Ass-Backwards

Wow. I'm reading an article on feminism and stay-at-home moms on Alternet, here, and I can't believe that I, a women's studies major who once wrote a paper entitled (I do not jest): "Top 10 Reasons Not To Have Kids", find pretty much everything the author says to be completely ass-backwards. Her basic point is that elite women like me who are home baking pie with their kids (actually, Max is baking the apple pie this morning, but I did help Ari peel some apples for it) are an affront to feminism:

Here's the feminist moral analysis that choice avoided: 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."

The author of this article has clearly never spent any time at all in a windowless cubicle, sifting through emails about the latest reorg, or attending all-staff lunch meetings in windowless conference rooms to watch tedious, information-free powerpoint presentations while eating lukewarm spaghetti from a giant aluminum-foil serving tin. The world of work is, for the most part, and for the majority of college-educated women AND men, the last place on earth in which "full human flourishing" is possible. I do not envy my husband his working in that world; I pity him. Cleaning up after a toddler can be deadening, of course, and work can sometimes be fascinating and important. I am grateful to have the luxury to stay at home, though plenty of us stay-at-home moms work very, very hard to be able to afford that luxury. I think I'm far luckier than most other SAHMs I know, whose husbands work too damn hard and too damn long, so that they end up single parents in many ways. It bothers me too that men run the world and dominate business and government. Of course I'd like to think that women would do it better. But I didn't go to all the trouble of having a child so that I could let someone else have all the fun of raising him, while also not having much fun myself at work in the 'public sphere'. I have no beef with women who do; people have different ideas about fun, and some people do have cubicles with a view. But, given that work sucks for the majority of people, AND that our country will NEVER be Sweden, say, and make it actually reasonable to shoulder both the responsibilities of work and those of family, I think it's the obvious respectful behavior for U.S. feminists to refrain from criticizing other U.S. feminists' decisions about what they can best stomach in their own lives. All our choices, to some extent, suck. (Yes, I know that my not working now puts me at more risk of being poor later, if Max dumps me for a younger woman and a second family, or if he dies, or whatever. And I also know that working full-time now would result in my head exploding, now. So, you know, I take my chances, like we all do.)


There are so many things I find exasperating about this article, actually. The author sagely tells young women to 'follow the money' in their career choices. Um, hello. You are a WOMEN"S STUDIES PROFESSOR! And while she argues that women who think they choose to stay at home are actually not really choosing it, she thinks they made the wrong choice. Huh?

I just cannot believe that in 2005 we are still having this conversation. There are so many other important women's issues to worry about. Yes, role models are important, but comprehensive healthcare is more important. The choices I have available to me suck, but not nearly so much as they COULD suck. My personal work-family situation is not, at this time, worth a lot of useless (since, as stated above, U.S. != Sweden, and never, ever will be) activism. Not like, say, TORTURE.