Wasn't there an article posted recently about how women aren't "opting-out" so much as they are being forced out due to inflexible schedules and condescending/judgemental coworkers? Does Bureau of Labor Statistics study take such instances into account? I mostly do believe that many women are leaving their jobs after they become mothers, but I think that the reason WHY is extemely important when it comes to dealing with the issue.

EJ Graff and Evelyn Murphy's book "Getting Even: Why Women Don't Get Paid Like Men And What To Do About It" - and their wageproject.org - refutes the opt out myth pretty strongly. Haven't seen the most recent data, but I'd be skeptical until I dug through it myself...

Okay, this is first a comment about Hirshman herself. I am a graduate student at Vanderbilt University and our Women's Studies department invited her to give a lecture. Our Women's Center Director, Vicky, has a small child and she (due to real world considerations regarding childcare) brought him to the lecture. When he got a little fussy, she promptly took him out of the hall, but Hirshman, interupted her own lecture and started to talk about how horrible it is for women to bring their children into public and how just because she teaches "Women's Studies" doesn't mean that she should put up with that kind of coddling of women who don't have the manners to keep their children separate from their work/professional life. It was soooo offensive and sooooo oblivious to the care-crisis that exists in the USA today. Vicky is able to bring her child to work when need be and, like a village, many of the men and women who work there help out--that is a wonderful vision for integrating professional work and childcare when its needed. This isn't everyday, but its often enough and open to the other parents that it provides for a very good work environment for parents and those caring for others in their lives. Hirshman presents work-life only as white men have defined it, not as it should be, re-examined for the needs of a healthy society. She is a fundamentalist and she is intolerant. Now, I don't agree that the opt-out problem is there and is dangerous to women financially as they age, divorce, etc. It is a REAL PROBLEM, but Hirshman's solutions aren't solutions, they are suffocating and not addressing the real needs of work/life balance that needs to be addressed for men and women. Her reprimanding a FEMINIST ACTIVIST for bringing her child to work, to a lecture that is supposed to focus of women, work, and family, is ridiculous. Hirshman is out of touch and her line, that it is the male-model women MUST follow is anti-feminist at its core because she refuses to recognize how this career narrative has been scripted only for men who are disengaged from their families (and have wives to take care of their social calendars, household needs, and so forth). For this model, we ALL NEED WIVES. So, its bad for gay and single men as well as ALL WOMEN (yes, Lesbians have wives, but they collectively also make 50% of a gay male couple and slightly more of a heterosexual couple, so ALL WOMEN get screwed in this).

peace

Oops, I mean't to say: "Now, I don't DISAGREE that the opt-out problem is there and is dangerous to women financially as they age, divorce, etc. It is a REAL PROBLEM,"

Working when you have a young child is extremely difficult; and I'd suggest that many of these women who are supposedly "opting out" just can't find any other way to meet their child's needs while they're at work. Daycare is expensive and not everyone has a large support network to look after the baby. I do think that it should be more common for men to leave work to care for their infants, but that won't happen anytime soon if we keep devaluing this kind of work.

Also, after reading Heather Nan's post, I'm really disappointed in Hirshman. How can women who have children win? Have invisible babies that don't require any care, ever?

I think Jenny hit it on the head. A lot of these women aren't really "opting-out" because they don't have a REAL choice, just an illusory one.

I fail to see how putting more pressure on these women is the answer, when there's plenty of other change that needs to happen.

It's interesting that the Times published this op-ed on during the same week that they published more sexist crap about the same topic.

In her article she states that women still do double the childcare and housework that men do, and that men don't plan on changing their behavior.
Then she goes on to state prescriptives for women (go to work) and the government (tax high income women less.)

I didn't find her argument compelling- a title with 'women should' is a dead giveaway for bs.

I like Hirschmann, even her chewing out bad mommies who bring their distracting children to adult events. I think her core point is that if women *truly* want to become financial equals of men, they need to throw off the role of Mommy. Mommy comes first, not baby (that's surely an argument feminists can embrace, right?). Have only one kid, take six months off tops, then get back to it. Surely a four year old child doesn't need 24/7 nurturing at the expense of his mother's financial security? If you choose to have four kids and believe they need hours of your attention every day, you can't expect to maintain financial security for yourself. This view might not address the situation of poor women, but no one theory has to address everyone.

I find all these articles and books that tell women what they should do insulting and frustrating.

First of all, not every person buys into the consumerism that fuels most dual income homes. I certainly don't.Secondly, not everyone finds fulfillment in the jobs they're qualified for. I majored in history because I love it. I won't teach because NCLB is evil. That pretty much leaves me with making coffee in this economy/my city. I have always found happiness and fulfillment in a myriad of self-imposed projects (research, crafting, running a small pagan "church", etc.)Also, not everyone wants to send their kid off to be raised by someone else for 40 hours a week (or more). Besides my various philosophical reasons, I absolutely hate NCLB, and will not submit my future children to that crap. Thus, I'm homeschooling.

I'm "opting out" of meaningless paid work because that is the best choice for how I want to live my life.

And I really hate it when these authors try to tell me that I'm wrong, or weak, or anti-feminist, because of this. No one should tell me how to live my life. Period.

nausicaa,

there are plenty of countries that do a better job than the U.S. with having policies to help families balance work and childcare. My cousin, for instance, lives in the Czech Republic. His wife, when she had a baby, was allowed to stay home full-time for three years to raise the kid, and at the end of the three years she can come back to work in her prior position. So basically she doesn't have to sacrifice her professional life to raise kids.

This sort of system is not about trying to force women into tradition roles at all, either. In many countries with these systems that are more supportive for childcare, either parent is allowed to take childcare leave, or they can split it part time.

I know female professors who decided not to stay home long with their children so that they would not have to sacrifice in their work life, and it was really, really painful for them never to see their babies. Children and familial relationships are important just like women are important, and in a culture that gets its priorities straight there's no reason why peopole should have to choose so drastically between work and family.

I think her core point is that if women *truly* want to become financial equals of men, they need to throw off the role of Mommy. Mommy comes first, not baby (that's surely an argument feminists can embrace, right?). Have only one kid, take six months off tops, then get back to it.

And the great thing about this model is that we can outsource our reproduction to Third World women who weren't *really* doing anything important with their lives, unlike us.

You know, I have come to expect total hostility to mothers with children from at least one poster or another when these topics come up on feminist blogs, and it's really sad. In the short run, humanity could use a few billion fewer people, but in the long run, if the only way for women to have money is to not reproduce, then we're essentially outsourcing the work of reproduction, depending on the exploitation of other women to keep the human race going, as well as penalizing any woman who has strong emotions about loving and wanting children. This, of course, would be great for children in the long run. It would be fantastic if in order to get ahead in the world, women needed to cultivate, if not outright hostility, at least indifference to the concept of having their own children, because that would certainly ensure that the women who *do* make it to the ranks of power would be as sympathetic to the needs of children as the men who are already there are.

Ok, no, I can't maintain the snark. This is horrible. "Women just have to be poor if they want to have kids and/or a relationship with them." Look, the *problem* is that men are socialized to sacrifice everything in their lives to Almighty Mammon, for which they get financial security, which they get to use for, on average, six years less than women do. Why, oh, why, is a lifestyle where you need the labor of another human being to manage everything in your life *but* the work you do because you have sacrificed all the hours in your day to work considered something to *emulate?*

I think that if a woman has a career that she feels empowers her and she finds it interesting and challenging and she loves it, and she doesn't feel much desire for motherhood, or she wants a baby but feels uncomfortable doing nothing but watching a baby for years, this is a fine solution for her. And there are many women like that, and I support their choices. But what about women who are not particularly satisfied with their work? Women who really want kids? Women who have their baby and realize that they cannot emotionally bear to give up day-to-day contact with that child after only six months?

What we *need* is more support for all humans, not just women, to take time off work without penalty, for work/life balance. And not just for having kids, although that's important; if a 35-year-old childless person decides to take a year off to go backpacking through Asia, it would benefit people with children because it would fight the notion that there are good workers, and then there are mothers. We also need more, not less, acceptance of children in public spaces; more, not less, certified and regulated child care; more, not less, business that caters to the needs of parents to find an impromptu babysitter quickly. What if Vanderbilt University, or the shopping mall, or the office park that has your doctor's office, had temporary child care where you can drop a kid off safely for two hours or so while you go do something else? Time was, women could get loose from the kids for a couple of hours because they knew their neighbors well. We live in an atomized society and we haven't adjusted our child care expectations to fit. Instead of bitching out women who dare to bring their children into adult spaces -- a sure sign in my experience that what's going on is not a desire for female empowerment but a hatred of children and a desire to punish mothers for having them -- Hirshman could have used the incident to talk about the need for child care and the unconscionable way the supposedly free market has left this vital need to the vagaries of "how many teenagers do you know?"

Only rich women can afford to leave the workforce, period. I would bet there are more women out there who would LIKE to leave, due to unfair pay, crappy schedules, harassing bosses, etc. However, the economic reality remains - only rich women can afford not to work.

although in more socialist countries, such as the Caech Republic, women (or men) can receive financial support for taking a few years off to raise children, so it's NOT all about the rich women taking time off. I just find that a much, much more ethical economic structure

"It’s easier in the short term, sure, but it’s easier to forgo lots of things, like going to college or having children at all. People don’t — nor should they — always do the easier thing."

I find it so unfair to call staying home with children the "easier thing." It demeans women who make this choice and the work they do. Perhaps if we took motherhood and parenting seriously, workplaces would be accommodating, we would have better child care options, and fathers would be more inclined to stay at home with their children, allowing women to pursue their careers. Bottom line, women should have choices and not be penalized, or chastised by other women, for staying home or for working.

I'm not anti-children or anti-mother. I think Hirschmann's point is that women need to be more realistic about taking care of themselves financially. You are free to opt-out, scale down, have a work-life balance, but what's your credit card debt? Do you have an emergency savings fund? Are you saving for retirement? What if your husband gets sick, dies, leaves you? Of course I believe that we should have been social supports for child rearing. But until then, you've got to take care of yourself. One way to do that is by thinking carefully about how many years you can afford to be out of the workplace.

And I don't see any problem with outsourcing child care. It's an economy of scale. What's wrong with paying one woman to take care of six children while their parents work? It's efficient, and as long as you pay her a living wage, it seems like a good solution. To object would be to say that childcare isn't meaningful work, or that blue-collar personal care jobs are inherently oppressive.

Hysterical Feminazi: To suggest that only rich women can afford to stay home is ridiculous. I'm lucky to have a husband with a well-paying job (and by lucky, I mean that I worked while he got his PhD) but I know women living on less than $30,000 a year who stay home with their children. I don't "think" that my income added nothing to our household, I sat down and did two days of math and calculated that after taxes, childcare, gas in the car, and an extremely minimal professional wardrobe, I brought home $200 a month. I can save more than $200 a month by grocery shopping carefully and making sure everyone turns off lights when they leave rooms. It is possible, though sometimes very difficult, to exercise frugality and survive on one small income. If that's what works for your family, then no one should tell you you're ruining your life. I still contribute to my IRA, I have a ton of life and disability insurance on my husband (and he has a fair bit on me so he can replace the work I do in our home), and when I'm ready to figure out what I want to be when I grow up, I don't think I will have destroyed my chances. I'm not sure I "opted out" considering the realities of my salary, but I'm happy with my life, and I don't want to be judged for it.

nausicaa, women don't make babies on their own. Let's put some of the focus on the FATHERS of these babies/children instead of holding women 100% responsible for childcare and breadwinning.

I don't want a baby, but I sure do like meth. Can I sign up for this plan to take 3 years off work with no financial penalty to pursue my meth addiction?

"Let's put some of the focus on the FATHERS of these babies/children instead of holding women 100% responsible for childcare and breadwinning."

Sure, in theory. Meanwhile, take care of yourself.

"(and by lucky, I mean that I worked while he got his PhD)"

Excellent. Then you'll have a good claim for alimony if you get divorced.

I do take care of myself, nausicaa. Why is holding men responsible just a "theory," as though it's so proposterous it could never happen?
I never see books or hear about speaking tours where people tell men what they "should" do as fathers/husbands. But when it comes to women, we're so used to it that it's become the norm.

I just don't see what is so anti-feminist about encouraging women to take their financial lives into their own hands and not depend on men. You can "hold men responsible" til the cows come home, but that won't help the average woman make sure she has sufficient independent means to take care of herself without a man in her life.

Sure, a woman can take care of herself and her children without a man in her life. But in order to do that, she's gonna need to bring the kids out in public now and then.

I like Hirschmann, even her chewing out bad mommies who bring their distracting children to adult events. I think her core point is that if women *truly* want to become financial equals of men, they need to throw off the role of Mommy.

Ah, the "women need to act like men if they want respect and success" argument. Thank goodness you have the prescription by which I should live my life, nausicaa! And the prescription is: pretend I'm a 1950s husband, or come as close as I can. And if I don't? You call me a "bad mommy." Your argument is very reminiscent of Shulamith Firestone's Dialectic of Sex, and I would argue that it's essentialy a misogynist one. Bearing and caring for children are women's activities, the first due to biology and the second due to tradition. I'm all for expanding the second to men as well, but the fact remains that it is, in this culture, the responsiblity of women. Dismissing women's ability to bear children, and their desire to take care of those children is dismissing the work women do, their significant emotional relationships, and their bodies' capabilities. It's saying that if only women were men, we wouldn't have these pesky problems. Well, we're not. And we shouldn't have to turn into men in order to achieve respect from feminists, of all people.

Women's studies departments and professors should respect women's life patterns, which are often very different from men's. They shouldn't be pillorying women publicly for daring to have children during their more fertile years, when they still need to visible and active in order to achieve tenure. And what, precisely, made this woman such a "bad mommy" in your view? That she didn't have ironclad childcare arrangements, brought her baby to a lecture she wanted to hear, and then took him out when he started fussing? What is so very sinful about that? Do tell.

Mommy comes first, not baby (that's surely an argument feminists can embrace, right?). Have only one kid, take six months off tops, then get back to it.

Not really. Not this feminist. It's not a fucking competition. Babies have basic needs that have to be seen to--they're not self-sufficient by the age of six months. It is the parents' responsibility to see to them. Now, leaving aside any emotional considerations (as you seem to do--judging from your rhetoric, the emotional investment in and benefits from taking care of one's children is roughly equivalent to that of re-grouting the bathroom), do you know how much it costs to hire a full-time nanny? If you hire an illegal immigrant, and pay her10-11 bucks an hour, by the end of the year, it will come out to $20K or more. There ain't so many of us who can shell that out happily. And while I'm a big proponent of socializing children, six months seems a bit young to me for daycare, especially considering the difficulties in finding decent daycare.

Surely a four year old child doesn't need 24/7 nurturing at the expense of his mother's financial security?

A four-year-old can't be left at home alone, either. What exactly do you propose for after school has been let out?

Sure, a woman can take care of herself and her children without a man in her life. But in order to do that, she's gonna need to bring the kids out in public now and then.

Damn straight, Craney.

I don't rely on my husband to take care of me, we take care of each other. I'm not convinced that feminism means we can't trust each other. But, just in case, I control the family budget, bank accounts, retirement accounts, and mortgage. It's nice of you to worry about my chances of alimony, but rest assured I know exactly what I'm entitled to and how to get it. I find it insulting to suggest that if we don't work we don't have power in a marriage. I reject the idea that because I don't work I'm going to be brought to financial ruin if my husband leaves me. I'm educated, healthy, and financially savvy. I don't need protecting from my own choices. In some ways, this argument is just one more way of belittling women. If we just understood what we were getting into, we wouldn't stay home with our kids. Is that true in some cases? Sure. But condemning all stay-at-home moms because some of them are naive is insulting to the millions of stay-at-home moms at all income levels who made conscious, researched decisions. I knew what I was getting into, I know what the worst-case scenarios are, and I'm ready for them. My job wasn't worth keeping, and I'm ok with that.

Let me channel my inner hippy for a moment, and come at this from his bearded, long-haired and hemp wearing point of view.

-- CHANT MANTRA --

Why is this a 'problem', man? I mean, work? Why? You're telling me wage slavery is somehow cooler than just hanging with the family? I mean, come on! That's just a copping in to a whole world view that's really destructive of relationships, engagement with your true self, and stuff.

Mothering is a job, man. It's hard freaking work. Sure - the money's not great, but have you tried living on minimum wages lately?

Want a real feminist issue? Try demanding an increase in the minimum wage to a level that allows all women - mothers, aunts, grandmothers, swingin' chicks - to exist with some kinda dignity.

I mean, all this "get a job, ladies, cos money's really important" is complete bullshit. It's your life. Live it. Don't rent it to 'the man'.

Peace. Out.
-- STOP CHANTING MANTRA --

Disclaimer: I don't really believe every detail of this, but I have a lot of sympathy for much of it. The basic criticism, I think, is that Hirshmann is placing greater 'value' on 'work' than 'human dignity'. Instead of asking profoundly radical questions about why we have structured our lives in such a way that 'work' has pre-eminence and how we can change that to give 'living' more importance, she instead asks us to question a small aspect of how the structure is operating.

Comments?

Everything EG said and more!

These arguments about how women "should" live their lives drives me fucking insane. To each her fucking own and get off my fucking back if I LOVE my daughter and WANT to raise her and NOT have someone else do it for me.

And for those who think staying home is for rich folks, lack SERIOUS imagination. I am not rich by a long shot and for my family it is a FUCKING sacrifice shared by me, my spouse, and our child. It is worth it!

Opting out, as a wholesale rejection of feminism and embracing traditional mothering roles, is a load of crap.

However, as someone who is currently pursuing the "work like a man" approach, it totally sucks for me, and it's only going to be a functional approach in the future--financially and logistically--if my husband is a full-time father and housekeeper. I would probably go nuts if I were a stay-at-home mom, but there's something to be said for changing the model to where both parents (or all, when additional adults help out) can work both inside and outside the home and therefore feel like they are a part of the family, not just its source of a paycheck or clean laundry.

I like her tax idea. But I don't think the solution for women is to care less about kids. Maybe put more responsibility for the work of caring on men, but don't care less.

Now let me channel my inner Prof. Hayek for a moment.

-- PUTs ON GERMAN ECONOMIST HAT --

Vat? Of course! Vat did u expect?

Look elsewhere in der statistics. Observe the multi-year decline in der value of das real wage?

Everyone - voman unt man (unt hippy, come to think of it) - places economic value on their verk, unt on der leisure. (Ja, I know dat der mutter ist nein very leisure, but verk vith me, please.) Vat ve observe is a decline in der price of verk, vich ist a market signal, ja?

Given der choice, verk at some $/hour, or haf der children, der vomen are choosing not to verk because it isn't vorth it, ja?

Vant to get mutters back to verk? Increase der vage, dumbkopf!

-- TAKES OFF GERMAN ECONOMIST HAT --

Oddly, the thrust of this shares a lot with my inner hippy's thoughts. It's all about money, and of course you're going to see more women at the margins choosing motherhood when the market doesn't value their labor.

Paul, you are totally cracking me up today. I love your batty German economist.

I would also add that World Health Organization guidelines recommend breastfeeding for two years; AMA recommends for one year. Weaning at six months is definitely the right choice for some mothers and babies, but by no means for all.

RCM: "These arguments about how women "should" live their lives drives me fucking insane. To each her fucking own and get off my fucking back if I LOVE my daughter and WANT to raise her and NOT have someone else do it for me. "

Does no one else see the irony in this post? You're asking to not be judged for your choices and in the same breath say that any woman who works while she has young children is not actually raising her children (she's "letting someone else do it for" her).

I run out work/life group for working mothers. We're a dozen or so individuals who meet monthly. So I spend a lot of time thinking about issues like this. I don't have the answers, but I'll share my thoughts.

To feminism's credit, mothers now have options - to work or to stay home. They're imperfect options, but options nonetheless. IMO Feminism does not obligate mothers to choose one option or the other. I've chosen to be a working mother, but I have 100% respect for SAHMs. And I have 100% respect for the job or role of parenting. I think it's anti-feminist for one group of women to cut another group of women down, which is what Hirshman does (in the name of feminism, of course).

I call this debate the Battle of the Battles. Working mothers versus SAHMs, men versus women, childless versus parents. All these battles are misguided in my opinion. Each of these groups should band together to effect change in the workplace. I have another kitchy label I like to use: the Workplace Sanity Act. Other posters have pointed to europe's favorable leave laws. What about europe's vacation laws? What about the daily grind? Americans log in an insane amount of time at work relative to our european counterparts. I believe that each worker - woman or man, single or married, parent or childless - deserves a better work/life balance.

The problem with framing work/life balance as a woman's issue or as a parent's issue is that it's divisive, and it breeds serious resentment. Sanity shouldn't be viewed as a woman's entitlement or an accomodation to parents; it should be viewed as a right to which each worker is entitled.

Work/life reform of this nature would, however, disproportionately benefit working mothers. And with less rigorous work hours, mothers would be less likely to opt out.

Hirshman dismisses these worklife initiatives as only having an impact on lower class women. Wrong. As Hirshman concedes, part of the problem is that men are still not pitching in when it comes to housework. Well maybe if men - yes men - weren't so flat out at work, they'd be happier to do the dishes on a regular basis.

One poster raised Hirshman's argument that SAHMs are not adequately protected in the event of sickness, death or divorce. What about disability insurance, life insurance and alimony? Pension assets are divided at divorce too. That counterargument is nonsense.

Last, with respect to the choice to stay home, although as I said above, I do respect it and don't see it as anti-feminist, I share Hirshman's sentiment that it's disheartening. One poster here said "only rich women can afford to stay home", as though staying at home were a status symbol. I hear the same thing from some of the mothers I speak to in my group. Why is staying home a status symbol? I just don't understand it. I get a rush from being successful and using my g-d given brain. Being a professional is part of my identity, and I'm proud of it. I don't understand the prestige of staying at home. I talk to my neighbor who's a SAHM, and the highlight of day is when her mother in law comes over to watch her daughter, thus freeing her up to get a manicure. That's an empty existence IMO. With respect to those ivy league educated women or that top 20% who, according to Hirshman, opt out, why don't they want more from their lives?

I'm trying to imagine a world in which men are expected to (and "should")single-handedly raise their offspring and work full-time.
I can't. Even when they do that today they're heralded as the world's greatest dad.

One poster raised Hirshman's argument that SAHMs are not adequately protected in the event of sickness, death or divorce. What about disability insurance, life insurance and alimony? Pension assets are divided at divorce too. That counterargument is nonsense.

While I agree with most of your cogent points, jane, I disagree here. I witnessed what happened to my mother, a SAHM who took care of me and my younger sister for years. My father left for another woman when I was 16 and my mother was 41 (my sister was 8). And he cleaned my mom out. She had only been back at work part time for a year when he left; she didn't have the financial resources to go to court and he did. He used that superior economic leverage in the negotiations to really screw her over financially. My mom was fortunate in that she had a small inheritance from her grandmother that she had been planning to put toward retirement and that was wholly hers and separate. She used it to go back to school and make a career late in life. Not everybody is that lucky, and even so, it was very, very hard for her. She got no alimony, which is largely a thing of the past anyway, as far as I know. She got very little child support--certainly not adequate. And that's because she didn't have the financial resources to fight for those things in court.

Women who stay at home can be in a very precarious position. Obviously, not all of them are. But many of them.

The basic criticism, I think, is that Hirshmann is placing greater 'value' on 'work' than 'human dignity'. Instead of asking profoundly radical questions about why we have structured our lives in such a way that 'work' has pre-eminence and how we can change that to give 'living' more importance...

Why does every single public intellectual/activist need to have a perfect theory that encompasses every factor (near and far, realistic and idealistic) required to address a social problem? I see Hirschmann along the lines of a Suze Orman or Elizabeth Warren, simply urging pragmatically that women take hard economic realities into account when they make their life decisions. Theories about perfect gender equality and cradle-to-grave social support are excellent things to work towards making a reality. In the meantime, who pays the bills? Why is it so wrong to try to convince people to make wise economic choices given current realities?

Women who stay at home can be in a very precarious position. Obviously, not all of them are. But many of them

EG, this is EXACTLY Hirschmann's point. Women should not stay home without understanding the potential financial consequences.

Robin Morgan says in one of her books that we should not refer only to women working in the public sphere as "working women," because ALL WOMEN WORK.
Like Morgan, I think it is better to call women working outside of the home "employed women," instead of "working women" to make that clear. My mother was a teacher, but she took quite a bit of time off to take care of me and my sisters and she worked HARD everyday. I think it is insulting to mothers that WORK at home to pretend their labor is not productive.
I think the main problem is how people currently define "work."
All the work that women do in the home actually has a market value (although it is obviously undervalued), but it is only seen as "productive" in the public sphere, whether it is childcare, cooking, cleaning, laundry, clipping coupons, gardening, etc.
I think the way we define work is a major part of the "care crisis."

EG and Nausicaa, I would argue that the story of EG's mother weighs in favor of reforming matrimonial law.

Jane - And while they're waiting for this reform, individual, everyday women should stay home and not develop marketable skills?

I give up.

And I would agree.

EG, this is EXACTLY Hirschmann's point. Women should not stay home without understanding the potential financial consequences.

Right. And I agree with that point, though I think it's inherently flawed. It's not as though my mother didn't understand the potential financial consequences. She just didn't think they'd happen--after all, my father was a leftist who kept assuring her that her work was as important as his, and that was unjust that she wasn't compensated for it, and that what he earned was therefore as much hers as his...yeah, that dried up real quick. Because, really, how many women in love, making a home and a life with their husbands, really think "Hey, this schmuck might leave me, turn into someone I barely recognize, and screw me over"? Nobody thinks it'll happen to them.

And yes, I've always appreciated that point of Hirschmann's, and agreed with it in large part. But her treatment of women who don't follow her prescriptions is nasty and unacceptable.

EG, this is EXACTLY Hirschmann's point. Women should not stay home without understanding the potential financial consequences.

Naussica, I don't think that is Hirschmann's point, or yours. You both seem to think that it's wrong for women to choose to stay home. Not that women need to be educated about it. Why aren't more of the anti-SAHM feminists teaching women about how to stay home safely? Life and disability insurance, a clear idea of your families financial picture, your own checking account: these are all things that are safeguards. I understand that staying home CAN be financially dangerous. But I don't believe it has to be. And it seems to me that it would be more true to the spirit of feminism to educate women to make whatever choices they want as safely as possible, instead of telling them how dangerous that choice is. Sort of like the difference between real sex ed and abstinence only.

nausicaa, I don't think that anybody's arguing that all women should stay home. What I am arguing is that Hirschmann and you need to appreciate the complexity of women's choices about the workplace. Dismissing the very real needs of mothers and children and treating as unimportant the work of caring for chldren and aging parents insults women. It's not as simple a decision as you and Hirschmann would like it to be, nor should it be. Castigating women who give priority to taking care of their children--or merely attempt to both work and care for their children--does no good to anyone, and betrays a real inability to value the work that women have done for years.

Avogadro, there is no way to stay home safely, in terms of your future earning capacity. That's just a cold, hard fact, and I'm not sure how any law could remedy it. You can't award work experience by fiat. You can eliminate discrimination, but how can you say a woman with 5 years of work experience should be paid more than a woman with 10 years?

Hey, Avogadro, you know what my mom should have done, had she but known? Back in the day when my dad was still talking big, she should have said "Right! Absolutely! And to demonstrate how we both feel that way, let's set up a separate, private checking account for me, and every week, we'll move half your paycheck in there."

It would have been a good idea.

how can you say a woman with 5 years of work experience should be paid more than a woman with 10 years?

I wouldn't have a problem with her being paid the same. Caring for others is important work, work that we as a society benefit from. I don't have a problem with rewarding that care, or at least not penalizing those who do it.

Nausicaa, how about this? You can work when you get married and have children. And that way you're covered.

You see the beauty of what I'm saying? We have OPTIONS. If you feel strongly about planning for a divorce that may or may materialize, go right on ahead and do so. I totally respect that. Hey, I'm a working mother (although the divorce contingency has zero to do with my reasons for working).

By the same token, if some one chooses to stay home, if some one wants to embrace motherhood full-time, who are you to say that's anti-feminist? really.

I agree that women should consider the possible economic consequences of being SAHMs. I would never want to be 100%financially dependent on my partner, as you really never know what's going to happen down the road.
What I take issue with is the insinuation that full-time mothers of young babies shouldn't be allowed to participate in the public sphere. That's what I got from your first couple posts, nausicaa.

I had to take a deep breath before clicking the comments link. I'm new here (not to feminism- but to having time to keep up online) and haven't always found the comments here supportive of mothers or families.

That said, I'm so appreciative of the thoughtfulness of this thread.

Something that I think is missing, at least in part from this discussion- the VALUE- social and economic, of raising children. Many parenting skills translate to "marketplace" skills- time management, negotiation, problem solving, communication... So I'm not buying the "You can't award work experience by fiat." We could, and have chosen not to. We have an economic foundation based on "male work" with no value attributed to "female work".

For decades, women have joined the ranks of men in "employed" work- and the system has not accommodated them well. In the most general terms, they earn less on the job AND continue to work more in the home. I want equality on these fronts. I think these goals are furthered when women claim the economic value they contribute via their "traditional" work with children or in the home. Women's work (all of it) is essential to society and should be valued, including in economic terms.

As far as "EXACTLY" what Hirschmann is saying, I think it's dangerous to claim she is only saying that "women should not stay home without understanding the potential financial consequences." Her disparaging comments re: involving mothers and children in the larger world show a clear agenda for women- one that doesn't include respecting or supporting the choices of others. Her version of feminism seems to be that women should commit themselves to working according to terms developed by men, for men.

I agree with everything you said, owlhouse, that is why I said in an earlier post that we as a culture need to redefine the whole concept of work (in human terms for women and men, not men's terms for men). Work done by mother's and women in the home is productive and valueable and has always been -- the culture at large just needs to see it that way.

Nausicca, I'm not saying that I'm not giving anything up by staying home. I understand that I'm hurting my future earning power. What I'm saying is that I don't think I'm ruining my chances for a secure financial future, even if my husband dies or leaves me. Hirschmann implies that it's either-or, you can be financially secure and successful, or you can stay home. I reject that idea. I'm giving up some future earning power, and I make that choice with eyes wide open. I don't believe that giving up some earning power is unsafe. I don't think I need to reach my maximum earning power to be happy.

And EG, you seemed a little offended by my insistance that staying home can be done safely, as though I were implying that if your mom were just smarter, it would have all been ok. That's not what I mean at all. It's not your mom's fault she ended up in her situation; but I think we can do a better job educating young women today about the options they have to maintain financial power in a relationship even when they're not bringing in income. Incidentally, I think we probably already have a lot more options than your mom did when you were a kid. I'm lucky because I worked in banking for years - at the kind of small community bank where you know all your clients' stories. I have the benefit of learning from lots of people's mistakes. I've seen women left destitute by their husbands, and I've had to face men who admit they want an account kept secret from their wives. Trusting someone is always dangerous, but I reject the idea that there's no way to do it safely.

And EG, you seemed a little offended by my insistance that staying home can be done safely, as though I were implying that if your mom were just smarter, it would have all been ok.

If I seemed that way, I was miscommunicating. I wasn't offended; I disagreed with jane's statement that seemed to me to imply that SAHMs were adequately protected by existing arrangements, based on my own experiences and on my reading. My last shout-out to you wasn't sarcastic--it was genuine. It would have been a good idea for my mom to do that. It's a shame she didn't feel she was in a position to. It's a shame that more women don't have the kind of financial know-how that you do. I'm pleased to know that staying at home can be done safely; I wish that all women who stayed at home had that kind of safety.

I think we probably already have a lot more options than your mom did when you were a kid

Yeah, for one thing, not too long before I was born, my mother had to get my father's permission to open her own bank account...

I think the difference between Hirshman and some of the commenters here is something that I've been seeing over and over again in discussions of deep systematic problems. See, there are at least two approaches to deep systematic problems, and a lot of people treat these approaches like they are (or ought to be) a zero-sum game. They're not. See, you can either take the approach that the best solution is a long-term root-causes fix, which is great and the optimal solution over a generation or so, and then there are people like Hershman, who are proposing specific, targeted, niche fixes for right now, for working within the badly-broken system.

(This is somewhat akin to having difficulty getting a job and having someone tell you that the solution is to go back to school. While going back to school may, in fact, help you land a job, and/or a better job in the long term, your perfectly rational first response may be, "That's great, but how do I pay my rent this month?")

I personally see room for both approaches. And since we're on the subject, if we could please get over the idea that single people (usually women) with no kids deserve to be paid less because they don't have families to support, that would be good, too. Just because I'm not choosing to spend my money in a patriarchally-approved manner (family and kids) doesn't mean that I'm not entitled to equal pay for equal work...

Just re-read your comment, Semelee, well put. I also appreciate the Robin Morgan reference.

So, what are the steps we take towards a coordinated effort of advocating for the "marketplace" value of this work?

"So, what are the steps we take towards a coordinated effort of advocating for the "marketplace" value of this work?"

How are you ever going to get the power and influence to make these changes if you don't work? Work isn't just about money, you know. It's also about power.

Sometimes I feel like progressive women think money and power are dirty words. That makes me sad.

Naussica, do you really think that working for a wage is the only way to get power? The most traditionally powerful mom I knew growing up didn't work outside the home. But she was (in some of the time she had free because she didn't work) incredibly active in the Republican party. There wasn't a politician in the state who wouldn't take her phone calls. Power isn't about money, it's about influence and connections. They might be harder to get without a "real" job, but not impossible.

Incidentally, I don't think money and power are bad words, but nor do I think they're the most important goals in life. My point is that we can all make different choices based on what's important to us. My choices are different from yours, but that doesn't make them less valid. Or even less feminist. From my point of view, I'm doing exactly what I want with my life when I want to do it. Sounds like a feminist victory to me.

How are you ever going to get the power and influence to make these changes if you don't work?

I suspect that that was exactly what the director of the Women's Center was trying to do when Hirschman started using her pulpit to attack her. Nobody's saying that women shouldn't work outside the home. But expecting women to hide the fact that they have children and somehow, magically, never let it infringe on their professional lives is simply too much to ask. The reason this bind is antifeminist is because there is no way for a woman to win. Blaming individual women for "failing" at it is a way of ignoring the way it's a game that's set up to be failed.

"How are you ever going to get the power and influence to make these changes if you don't work?"

What owlhouse and I were just saying is that women who stay at home do WORK, whether or not they are employed in the public sphere.
I think our point is that our society needs to redefine what we judge as "work" and valuable "work."
I think the way wealth is distributed in this country and globally is a joke. Some of the most valuable work is completely voluntary, while people like that girl's gone wild idiot make millions.
If a person takes care of a child with autism as a "job," it is considered "work" and they get paid, whereas if they do it out of love it COSTS them and people say they are "not working."
If people did not take care of our children (the disabled and our elders), feed them, bathe them, potty train them, where would any of us be? What is more valuable then taking care of those who need it?
And also, I think grassroots organizing (which is free) is also a way to "gain power and influence" to change society.
I think there is a difference between trying to work within the system or change the system and I'm someone who'd like it changed.
I don't want women to have to work "men's" jobs and sacrifice their family and friends, and I don't want men to work those jobs either. I want the whole way we think about work to change.

Avogadro - I wonder how far that stay-at-home-mom would have been if she'd been a politician herself, instead of calling politicians on the phone?

Everyone makes their own choices. But these days, when EVERYTHING seems to be fucking up for grabs by the psychoconservatives, it makes me very uncomfortable to think about women reducing their public roles and staying home.

FIRST of all, a mommy bringing her child out in public is in no way a bad mommy and I am extremely offended that a comment such as that was even written. My husband and I have always taken our children everywhere. They have gone to museums, funerals, weddings and I have even taken my son to class with me before.

SECOND, I disagree that mommy comes first and then baby. My babies (well, they say that they are not babies anymore!)have always been my number one priority. When you CHOOSE to bring a child into this world, they are your responsibility. They are babies, then children who need to have their needs met, they can't do it themselves. To simply say that mommy comes first is extremely selfish.

Third, I opted out. I did not want someone else caring for my children. I worked in daycare and saw what happens, I didn't want that for my babies. I went back to school after my younger son was 18 months old and I do not regret the time spent at home with my children, I learned alot and I don't feel as though I compromised myself or my feminism. I CHOSE to stay home with my babies and am still happy with that decision, oh and my husband and I are not "rich".

I am disgusted when I hear women judging other women for their choices. When I chose to stay home I was considered a "sell out" by some of my more career oriented friends and when I decided to go back to school, my stay at home mom friends thought I was being selfish!

I do agree that women need to watch out for their financial well-being and I think that it is a shame that we need to worry about that.

Why can't we just respect the choices that women make instead of telling them that they are wrong for choosing to do what they want?

I'm planning on writing a short, but I believe important, piece on how women should balance personal and academic/career demands. It will be titled:

DON'T LET OTHER PEOPLE TELL YOU WHEN AND IF YOU SHOULD GO BACK TO WORK OR SCHOOL...

Not a feminist, not an anti-feminist, especially if they don't know you or your personal or financial situation. In fact, the only people who should decide what you need to do are you, your partner (if you have one), and those whose opinions you actually request. Tell everyone else to mind their own damn business.

"You are free to opt-out, scale down, have a work-life balance, but what's your credit card debt? Do you have an emergency savings fund? Are you saving for retirement? What if your husband gets sick, dies, leaves you?"

Exactly. How will you get your food next year? Will you have the money to pay for it? Will you be able offer other goods or services in barter for it? Will you have enough land on which to grow, herd, hunt, and/or gather it? Will you have enough access to water to fish for it?

"but I know women living on less than $30,000 a year who stay home with their children."

I've even heard of women living on less than $1 a day who stay home with their children. Too often they're the ones who can't afford to refuse marital sex even if their husbands are condom-hating cheaters. :(

"I never see books or hear about speaking tours where people tell men what they 'should' do as fathers/husbands. But when it comes to women, we're so used to it that it's become the norm."

Great point.

"To feminism's credit, mothers now have options - to work or to stay home. They're imperfect options..."

Imperfect terminology, too. Child care is work as well, no matter if a parent pays a babysitter to care for a child or cares for the child her/himself.

"...but options nonetheless. IMO Feminism does not obligate mothers to choose one option or the other."

Don't forget all the other possibilities. A mother might work for wages part-time in order to be home when her children's school lets out, be a housewife while her husband funds boarding school for their child, give up her child for adoption or foster care, work full-time on the family farm while showing her children how to farm (would that count as vocational homeschooling?), etc.

"Why is it so wrong to try to convince people to make wise economic choices given current realities?"

Maybe some people think that making wise economic choices given current realities is a manly thing to do and therefore think it's antifeminist to suggest we do it too?

"Women's work (all of it) is essential to society and should be valued, including in economic terms."

Isn't it already valued in economic terms via barter? There's more to economics than currency.

Suppose a couple divide their labor so that the housewife earns no wages and supervises their child all day, and the breadwinner earns wages or salary full-time. One could argue that the housewife is doing much of the breadwinner's share of supervising their child in addition to her own share, the breadwinner is doing the housewife's share of funding food and shelter in addition to his own share (or her own share, if they're a lesbian couple), and it's a trade.

"If a person takes care of a child with autism as a 'job,' it is considered 'work' and they get paid,

...paid by the people who hired them to do that work.

"whereas if they do it out of love it COSTS them"

...and so shouldn't whoever hired them to do that work pay for it?

I wasn't saying that people shouldn't pay caregivers, I was just noting the irony of the fact that care is seen as valuable in the public sphere, just not when it is done at home (which I take offense to, just like calling employed women "working women," because women work when they aren't formally employed). I don't think care shouldn't be based on whether or not a person can afford to pay for it either, but based on need. I just disagree with the whole distribution of wealth, and the fact that people can get paid for taking care of other people's children (showing that it is valuable work), but not their own.

Let's keep fighting with each other instead of against the patriarchy, cuz that's worked so well so far.

I just have a problem with the way this society defines "work" and "productive labor," etc. I don't know if "paying" people for taking care of their own children (as I said in my last post) is really a plausible idea, but I just wish that women's labor in the home would be seen as valuable and not as "opting out," because if a woman was a daycare worker (taking care of children for a living), she wouldn't be seen as opting out, but "working."

naussica- I think people have covered the personal points pretty well. I could tell you that I DO work, including employment outside my home, apart from my children. But you know what? I work with kids and families. Yep. So, my promoting "female" work as economically valuable isn't just in the interest of all the moms- it's my political, financial, social and moral interest. When this work is valued, my profession will increase in "value" and I'll be better able to support myself and kids should the partner and I call it quits.

I'm not giving up my strengths and passions out of fear of the psychoconservatives. I am a fantastic preschool teacher, youth advocate and parent educator. And sometimes a fantastic mother. I believe absolutely that raising thoughtful, compassionate kids with problem solving abilities is a very important and productive "public role."

"I just disagree with the whole distribution of wealth, and the fact that people can get paid for taking care of other people's children (showing that it is valuable work), but not their own."

Sure, people *get paid less* for taking care of their own children than for taking care of other children. OTOH, they also *pay less* for taking care of their own children instead of having other people do it.

Suppose A pays B to look after her or his child, A Jr. Now suppose C has a child too, C Jr.

If C wants to get paid for C Jr.'s care the same way B gets paid for A Jr.'s care, then wouldn't that also require C paying for C Jr.'s care the same way A pays for A Jr.'s care?

Mina, I see your point, but please keep in mind that after I said that, I said this:

I don't know if "paying" people for taking care of their own children (as I said in my last post) is really a plausible idea, but I just wish that women's labor in the home would be seen as valuable and not as "opting out," because if a woman was a daycare worker (taking care of children for a living), she wouldn't be seen as opting out, but "working."

I don't have a any solutions. :(

"How are you ever going to get the power and influence to make these changes if you don't work?"

I wonder if some of the commentators aren't getting caught up in the word choice of this statement, instead of addressing the substance, which I think is generally correct.

As a threshold matter, yes, of course, raising children is "work," how could it not be? So clearly the commentator means "work" in the public sphere.

And I think one can draw a distinction between work in the home (child-rearing) and work in the public sphere. It's not that one is better than the other. But "Opting out" certainly takes women out of the public sphere, and I don't think the effects of losing women from the public sphere can be dismissed or discounted. It is hard to imagine women as a class gaining equal power, influence, etc. if all women choose to work only in the private sphere, however personally enriching that may be, or how inarguably terrific for their kids. For instance, without female legislators and judges, we are not going to get legal/ economic protection for SAHMs in the event of divorce. Heck, according to this NYTimes article, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/26/movies/26wome.html?_r=1&oref=slogin, women's low participation in Hollywood is actually dropping, and now we can't even get a movie about women. So while I respect any woman's choice to stay at home - and in fact, that choice is not really any of my business - I am concerned about what "opting out" does to broader society. Is being concerned about the effects of "opting out" unfairly judgmental?

Semelee and Owlhouse- just want to say i agree with your arguments about the skewed definition of "work" in this society. The whole notion of bringing work inside the home out of the shadows is to place it on a continuum with work in the marketplace and value it as such. This whole public/private dichotomy is a false one- as you said its all WORK and it all has value. That is why so many radical and feminist political movements have fought for a "social wage" -e.g.- guaranteed health care, guaranteed income, gov't funded childcare etc.:Because the work of caring is , and does produce, wealth and power- without it our capitalist economy-or any other economy for that matter- would cease to exist.
We need to keep fighting to make institutional policies that acknowledge this reality and that reflect our desire to live fulfilling lives that possess a range of options for everyone- not just men.

Thank you Manda. I didn't let them control what I did, but I did find myself feeling defensive around my "career" friends when I stayed home and my "stay at home" friends when I went back to school, they were very disappointed when I put my son in daycare two days a week and wasn't going to homeschool!

In both instances, some of my "friends" seemed to become distant and the relationships definitely changed.

It is crazy because we should be supporting the choices that women are making. I don't think that I am a bad feminist for wanting to be a stay at home mom for a few years, nor do I think that mothers who work are bad mothers because they want to maintain their careers.

"so many radical and feminist political movements have fought for a "social wage""

You know what, honestly? I don't want to pay more taxes to support middle class mothers who have the ability to work and earn outside the home, but prefer not to. I would happily pay more taxes (a lot more) to guarantee a basic level of care for all children, including universal childcare. But really, once your kid(s) are in kindergarten, what are you doing at home all day? And why should I support that with my taxes?

amen, nausicaa. amen. I fully support SAHMs until the kids are in school. Then I flat out don't get it.

Schools, you may have noticed, tend to run from 8 to 3 (unless they're overcrowded enough to be on split-shift, in which case they can run from 7 to 1 with no recess), which makes it difficult to work around a job schedule that doesn't match that shift. Further, many if not most middle-class jobs these days require overtime (blame the lack of unionization in white-collar jobs)--few professionals can confine their working hours to 40-hour-weeks. I've been on enough threads on this site where people bitch about parents taking time off to take care of sick kids, or go to kids' school plays, to think that middle-class mothers would be able to easily work around such issues. I love my work; I'm lucky that way. Most people, men and women, don't.

If you go back and look at the work done on mothers who are supposedly "opting out," what you find are women who wanted to find part-time, flex-time work, and couldn't (and, well, Catilin Flanagan). If we want mothers to go back to work, we have to make it feasible for them to do so.

If we want social programs to be used by the people who need them, the best way to insure that is to make them open to all. Look at the stigma attached to welfare in this count