A woman’s right to choose how to raise her own children, that is. I came across an interesting article in the Washington Post, published a few days ago, called Unleashing the Wrath of Stay- at- Home Moms. I missed the original controversy, last December, when the author published an article in The American Prospect putting forth the following premises (taken from the Washington Post article):
1) Women who quit their jobs to stay home with their children were making a mistake;
2) The tasks of housekeeping and child rearing were not worthy of the
full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings, because:
a) They do not require a great intellect;
b) They are not honored; and
c) They do not involve risks and the rewards that risk brings.
These assumptions shocked me, frankly. Perhaps most telling is her history of how she arrived at these assumptions: She set out to research “how the
first generation of women to grow up with feminism managed their marriages … When I began my book research in 2002 by calling couples who had announced their weddings in the Sunday New York Times in 1996, I thought I’d find a bunch of female managers, lawyers, journalists and doctors. Instead, they were, as my first interviewee described his wife, ‘at home in Brooklyn taking care of’ the children.”
Even her premise is a faulty assumption; that the first generation of women to grow up with feminist mothers began marrying in 1996. It is my belief that it is much earlier, and that women who were raised by working mothers more often choose to stay home themselves to raise their own children.
The author admits she is retired with married grown children, so I assume she is older than I am — I am in my mid- 40s. But was she raised by a mother who worked full- time? Was she raised by minimum- wage day care providers? I was. My mother worked full- time. Being raised by babysitters who do not love you, who you know do not love you, who you know are only giving you basic minimum care because your mother is paying them to do so, is a horrible childhood. Going to a stranger’s house after school and not your own home, day in and day out for years on end, is horrible. I turned 18 in 1979, and then already knew that I would be a stay- at- home mom when I married and had my own children. My younger sister is a stay- at- home mom for the same reason – we hated being raised by babysitters.
I wonder how many of those women who married in 1996 were raised in day care and by babysitters, and I wonder how many chose to stay home to raise their own children because their own experience in day care was heart- wrenching. I wonder if the author asked that question. Somehow, I doubt
it.
To be continued …
I was married in 1997. I had a mom who worked sometimes. She was a real estate agent when I was little and when I was older, she worked in a quaint little sewing store across town. I remember coming home in middle school and being “latch key” kid–letting myself in and staying by myself for about 3 hours. I didn’t then, but I could’ve gotten into a lot of trouble. In high school, mom working meant I could skip school with my boyfriend and come home and get into all kinds of trouble.
I think that the lady who has been behind this “research” is an idiot, but still I can’t help but feel sorry for her that she doesn’t understand and you can tell reasoning with her won’t help.
I’ve been blogging on Hirshman too (a little excessively, I must admit) and the timing of this generation choosing home had escaped me, probably because my own mother was a SAHM during my formative years.
Good post!
I know I read that many homeschool moms are not supported for their choices, but even here in CA it is rare that I have negative comments from strangers or family about my choice. Only once when out with my five children did I have any negative comment and that was recently by an older man. I think, in some ways, the tables have turned on the feminists because they cannot provide what they said they could. It is all smoke and mirrors. I was raised in a broken home, in daycare, after-school sitters, etc. and when my mother remarried it was to a nightmare of a man. Thankfully God spared me from what could have been, but it was NO picnic. I firmly believe the best place for a wife and mother is at home with her children. No one else loves your children the way you do, save God alone.
Warmly,
Kate
Very good point regarding the “first generation” idea. I think Ms. Hirshman is off by at least a decade or more. I also believe she’s simply *cracked*.
It makes no sense to me that an “intelligent” woman, as Ms. Hirshman obviously believes herself to be, would not fully cycle through the thought of “The tasks of housekeeping and child rearing were not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings” and “They do not involve risks and the rewards that risk brings.” (These two in particular.) It seems to me an intelligent woman would completely feel and believe that nurturing human beings to adulthood is wholly worthy of the full time and talents of an intelligent and educated (regardless of her meaning of educated) human being. I’d go further to say it is not only worthy but that those things are required in order to nurture a human being to an adulthood of any worth at all.
And to think that nurturing those human beings doesn’t involve risks and rewards, well, that is just plain ignorant. For me, these things are all the proof I need to dismiss Ms. Hirshman as an intelligent woman.
I caught a couple minutes-worth of a similar topic on a news program the other morning and just couldn’t stomach listening through to the end.