Courtesy of Moonshadows
Before I read the blogpost, I went off and read the associated articles, in chronological order, so I started with American Prospect online and then the following defense, and then I read Moonshadows’ take on it. Not having read her blog before, I *was* wondering if I was going to read a complete rant against Linda Hirshman’s every point, and I was slightly disappointed to read an article not dissimilar to the one I was planning in my own head.
Great writing Moonshadows, can’t believe you got there first with so many of the great responses!
I do feel I have a couple of points to add though, so I will
It seems to me that Linda Hirshman is saying that women cannot flourish or fulfil themselves without becoming men. That a career in the pursuit of money is a far more worthy goal than that of staying at home with your children even for the first few years. I particularly liked reading that elimination communication is the worst possible path for a woman to take:
Not two weeks after the Yalie flap, the Times ran a story of moms who were toilet training in infancy by vigilantly watching their babies for signs of excretion 24-7. They have voluntarily become untouchables
.
I’m sorry, but I rofled at that point. I’ve never thought of Kath or Barbara as untouchables. Or any of the other ppl I know who’ve dabbled with ec. Well, maybe that time Barbara had the camping incident with the potty bucket itself….
I’ve admired their perseverance, marvelled at the bond they have with their children, and thought admiringly of the money they are saving, but considered them untouchables, nope.
And on that note, I’ve admired many women who spend their entire time willingly with their offspring. Tim and I often discuss our life patterns, with the conclusion that children are basically the point. OK, money is nice, life is easier with a moderate amount than with a little (I’ve tried it both ways :?) but I’d give up a lot, and have done, to spend time with the kids. What I do now is unbalanced, but it’s improving, and if we can cut out the commute, and arrange more family time, it’ll be pretty much great.
And that leads me to the suggestion I’d make for women’s future behaviour, and men too. I don’t think the answer is for women to try to succeed like men, because tbh, I don’t think men who aren’t sure how old their children are, are flourishing. I think it requires a balance, and that many of us *do* enjoy and thrive on some work, and the way forward is to change the way of work and the measures of success for society. I would love for it to be possible for all ppl to work part time without guilt *if they want to*, raise families collectively without guilt and for children to be a part of society, rather than institutionalised in extended schools so that the rest of us can be good little worker ants. I’d like for the world of work to open up so that we can do it more flexibly - we have the technology after all
I’d like for it to be a measure of success that you have your job *and* you have your life and your family. Not that you have a job and a set of photographs on your desk to remind you of ppl you only see for weekends and a couple of weeks holiday a year. And I think that is what women, high flying women can do. It’s going to require some high flying men to do similarly though, and it’s going to take a lot of guts from us all. Change is scary. But worthwhile.
Linda, on the offchance that your google alert finds this blog, which I would kind of doubt, I think you wimped out. I think you are just as hidebound and typecast by the male world as women who think they are choosing to look after the butter. (I loved that part of your article btw). I think that you limited your conclusions a way of women behaving that would indeed make them equal to men, and would continue society as is, rather than reflecting that perhaps what needs to change most is society itself.