I've pretty much avoided the Linda Hirshman discussions, because I kind of agree with her bottom line (though not her self-righteousness, her absolutism, or her unwarranted attacks on people I think are great), and I don't want my stay-at-home mom friends to hate me (because it really really is fine with me that they stay home, in fact, it's none of my business; I just think that the decision to stay home has political implications that need to be acknowledged). Now I can continue to avoid the topic, and I don't even have to read the book, because Meghan O'Rourke sums it up beautifully in Slate:
But—though I almost hate to say it—buried beneath Hirshman's overblown rhetoric is a useful idea, now set out in a short book titled Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World: namely, that our obsession with choice prevents us from asking tough questions about how to achieve further equality. "Deafened by choice, here's the moral analysis these women never heard," she says: Until there is more equity in the cultural norms for child-rearing and household tasks, each time a woman decides to "opt out" she is making a political decision that reinforces an already ingrained social inequality. Women who believe otherwise suffer from a mixture of false consciousness and impractical idealism. It's when Hirshman is at her most radical—when she sets aside the language of personal fulfillment in favor of injunctions about the collective good—that she is at her most valuable. I would never write this book, but I'm glad somebody did.
Yup.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I like communitarian arguments; I don't think I'm actually going to read the book either, but I enjoyed the Slate piece.... thanks for posting!
Hmmm. I am looking at blogs and links, and actually blogging, for the first time in a while. Of course women's work and children are de-valued, despite so many politicians and other yakkers proclaiming our importance (the old story). I've just finished writing/joking about looking for a job, the subtext being that teaching skills, traditionally women's work, is not valued (obviously now you definitely won't laugh). Anyway, sometimes reading the bare truth is simply too unpleasant. When I left my job I didn't say that some of the women there were insanely conventional, homophobic and racist. I just said I needed more time with the kids, and more time to be creative. People responded knowingly, and with approval. Some had been lovely and caring, others pure nasty. I resisted pointing out that the term "those foreign kids" isn't particularly respectful. I had a lot of bellyaches. At the previous teaching job, I spoke out - using the district's written protocol - about a verbally abusive male teacher, and my colleagues supported me in confidential interviews. Shortly thereafter, I was basically booted. So did I learn my lesson, or am I a hypocrite?
Taking a traditionally female job certainly has implications, too, but I gotta be me. I am a bit more awake now: 'deafened by choice' got my proverbial ears perked up.
Thanks, Becca.
thanks for this link, Becca. I borrowed it, too...
Post a Comment