Women's Equality: Who Cares Anyway?

I discovered an interesting article just recently, via Breebop. In A Working Girl Can Win, Meghan O'Rourke discusses the views of Linda Hirshman, put forth in her book titled Get to Work: A Manifesto for Women of the World. O'Rourke argues that in spite of her "overblown" rhetoric, Hirshman presents a solid argument that those of us who are committed to gender equality - who don't believe that a women's place is in the home - have to think twice about how our choices regarding work and child care shape the collective good. 

O'Rourke provides the crux of Hirshman's argument:

Affluent and well-educated men rarely leave the workforce (and when they do, it's usually to return to school or start a business); a portion of affluent and well-educated women do opt out and when they do, it's almost exclusively to raise children). When these women choose to devote their skills to childcare rather than to the workplace, they are "perpetuating a mostly male ruling class"—precisely the type unlikely to help make the case for more flexible work arrangements that would allow more women back into the workforce. The result is disempowering for less-well-off women, who have fewer public female role models, and for the opt-outers themselves, who find it hard to re-enter the work place and, if divorced, may have to depend on their husbands for support. None of this, Hirshman points out, dovetails with the aims of feminism.

The attitude that a woman's place is in the home persists.  Just recently, I was out with a group of economically high-powered women.  One remarked that she had decided to accept that her partner doesn't do his fair share of the housework, because she will "eventually be doing it anyway" once they have kids and she stays home! To an extent, I support individual women in making choices that best suit them.  At the same time, have we come far enough that we are really free to "choose"?  If I don't want to bear a greater burden of the care for the home and children, will my choice be respected?

Let me leave you with an excerpt I came across today from the Philosophy of Manufactures, written by Andrew Ure in 1835 (as cited in Folbre, 1994):

Factory females have in general much lower wages than males, and they have been pitied on this account with perhaps an injudicious sympathy, since the low price of labour here tends to make household duties their most profitable as well as agreeable occupation, and prevents them being tempted by the mill to abandon the care of their offspring at home.

We should not forget that child care arrangements have always been tied to broader economic and political ideology. And, therefore, the choices of individual women, and their partners, as to how to negotiate the demands of work and family do have political ramifications.

Links:

A Working Girl Can Win: The Case Against Staying at Home with the Kids by Meghan O'Rourke of Slate, found at Breebop

Resources:

Who Pays for the Kids: Gender and Structures of Constraint by Nancy Folbre

Comments

[Benji]

Meh!

[Benji]

Weren't you lamenting about finding a guy a little bit back? Here's a hint: guy's dont like feminazis.

Whoever's home does the housework.If a girl or a guy is out making 80k a year, the whole family benefits.

Meh!

[Polly Jones]

I don't think I was ever lamenting about finding a guy - just over finding one I liked.

Here is a hint: feminazis don't like rednecks.

[Grog]

Feminazi(n) - an epithet used (mostly) by men whose masculine identity is threatened by the idea that women might actually want to be treated as their equals in society.

[Benji]

Grog(n) – 1. An idiot. 2. An immasculated man.

[Grog]

1. An idiot. 2. An immasculated man.

My, my - ad hominem attacks right off the top - I'll bet you turn to fisticuffs everytime something doesn't go your way, either.

BTW - "immasculated"??? I suggest you acquire a dictionary soon.

[Richard Evans]

Femnazis aren't after equality, they're after domination. They don't understand that men and women can have different roles and yet be completely equal. They don't understand that a marriage/relationship is a partnership where each individual draws on the strengths of and compensates for the weakness of the other.

Polly, please define "redneck"...

[Polly Jones]

"Redneck" is a term that I think many people resort to using to describe those who attack them for being more "left" in thought.

It is counterproductive.

Anyway, back to the article, I don't think there is anything wrong with partners taking on different roles, etc. But, I have a huge problem with my "share" being pre-defined.

And, I don't know about feminazis, whatever they are, but, yeah, I am out for domination.

[Richard Evans]

So you're saying that any conservative who disagrees with lib-left ideology is a Redneck? Wow, talk about steriotypes...

"And, I don't know about feminazis, whatever they are, but, yeah, I am out for domination."

I'm glad you admitted that. It begs the question though how can you reconcile your quest for domination with your stated quest for equality? The two are mutually exclusive...

[Polly Jones]

I think I admitted that I was using stereotypes in response being sterotyped myself AND that it was counterproductive.

Umm...domination...it is a joke. Come on.

Finally, my version of feminism is necessarily linked to class, race issues and so on...

If anyone wants to actually return to the original post, an interesting thought is if these women with choice don't stay home who might end up looking after their kids?

[Heather Cook]

"Affluent and well-educated men" can't mother children. That's why it is up to the mother to do it. That's why I choose to work at home. End of story.

I really don't care about 'equality'. I care that I brought babies into this world and I'm not going to pawn them off to others to raise unless I have to. And I have had to.

I never really get this debate. If you don't want to have kids and want to stay in the work force then that is great for you.

I am a work at home mother. This is:
a) natural for me
b) economically sound
c) responsible

This is my choice.

Everyone's 'share' is already predefined: Mothers mother better. Fathers father better.

[Grog]

Everyone's 'share' is already predefined: Mothers mother better. Fathers father better.

Sorry - I don't accept the "biology is destiny" argument.

First, I know way too many successful relationships where the "traditional gender roles" are completely reversed.

Second, I know of lots of families where both parents work - and both have career aspirations - that have found ways to achieve a good, solid balance. (In at least one case, the woman would go stark raving mad if she tried to do the "stay at home" routine)

My last point lies in the sheer variability of human behaviour. I know women whose behaviour is often outright masculine, and men whose behaviour is outright feminine. (Including their responses towards children)

The point, and I think it's what Polly is driving at, is that there is no compelling reason to accept from your life partner a role that you are not comfortable with.

Relationships take work - lots of it - and if you walk into one thinking you 'already know the answers', I can guarantee that you will experience a few rude awakenings. In today's world, it's time to come up with some sensible compromises rather than epxecting your partner to be something that they are not.

[Polly Jones]

"Everyone's 'share' is already predefined: Mothers mother better. Fathers father better."

And, I'm the man-hater as accused by so many so oft on this site!

Sorry, but I think men can parent in many different ways.

And, while agree with Grog on most points, I think the argument for women staying in the workforce extends beyond its benefits in specific partnerships.

I am not sure if women staying in the workforce is the answer, but certainly current work arrangements need to be challenged to allow both men and women more time to care for their families. I think we would all like to see a revaluing of our roles as carer-citizens.

[Grog]

I didn't intend for you to perceive that I was trying to "limit" things - my underlying point was really that it has to come down to a decision that is mutually agreeable to the partners in a relationship. I was thinking of the individual cases I know of which are "atypical" (e.g. not the 1950s "nuclear family")

[Polly Jones]

I don't think I necessarily thought you were limiting things; I just wanted to recast light on how our individual/couple choices affect the big picture.

It is a zillion degrees here in Calgary today and as you probably can tell from the spelling, missing words, etc. in my last comment, MY BRAIN HAS MELTED!!!!

Sorry, if I appeared to misinterpret you :)

[Benji]

"Affluent and well-educated men" can't mother children. That's why it is up to the mother to do it.

Trying to figure out how to take this... 5 stayed home with the two kids, while the wifie (who had the better job) brought home the bacon. I am fairly certain I did a good job.

I'm incredibly tired of the old saw of "unpaid work" for those who stay home. I got paid plenty, just not monetarily. Part reason for my crankiness. But the argument of "the mom should be paid" (not made just here and now, I know) usu comes from the FemNaz crowd.

[The Fat Lady Sings]

Interesting post. It opens up quite a can of worms, however. There is more than one subject at play here - 1. Shared responsibility in heterosexual relationships and 2. Child-rearing (I think the implication O'Rourke makes that educated women should eschew child-rearing is specious - and is, of course, predicated on the first two). However you look at it – shared responsibility is the crux of the matter. As your associates said – they may as well do the housework now because they will end up stuck with it all later anyway. There isn’t a woman alive who doesn’t know that to be the truth. And that disparity gets transferred to child-rearing as well; so its no wonder most women who give birth choose to put aside their work interests in order to care for their children. If the responsibility were equally shared between partners – and if society didn’t penalize families to begin with – it would be possible for both to maintain a career and truly raise a family. But that’s not the truth of how it all works. A woman can work a 70 hour week, and still be responsible for complete household maintenance. I do not know, nor have I ever known a single heterosexual couple in my entire life where the woman didn’t feel she did the lion’s share of the work – and who wasn’t pissed off about it as well. Most women just chalk it up to the cost of maintaining a relationship – but they’d prefer it wasn’t that way. Men who think they are wonderful ‘partners’ because they take out the trash once a week are adopting a five year olds view of family; expecting to be loved and considered perfect by right of birth. Well – what was adorable in the pre-kindergarten set - sets teeth on edge by age 30. Of course – there are couples who manage to balance everything perfectly; but then there are white panthers and pygmy elephants too – I’ve just never seen one.

[Polly Jones]

TFLS,

I agree with you. We women can seek all the equality we want in the public sphere, but what we need now is equality in the private sphere.

Here is the catch: women seem to find it easier to take on employers and the government than their dear men. And, while the activism of a portion of women changed conditions for all women in employment, rights, etc., when it comes to relationships each individual women has to demand equal share of the work.

Anyway, I CANNOT chalk it up to the cost of maintaining a relationship. So, if ever I find my pygmy elephant, I'll let you know - and, maybe send you a videotape of him doing his work!!!

TFLS, are you seriously telling me that I'll have to settle for this crap?