Posted on 02/05/2006 5:56:25 AM PST by Notwithstanding
Even if one suspected that the feminists were not being entirely candid in this obeisance to traditional moms, it was hard to come up with the proof, specific statements of disdain from them for women’s traditional roles in the family.
Not anymore. In a recent New York Times column, David Brooks reported on Linda Hirshman, a retired Brandeis professor who has decided the time is right to push the feminist case to the next plateau, to, as she says, “radicalize feminism.”
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicexchange.com ...
...And one other thing: “Have a baby. Just don’t have two.” Having two children, she argues, is the tipping point that will make it near to impossible to pursue a truly meaningful career. She warns that if talented women continue to make the bad choice of staying home and raising children, it will leave men forever in charge of the things that matter in life at the highest levels of society.
...But one thing is certain: Raising children well — doing it right, focusing one’s life on a child’s physical, emotional and spiritual development in the way that only a full-time mother can — is a responsibility at least as demanding and worthwhile as what trial lawyers and brain surgeons and US senators do for a living. And most women in the work force do not have experiences on the job comparable to those of successful trial lawyers and brain surgeons. For every professional woman we see lionized in the press or on television for her latest accomplishments, there are millions of women with advanced degrees coming home tired on the commuter train wondering how they will be able to finish all their household duties and spend some time with their children.
Many professional women are now questioning the choice they made when they decided to devote themselves to their careers. So are their children. David Brooks quotes from an essay by Mary Eberstadt published in a recent edition of Policy Review: “If yesterday’s music was the music of abandon, today’s is the music of abandonment.” Brooks notes that of late “an astonishing number of hits, from artists ranging from Pearl Jam to Everclear to Snoop Dog are about kids who feel neglected by their parents.” ...
The feminist movement is not only responsible for the decline of the family, but is also responsible for the decline of our education system. There was once a time when the most qualified women went into teaching. Now they become lawyers or businessmen.
please ping
please ping
A woman may have to work, or want to work, for a variety of good reasons. Hirshman’s warning about stay-at-home moms stifling themselves and our societal development is not one of them. John Paul II’s version of feminism has much more to offer:
In transforming the culture so that it supports life, women occupy a place, in thought and action, which is unique and decisive. It depends on them to promote a "new feminism" which rejects the temptation of imitating models of "male domination", in order to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation. (Evangelium Vitae, par. 99)
I just caught Kelly Clarkson's new song "Because of You" talking about how her father's abandonment destroyed her ability to fully trust a man.
I thought the whole point of feminism was to give women a choice of home, work, or some combination of the two. Of course the radicals had to go and ruin that.
My mother had two babies, and went back to her career after each of us were born (she was a nurse and worked midnights so that our daycare needs would be less than if she worked days). Not only does he have a career that she finds extremely fulfilling, she somehow found a way to make it to our sporting events and band concerts.
Working mothers aren't inherently bad. That's one of the things I simply can't agree with some other conservatives on. I'll probably need to continue working at least part time when we have kids...my husband works hard but just doesn't have my earning potential, and it wouldn't be societally accepable for him to stay home. So there isn't much choice. Our kids won't be in a daycare center, they'll be at home with Grandma. :-)
But this radical Feminazi BS about ONE baby somehow being less-limiting careerwise than TWO is just insane! How do these people get these ideas?
1. “Have a baby. Just don’t have two.”
How does a society that refuses to breed its own replacemnents prevent its own demise? This is the Shaker/demographics argument.
With more and more immigrants who produce more and more babies the current culture that produced today's non-breeding feminists is in danger of collapse within a few generations.
2. ...women who stay home and dedicate themselves to children and family concerns are shortchanging themselves and society.
Not all women have college degrees, and not all women want careers. What do feminists say to women working at survival jobs? How does a feminist tell a woman with a minimum wage job that she shouldn't leave the workforce to raise her children if she gets the opportunity? There are many such women.
Feminism has painted a profile of their ideal working woman as a caricature for all women, and like all leftist profiles it defies reality.
As they usually do, the leftists project their own circumstances onto everyone else.
The fact that feminism provides no benfit to most women matters not to them.
To them, all women have (or could have) advanced degrees and start out with near six-figure jobs.
They don't give a rats ass about the TYPICAL woman. "If only every woman was free to escape the drudgery of raising her brats through a fulfilling job working in the food service industry or on an assembly line where colleagues belch and cuss out loud just for fun." is what the actual message they are trying to sell, not realizing it because they just don't get it.
Its NOT all about them. Which is why conservatism is in the ascendancy.
Excellent post. I used to consider myself a feminist when it meant opening up more jobs to women and paying them equally for the same work. When I was little, the "Help Wanted" section of the newspaper was divided into male/female and the only jobs available to women were teacher/nurse/secretary. Scientist/engineer/doctor/lawyer were all in the male section.
When I realized that feminism had morphed into being all about abortion and lesbianism, and condemned women who chose to stay home and raise kids, I no longer considered myself a feminist.
I've worked full time (soldier, scientist, skydiver, engineer) and I've been a mom full time. They are both wonderfully fulfilling. They both can be incredibly frustrating.
We should make decisons based on what we and our families want and need, not based on what the feminists deem is politically correct at any given time.
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
"Feminists vs. The Family"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FreepMail either MillerCreek or wagglebee.
“Have a baby. Just don’t have two.” Having two children, she argues, is the tipping point that will make it near to impossible to pursue a truly meaningful career."
No, Linda my dear. You're wrong. Having two or more children is what teaches us moms, how we should truly share. Which in turn, we teach to our children. So..Take that one to the bank, Linda baby...
1. “Have a baby. Just don’t have two.”
How does a society that refuses to breed its own replacemnents prevent its own demise? This is the Shaker/demographics argument.
Even two isn't enough. We need more families with three children.
When I visit my grandmother's grave her tombstone is inscribed with the words "Loving Mother Of " and then lists the names of the eight children she left behind.
What will be on the tombstone of non-childbearing feminists?
Loving Lawyer? Loving Real Estate Agent? Loving Publisher?
Did God say "Go forth And Be Fruitful", or did he say "Go Forth And Sell Insurance"?
The iron rule of demographics - the groups and societies that have fewer children than two per mother must die out.
"but it allows fewer opportunities for full human flourishing than public spheres like the market or the government.”
She must not have any children. "Flourishing" is exactly what happens in a loving family.
Women didn't just stay home and watch the kids. They kept their neighborhoods and communities together. When women work outside the home, it isn't only the home that suffers. You lose resources, volunteerism, and neighborliness.
This couldn't be more Marxist if it came directly from the pages of the Manifesto. In fact, let's hear what Marx has to say about the role of women in the glorious new Utopia:
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production.
It is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
So there you have it. All women are prostitutes of one form or another unless they serve the Collective.
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.