Posted on 04/06/2007 2:22:32 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
NEW YORK — "Something is very wrong with the way American women are trying to live their lives," the late Betty Friedan wrote in "The Feminine Mystique," her groundbreaking 1963 book attacking the idea that a husband and children were all a woman needed for fulfillment.
That book effectively launched the modern women's movement. But more than four decades later, writer Leslie Bennetts is trying to sound a very similar message. In "The Feminine Mistake" — the title's no accident — she argues that many young mothers have forgotten Friedan's message, embracing a 21st-century version of the 1950s stay-at-home ideal that could imperil their economic future as well as their happiness.
Needless to say, the book isn't going down smoothly with everyone — especially mothers who've chosen to stay home with their children.
"She's stereotyping stay-at-home moms," says an annoyed Debbie Newcomer, mother of a 14-month-old baby in Richmond, Texas. "This is my personal decision. I'm a better mom by staying at home."
Bennetts says she never intended to issue the latest salvo in the "Mommy Wars" — that long-running, angst- and guilt-ridden debate over whether mothers should stay home with their children. And she says she's surprised by the reaction.
"The stay-at-home moms are burning up the blogosphere denouncing me," she mused over coffee this week. "They're saying I must be divorced, childless, bitter, lonely and angry to be writing this." (Bennetts, a writer for Vanity Fair magazine, has two children with her husband, a fellow journalist.) "Clearly, I've struck a nerve."
Bennetts says she merely wanted to present factual evidence that there are great risks involved when a woman gives up economic self-sufficiency — risks she may not be thinking of during those early years of blissful, exhausting parenting.
Divorce. A husband losing his job. A husband dying. All of those, Bennetts warns, could be catastrophic for a woman and her children. And if the woman decides she'll get back to her career later, once the kids are ready? Stop dreaming, Bennetts says — a woman takes a huge salary hit after a relatively short time of being absent from the work force — that is, if she can get back in at all.
The author's arguments ring true to Anita Jevne, a mother in Eau Claire, Wis. A medical technologist who's worked for the past 28 years, Jevne says she's tried to stress to her daughters, now 16 and 19, that they need to be financially independent: "You can't assume a man is going to take care of you."
When Jevne's husband was hurt four years ago at the salvage yard where he'd worked since he was 16, the family had to depend on Anita's income while he recovered and worked toward getting a new job. "If I hadn't gone to school and gotten a degree, if I had stayed home, we would have been in big trouble," she says.
Beyond the financial necessity, Jevne always enjoyed having a world outside the home to be part of. "You're part of a community," she says. "You're giving something." That's the second message Bennetts says she's trying to impart — that there's a crucial sense of self-worth to be gained outside the home.
Some women find her views condescending, saying they deny the value of childcare in the home and assume that stay-at-home mothers haven't put enough thought into their decisions.
"I objected to her saying we haven't thought it out," says Newcomer, the Texas mother who saw Bennetts interviewed on NBC's "Today" this week, but hasn't read the book.
A college graduate and a former financial analyst for a casino, she said she's certainly considered the consequences of staying home with her daughter, and has made contingency financial plans. "And I completely understand that when I go back, it's going to be a lot harder to get a job," she says. "I know I'll have to start from the ground up."
Newcomer doesn't buy Bennetts' contention that because children are young for so short a time, it's foolish to give up an entire career in exchange for, at most, 15 years at home.
"I look at it the other way," says Newcomer. "They're only young once. So, how much time can I spend with them and make them better for society?"
When Cara Boswell watched the "Today" interview along with her husband, they discussed it for a long time afterwards. "I found it kind of insulting," she said.
Boswell, 30, of Lakeland, Fla., was in college when she became pregnant with the first of her four children. "I feel they need me now," she says. But she's optimistic she'll have options in the work force down the road. "I don't feel panicked," she says. "I really feel the author was too bleak."
One point Bennetts illustrates in her book is how money plays a role in the "opt-out" phenomenon (women choosing to leave the work force): some affluent, highly educated women are doing it because, essentially, they can — it's a sign of wealth.
But Bennetts has also been criticized for speaking only about this small percentage of affluent women.
"The author and the writers who cover the book brand at-home moms as a bunch of Pilates-class taking, regular pedicure planning women with nothing else to do but pick out window treatments," wrote Jen Singer on her blog for stay-at-home moms, MommaSaid.
Bennetts says her book is about all women — those who work at McDonald's as well as those with Harvard law degrees. "The benefits of work were really clear at all levels," she says.
She's disappointed by how difficult it is to write anything these days about women's lives. "Women are so defensive about their choices that many seem to have closed their minds entirely," she says.
But Singer, of the MommaSaid blog, acknowledged the book has a point. "Too many at-home moms don't have financial backup," she wrote. "A friend of mine cashed in everything that was in her name to put into a home renovation. So if hubby leaves her, she's got no liquid funds in her name to fall back on."
Yet she added: "Why is there a 'wrong' and a 'right' way to mother in the U.S.? I will pick up the book and read it ... but I'll probably curse a lot."
The argument sounds like:
“Because society is so screwed up it can’t reliably support mothers with children, you should abandon your babies to make sure that the next generation is screwed up, too.”
Ping.
Fear mongering. Risks giving up economic self-sufficiency? What is that?
Just an anecdote: I walked away from a “career path” to go home and raise my babies when they were 2 & 3 years old. I stayed there until they were in college.
For the last 6 years, I have had a corporate job making GREAT money.
I don’t regret one minute that I was at home. I regret that I missed so much of those early, early years.
So advise the women to buy insurance. But since children must be raised by someone, she is really saying that women should only care for children if they are paid for it. Pity her children. Love is a far better motive than money.
Freidan's rambling was consistent with the drumming of the Liberal mantra into childrens' heads in the NEA-controlled indoctrination centers, called public schools.
The destruction of the nuclear family, and subsequent prolifieration of latch-key kids and lack of family-instilled values have evolved to where the "it takes a village" mentality has pushed the country to the brink of lawlessness and victim-hood as the excuse....
Lol, feminists are so frustrated that they can’t MAKE women hate raising their children.
Most mothers think that there is more to life than chasing a buck. Obviously, the author isn't one of those. Counting your money as you grow older is not much to look forward to.
Excellent post - well said.
Hey Betty: I thought your ilk was all for CHOICE?
Can’t a woman decide where she wants to place her own body - like at home?
You big hypocrite.
On the other hand, she can walk away from her husband at anytime, claim some B.S. like abuse and get everything he owns.
I hate feminists more than going to the dentist.
Not one person in the entire history of the human race has found themselves on their deathbed, poring over the totality of their victories, defeats, prides and regrets in this life, struggling to get out the last summation of their life’s meaning, said anything even remotely like, “I wish I’d spent more time at work.”
...our race has thought it worth while to cast this burden [of raising children] on women in order to keep common-sense in the world. But when people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean. When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge at the Cathedral of Amiens or drudge behind a gun at Trafalgar. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean.
To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets cakes. and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness.
-- G.K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World
Thank you, I wish I could take credit for it but it was actually in an interview of one of the original "militant feminists" that I read a while ago (I can't remember who it was). Basically she was saying how frustrated she was that all of the women who started the movement had gradually decided they wanted to have and raise babies. She was angry that they couldn't rise above their natural desires.
Let me guess, this discongnitive over-educated fool gets to write most of her articles from HOME! Along with hubby, I bet. Too many people are paid too well for producing nothing of value.
She’s just jealous.
I understand that's a classic line that is often quoted, but I think it's poppy-cock. I think a person who looks back on life of squandered gifts, missed opportunities, and lost accomplishments all due to laziness will probably regret that they did not use their God-given gifts more and better or in the modern parlance: "spent more time at the office."
Of course work is not the be-all and end-all of existence, but life without work is a life of frivolity, vanities, and is, ultimately, meaningless.
To the author: They DO work, moron. You try being on duty 24/7...
“She’s disappointed by how difficult it is to write anything these days about women’s lives. “Women are so defensive about their choices that many seem to have closed their minds entirely,” she says”
Sounds like she is defensive and suffers from if you don’t agree with me, you have a closed mine.
People are allowed choices in their life. Everyone is so quck to tell another person that they made the wrong choice and should feel ashamed, but don’t critize the choice I made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.