November 26, 2005

AS GAIA IS MY WITNESS, I THOUGHT WE COULD CHANGE MAN (via Steve White):

Homeward Bound: “Choice feminism” claims that staying home with the kids is just one more feminist option. Funny that most men rarely make the same “choice.” Exactly what kind of choice is that? (Linda Hirshman, 11.21.05, American Prospect)

What is going on? Most women hope to marry and have babies. If they resist the traditional female responsibilities of child-rearing and householding, what Arlie Hochschild called “The Second Shift,” they are fixing for a fight. But elite women aren’t resisting tradition. None of the stay-at-home brides I interviewed saw the second shift as unjust; they agree that the household is women’s work. As one lawyer-bride put it in explaining her decision to quit practicing law after four years, “I had a wedding to plan.” Another, an Ivy Leaguer with a master’s degree, described it in management terms: “He’s the CEO and I’m the CFO. He sees to it that the money rolls in and I decide how to spend it.” It’s their work, and they must do it perfectly. “We’re all in here making fresh apple pie,” said one, explaining her reluctance to leave her daughters in order to be interviewed. The family CFO described her activities at home: “I take my [3-year-old] daughter to all the major museums. We go to little movement classes.”

Conservatives contend that the dropouts prove that feminism “failed” because it was too radical, because women didn’t want what feminism had to offer. In fact, if half or more of feminism’s heirs (85 percent of the women in my Times sample), are not working seriously, it’s because feminism wasn’t radical enough: It changed the workplace but it didn’t change men, and, more importantly, it didn’t fundamentally change how women related to men.


Funny thing is, one truism that Darwinists, Creationists, and IDers all agree on is that women are biologically designed to care for children and men ill-suited. To think things should be otherwise you have to deny both Nature and human nature.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 26, 2005 10:11 AM
Comments

Women who argue like Ms. Hirschman should be asked to imagine the following scenario:

A professional couple agree they will use daycare and both keep working after the baby is born, but shortly after the birth Mom tearfully tells her husband she is so overwhelmed with love and commitment for the baby that she wants to take leave to care for him. Her husband replies that he feels exactly the same way, so they should flip a coin to see who gets to stay home.

Posted by: Peter B at November 26, 2005 12:14 PM

With this post, oj has broached the limits of my fondness for irony.

Posted by: ghostcat at November 26, 2005 12:26 PM

Did Medved interview her earlier this year?

He had some biddy on who was whining the feminazis didn't go far enough.

I just laughed and laughed and laughed.

What does she expect?

Those kids might not have been raised by their moms and they wanted to be different.

Posted by: Sandy P at November 26, 2005 8:33 PM

I tried to hack my way through the article, but gave up. From what I could tell, Hirshman really does want to reengineer human nature. Perhaps she will look into reeducation camps in the next article.

Saw that she made Bernie Goldbergs list of 100 people screwing up America. Never heard of her before.

Posted by: JAB at November 26, 2005 9:33 PM

This confirms what I always believed, the god of the left is power. In this whole turgid document, this woman obsesses over power and power sharing, how to get it, how to keep more of it. What about love? Dosn't that have something to do with family, marrage and children? Not to a leftist.

I despise these people. Fortunatly, in this matter, like most, reality has defeated them again.

Posted by: Amos at November 26, 2005 9:45 PM

PS: the word 'power' appears 13 times in the article, 'love' dosn't appear once.

Posted by: Amos at November 26, 2005 9:47 PM

She sounds like Maureen Dowd, after eating about a pound of brussel sprouts.

Posted by: jim hamlen at November 26, 2005 10:12 PM

From which orifice?

Posted by: obc at November 27, 2005 12:21 AM

Seems that feminists should want women to have the opportunity to do/be whatever they want. If given the opportunity and they choose a traditional role, what is the problem? Those who think like Linda do betray a desire to control women just as much or more than any male-dominated society did.

Posted by: RC at November 27, 2005 12:23 AM

If Ms Hirshman is interviewing "stay-at-home brides", then what "second shift" are they pulling ?

If you're a homemaker of any gender, caring for the house and children is your JOB, the first shift.

Were all in here making fresh apple pie, said one, explaining her reluctance to leave her daughters in order to be interviewed. The family CFO described her activities at home: I take my [3-year-old] daughter to all the major museums. We go to little movement classes.

Sounds like heaven to me.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2005 4:13 AM
« AMERICA'S SECRET--CONFORMIST DIVERSITY: | Main | ONLY DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS [AND NIXON] WOULD HAVE NUKED THE POLES THOUGH: »