For consistently being able to write exactly what I feel without ever employing curse words. Damn you to hell.

Traister’s latest, At home with David Brooks, is a fantastic roundup analysis of the recent NY Times power-is-in-the-kitchen-debacle.

Here’s an excerpt:

Central to Brooks' argument is the barely veiled suggestion that mothers who work outside the home surrender influence in their households. The dark little melody playing underneath his self-assured dismissal of Hirshman is that a breakdown of society can be pinned on all those women who have abandoned their rightful sphere of influence in exchange for the "brutalizing, dominating power" that he thinks Hirshman "admires."

It's a chorus that's been heard a lot recently, and at increasing volumes, as we inch closer to a year in which many have speculated about the possibility of the ultimate working woman -- a female president. It's as if critics like Brooks, petrified by the changes afoot, are urging us in silken tones to return quietly to our corners. "Back away from the White House," he seems to be saying. "You don't really want to be there anyway. You'll be so much happier, and more powerful, and influential, back home where you belong."

2 Comments

January 4, 2006 1:30 PM

[0+|0-]  Violet Socks said:

I thought Rebecca did a great job, too. I was tempted to link to her piece when I blogged, but ended up taking a different angle. What is astonishing is how much the argument hasn't changed in decades -- centuries, actually. I think Bobo's brain is in amber.

I  Liked | Disliked  Liked Disliked this comment  |  Reply |

October 26, 2006 8:14 PM

[0+|0-]  a_human said:

looks like someone's abusing the trackbacks...creepy

I  Liked | Disliked  Liked Disliked this comment  |  Reply |

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)