Women and the workplace

[Sojourner]

On [url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com"]Mirror of Justice[/url], Rob Vischer asks,
[quote]Is a woman's choice to stay home with the kids a legitimate choice? I missed this [url="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10659"]article[/url], "Homeward Bound," when it was published last fall in The American Prospect, but it has created quite a firestorm. Linda Hirshman argues that the "opt out revolution," in which well-educated moms are leaving the career track to care for their children, is really a "downward spiral":

[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. 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. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, “A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.” [/quote]

I agree -- and my dishpan hands attest to the fact -- that household work is not the sole domain of women. But to acknowledge a need for greater labor equity in the home and more support for child care in society is a flimsy basis for insisting that a woman's decision to stay home with young children is somehow delusional or objectively unhealthy. Two questions for Hirshman: Is paternalism deployed within the rhetoric of feminism still properly called paternalism, or do we need a new label? And is she really comfortable with the ramifications of suggesting that society must pierce the veil of private "choice" in order to ensure that the human person leads an objectively healthy, flourishing life?

Sunday's Washington Post published Hirshman's [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601766_pf.html"]observations [/url]of the public reaction to her article, and Monday's Post summarized the discussions in the [url="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/howitsplayingout/2006/06/everybody_loves_to_hate_linda.html"]blogosphere[/url].[/quote]





I'd love to hear thoughts and comments on this topic.

[homeschoolmom]

[Aloysius]

ah yes, in modern society only work in "the market" and "the government" attains prestige and honor. but the real work of human drama and human progress has always been carried out in and through the family. back in the Age of Faith, the market carried less prestige than the family because kinship was the driving force behind all matters of finance and power. that is a good system. ours, which should properly be called "materialism", "consumerism", and "subhuman", is not.

the woman has always had a more intimate and imminant role in the family than the man; in all societies in all cultures throughout human history because of obvious biological realities: the woman is automatically closer to the children because the woman carries them in her body. moreover, the woman has always been more connected with the home because she is greatly hindered from doing activities outside of the home for around 9 months with each child.

the industrial revolution alienated man even more from the home, however. the feminist working revolution has come up with an amazingly stupid solution to this predicament whereby the children are so much more completely alienated from their father: alienate them from the mother too! the mother has to join the market and the government because that is where prestige is in our society; so she leaves the home completely just like the father did a couple centuries earlier. now we'll let the government take care of our children... yeah, that's the ticket!

what should be done is what a real feminism should be: re-intigrate the man into the home by shifting his work into the home (modern technology is even making this possible without completely renouncing industrial capitalism) where he can be near his family and teach his children how to do the same type of work he does. re-focus the prestige system of our society so that there is high power and prestige to raising a family rather than having it be a burden. there is your authentic feminism... modern feminism does nothing but have the females follow in the footsteps of the males' centuries' old mistake.

[the flutehonker]

I can't imagine having grown up without my mom around. My family is fortunate enough that my father's job is enough to provide for us, allowing for my mom to stay at home with my brother and I and do stay-at-home mom stuff. This was her choice, and personally, I think it was a good one. My brother and I have always had someone to check our homework when we were little, make sure we don't spend to much time playing video games, love us, and very importantly, discipline us. Most kids can get away with anything these days because no parents are home to keep track of them

[toledo_jesus]

[quote]Women in the workplace[/quote]

Surely not!




women shouldn't feel they are not living up to their potential if they decide to 'opt out'.


Men should definitely help out around the house, be it maintenance or scrubbing toilets once in a while. Wives should expect that.

[homeschoolmom]

If I joined the workforce, I'd have to get shoes...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1009989' date='Jun 21 2006, 05:25 PM']
If I joined the workforce, I'd have to get shoes...
[/quote]
That's half the fun of working! Multiple styles of really cute shoes!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1009993' date='Jun 21 2006, 05:43 PM']
That's half the fun of working! Multiple styles of really cute shoes!
[/quote]
Yet another reason to keep women at home...

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1009993' date='Jun 21 2006, 04:43 PM']
That's half the fun of working! Multiple styles of really cute shoes!
[/quote]

MWAHAHAHAHA and I just ordered a pair today....Check em out at [url="http://www.ribbonchic.com"]http://www.ribbonchic.com[/url] I ordered the black mules.

Ok over

Edited June 21, 2006 by Birgitta Noel

[Sojourner]

Those are tres cute!

But I digress.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1010010' date='Jun 21 2006, 05:21 PM']
Those are tres cute!
[/quote]

And you can change out the ribbons!

But I digress.

[morostheos]

Oh, this will be fun!


[quote name='Sojourner' post='1009915' date='Jun 21 2006, 03:29 PM']
The family -- with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks[/quote]

Is that all family is to this guy? Repeitious, socially invisible, and physical tasks? Poor guy, I bet his parents were never around growing up and no one was there to love him. I hardly see loving each other as any of those things.

[quote] -- 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.[/quote]
If it's not women's responsibility, then whose is it? Men's? I hardly think that's what he's saying, but someone has to take care of the family. How on Earth could he say it's not women's natural resposibility? I would be interested to read a paper asserting that point and see what kind of arguements they come up with.

[quote] Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, “A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read.”
[/quote]

Oh, so I guess now it's impossible to read from the home. Shucks!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1009915' date='Jun 21 2006, 01:29 PM']
On [url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com"]Mirror of Justice[/url], Rob Vischer asks,


I agree -- and my dishpan hands attest to the fact -- that household work is not the sole domain of women. But to acknowledge a need for greater labor equity in the home and more support for child care in society is a flimsy basis for insisting that a woman's decision to stay home with young children is somehow delusional or objectively unhealthy. Two questions for Hirshman: Is paternalism deployed within the rhetoric of feminism still properly called paternalism, or do we need a new label? And is she really comfortable with the ramifications of suggesting that society must pierce the veil of private "choice" in order to ensure that the human person leads an objectively healthy, flourishing life?

Sunday's Washington Post published Hirshman's [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601766_pf.html"]observations [/url]of the public reaction to her article, and Monday's Post summarized the discussions in the [url="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/howitsplayingout/2006/06/everybody_loves_to_hate_linda.html"]blogosphere[/url].
I'd love to hear thoughts and comments on this topic.
[/quote]
I essentially agree with Rob Vischer's observations.

Typical bitter gripings of a tired old feminist is how I'd describe Dr. Hirshman's article.

She, like many other feminists, despises true femininity and the role of motherhood. She seems to buy into a completely materialistic mindset, in which "full human flourishing" is basically equated with "making lots of money" and "gaining worldly power."

I personally know many educated women who are "full-time moms," and are quite fulfilled and happy in that role, as well as many educated women who say that they would desire such a role.

She apparently has no idea of the incredible importance of motherhood and raising children to human society, instead taking the typical feminist stance that to acheive "equality" with men, women must basically become men.
She regards women choosing to raise their children as a "downward spiral," yet a real downward spiral has been created in our society by the women who have neglected their motherly duties in pursuit of "career," and the effect this has had on a generation who have lacked a proper maternal (or paternal) influence.

The role of mothers in human society is indeed more important than that of businessmen (businesspersons?) or politicians.

I find it interesting how feminists are quick to condemn women who choose of their own free will to be full-time mothers!
These feminazis are supposedly all about "a women's right to choose" when it comes to killing their offspring, but are apparently against women choosing to raise their own children (or do anything else opposed to the feminist orthodoxy).

[quote name='morostheos' post='1010022' date='Jun 21 2006, 04:45 PM']
Oh, this will be fun!
Is that all family is to this guy? Repeitious, socially invisible, and physical tasks? Poor guy, I bet his parents were never around growing up and no one was there to love him. I hardly see loving each other as any of those things.
If it's not women's responsibility, then whose is it? Men's? I hardly think that's what he's saying, but someone has to take care of the family. How on Earth could he say it's not women's natural resposibility? I would be interested to read a paper asserting that point and see what kind of arguements they come up with.
Oh, so I guess now it's impossible to read from the home. Shucks!
[/quote]
The author of the article quoted is not a guy, but a woman, Linda Hirshman.

Edited June 22, 2006 by Socrates

[Laudate_Dominum]

I snicker at the way in which this sort of propaganda attempts to glorify work (work in the context of the capitalist system). How many people actually have these lofty roles in society? They don't call it the rat race for nothing. Work is generally pretty meaningless and even a bit degrading. I don't think people would be so crazy about vacation, retirement or winning the lottery if it was so gloriously fulfilling. And sure a woman can store her children at a day care during the day while she's off doing her thing, but chances are this facility will be run by women. What about those poor women day care workers? Hopefully they love children and don't mind repetitious, socially invisible, and physical tasks.
I worked for a company once who had this big call center that was almost exclusively women. I used to hear them talk on their smoke breaks and the vast majority of them had kids in day care or with a babysitter. It used to strike me occasionally how feminists have striven to realize this dream. Women alienated from their children spending their days in a cubicle getting fat and performing the most repetitious and mechanical sorts of chores. My impression is that our perverse society somehow conditions women to have their feeling of self-worth bound up with their material contribution to the capitalist dynamic. And what's more insane is that at the same time the rearing of children is seen as meaningless and worthless. Those feminists who like to present themselves as these benevolent liberators are in all reality pawns of a faceless, inhuman task master.
When I reflect upon what really makes work fulfilling and human it seems to me that domestic work has the greatest dignity and meaning. I know that my goal is to be at home with my family as much as is possible in this creepy society.