Feminist Says Child Rearing not Worthy of Time and Talents of Intelligent Humans

That may be going a bit far, Adam. I'd say that, at worst, these comments are playing in the same league as Coulter, but I would imagine that, given the proper context and understanding of the nature of gender politics, some of her points are valid, as, on the very rare occasion, are Coulter's (notice I said very rare).

No this is NOT valid. This is old school feminism at it's WORST. This makes me so incredibly angry I want to write an article on fourth wave feminism. This woman outright disgusts me.

Brooks, the article quotes Coutler towards the end where she is very rational and not at all her usual inflammatory self. This is the comparison that I was making.

In an op-ed at the online edition of the political magazine, the Huffington Post, Ann Coulter wrote that Hirshman and those who think like her, are "expressing an intolerant world view that women who don't work are losers."

"Hirshman isn't just expressing an opinion about what she thinks is best, she is saying that any woman who makes a choice different from what she espouses is unequivocally 'wrong.'"

Coulter writes that feminism is losing its sway in public because it focuses on "problems that hardly exist…while spending precious little energy on issues that indisputably have a negative impact on women: pornography, sex trafficking."

Which is a quite rationed and reasoned response to this:

Writing in the November 2005 edition of the American Prospect, Hirshman admitted that the real intention of the feminist movement was not "equality", but to destroy what she calls "the unreconstructed family" of a husband and wife rearing children. She writes that the goal was to see as many women as possible abandoning family life for high-level professions and politics.

See, that's what I get for not actually reading the article :-)

To address Kirsten's point, I agree that this is Feminism at its worst. There is nothing wrong with someone choosing to be a stay-at-home parent. The core issue that I think motivates Hirshman (note the irony in that name) and those like her is the belief that many women don't really have a true choice to make. Now, whether that is truly the case, is up for debate, but if it is, then, at least to Hirshman, the only way to make it a true choice is to create a society in which there is no inherent expectation for a woman to be a stay-at-home mom. I think that is what she is really talking about in the quote that Adam brought up.

Having said all this, I do want to reitterate that I agree with you, Kirsten, this outlook is a blight on feminism.

"to create a society in which there is no inherent expectation for a woman to be a stay-at-home mom"

I agree entirely, but I'd also add "and where it isn't expected for a man NOT to stay at home". I do fundamentally believe that it benefits children for at least one parent to stay at home, at least for the younger years. But while there's no objective reason why that should be the woman, if it didn't involve such a stigma for a man to not work, perhaps more would be willing to stay at home instead of their partners.

I agree that this is Feminism at its worst

Calling this "feminism" is an insult to actual feminism. Not that I am blaming Brooks, just using his use of it as an example. Real feminism, where men and women have equal rights and should be treated as such and both sexes should have the choice to do what they want is extremely important and I can support that 100%. It is this extreme-feminism that seeks the limit choice, force women to do what they do not and to erase the actual differences between the sexes is what I cannot get behind.

I agree.. though I think this rates as being on equal footing, rather than surpassing Ann Coulter's oral diarrhea.

Keep in mind, Ann Coulter actually has nothing to do with this. The author of this article misquotes Kristen Powers as Coulter (never mind the photo of Powers at the top of the quoted article from the HuffPost).

Don't agree...Coulter says "women who don't work are losers". that's precisely the point that gets missed in this article. Good parenting takes an intelligent and thoughtful committment...at times awfully boring but so important to the future in developing healthy, well nutured, well attached human beings able to participate and engage in this world. Parenting is such an important vocation. It saddens me that so few appear to see that.

wow. I really have to backtrack. I should have chased down the original article before disparaging Ms. Hirschman's feminist credentials. This article does not accurately reflect the intent or content of Ms. Hirschman's piece. Although I still may disagree with ruling out motherhood as a valid manifestation of feminism, it wasn't really her point. She is more concerned that the feminist movement hasn't really made as many gains in household equality as we'd like to think. It's a healthy critique of the movement.

Here are some quotes from the source that I found particularly meaningful

Here's the feminist moral analysis that choice avoided: 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. To paraphrase, as Mark Twain said, "A man who chooses not to read is just as ignorant as a man who cannot read."

The home-economics trap involves superior female knowledge and superior female sanitation. The solutions are ignorance and dust. Never figure out where the butter is. "Where's the butter?" Nora Ephron's legendary riff on marriage begins. In it, a man asks the question when looking directly at the butter container in the refrigerator. "Where's the butter?" actually means butter my toast, buy the butter, remember when we're out of butter. Next thing you know you're quitting your job at the law firm because you're so busy managing the butter. If women never start playing the household-manager role, the house will be dirty, but the realities of the physical world will trump the pull of gender ideology.

When she sounded the blast that revived the feminist movement 40 years after women received the vote, Betty Friedan spoke of lives of purpose and meaning, better lives and worse lives, and feminism went a long way toward shattering the glass ceilings that limited their prospects outside the home. Now the glass ceiling begins at home. Although it is harder to shatter a ceiling that is also the roof over your head, there is no other choice.

I'd say we were both fooled on that one. Rather than an accurate portrayal of Prof. Hirshman's views or feminism, this article appears to be a set of selective quotes to, once again, damn the whole movement.

It does appear that at least our BS detectors, while rusty, are still functioning.

That being said, no one should ever use the world "unreconstructed."

I am not surprised the headline is inflammatory, the article is posted as found on a 'right-to-life' site. The RTL movement typically isn't concerned with accurately portraying the feminist movement. :)

Good call though, it motivated me to check out the original article by Hirshman -- and realize that it was not well portrayed by this article at all. Now I have to revise my assessment.

It claims a feminist says it, not "feminists." Using the woman's name would mean nothing, as few know her name. People would not know that she is a feminist, and just presume she's a random crazy woman who is, for some reason, making headlines.

Irma, I personally try to take your approach where ever possible. I do admit to changing some titles, simply because they make no sense or give no context. Typically, I leave titles alone and quote a few snips to get someone interested. I leave editorial content of my own for a comment. I even wrote more on this in my bio, just to hold myself to it. I think a part of citizen journalism should be making at least a passing attempt at removing one's self from the article.

I hope that none of my comments you took to be intended towards you as the person who seeded this. As for your response to Dennis in the link above regarding lazy readers, I couldn't agree more.

I think it's fine to post a headline 'as is' with the modifications you stated. It is definitely the reader's responsibility to discern the validity or bias of the source.

However, I think that there is a general feeling (possibly unwarrented) that a seeder is supportive of the seeds she/he posts. I do try to write a summary that states my position or thoughts/questions on the article when I seed it. This let's me either show support or distance myself from something that might be questionable but interesting.

Although I may have taken a crooked path, I can say for a fact that I am smarter after following this seed.

I hope I didn't make you feel that you should defend your seeding philosophy -- that was definitely not my intent.

I think people should be active newsreaders. I don't swallow everything that's put in front of me, and I think that's a positive attitude, that might be beneficial for others to obtain.

I agree completely. It's my problem if I'm lazy, not yours.

I am interested in your personal thoughts because I think you are smart and bring a great perspective to the conversation. I wish I could help with the language stuff -- I can only say thanks for putting forth the effort and I think your English comes across beautifully.

I seed whatever I find interesting, leave headlines alone (except where a tweak is required to make it more clear a story is regionally specific) and include the first few paragraphs to convey a sense of what it is about. My seeds don't reflect what I agree or disagree with (I've posted "climate change is bunk" kinds of stories though I disagree with that - they help provide an opposing view and some balance).

It is the reader's responsibility to read a story and make their own judgement on its validity. There isn't time, of course, to read everything but it's also our responsibility to recognize that everything is questionable. (As opposed to, "It must be true - I read it!")

As for this business of child rearing and roles etc., it seems to me current economics more than anything else determines this.

I always try to retitle my seeds, unless I'm incredibly busy, or the original is so good that I can't think of any way to rewrite it. I especially take care to remove biases which are not my own. I understand completely why you do what you do, though.

I haven't 'seeded' anything here yet but I have elsewhere. I like to seed things that engage me for some reason or another. My interests are eclectic and I count on discussion to show me around an idea, or an article. I wouldn't seed something that was repulsive to me. I might seed something absurd if it grabbed me. As for style, I like to keep it brief, representative and with little editorial comment. Comment saved to follow. Does that makes sense? I'm rambling.

Yes, I'm not sure why a second hand opinion piece on the article was seeded instead of the original, which a simple search on the Hirshman's name would reveal.

The actual article hardly justifies the rabid portrayal offered on this conservative web site.

Good point. My comment looks a bit snippy now that the irritation with the LifeSite slant has worn off. My bad.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I remember some years back reading about two MD's who had left their child with a housekeeper most of the time for the first three years of its life, and then were astonished and horrified to find the child speaking just like the housekeeper, instead of in their relatively educated prose. Duh!

Unfortunately, for most young couples, economics really dictates that
both parents must work outside the home. I think among younger couples (30's professional types), where finances allow it, it is becoming much more common for the father to be the one who stays home with the kids than it used to be, and apparently with no stigma attached as far as their friends are concerned. This can only be good. Unfortunately, to my certain knowledge, there is an incredible growth in the number of couples who leave their kids with the grandmother all day so both can work. This is usually not a great thing, because (take it from a grandmother who spent several years raising a step-grandchild) older people tend to be a bit short on patience compared to when they were younger, and also tend to be out of touch with the young ones' interests today. You should see me try to look intelligent when my grandson tells me about his fantasy games on the computer. It's hard, because my eyes tend to glaze over after the first paragraph or so!

Child raising done right takes an incredible amount of patience and empathy. If finances allow it, the parent who has more of those qualities should be the one who stays home, in my book.

Think about all the mistakes we men would take, we'd feed them cheeseburgers everyday and do other stupid things.

I could assume you are kidding but then I wouldn't be able to respond to something that really bothers me.

Men don't have to be stupid parents. Instead of saying, we'd feed them cheeseburgers... I wish a man would say...

Gosh, I realize that there's a lot more to this child-raising thing that I knew, now I'm going to have to learn how to do it.

Women are not born to be parents. They learn through trial and error, and if my experience says anything, there's a lot more error than we usually admit. The thing is that parenting shouldn't be solely a woman's responsibility -- there is no reason for it to be. When I hear men say, 'we couldn't do it as well' I just think that is a backhanded pseudo compliment that really does nothing more than justify one person's laziness and another's oppression.

The fact is that parenting is both challenging and rewarding -- and it's not always fun. Not everyone dreams of cleaning up after toddlers and ungrateful teenagers. Calling it honorable or the most worthy job doesn't address the fact that a lot of times it sucks and men have gotten to avoid it for the majority of our history.

There is not a single answer to this situation. Unless the answer is that every couple should work collaboratively to find and find fulfillment in their selves and in each other and for any offspring they may have. There is no good reason to limit options based on biology or tradition. Healthy families need the freedom to do what works for them.

indeed I was kidding about cheeseburgers. Both man and woman have important jobs when it comes to parenting, and while both are equally important, the way the bond is made between the parent and the child is different if you are the dad or the mother.

Sometimes parents teach things together to the child, but there's a set of rules that differentiates the two. I don't want to get into too many details, but just think of your childhood, and the different aspects you were taught about life from both mom and dad.

It's more of a yin and yang type of ordeal. Sorry I'm not elaborating too much, I'm reading L'equipe at the same time. It's judgement day for France on Friday.

Men don't have to be stupid parents. Instead of saying, we'd feed them cheeseburgers... I wish a man would say...

Gosh, I realize that there's a lot more to this child-raising thing that I knew, now I'm going to have to learn how to do it.

I think a lot of this is due to the constant portrayal of the dumb, but lovable, oaf of a father in the media. Tim Taylor, Homer Simpson, that dude from Malcolm in the Middle. The mothers are constantly shown as the stable ones, while the fathers are shown as loving but incapable and comic. While this is certainly the case sometimes in real life, other times in real life the roles may be reversed, or both parents may be capable or both a bit oafish but still loving.

Calling it honorable or the most worthy job doesn't address the fact that a lot of times it sucks and men have gotten to avoid it for the majority of our history.

And sometimes having to work for a living to put food on the table sucks, and women have avoided that for most of our history. It cuts both ways. How many women would be willing to marry a man who didn't want a career but wanted to dedicate his life to domestic pursuits? I'm willing to bet 1 in a every million. The fact is we still live in a society where men have no option but to have a career but women can have it any way they want it. They can have a career if they want or they can stay home and go the domestic route. Few men have this option.

good points AKG. I absolutely agree with you that people of any gender should have free choice when determining how their life will be spent. Even as I was typing my comment I figured someone would present the other side. Thank you.

In my family, we have chosen not to have children at the moment but we have had numerous discussions about what the division of labor will look like if we do. At the moment, I would prefer to have a career if my husband would keep the house clean, cook meals, and provide the daily care for whatever offspring we might produce.

So, how long have you known my wife? ;)

Just kidding… sort of.

Attachment theorist, and psychiatrist Allan Schore would say that the mother is primary in the earliest years since she is the biological feeder and there is some maturation of the brain that seems to be develop optimally w/an infant has good access to the mother for the first year or so. This is not to diminish father's role in any way...just a time thing, developmentally.

Watch the media and the lawsuits. They tell you that daycare, schools, and outside services should raise your children, not the parents.

Well, honestly, there tends to be an inverse proportion between education level and number of children.... I can't site any sources for this, but it is an observation I have heard from multiple sources, and it seems to hold true in my own experience as well.

Part of that should be a given...the more time you spend on education, the less you'll have for children. Both, to do well, require a lot of devotion, and ideally, are your number one priority at that time.

My sister just finished her BA, and is planning on continuing into medical school, and eventually getting her PhD. As such, she's not planning on being able to raise kids until she's close to 30.

I, on the other hand, didn't go to college at all, and am 24 with 2 kids. Granted, I spend plenty of time educating myself on my own, but formal education demands a very significant time commitment that's fairly difficult to fit in with children.

I can't decide whether or not to vote for this. I know it's sarcastic, but I don't agree with the first premise. The latter part, however, about ending the human race solving problems, that I agree with. ;-)

Actually there are several examples in the animal kingdom, and in modern human life, where the males do most of the child rearing. Further, are you advocating that all the norms of the animal kingdom should be emulated by modern mankind, or just this one?

Human mothers have a built-in natural instinct for protecting/raising their children. Its science. Sure, there are always exceptions. But if given the choice, I'd want to be raised by the one who bore by body for 9 months, as has been done for thousands of years.

I'm all about equal rights, but raising a child is a JOB that requires commitment, acceptance, and unconditional love; something I believe only a (human) mother can give/understand.

So fathers are useless. Should we use StupidLoon's argument to attempt to advance gay marriage. I say two mothers are better than one. Let's have at it. (smirk)

Here's the thing — I don't consider it particularly useful, or tactful, for someone to declare that another person's lifestyle choices are wrong (assuming those choices have no impact on third parties, of course). That said, I never understood the "it's a good thing your parents didn't feel that way" argument tossed at childfree types, radical feminists, and the like; should all children share the values of their parents? If their parents felt that way and never gave birth, you'd more than likely simply be having the conversation with, or about, someone else.

I'm sure her husband and their three daughters [9th paragraph] will be shocked to learn this.

You actually read it?

I am stupefied!

LOL

I even read things that I don't agree with. It's rough being fair and open-minded, but I make due. It's often a good way to get facts, so I don't say things that are so easily disproved.

I suppose I'd be just as "stupefied" by the fact that seems to shock and amuse you, except for the part where I really don't care.

I was sloppy. I should've put in a couple of conditionals like 'she probably' and 'I don't doubt'

Instead I just added to the white noise which, well, is wrong.

So my edit is:

The religious in America are good parents who have lots of healthy, smiling babies who will be home schooled by stay at home moms.

Linda Hirshman probably won't breed and won't have babies.

Her ideas will die with her.

My advice to her? 'Try not to scuff up the furniture during your stay on Earth.'

(Only took one 'probably' actually.)

I'm sure her husband and their three daughters [9th paragraph] will probably be shocked to learn this.

Yes, they still exist in light of that edit.

Jason Coleman said: Yes, they still exist in light of that edit.

Bet that made your whole day.

Glad I could do a little good. :)

Umm...Jason, I guess no one has pointed out to you our resident troll.

Ugly Bastard: What makes you think that ideas and values are only passed along parent-to-child?

See, I think this shows the problem with the double standard to which Hirshman was attempting to get at, albeit poorly: what about kids that are raised by a stay-at-home dad? Where is that ruled out? Why is a working woman taking parents out of the equation? As a man, can't I give my children any guidance or is that what women were just born to do and there's not substitution?

The fact that you didn't even bother to read the article doesn't really matter, as it's entire point was to cast Hirshman in a poor light. Yes she said that, but it's taken so badly out of context it's meaningless.

Ah.