June 26, 2006

• A few weekends ago the Washington Post ran an editorial by Linda Hirschman, celebrating the fact that her “Homeward Bound” article for the American Prospect website struck a chord with some working women. Of course, it ticked off the stay-at-home mothers to no end. She innocently says “I did not know what a minefield the subject was.” Let’s see, she’s going to tell well-educated, intelligent women who choose not to work that they are “living lesser lives,” and that “what they do is bad for them,” and “certainly bad for society,” and she can’t imagine that they would be offended by that?

  Her main assumption is that work in the home is unworthy of these women. She says “A good life for humans includes the classical standard of using one’s capacities for speech and reason in a prudent way, the liberal requirement of having enough autonomy to direct one’s own life, and the utilitarian test of doing more good than harm in the world. Measured against these time-tested standards, the expensively educated upper-class moms will be leading lesser lives.”

  And in another place she says  “The family — with its repetitious, socially invisible, physical tasks — is a necessary part of life, but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government. This less-flourishing sphere is not the natural or moral responsibility only of women. Therefore, assigning it to women is unjust. Women assigning it to themselves is equally unjust.”

  Needless to say, she doesn’t give any evidence to support these claims.

  I am quite confused by this standard, as I think that life in the home does allow me to use my capacity for speech and reason in a prudent way, that it gives me more autonomy than many working women and that I do more good than harm in the world. I also don’t see how public spheres allow more opportunity for full human flourishing than private life.

  Call me stupid. I mean, if I study nutrition for several years, and then implement that knowledge in order to improve my family’s health, am I not using my capacity for speech and reason in a prudent way? If I can arrange my schedule on almost any day to suit myself, can choose how my children are educated, and have time to pursue in depth research on any subjects I choose, don’t I have enough autonomy to direct my life? If I teach my children well and provide a warm and loving home environment, is that not doing more good than harm?

  The truth is, homemaking is pretty much whatever you make of it. The position is open to interpretation and provides great scope for any intelligent, creative woman to make it whatever she wishes. The menial tasks of cooking and cleaning do not really need to take up much time in the modern age, leaving us with great latitude to pursue many different activities. But here is another thing I just don’t get. To the feminists, it seems that the same activity is worth more in the public sphere than it is in the private. For instance, if I decorate my home, it’s pathetic. If I run a successful interior design business, it’s admirable. If I make gourmet meals for my family, it’s silly, but if I’m the head chef at a top restaurant, it’s worthy. I use the same skills in the home that I would in the workplace, but to them the home is inherently inferior. So, when they decry the fact that the home does not offer opportunities for “full human flourishing,” they are simply denying the reality of what homemaking actually is.

  When I look at people, either male or female, who have invested a great deal of themselves in the public sphere, I see people who are out of balance. Everyone is always saying to fathers that “Nobody ever says on their deathbed ‘I wish I had spent more time at the office.’” Our society generally recognizes that public success for both men and women often comes at personal cost, that the time invested in the pursuit of personal glory takes its toll on relationships and home life. Home life, on the other hand, offers a venue for the growth of love, kindness, patience and service, which is rarely found in the public sphere. It is my belief that those who find these qualities in their lives are the ones who have reached “full human flourishing,”not those who have found fame, fortune or power. 

  The idea of seeking glory for one’s self is completely opposite to Christianity, which teaches us to be humble and prefer others to ourselves. But Linda Hirschman respects only power. Her real worry is not about women leading “lesser lives.” (In fact, if she had any respect for the intellectual powers of these well-educated, successful women who have chosen to stay home, she might realize that they would not choose “lesser lives” for themselves.) Her real problem with women staying at home is that “the behavior tarnishes every female with the knowledge that she is almost never going to be a ruler.” Since very few people, women or men, wield any great power, what is she talking about? It’s all about power in marriage.

  The whole feminist agenda seems to be centered around the desire to get rid of the traditional marriage, and it’s not even about seeking equality, since Ms. Hirschman does advise women to seek unequal marriages where the man is in the subordinate role.  But their myths about marriage are a lot like their myths about homemaking. Women have always wielded an enormous amount of power, albeit, in a behind the scenes sort of way, but that’s not enough for the Feminists. When a man and a woman work together as a team towards a common goal, they almost invariably fall into the pattern of the man as leader and the woman as helper, or as one woman in Hirschman’s survey put it, the husband as CEO and the wife as CFO.  The Bible explains that this is because women were created to be a “helpmeet” for their husbands. Despite the fact that this is a sin-cursed world, most women accept and enjoy the unequal role. 85% of the well-educated, intelligent women in Hirschman’s survey do.

  But in spite of the fact that the evidence, both contemporary and historical, shows that most women do not want an equal or superior role in relationships, Feminists just reason that “Feminism did not go far enough.” So they perpetuate these myths. If it were merely consigned to a few ivory-tower elites, that might be fine, but the problem is that everyone is affected by their choices. When these women go out to work they drive up the cost of housing, forcing many other women to go work at truly menial jobs. But that is a matter of unconcern for them. Those people are already leading “lesser lives” in their eyes, so why should their desires matter?

  In the end, Feminism seems to just be a power grab for a handful of elite women. I for one have no intention of sacrificing my freedom and autonomy so that another woman can fulfill her ambition to become a petty tyrant. Just aint’ gonna happen

   

  **EDIT**

  I want to clarify a few things about how I feel about women working.

  On the one hand, I realize that many women have to work, either full or part time, in order to help provide for their families. That’s just reality. Though the Bible does indicate that women should be “keepers of the home” and should put their energy into guiding the home as opposed to gadding about and wasting their time, I’m not sure that it clearly forbids working outside the home. It seems to me to be a necessary evil.

  On the other hand, there is a lot of work that needs to be done in the world that doesn’t have a paycheck attatched to it. Child rearing is one task, but even after the children are grown, there are a lot of community needs that can and should be met by those who don’t have to work, especially women whose children are out of the nest. I wish that the church would value these women and the ministry that they can do, and inspire us to give up the material goodies that come with getting that job, in order to build up the church.

  What I do think is wrong is the denigration of unpaid work, homemaking and the exaltation of careerism.

  • 8:15 am
  • 7 Comments