Diane’s article, Linda Hirshman needs a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down, reminded me of the article I read on the 9th, Is this really feminism? I believe that feminism is the empowerment of women in a patriarchal system with the goal of achieving a quality of choice at least equal to that of men.
A woman’s choices should include whatever she wants, including the guilt-free choice to become a mom and stay at home with her children; or, alternately, become partner, dean, president, or laureate.
If it is indeed her choice (and not the result of coercion) a woman should not feel shame (or be made to feel ashamed) for making any choice. This choice should not be multiple choice: doctor, lawyer, scholar, politician, or writer. This freedom of choice, this choice feminism, need to allow, without judgement, “dropping out” to become a “full-time mother.”
I don’t know is this bodes well with Linda Hirshman in either Homeward Bound or her new book, Get to Work : A Manifesto for Women of the World:
“What do you need to live a good life in the real world? Among other things, a real job-and changing diapers isn’t one. “Opting out” is a trade-off that is almost guaranteed to blow up in your face, sooner or later. Linda Hirshman’s Get to Work-a clarion call for stay-at-home moms to blast out of the house-is a rocket-propelled grenade aimed directly at the mommy wars, and offers a bold plan for all women to find and be able to pay for the kinds of satisfying lives that a grown-up should want to lead.”
I studied feminist theory in college (Marxist-feminism, French feminism, Postmodern Feminism, Deconstructionism) and the objective was to dismantle the master’s house without the master’s tools. Yes, the goal was to reduce the master’s house to rubble, but what I fear has been built in its place looks much the same.
As far as I could tell, the original goal of feminism was to redefine a woman’s role in society from being a man’s possession (from daughter to wife) to being an equal to men. Feminism was about tearing off the patriarchal yoke. Unfortunately, if I am reading it right, Linda Hirshman believes that one yoke should be replaced by another: feminist expectations.
In other words, as a woman, If you have the potential to rule the world and usurp men, it is your responsibility above all else so to do. Until then, the struggle must continue unabated.
This isn’t about attaining choice, this is about attaining control.
One technique of control is manipulation and Linda Hirshman and her book, Get to Work, is using shame, judgement, and disappointment in order to make empowered, first-class, wealthy, affluent, elite, a-type, pedigreed women feel bad about themselves and their choices if their choices don’t include “living up to your full potential” as defined by becoming partner, dean, president, or laureate.
And that is not choice, that is obligation: exchanging one yoke for another; one societal expectation for another.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Firstly, I find it interesting that men don’t feel the need to moralize the career choices of other men, but we women just can’t help but tell each other what to do. Secondly, I have heard the clarion call and have responded accordingly. However, I am not married with children; and as such, I have not been faced with deeply competing priorities. It’s just this lack of compassion that continues to plague (and hinder) the feminist movement — putting many women off.
Although I agree with you, Cute Girl, I also think that men get harasses all the time. Try being a man and being a nurse, a school teacher, a paralegal, a masseuse, marry someone who makes more than you, be a stay-at-home dad, or make less than $50,000 after 28 and you will know what it is like to have your Alpha removed from your male.
lol…good point. I hadn’t thought of that. However, a man’s choice to become a nurse has more to do with manliness, as opposed to a morality. It’s just not macho to be a nurse. But, it’s not immoral. See what I mean?