear through all the conversation surrounding this particular author, she has had no success in changing the minds of the vast majority of mothers. (What was the point of her book again? Does she really think tearing women down for their choices in life is actually going to make them want to "convert" to her line of thinking?) Maybe now it is time to ignore anything else she throws out there. Upon reading that ABC piece, it sure seems like that author is just ITCHING for another fight. The more fights that break out, the more calls from TV producers that come in? That author's whole approach and line of thinking just seems so pointless, other than satisfying whatever personal motivation she may have.

Reply

Thought I'd jump in with some perspective on this as a dad. Thanks Jenny for linking to my longer blogpost reacting to Hirshman (in comment #9).

Here I'll just say that, as a dad who stayed at home with my daughter and who after returning to full-time work has downsized career ambitions so I could spend more time with my kids, I find Hirshman's whole "analysis" quite offensive.

I think that unfortunately Hirshman is reinforcing all of the values that I understand feminism to be opposed to. She's reinforcing what I've called "masculinist" values, rather than humanist values. Also, her whole analysis is so elitist and classist that it's just amazing. Anyway if you're intrigued by this check out my longer post: "Hirshman's 'Feminism' as Masculinist Ideology"
http://daddychip2.blogspot.com/2006/06/hirshmans-feminism-as-masculinist.html

Reply

" Where is that degree gonna get you after 15 or 18 years of not working? "

...probably as far or further than a non-college graduate/full time worker in the same amount of time.

Reply

I read the excerpt holding my breath that my name/profile would not be mentioned and adulterated. But by the time I finished, I couldn't even exhale with relief because I was fuming over the content that was included! Although not singled-out to help "prove her point" because I am a happy working momma, I felt like I had to dodge insult after insult that she threw out at how "regular people behave" and that they were "unlike the richer women" she studied.

I really can't express my true thoughts about Linda in print here, because they would be unprintable.

Reply

I became a SAHM because we had a big scare with a nanny - I lost my trust in other people raising my kids. I promised myself that I'd go back to work when my youngest child was in 1st grade.

But something changed along the way... Instead of feeling I was wasting my education, I began to see that my choices were BECAUSE of my education. I also caught up on contemporary & classical literature during those early years - neither of which I had had the energy for when I was pulling in a paycheck. And I figured out how to make money writing from home.

Bottom line - I have much gratitude for my feminist sisters, those who paved the way for me (and YOU) to have the luxury of these choices... especially my MIL, who managed to raise a son who was willing to support my need to spend time with our sons when they were small.

BUT it isn't a gift if there are strings attached. In spite of all the positive accomplishments of the feminist I think the pendulum is simply swinging to a more moderate position, where we can now worry about HOW MUCH education our daughters should invest in, rather than IF they should go to college at all.

Obviously, many BB readers truly feel threatened by this woman. Maybe our best defense is to make sure and teach our sons and daughters how to filter the media and stick with decisions that are right for them??

Reply

I recently began a long and angry post about Linda's narrowminded view of women. But I trashed it when I realized I was giving her credit for insights THAT SHE SIMPLY DOES NOT HAVE.

I replaced that post with one that is much shorter and sweeter.

Reply

What heavenly irony that the f*cktard Hirschman (Thanks Ms. Sisyphus, I love the use of that term) doesn't realise she's doing to women what men did to them: telling them what they can and cannot do with their own lives.

What an idiot! Another useless upper middle class academic feminist totally out of touch with reality.

Reply

Newsweek's readers also recently wrote their editor in masse as a response to their feature/excerpt of Hirschman's book in their Periscope section. And like most of the commenters here, they also defended their decision to become stay-at-home-moms and pointed out how equally rewarding it can be compared to working.
Everyone has a point (this does not mean I am defending Hirshman) and I believe that we can all live together in harmony without having to agree to one another's point of view. Living as an immigrant in the U.S. from a country where the freedom of speech and expression was repressed for so long, I have come to value the open mindedness in this country, the respect this country's citizens have for each other's differences, and the fact that you can make choices without fear of its consequences.
I am a mother of three boys (all under 4) but work full time (though on a flexi schedule) managing a community newspaper. My work has its challenges and can be very exhausting, but I still feel it is like a vacation from my real work - which is raising my three sons. For me, my real work ends and begins the moment I drop off and pick up my sons at their babysitter's house.
Working moms or stay-at-home moms, we all have our own purpose and value in this already chaotic world. I am just grateful that I have the freedom to make a choice.

Reply

I realize that there are two people who I will probably never meet but I detest, due to the harm they cause: Bush and Hirshman.

Here's why: I have an MBA and before having children made excellent money as a Head of Communications for a Fortune 50 company. I loved the job. Everyday I went to work and felt enormous satisfaction. Then, I had a daughter and choose to continue to work. My husband stayed home part-time--the other days were covered by a wonderful and caring nanny. So what's wrong with this picture? Well, when I came home from work each day my daughter would run to either my husband or the nanny. It took enormous energy and effort to feel close to her again. Also, I was always having meetings with the nanny and my husband on manners, food and discipline since there was three of in this show.

Long story, shortened~~I now have two children and stopped working full-time many years ago. I have a stronger relationship with my younger son because I spent so much time with him during his very early and formative years. He's the best friend I may ever have.

I look at the time I stayed home as a gift. The best I ever got. It was an honor and privilege to spend those early days doing simple things with my sons like going to get a muffin, walking to the library and feeding the rabbits at a local farm. I am sad that it's coming to a close as they get older and want to be with their friends more. Though there were times when I felt my degrees was underutilized, I got involved with other things in my community and actually became a more relaxed and happy person.

I am now happily working again~~but, will miss those days with my children. Do not have children if you can't spend enough time with them. You may regret it for the rest of your life.

Reply

I understand why so many women are offended by Hirshman's argument, which strikes me as rather extreme (though I haven't read the book) and unfortunately puts SAH mothers on the defensive. However, I think that she does make an important point which doesn't occur to most of us in our strongly individualist culture -- namely, that our personal choices DO have an impact on society at large. If opting out of the career path were something that only a few women did, or that men and women did in roughly equal numbers, then it wouldn't be a problem. Clearly there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to stay home to raise children, and only a fool would claim that child-raising is an unimportant task or less worthy endeavor than, say, being a lawyer. However, the fact that it is almost always women, not men, who make the choice to stay home, DOES perpetuate a troubling inequality in society. The collective consequence of many individual women making this choice is that the people running things in the business world, in government, etc. end up being disproportionately male. And that is a problem because those men in charge, being self-centered creatures like all human beings are, are unlikely to take steps to create a more parent-friendly work culture, or to defend reproductive rights, or to fight to eliminate domestic violence, or to step up on so many of the issues which profoundly affect women as well as the society we live in. So, although I think it's somewhat belittling to admonish all women to "get to work!" (as if all that SAH mothers do didn't constitute "work"), if Hirshman's book gets more women thinking more about the big picture and less about their own private worlds as if their choices didn't have an impact on society as a whole, then it will be a damned good thing. After all, if more women stayed in the work force now, then perhaps in 50 or 100 years society would be sufficiently egalitarian so that both women and men could choose to opt out of the work force without any negative consequences.

Reply

I have just read Hirshman's book. I am nearly 50, mother of 3 boys who has worked for the past 25+ years, I am also happily married for nearly 20 years now. Working and raising 3 boys was hard for my family. I have watched my younger friends struggle with the same issues that I did and I have wondered why I continued to work where they opted out?

I still am not certain that we really understand this, but what Hirshman says does resonate with truth. We are still socialized from birth that there is 'womens' work. On the open market it is less valued. We can argue about everything else, but that is just a fact. What is crazy is that what you are doing at home is important. It really is, you clearly see that. OK, so why does your husband not? Or if he does why does he not take a leadership role rather than 'helping'.

Is it really that he lacks the biolgical makeup for childrearing & housekeeping? (I breastfed all three of my boys, the last one for 2+years while travelling internationally at least once a month-so I think that is a pretty lame argument). I think it is commitment. My husband and I never even discussed not working, both of us value our careers too much. The housekeeping issue we settled with first a schedule and later a housekeeper (we could afford this because we both worked).

OK, so why should I be able to do this and you not stay at home? Because the choice that you made, you were conditioned to make since you were first handed that doll. (After 6 divorcees, my mother made damn sure that I knew that there were no choices around work.) This societal conditioning has intensified due to the backlash from the civil rights and womens movements in the 70s. Hirschman is asking you to look at *why* you made that choice. Was it really a true choice, made with full knowledge and freedom? Maybe you would have been a childcare provider and housekeeper if you did not have kids, if so you are there. If you would have made a different choice then you might want to think more about your reasons.

I see my friends trying to convince themselves that they are happy. I do not think that they are and based on what I read here I think you are questioning your choices as well. You are just protesting too much.
Leslie

Reply

I think that Linda Hirshman is herself a "victim" (and I hate to use that word, but it's one I think she'd understand) of a male-dominated world... to believe that one's life is valued in economic terms is the ultimate in de-feminist living.
The 21st-Century Woman can do better than that.
-Julee Moroz, Canada

Reply