Another reason babies are bad

Or, at least, holding women back from achieveing what women have fought for centuries for--women to have equal access, rights, and pay for equal work. In this article by Linda Hirshman, a "1970s member of the National Organization for Women (NOW), a donor to EMILY's List, and a professor of women's studies", Hirshman writes,

"Although college-educated women work more than others, the 2002 census shows that graduate or professional degrees do not increase work-force participation much more than even one year of college. When their children are infants (under a year), 54 percent of females with graduate or professional degrees are not working full time (18 percent are working part time and 36 percent are not working at all). Even among those who have children who are not infants, 41 percent are not working full time (18 percent are working part time and 23 percent are not working at all)."

So, my question is why. Feminism, as I believe it, is about opportunities and not restrictions--a definition that I sometimes find hard to follow. Why, after all of the millions of women who literally and figuratively gave their lives to make it easier for future generations--WHY would smart, competative, accomplished women choose to stay at home an raise babies? Hirshman asserts,

"The census numbers for all working mothers leveled off around 1990 and have fallen modestly since 1998. In interviews, women with enough money to quit work say they are "choosing" to opt out. Their words conceal a crucial reality: the belief that women are responsible for child-rearing and homemaking was largely untouched by decades of workplace feminism. Add to this the good evidence that the upper-class workplace has become more demanding and then mix in the successful conservative cultural campaign to reinforce traditional gender roles and you've got a perfect recipe for feminism's stall."

According to Hirshman's and other research, elite women are opting out from careers from the start. "As one lawyer-bride put it in explaining her decision to quit practicing law after four years, 'I had a wedding to plan.' Another, an Ivy Leaguer with a master's degree, described it in management terms: 'He's the CEO and I'm the CFO. He sees to it that the money rolls in and I decide how to spend it.' It's their work, and they must do it perfectly."

Hirshman points out that conservatives say that feminism "failed" indicated by the women who drop out of the workforce to stay at home with their children and teach them to bake apple pies. Or attend movement classes together. Pardon me while I vomit on my cute new wedge-heeled boots. Hirshman is quick to point out that they're wrong: "feminism wasn't radical enough: It changed the workplace but it didn't change men, and, more importantly, it didn't fundamentally change how women related to men." So true.

The inharent flaw in my definition of feminism is that "opportunity" isn't defined. Women should be able to do whatever they want in whatever roles they want, right. Unfortunately, the rest of society hasn't caught up. As the feminist historian Alice Achols put it, "Rather than challenging their subordination in domestic life, the feminists of NOW committed themselves to fighting for women's integration into public life."

Hirshman has a few solutions to the current situation, none of which I'm terribly thrilled with--all of them include marriage--to a liberal or to a "social lesser" or someone in a non-traditional role; or having babies and starting, "a mommy movement." Pardon me while I retch on my lovely new pants.

Really, we as a feminist movement should be focusing on childcare, not abortion, as a way to move toward equality. Only when child care (and, let's face it, millions of other factors) is accessible, free, and adequate can women even begin to be equal.

Bottom line, we're fucked.

Thanks to my friend, lennard, for the article.