Linda Hirshman's Back to Work Order
Educated Women Are Lost in The World of Kissing Boo-Boos
A
s if the controversy over Linda Hirshman's essay, Homeward Bound, last fall in The American Prospect, wasn't controversial enough, Hirshman's come out with a new book,
"Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World," and the debate rages on.
Basically, Hirshman, a law professor and a mother, believes that too many college educated women are leaving careers for the unexciting and thankless job of motherhood, and women should work outside of the home in order to make a statement and contribution to society and the world, at large.
"Bounding home is not good for women and it's not good for society," she writes in the new book. "Whether they leave the workplace altogether or just cut back their commitment, their talent and education are lost from the public world to the private world of laundry and kissing boo-boos."
Hirshman's definition of work seems to be a narrow one that only recognizes monetary rewards in exchange for a service provided - as if somehow that will make the world a better place. She also states that "work is the path to a flourishing life."
Maybe I am misunderstanding Hirshman's line of thinking. Maybe she's saying that intelligent and college educated women shouldn't quit their jobs to tend to the home fires, but they need to vie for those top executive jobs as vehemently as men do - jobs that change and shape the world. And if that is how you want to part-take in shaping the world, that is fine. If that is what you find fulfilling and flourishing, again, fine, but stay at home moms would argue that despite the, sometimes, mundane parts of motherhood, their lives are flourishing and fulfilling, and they are also shaping the future- shaping the minds of the future of the next generation.
There always seems to be a line drawn down the middle when it comes to work or stay at home. Weigh in on any of the debates between working women and stay at home moms, and you get feelings of guilt and judgement, and it seems whatever choice is made, it's never the right one for someone else. Instead of encouraging each other, women end up defending their choices and the amount of love they can afford their children.
My thinking is that if everybody is a mover and shaker, who would take care of the kids - our future generation? Hirshman seems to be saying that the college educated women of the world should put money and climbing the corporate ladder first, and God forbid, if they can afford to, choose to stay home and raise their children.
Now Hirshman adds to the fire even further saying that feminism has failed us in the sense that it hasn't demanded that women go to work, but it gave them the choice to stay at home. And now, the world seems to be faltering from too few women as movers and shakers. I'm not quite sure that the number of women who opted out from the rat race and chose to stay at home has any correlation to what Hirshman deems as the low numbers of overly ambitious women out there.
Hirshman seems to be putting a value on one job versus another, pitting those who work against those who choose to stay at home - as if to say "meaningful" employment empowers and validates a woman and staying at home minimizes her worth and takes something away from her. To me that misses the point of the women's movement - which I always thought was that women should have choices to be and do whatever they want.
Copyright 2008 © Dawn Prince. Not to be reprinted without expressed permission.
Back To The Cover
Back to Woman to Woman
