My Own Special Little Conversation with Linda Hirshman
The other day, Hirshman wrote this post, and I commented,
"Wow. So I guess, as a "choice feminist," I have left no sense of decency, according to this?
You have a lot of useful, positive things to say, that have the potential to help a great many women and society as a whole. I can`t help but wonder why you seem so determined to alienate women like me, who would otherwise embrace your message."
And Linda responded! Oooh, I haven`t felt this touched by celebrity since I got Bob Hope`s autograph at the Greater Hartford Open in 1981.
Here is what she said, in its unadulterated entirety:
I am always interested in who writes saying that they would embrace my message if only I didn't speak so loudly. "Why," the "L" commenter muses, do I seem so determined to alienate "women like [her] who would otherwise embrace" my message. I am dying to know what women are out there who would educate themselves for work, take work seriously, never marry a jerk, not have more than one child and lobby for repeal of the joint tax filing if only Linda would watch her language. I might even change my language for millions of would be followers.
Well, what is the "L" commenter like? In this case, the commenter maintains a blog, homesickhome.com, in which she describes herself. Here it is:
"We now live in San Francisco, after leaving our home in Tokyo three months ago. Hence, my title -- "Homesick Home." We are all homesick here. Or rather, most of us are -- ironically, my Japanese husband (to be known as "Hub") isn`t homesick at all. He`s zipping around in his Saab, loving his job, eating at expensive sushi bars in Sausalito while I`m eating turkey dogs with the kids. Big Son is 10, Daughter is 8, and Little Son is 3. I thought about calling them "Big Brother, Sister, and Little Brother," to describe how they relate to each other instead of to me. But "Big Brother" conjures up 1984 images, and "Sister" would get confusing, because the older two now go to Catholic school, and I`m sure I`ll be writing here about some of the nuns."
Now, I may be wrong here, but this stay at home mom with three children all born before I ever put pen to paper, being educated by the institutions of revealed religion, and a relationship to spouse, including the allocation of good and nourishing food, that fits pretty cleanly into the concept of caste, does not indeed seem to me to be someone all that ready to "embrace my message." Unless I am missing something pretty major here, I would suggest that it does not advance the discourse for "women like" her to write and tell me they're going to jump right on board if I will only what, stop ending my sentences with a preposition?
In short -- Hirshman appears to have written off "women like" me. And I think she`s making a big mistake.
Would it help if I told Hirshman that I always drink good champagne with my turkey dogs?
No, she`d probably just argue that my "relationship to spouse" which "fits pretty cleanly into the concept of caste" has driven me to drink.
If I wanted to get petty, I could also point out to her that the fact that my kids are "being educated by the institutions of revealed religion" does not mean they`re being Bible-schooled by fundies. I mean, we`re in San Francisco, for godssake -- our school has kids with two daddies, and my older son has decided he`s an athiest. (And even if I were a devout Catholic, does that mean I couldn`t ever be a "real" feminist? Are the two mutually exclusive? Are all religious women just dupes of the patriarchy? But I digress...)
Let`s examine Linda`s little checklist, item by item.
She says, I am dying to know what women are out there who would educate themselves for work, take work seriously, never marry a jerk, not have more than one child and lobby for repeal of the joint tax filing.
1) I educated myself for work. And I had the student loans to prove it.
2) I take work seriously -- I worked for many years before I took time off, and I expect to work again. I had a good job, in Hirshman`s dear "public sphere" -- and income-wise, I made much more than Hub, and was the main breadwinner for six of the last eight years. In all likelihood, when we move back to Tokyo, I will make much more than him again.
3) Marry a jerk? Isn`t that every woman`s dream? Come on, now.
4) Not have more than one child -- NOPE! She lost me there. I originally wanted two, and we decided to go for that "extra" one -- but I think I can credibly argue that three kids are as easy to juggle as one, IF you can outsource lots of the work to daycare and babysitters, as I did (and don`t regret doing) when I worked fulltime.
5) I hope joint tax filing dies an ugly death. I`m lucky -- my spouse is an alien, so when we`re in Japan, I can file my U.S. return as "Head of Household." Damn, that`s a good thing.
That`s four out of five. So, despite Hirshman`s attempt to dismiss me as another turkey dog-sucking papist victim of the patriarchy, I have to say... we agree more than we disagree.
Hirshman`s larger point, if I`m not mistaken, is how to get more women into the public sphere of influence, where they can effect change. I wholeheartedly support that idea.
However, Hirshman`s point was initially lost on me, because I was so infuriated by her attack on educated women who "opt out" to be with their children. As I`ve said before, it is very hard to see the forest for the trees when someone is attacking your ankles with an axe.
Ironically, Hirshman`s exclusive definition of feminism reminds me a lot of the Catholic church.
There are Catholics who think the church would be better off with only "ideologically pure" believers, and the rest of us can -- literally -- go to hell. Who cares if the only people who show up for mass every week are a few widows, a handful of nuns, and Opus Dei members? Those gay-loving, contracepting, baby-killing feminists don`t belong in our church! They`re hurting themselves and society -- who needs `em! So let`s bad-mouth them and their heretical values, and drive them all away!
But I would argue that`s the wrong approach for any movement striving for societal change, which is impossible without the force of will of lots and lots of people. Shouldn`t such movements try hard to win the hearts and minds of their followers, instead of alienating those whose views aren`t a perfect fit? Some of us just aren`t willing to give up our contraception... or our turkey dogs.
Unless I am missing something pretty major here, I would suggest that it does not advance the discourse for "women like" her to write and tell me they're going to jump right on board if I will only what, stop ending my sentences with a preposition?
If I may directly address Hirshman -- yes, you are missing something "pretty major here."
I`m already "on board." And I`m not going to let anyone shove me off.
posted by L. at 11:04 PM
22 Comments:
Wow. Great post!
Sorry I'm too sleep-deprived to go farther (not to mention I need to start the Great Getting-Ready-for-School Rush) -- we have a new baby in the household!
She's a 6 wk old Chihuahua puppy.
Commit me now, please.
For the Record- Linda Hirshman haas THREE children too. Man she bugs me! Keep up the great writing.
Love:
A SAHM with a degree AND a desire to effect change
Don't you just love people who think they know all about you from reading a couple of paragraphs?
She's not kicking me over the side either. I was on the front lines before she ever heard the word feminist.
Although she wouldn't pay any attention to me unless she has a category for poor white trash. All she'd have to do is read about a granny raising kids just above the poverty level. Where else would I fit.
Yeah, she's missing something very big. God, it just infuriates me when people assume that one piece of a blog represents the whole entirety of a person. She read your "about" and wrote you off--*poof*! It seems like she's writing every woman who has more than one child off. Every woman who decides to send her kids to any school that even remotely whiffs of religion. I'd be "okay" in her book because I've got a degree and only one kid, but, oops, kiddo is in a Baptist preschool. Poof, out I go. She's elitist and obnoxious in everything I've read of hers, and has some misguided idea that lambasting people with her outrage is the way to inspire them to follow her. Bleah. It's sort of like going to war to "impose democracy".
It's funny because I agree with her central thesis, that we need more women in positions of power. And I think it's a good idea for women to prepare for real careers. I can say from my own experience that I wish I'd chosen a higher-paying career.
But, like you said, she seems determined to alienate as many women as possible. And in the end, this divisiveness gets us further away from the goal of improving women's position in society, because we need allies in both camps.
Mmmmmmmm turkey dogs. She doesn't know what she's missing.
(sigh) I'm with you on not alienating your base. A lot of what she writes does make sense, but she hasn't yet unlearned the tricks of the patriarchy--she divides women into subgroups, then scolds and shames them for not being "real feminists". I don't think she understands that getting women to argue amongst themselves will only set her cause back by a couple more decades.
I'm tired of feminism as a form of identity politics, where people are divided into "real feminists" and "not feminists". I support the feminism movement, I have traits and political beliefs that are feminist, but not every single life decision I make will be in service to that cause. I will have to put down the sword every once in a while, and that's okay, as long as I am continuing to support the women who continue to fight. I'd love to get a little support back from them, in my moments of rest. But maybe from Ms. Hirschman that's too much to ask.
This whole thing is fascinating. I admit that as a working-mom, I resent to whole "choice" argument for staying at home with kids - I need my goddamned paycheck, gals. Altho, in fairness, I think I would work even if I didn't have to in order to live in this ridiculously expensive City (yes, living in SF is a choice), that's just who I am. The concept of vanishing women role models in business and politics seems fairly real, as well. I have no interest in an all dude Supreme Court (isn't that one of her arguments??). There's a great take on this whole thing (very similar to yours) in the Fall edition of Brain, Child magazine (http://www.brainchildmag.com/).
I can't add much to what you wrote, since you're pretty much writing my take on this as well. One of my main beefs with her is that her "feminists" are very, very homogenous. They're always well educated (because, God knows, uneducated women haven't got the intellectual wherewithall to ever be "real" feminists), invariably middle class, apparently heterosexual, and every single person in their universe is in perfect health and absolutely in no need of assistance or care.
For my part, I'd rather work towards a feminism for *all* women - the ones who can afford to have other women watch their children while they're moving and shaking; the ones who can't really afford it but have to figure out a way to reproduce AND work at the same time; the ones who look after the kids for everyone else; the ones who are at home with their own kids eating turkey dogs; the ones whose husbands do nothing so well as washing dishes, cooking, and otherwise assuming the mantle of domestic manager; the ones who - for whatever reason (yes, "find a jerk and marry him" was big on my list of to-do's) - wouldn't know a dishwasher from a washing machine - everyone.
Like you and the other commenters, I'm all for more women in positions of power and authority. But I'll be damned if I trade out one patriarchal caste system - in which women are on the bottom rung - for another in which *some* women remain on the bottom rung because we're not feminist in the officially sanctioned way. Totalitarians of any ilk scare the crap out of me; my world is shades of gray and I'll keep on living here, begging Linda Hirshman's pardon.
Hirshman's rigidity reminds me of a professor I had in law school who was a rabid feminist and couldn't see that there were different ways to the top of the mountain. I was the only woman in a negotiations class. The class was divided into two teams. She got her knickers in a knot because the guys in the class would say at the beginning of the class "Gentlemen, come to order." In her universe, I was a bad woman with no sense of self because I wasn't incensed that they didn't refer to me. I told her that as long as I was listened to and had a voice, I didn't care what they said in the beginning---I'd work on the semantics later. But she couldn't listen to me because I didn't see things the same way as she did.
The next week in class the guys on the other team ignored me when I tried to say something and talked over me. The chair wouldn't even call on me. My team dealt with the problem by raising their hands and then, when called on by opposition, defering to me. Mind you, we were more than half way through the class by now. But from her perspective the class was fine because instead of saying "Gentlemen, come to order" they were all saying "Gentlemen and Lady come to order."
I find Hirshman offensive. And as you aptly note, the voice she uses and the things she says is a fine way of alienating people who should be on the same side.
Damn stop being so interesting!! I owe you like 4 comments and a meme now???
And, I've got a baby to burp, a toddler to get into pre-school, two real estate deals to complete and first installment of my current course writing contact due Oct 1
Just another day as a SAHM waste of space!
(so glad LH got a blog that additional blueblood media bit was almost making her completely unnotable to me)
-- the square brackets are my favorite part, by the waY
If Hirshman learns to "NEVER ASSUME," she'd be much better off, and I, and many other women I know out there, don't have to be irrirated by her so much.
Writing about someone YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW always comes with certain risk, so when we write, we'd better do our homework. Hirshman obviously didn't do that in her post about you.
How can an educated person like Hirshman dismiss her POTENTIAL allies/partners when she has so little information about them?
I wonder if taking a deep breath and doing some yoga would do her the world of good. But then, yoga might be too religious, too spilitual for her liking! Perhaps she can try some Pilates before she writes next time.
I am so freaking impressed with you. This post rocks and I'm glad you tried to take her to task. She would have issues with me and I work full-time. I am an edumucated woman with kids, yes plural, and I intend to have more. But she would find me offensive, because I don't work to my full potential. I have chosen not to, so I can spend time with my kids. I can work till I die, but my kids will only be small once.
I kinda want to hit her upside the head for what she said about you. But she'd probably like it, just more publicity. But L, really, good for you.
Oh, for Pete's sake. Your analogy comparing Hirschman's statements to those who want only the "pure" to be members of the Catholic church is PERFECT...does she want to spread the message and influence the lives of more women, or take the moral imperative and tell those of us who aren't toeing the line she has pissed in the sand to go back to the kitchen and shut the fuck up? I got an advanced degree, married a jerk, stayed home with my three, count 'em, THREE children for five years, and I don't regret it one bit. Does that mean I can't be a feminist? Heck, no. Am I the best example in the world of what a feminist ought to do with herself? HELL no. But I don't claim to be the perfect Platonic form of Feminism. To embrace an ideal does not require that one embody it in one's every choice and action, and it's a good thing, too, or nobody would bother to believe in anything (except for hypocrites like Ms. Hirschman and fanatics whose one-dimensional lives are probably a manifestation of some sort of mental illness). I think she's attacking you so pettily and repeatedly because she's jealous of your ability to live with your choices and not by some unattainable goal of feminist perfection. It's like anorexia of the spirit--she's starving for that kind of comfort with her own early choices and telling herself that it's a beautiful thing, but it's really all about insecurity and control, and it isn't very attractive. Maybe you should send her a bottle of good champagne and a pack of turkey dogs? He he he.
to be honest, I don't consider Hirshman's misogyny to be any different from the misogyny of those who want all women to stay home chained to the stove.
Great response. I can't believe she'd be foolish enough to make such sweeping assumptions from one blog post - I'd expect much, much more from someone so highly educated and "taking her career so seriously."
There are untold numbers of feminists that will never back Hirschman because of her tone and assumptions just like the ones she made about you.
That Hirshman woman was probably one of theose *mean girls* in high school. Why is it groups of females always turn into packs and attack one another? No wonder they are called bitches. Do what I do. Just ignore them. Do your own thing.
ha purest and fanticals of any kind want anyone that has figure out how to make what they believe work in thier life out. I was the main bread winner before I became disabled we had no kids... I never went to college cuz I suck at school but I edumecated myself thru books and classes that gave me cerificats... I was in a freaking top 10 of the the fortuntne 500 company and I clawed my way there proudly.... but now I can't work so what....now I am a powerless hick that needs a red pickup truck and a dog named dog? as long as I get dinner on the table ..... crap ...... The idea of it all is to give us choices and to have a good life..... if having a good life means have 3 kids instead of one ..... and you know self edmucation is freaking hard as nails ... you got to prove yourself every step of the way ...... alone... darn it ...... grumble grumble grumble gonna go see her site now ....
Nice post, L :) Have to agree with you on all points.
I'll never tire of hearing smart women like you challenge La Hirshman.
Your analogy to the Catholic Church? Agree entirely - it makes the point so clear. (And, would make her crazy, which makes it all the better, to my mind.)
You got her attention. You obviously hit a nerve.
You go, girl. I mean, you go, caste-member.
I think I love you. For real.
She doesn't deserve such a thoughtful response from you. Her comment was...what's that word? Oh right, bitchy. Besides, you can't discuss stuff with women with no sense of humor, and I think she fits the bill. Or does she really think your husband has all the fun while you eat all the turkey dogs?
I think our best response is to let her go away, silently, into shameful nothingness. She no more speaks for me--an educated working mother with one child--than she does for you.
Post a Comment
<< Home