Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Women's Work: Still Not Done

By Claire Cain Miller, AlterNet. Posted August 16, 2006.


Why are women still struggling over the career-family quandry four decades after the second wave of feminism brought it up?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Claire Cain Miller

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Pick up a newspaper or magazine and the story seems unavoidable. From Ivy League lawyers and executives to Hollywood stars, professional women are dropping out of the work force to raise kids.

A New York Times headline put the story in a nutshell: "Stretched to the Limit, Women Stall the March to Work." Harper's Bazaar reports that up-and-coming fashion designers are leaving their blossoming careers to raise children. Even celebrity tabloids scream the message down every grocery aisle, claiming that Tom Cruise wants Katie Holmes to stop acting to care for their new baby.

The details differ, but the story boils down to the same thing: Women find it almost impossible to have successful careers and successful families; so, if they can afford to, they choose one or the other. But that's just the first paragraph, not the whole story.

Ask a different question of this phenomenon and quite a different tale would be told. Why are we still struggling over this conundrum four decades after the second wave of feminism brought it up? When will we figure out how to make work actually work?

The friction between women's roles as professionals and mothers has been intense since they entered the work force in huge numbers in the 1960s. Ever since, some critics have insisted that women can't be "managers" in the home and in the office at the same time. The women's movement failed us, they say, by promising we could do it all when we actually can't, and mothers who give up their careers only prove that feminism was a wash. As Gloria Steinem once said, they've declared feminism dead every Wednesday at teatime since 1969.

Lately, however, the discussion has taken on a new tone. Women no longer seem angry or argumentative on this subject, only resigned. Quietest are those with the most at stake -- young women just starting their careers and planning their families.

If we are to believe the media, it's as if over these last four decades the women's movement has been on trial and recently the verdict came in -- women tried to have it all and were found guilty of failing. Now, it seems, they're simply accepting their sentence.

But it's possible to think of this another way. Perhaps the judge handed down his decision before hearing all the evidence. After all, the original feminists never intended women to "do it all" -- at least, not by themselves. They expected the workplace, government and men to step up and do some significant changing, too. That largely hasn't happened. Until all those parties weigh in, until some structural changes in the workplace are made to accommodate women's desires to have careers and children, how can we conclude the effort has failed?

The second-wave feminists of the 1960s opened the doors for us. We now have equal access to universities, the right (however embattled) to control when and whether we have babies and laws that protect us against overt discrimination in the workplace.

But America is only half-changed. The office still favors employees who put in uninterrupted 10-hour days, which automatically excludes primary childcare-givers. It's almost impossible in many offices to get promoted if you can't make evening meetings, leave mid-day to pick up your kid from school or take off a year after giving birth.

Of course, the number of women who can afford to stay home is tiny. Studies have shown that most women still work. But the barrage of stories about those who are "opting out" catches something of the zeitgeist. If the first generation of women to come of age after the feminist revolution is already giving up, that's a frightening but not completely surprising development.

After all, we've largely been left to struggle with the work-family issue on an individual level. Our mothers told us we would be the first generation of women who could do anything we set out to do; when we can't, we assume it's a personal failing. All the recent media pieces affirm just that, framing the opt-out story as an issue between a woman and her boss, a woman and her husband, or a woman and her child.

Aren't we forgetting an important lesson from the last generation of feminists? Naming a problem can be the first step toward solving it. Acknowledging and naming the feminine mystique, domestic violence and sexual harassment turned them from problems-that-had-no-name to injustices that could no longer be ignored.

Women got started by gathering in rooms, letting their individual problems pour out and discovering that all the other women in the room shared them, too. Maybe we need to leave both the office and the baby's bedroom for a while, gather together, let it all pour out, and come up with a few names of our own.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Claire Miller is a journalist in Berkeley, Calif.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Parenthood is a Sacrifice
Posted by: kit79 on Aug 16, 2006 2:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It takes a big chunk out of your life. I could see how an employer would be prejudiced against a young woman, thinking that she may just quit to have a baby. The workplace as we know it was mostly designed for men with a wife at home to care for the kids, but we need financially emancipated women because that's a big major part of gender equality, and who wants to be anyone's little wife when you've got interests of your own?

It makes sense for one partner to stay home for a little while, because daycare is so expensive, and many moms opt to do it because a lot of moms seem to feel that no one can care for baby like they can. I guess that happens when it comes out of your body. That's not to say that men aren't helping out.

But domestic things still fall on the shoulders of the women, so I know working moms who just feel like they have two jobs. Take care of the kids/husband/home and do their paid job. The attitude is that the husband just doesn't clean up right. Well how about getting a grown up man who picks up after himself and will help out with 50% of the housework and 50% of the childcare? I'm not saying there aren't men who don't or won't - of course there are. I'm just saying that many women will settle for a husband suddenly becomes another child to be taken care when it comes time to do housework and who becomes a burden instead of helpmate. Women must be expected to bring in their share of the income, and men must be expected to do their share of housework and childcare duties.

Maybe we need more work-at-home jobs and more self-employment? And more daycare at work? With so many single parents, mele and female, that would be helpful. But having a baby is a sacrifice and it hurts you career-wise, so men I think will always do better economically. It's inconvenient biology.

Maybe in a fluffy perfect world working mothers should retire like 5 years later and should receive something like social security benefits while they're staying at home. I notice it's becoming more common for the dads to stay at home with the kids while they're going to school.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Parenthood is a Sacrifice Posted by: redjenny
» It's the f***ing South, OK? Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: Parenthood is a Blessing! Posted by: Loopylafae
Whose Fault?
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Aug 16, 2006 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find that many of these articles are written by women from venues such as Berkeley that are often somewhat detached from daily life of the general population, have academic knowledge but a paucity of real life experience and perspectives that view men as obstinate untermensch.

They expected the workplace, government and men to step up and do some significant changing, too. That largely hasn't happened.

They can be translated as Mommy, the workplace as a something that owes me, the government that pesky patriarchy and men (untermensch). That largely hasn't happened means everyone else is to blame for things not going my way.

Our mothers told us we would be the first generation of women who could do anything we set out to do; when we can't, we assume it's a personal failing.

Again Mommy told me it was now all mine and we are now obligated to become superwoman. And along with that message was the unspoken implication that if I failed it was my fault. The idea that Mommy may have been living her expectations through her little girl without the mature realization of reality, boundaries or limitations that all other human beings face in life seems not to enter into the discussion. Why?

Just a suggestion that maybe all these Mommies gave these daughters goals, expectations and explanations that were based more on their own needs rather than what were realistic and best for their children. Promising any child that they "could do anything you set out to do" and that they should demand that the "workplace, government and men step up and do some significant changing" seems a doomed to failure proposition. It may be time for all these daughters to look Mommy in the eye and tell her their feelings, anxities and sense of loss. In other words Mommy is just another human being. See her strengths and weaknesses and you will see your own.

As for my view I have always felt the most important responsibility in life is to raise a health human being. Workplace, government and career are secondary. Yes I believe that men as fathers are equally responsible for children but not as I often read or hear from a feminist perspective which, as this article supports, is usually never the right (their) way.

Maturity is a difficult process but one constructive attitude I have learned is when events, situations or people are not conforming to my expectations I look at myself and ask what am I doing wrong. Looking outward and finding who or what is at fault just keeps me from growing and displaces me from being a part of life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Whose Fault? Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Whose Fault? Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault? Posted by: geming
» RE: Whose Fault? Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault? Posted by: elderwoman.org
» RE: Whose Fault? Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault? Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Whose Fault? Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault? Posted by: badkitty
» RE: Whose Fault? Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Whose Fault? Posted by: Annarisse
first wave feminists brought it up, too
Posted by: erb77 on Aug 16, 2006 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate goes back further than second wave feminism. Women in the U.S. and Great Britain during the (so-called) first wave addressed these issues as well. See, for example, Maternity: Letters from Working Women, a collection of letters written by British working-class women between 1913 and 1914, or the anonymously-authored article "Mother-Worship," published in The Nation in March 1927. You can even find examples of late 19th Century women addressing the topic--see Huldah Stone's "An Operative," published in The Voice of Industry (1846/47) (reprinted in Thomas Dublin's Women at Work: The Transformation of Work and Community in Lowell, Massachusetts, 1826-1860). This is only to say that the debate has gone on for much longer than the past four decades.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women could do it all, if...
Posted by: boygranddakar on Aug 16, 2006 5:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
part-time work (20 to 30 hours/week) came with child care and health insurance. Other countries have it, why can't we?

Women don't want to choose between work and family, necessarily. Doesn't a significant chunk of the population - women and men - want both? A fulfilling career and a life with partner and children?

This isn't simply an issue for feminism, although women certainly bear the brunt of this problem. Few people actually want to work 60/70/80-hour weeks. Yet there's no labor movement to put the brakes on companies trying to squeeze more hours out of fewer people. We need universal health care, a guaranteed annual vacation of at least two weeks (not including sick days!), affordable and accessible childcare, and a more humane working environment... for the good of everyone: men and women, parents and children, and the nation as a whole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women could do it all, if... Posted by: Logic's Edge
Stay at home dad, here.
Posted by: Poe on Aug 16, 2006 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stay at home graphic designer and father of a six year old girl.

I cook....I clean.....take care of the garden and all of the household chores.....and household maintenance......and I panic at 4pm when I have no idea what to do for dinner.

Today, my wife will come home to grilled garlic lemon chicken, snap peas and baby red potatoes. She'll finish a glass of wine while I do the dishes and while she plays, reads and puts our daughter to bed....I, no doubt, will be working on revisions for a brochure until 2am.

Pretty strange day, huh....for a guy that votes mostly Republican.

I have all the respect in the world for stay at home moms......but believe me.....I don't get that same respect from most people. It's too bad, in a time when so many "fathers" bail out on their families.

Anyway....I think I now have more estrogen than testosterone.


Poe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stay at home dad, here. Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Stay at home dad, here. Posted by: agapegirl
» Considering the source ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Stay at home dad, here. Posted by: ChristopherLL
» This is exactly the problem... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: This is exactly the problem... Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: This is exactly the problem... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: This is exactly the problem... Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: This is exactly the problem... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» Wow!! Kudo's MatthewSavage ... Posted by: Loopylafae
» Holy stereotype, batman! Posted by: Annarisse
» Sorry, no Posted by: McJulie
» Nominclature is everything ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Nominclature is everything ... Posted by: ChristopherLL
» "Not getting it " Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: "Not getting it " Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Touche ... and also 'gotcha' ! Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Stay at home dad, here. Posted by: Loopylafae
Ajnablue
Posted by: kamcallen on Aug 16, 2006 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're a one in a million type of man - an exception to the rule. You should be congratulated that you're far beyond the evolutionary range of most men I know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ajnablue Posted by: Poe
» RE: Ajnablue Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: Ajnablue Posted by: agapegirl
» RE: Ajnablue Posted by: pomes
» RE: Ajnablue Posted by: KellyMB
Oh yes, they have changed -- in degree
Posted by: cdtomei on Aug 16, 2006 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I respectfully submit that the author has erred in part by stating that men and the government have not changed in the time given to the second-wave feminist "experiment." I think a good case could be presented proving they have, in fact, meaningfully changed, but not in support of the family. It is much harder now than it used to be for women to raise children at all, for example, the government has instituted all sorts of onerous welfare laws pertaining to women with children, men are looking for parental rights that allow them to abandon their children financially, assuming they were not interested in having them born -- and this has actually made it to docket in court. Men and the government have come out against the family more since feminism forced the patriarchal hand. Susan Faludi says a lot about this in "Backlash" all those years ago, it has only gotten worse with time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Revolution is the answer -What is the question?
Posted by: WitchyNy on Aug 16, 2006 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Capitalism and motherhood are not compatable.

The working class and the ruling class have nothing in common.

People should be living in houses they built themselves and eating food they grew themselves (The Grapes of Wrath).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

powerful conclusion
Posted by: Blue Heron on Aug 16, 2006 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Maybe we need to leave both the office and the baby's bedroom for a while, gather together, let it all pour out, and come up with a few names of our own."

Leaving the game altogether can be a powerful statement and catalyst for change. What would businessmen do if their wives didn't stay at home? Women do indeed have the power of denial, and we need to keep saying NO to society until society can say yes to us. We are a precious resource, and we can take it off the shelf anytime - that is our birthright.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: powerful conclusion Posted by: pomes
» whatever, Pomes Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: whatever, Pomes Posted by: pomes
» Well yeah... Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Well yeah... Posted by: pomes
» Alimony . . . Posted by: kit79
» RE: Alimony . . . Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Alimony . . . Posted by: pomes
» what? Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Alimony . . . Posted by: pomes
» RE: Alimony . . . Posted by: kit79
» RE: Alimony . . . Posted by: pomes
» RE: Alimony . . . Posted by: MarinaCelli
» RE: Alimony and Child Support Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: powerful conclusion Posted by: BassFace
» RE: powerful conclusion Posted by: kit79
dear christopher...
Posted by: magpiemeg on Aug 16, 2006 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hmmm...interesting...i find that many of these comments posted by ego driven/defensive people from venues such as their local starbucks on their laptops are often somewhat detached from daily life of the general population (of working women and men) and like to use their academic knowledge, thesaurus, and general biterness to any type of change to try to belittle people's experiences, for the sake of this article women in the workforce, and hang on to and perpetuate tired sexist views that feminism = man hating. look, drop the berkely feminist hatin' vibe from the 60's and stop taking this space up to talk about your life story, and that of your parents. instead, let's discuss how we can remove these boundaries women continue to face in the workplace, improve our society's appreciation/ability for raising healthy families, and remember it's 2006 but we've still got a long way to go...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Plus ca change . . .
Posted by: fork on Aug 16, 2006 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or, "I need not add that the second part of this revolution will be more passionately resisted than the first. . ."

". . .It seems to me to be this: how to arrange the world so that women can be human beings, with a chance to exercise their infinitely varied gifts in infinitely varied ways, instead of being destined by the accident of their sex to one field of activity -housework and child-raising. . .
(W)e must institute a revolution in the early training and education of both boys and girls. It must be womanly as well as manly to earn your own living, to stand on your own feet. And it must be manly as well as womanly to know how to cook and sew and clean and take care of yourself in the ordinary exigencies of life. I need not add that the second part of this revolution will be more passionately resisted than the first. . .
A growing number of men admire the woman who has a job, and, especially since the cost of living doubled, rather like the idea of their own wives contributing to the family income by outside work. . . But these bread-winning wives have not yet developed homemaking husbands. When the two come home from the factory the man sits down while his wife gets supper, and he does so with exactly the same sense of fore-ordained right as if he were "supporting her." Higher up in the economic scale the same thing is true. The business or professional woman who is married, perhaps engages a cook, but the responsibility is not shifted, it is still hers. She "hires and fires," she orders meals, she does the buying, she meets and resolves all domestic crises, she takes charge of moving, furnishing, settling. She may be, like her husband, a busy executive at her office all day, but unlike him, she is also an executive in a small way every night and morning at home. . .

Two business women can "make a home" together without either one being over-burdened or over-bored. It is because they both know how and both feel responsible. But it is a rare man who can marry one of them and continue the homemaking partnership. Yet if there are no children, there is nothing essentially different in the combination. Two self-supporting adults decide to make a home together: if both are women it is a pleasant partnership, more fun than work; if one is a man, it is almost never a partnership -- the woman simply adds running the home to her regular outside job. Unless she is very strong, it is too much for her, she gets tired and bitter over it, and finally perhaps gives up her outside work and condemns herself to the tiresome half-job of housekeeping for two. . .
How can we change the nature of man so that he will honorably share that work and responsibility and thus make the homemaking enterprise a song instead of a burden? "

- Crystal Eastman, 1920

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Plus ca change . . . Posted by: kit79
» that was written in 1920???? Posted by: Loopylafae
Feminism: Duped by corporate culture
Posted by: theracerace on Aug 16, 2006 12:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporate media works tirelessly to convince people that they can and must have everything and simultaneously too: the perfect body, job, mate, children and home. Feminists have been duped into believing all this with the promise of blissful happiness to boot.

It's a very convenient coincidence that the feminists want exactly what they're told to want by the media and big business. More than anything, it seems, feminists want to be a cog (and an important/successful cog at that) in a powerful corporation. This appears to be the new freedom. A successful life is now one defined by this "success" and feminists have fallen for it. It's quite astonishing that this mind-job would work since most men have never had anything resembling a "career" in their daily grind. Work has traditionally been a means to an end. Where women got the idea that work should be a source of joy and fulfillment in life is beyond me. They certainly didn't get the idea by polling men.

It's even worse on the home front where feminists have been duped into believing that it is fundamental to their liberty to achieve/acquire all of the trappings of the modern media driven consumerist American life. The result has been unprecedented levels of debt: student debt, house, car and credit card debt. All this in an effort to gain "equality" with men and "have it all".

Corporations benefit enormously by keeping the population believing that it's vital to join their rat race. But it's an illusion. Women have invested heavily by way of student debt to become part of the system. When they have children they become even more dependent on the benevolence of the corporation.

At this point women already have what most men have - a crummy job. Good work. The trouble is that women also want to have children which is an enormous extra burden both in terms of time and money. It's also probably the single most consumerist act one can perform. In the end, it seems only fair that since women are generally the driving force behind having a family, that they carry the extra burden and "have it all".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kids first
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Aug 16, 2006 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you're going to have children, you're going to need to pay them attention to raise them well.

That's demanding enough that even if dad puts in even shares, you end up with both parents basically sacrificing their careers for their kids.

I think the best change to make would be to work expectations which are consuming the lives of people. Pass a law that no company is allowed to have people late at work or on weekends. In the evening and nights, they must kick everyone out, lock the doors and turn off the email servers.

That would go a long way toward both evening the playing field and giving parents a sane life where they can nuture the children and each other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The feminists should quit obsessing over frivolous issues such as "abortion"
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 16, 2006 3:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and instead get the hell back to what really important such as the economy, the environment, general safety and security, well balanced foreign policy instead of "free" trade and ILLEGAL wars for oil !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminist movement: see no good, hear no good
Posted by: pomes on Aug 16, 2006 3:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have no idea how many men I know who change their kids' diapers, do the bulk of the housework, put their kids to bed and read them stories ON TOP OF DOING MOST OF THE MONEY EARNING WORK while their wives/girlfriends are out getting drunk, flirting with other dudes, and enjoying their "liberated" lifestyle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» wow Posted by: Blue Heron
» You're right... Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: You're right... Posted by: H_H
» RE: You're right... Posted by: KellyMB
Poor you.
Posted by: BassFace on Aug 16, 2006 6:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Life's tough. Get over it. You don't get too have it all. Set your priorities and choose accordingly. Having a family is often about sacrifice and compromise. It's not all about you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Poor you. Posted by: fork
» RE: Poor you. Posted by: BassFace
» RE: Poor you. Posted by: fork
NO ONE IS A TIME MILLIONAIRE (Henry Ford)
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Aug 16, 2006 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one will ever say to you "you've done enough". Not a boss, not a husband, not your kids. That's your call to make. I watched young mothers on the job for years. You can't do everything. No need to apologize or feel guilty. I think many of you absorb too much criticism and take too much crap to heart. If you're not worn down, everyone is better for it. It's OK to say "no". A little practice is all it takes. They will all survive and so will you. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why are people so against adoption?
Posted by: browngoddess on Aug 16, 2006 10:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i know this only kind of belongs here, and i know that adopting a child is no less easier than raising one you gave birth to, but not having to deal with pregnancy and childbirth and taking care of an infant would sure cut back on a lot of the stress that working mothers have to deal with. i wonder why more people don't consider it or have that "we want our own baby" mentality. word to the wise: if you adopt it and raise it like your "own" child, IT IS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh my God, raising kids changes your lifestyle?? NOOOO!!!
Posted by: H_H on Aug 17, 2006 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Why are we still struggling over this conundrum four decades after the second wave of feminism brought it up? When will we figure out how to make work actually work?"

Gee, that's a toughie.

It's not exactly a secret that raising children tends to take-up the time one would normally be spending at one's career. And this isn't a "women's" issue, single fathers are affected by this as well (oh yeah, single dads don't count as REAL parents.) I know it's fashionable to suggest that the government ought to set-up free kid-kennels for the public (and would all moms feel comfortable with something like that? Hardly.)

If you take one road, it means there's a road not taken. You can have 100% of one, 100% of the other, but you can't have 100% of both. That's life. There is no such thing as a perfect existence, no one can "have it all", despite much carping insistence to the contrary.

Fun fact: most of the progressives of the early 20th century (including Mother Jones, of all people) favored a division of labor whereby dads would be paid enough to be breadwinners who could support a mom who'd raise kids. This was considered a decent trade-off compared to, say, having both parents work in sweatshops while the kids ran-around the streets unsupervised. But 70 years later, feminists decided that this was actually a sinister male plot to oppress womyn by forcing them to run the microwave. Now that women can have a mix of both family AND career (something that most men cannot count on having), it's a sinister male plot to prevent women from becoming CEO SuperMoms. And hey, if women all become CEO SuperMoms, we'll suddenly treated to feminist harangues about how it's a sinister male plot to give women stress headaches.

(PS- if women's work is never done, why is most daytime programming oriented towards women? One would imagine that they wouldn't have enough time to watch Oprah and Dr. Phil. You know, seeing as how women don't have the time to watch tv?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Firefly!! Posted by: kit79
Thank you
Posted by: theracerace on Aug 17, 2006 8:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BTW, thank you for being the poster child for my point. You're perfect!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some of us thought that we couldn't have it all....
Posted by: Epicurienne on Aug 18, 2006 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....so we decided we'd rather not have children. And I, for one, am very happy that I made that decision. As badly as work can suck, being a parent would suck a lot worse, IMHO.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Having it all" means "Not needing men" right?
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 18, 2006 6:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I paid attention from 1961 to about 1985 and was actively involved in discussions of women's roles and rights. "Feminism" at that time meant men taking an equal role with women in the discussion of relationships between men and women in all areas of life.

I heard lots of disdainful put downs of men, about how women didn't need men to begin with. Since the discussion included, as the original piece here noted, discussions of sexual harrassment and domestic violence--two areas in which there have been huge shifts in behavior and opinion--the complaints were justified.

But we've ended up like sober drunks--no longer indulging in our vices but just as miserable or more so than ever. That's because we say we are trying to change but without making any changes.

I would like to see a serious content study of women's popular magazines. And not just the lede stories, but the display advertising, the front pages, the footnotes. I have not looked at one in a long, long time. I expect not to see much change, judging from what I see as I pass through the check out lines at the supermarket.

In the days of "Feminine Mystique" making change was in the air. Today change is threatening, after 25+ years of conservative government. So if we want to see women's roles change, we'd better do something about changing legislators' roles--and no that doesn't just mean electing more women; it's time we outgrew that notion because it clearly has not worked. Honesty, especially in keeping promises, is more important than gender. After all, we're all in it together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

clux
Posted by: clux on Aug 20, 2006 7:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I truly believe that we are raising our children to assume that many items that are not in fact vital to their lives; are vitally important. Too important to do without. Objects such as branded clothes, cellphones, Game boys and I-Pods for example.. Let's lower our own and our children's expectations in order that they do not feel abnormal if they do not possess the latest Gameboy.

If I, as a mother, calculated back to what I needed and played with quite happily and applied those equivalent costs to my child, I would not even have to work. We drive our expectations and therefore our childrens expectations to be so high these days, that we spent a great deal of working time saving up for items that are not by any means important for daily living or for true contentment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Missing the point
Posted by: freerain on Aug 21, 2006 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was a transitional generation between women working and woment staying home. I told my mother that there will be a huge need for child care for those women who bought the feminest ideal that women can "be like men" and enter the corporate slave labor market. This came to pass.

The loss to our country is that we lost the worth of women by trying to define that worth through the language of men. To be in the corporate game, you had to give up your feminine sensibilities and turn grotesquely masculine. Most corporate women dress like men--even Sen. Hillary Clinton follows the male model.

We now don't know anymore that war is the worst thing that can be put upon civilized society, that women can fight just like a man, yes they can, but is it really our nature to do that? No, but the money is there, the prestige and the opportunity. Corporate boardrooms are war zones.

Women need to stand up to what it means to be a woman--in our own terms. Most women would tell you that it is awful to leave their children with someone else while they go about feeding the corporate machine. For this our society get institutionalized children growing up with institutional parents.

It is not wrong to be a mother, it is natural. Now that corporate America NEEDS the 51% of employment that make up women in the work place then women do control the system if they unify their efforts--start by quitting the worthless job and set about caring and raising the children you have--see what happens to wages and rights. Then come back to the work force on your own terms.

FR

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Beautifully put. Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: kit79
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement