I see your point.
Posted on 06/18/2006 11:03:54 AM PDT by Heatseeker
When I set out to write a book about how the first generation of women to grow up with feminism managed their marriages, I never dreamed I'd wind up the subject of a Web article called "Everybody Hates Linda."
Everybody started hating Linda, apparently, when I published an article in the progressive magazine the American Prospect last December, saying that women who quit their jobs to stay home with their children were making a mistake. Worse, I said that the tasks of housekeeping and child rearing were not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings. They do not require a great intellect, they are not honored and they do not involve risks and the rewards that risk brings. Oh, and by the way, where were the dads when all this household labor was being distributed? Maybe the thickest glass ceiling, I wrote, is at home.
Okay, I'm judgmental. That's what CBS's Lesley Stahl called me on "60 Minutes." But I'm a philosopher, and it's a philosopher's job to tell people how they should lead their lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
My parents always told me that when something bad happens, I had just as well be philosophical about it. I probably couldn't do anything about it anyway.
When you look at her picture, you understand why she couldn't get a date, and why she became philosophical.
Her parents probably told her the same thing, and it was true.
My children can do their own laundry, wash dishes and cook, but its my job to do it, and my job to train them to be able to do this when they grow up.
For kids, those are chores, for grownups, it is called life.
Evil, just evil. How does such a useless, and I mean absolutely useless, waste of human skin get up in the morning?
I see your point.
Blithering idiot is right. Clueless doesn't even begin to describe it.
I doubt she has any kids of her own. And if she does, I have doubts about whether they will come to visit her in the nursing home.
Interesting.
I though that was a mother-in-law...
It starts early in some families. My best friend before high school had these pushy, "Boston"-type parents.
I got so sick of her telling me that I had no ambition, because I wanted most of all to have a family, that I dumped her. She never really understood why, even though I tried to explain to her.
She is now a twice-divorced, childless, 40 year old museum curator. I am raising 4 children under the age of ten with my wonderful (and ONLY) husband. I am frustrated and exhausted much of the time and certainly not rich. I will take my life over hers anytime. : )
I thought that was a gag photo you posted! OMG! What a shrew!
You think that being exhausted, overworked, and stressed-out, unable to find enough time to write or engage in other creative pursuits, is commendable? There's nothing inherently virtuous about being overworked, any more than there is anything virtuous in being poor or being rich, being sick or being healthy. There is more to life than work, but those who are working themselves to death don't have time to experience those other things.
She's a retired hackademic from a second-tier Boston area school, who's pushing a book. That sums up all the motivations, I think.
Hirshman is an elitist nutjob loon. She thinks she knows how you should live your life better than you do!
******
Ms. Hirshman is concerned that the number of working mothers has dropped. She is concerned that feminism may be stalling, due in large part to women--especially elite women, specifically those who graduate from hoity-toity colleges--choosing to stay at home to raise their children. She says, "Among the affluent-educated-married population, women are letting their careers slide to tend the home fires."
http://tinyurl.com/qjb9w
Ms. Hirshman believes that the choice to stay home is really not a reasonable choice at all . . . she suggests that, "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."
In her words, "Women who want to have sex and children with men as well as good work in interesting jobs where they may occasionally wield real social power need guidance, and they need it early. Step one is simply to begin talking about flourishing. In so doing, feminism will be returning to its early, judgmental roots. This may anger some, but it should sound the alarm before the next generation winds up in the same situation. Next, feminists will have to start offering young women not choices and not utopian dreams but solutions they can enact on their own. Prying women out of their traditional roles is not going to be easy. It will require rules -- rules like those in the widely derided book The Rules, which was never about dating but about behavior modification."
Whoaaaa....what a beauty. /sarcasm
ROFLOL!
Well, that explains a lot!
She is no Andrea Dworkin. If she got some new glasses and washed her hair, I'm sure she could find a willing sperm donor.
08/28/00
By Linda R. Hirshman
From the "wilding" attacks in Central Park to systematic rape as a war crime in the Balkans, women are vulnerable to violence. Even more than reproductive choice, this writer argues, women must demand a safe enough world.
A picture is worth a thousand words... shrew is one of those!
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.