Feminists can't appreciate my 'choice' By MICHELLE MALKIN WAKE up. Play patty-cake and peek-a-boo. Clang pots and pans. Stand up in the high chair. Throw Cheerios/peas/banana chunks onto the kitchen floor. Dance. Laugh. Clap. Crawl. Creep. Climb. Cry. Nap (very briefly). Wake up. Repeat! This is how my 11-month-old daughter Veronica's busy baby days are filled. And, blessedly, it is how my days are filled, too. After seven years as a young professional woman on the fast track, I left the traditional job market to have children. On my first Mother's Day as a mother, I am unalterably convinced that staying at home -- creating a daily environment of love, stability and nurturing -- is the most important work I will ever do. Many feminists who worship at the altar of choice will never accept my choice. They refuse to believe that any modern woman in her right mind would voluntarily put child-rearing above her career. They dismiss homemaking -- cooking and laundering, wiping runny noses, changing dirty diapers and vacuuming graham cracker crumbs off the sofa -- as menial drudgery that no self-respecting professional woman should ever do without financial compensation. Contempt for women who happily embrace stay-at-home motherhood is at the heart of Ann Crittenden's new screed, The Price of Motherhood. Like me, Crittenden left a large daily newspaper to raise a child and continues to write from home. Crittenden, however, harbors bitter resentment: "After my son was born in 1982, I decided to leave The New York Times in order to have more time to be a mother. I recently calculated what that decision cost me financially. I had worked fulltime for approximately 20 years, eight of those at the Times. When I left, I had a yearly salary of roughly $50,000, augmented by speaking fees, free-lance income and journalism awards," Crittenden reveals. "My annual income after leaving the paper has averaged roughly $15,000, from part-time free-lance writing." This, Crittenden bellyaches, "seems a high price to pay for doing the right thing." As reimbursement for her "pain," Crittenden proposes that former working professionals like herself be rewarded with European-style government subsidies including paid parental leave, free health care, universal pre-school and free-lending libraries of toys and games. She endorses a Nanny State that encourages institutionalized day care so that educated mothers won't be "forced" to do domestic chores. She feels entitled to a monetary reward for doing what millions of moms do gladly for free. Crittenden catalogues gripes from professional friends who were supposedly coerced by a patriarchal society to give up their hefty salaries as attorneys, business executives and journalists. "In my new job as a mother I had no salary and no professional contacts," one former newspaper editor told Crittenden. "There were no more movies, no more dinners out, no work clothes ... It was as if everything were being taken away from me." Me, me, me. Hasn't motherhood taught these yuppie women that there's more to life than a bulging Filofax, a tailored wardrobe and a corporate expense account? Stanford economist Jennifer Roback Morse, a libertarian-leaning mother of two, warns against these self-esteem feminists and their obsession with career status and income in her lucid new book, Love and Economics. She writes: "The worst stereotype of capitalism is that the value of a person is reduced to his value in the market. It is ironic that the American feminists have done so much to indoctrinate women into this distorted view of themselves." Morse's work focuses on a key ingredient Crittenden ignores: the unquantifiable benefits of selfless parental giving to both individuals and a civil society. All the money in the world can't compensate for our everyday rewards -- the outstretched arms, the giggles, the secure attachment of children to parents who love them unconditionally and eternally like no paid caregivers ever could. Motherhood means never having to say, "What do I get in return?" Now, if you'll excuse me, my baby just woke from her nap. It's time to get back to work. You know, I TOTALLY respect her for what she is doing. In fact, I agree that one parent should stay home with a child if it is at all possible. However, am I the only one who thinks that it is VERY easy for her to take that position because she can WORK FROM HOME? It isn't as if she quit her job. She just changed it. My mom worked her ASS off so I could have a decent life for myself. My parents were teachers and didn't make enough money to support all of us on only one salary. My mom actually made more money than my father. She wasn't some "yuppie" who put her career ahead of her son. I don't have any problems with stay-at-home mom's or dad's. In fact, I think it is probably the most important job anyone can undertake. However, it is MUCH easier to make that decision when you work in a field that pays you to write syndicated columns for a living from home. Not everyone has those advantages. She is lucky. ------------------ I don't get mad. I get stabby. [This message has been edited by Jeff (edited May 11, 2001).]
You have to admit that line is ridiculous. No one forced this woman to have a child, and no one forced her to stay home with her child instead of work either.
My only response would be that this column seems to be a response to a specific group of complaints regarding a very small group of feminists who apparently resent giving up their work to be mothers. It doesn't seem directed at those who must work in order to keep the family going, or anything of that ilk. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
If a woman is going to resent her child for the time it takes from her life, make the decision not to have children. I feel sorry for the children of these women who will hold it against the child that they were derailed from the fast track. ------------------
Wow, interesting discussion. I don't identify with the women (or men) who love the professional "fast track" so much. Though it's good to have someone with the children at least part of the time, I can understand that it will be a hard period of adjustment for the one who stays home. They're entitled to their feelings, especially at first. I'm not sure if I would like it, though, if 20 years later my mom calculated how much salary I had "cost" her and wrote a bitter book about it, and about how the state should subsidize everything or run everything. There are countries in this world that do that. (of course, the money to do that has to come from somewhere...) If you don't want to move to another country, you can always use day care here if you really, really need to stay on the fast track. In terms of having enough income to support a stay-at-home parent, if both parents are on the "fast track", then probably one working will be enough. On the other hand, my husband and I will be in the same situation as Jeff's parents (teaching, not making all that much). Both of us will probably always have to work, at least part-time if not full-time. I don't mind that... though I wouldn't mind staying at home if I was financially able to. (Who wouldn't want to avoid job stresses? ) Here's the real debate topic (this was a lively discussion in my office yesterday): Is it necessary for one parent to stay home? Should that always be the female parent? What is best for the child, or can each family work it out their own way? Is it reasonable to work part-time? Are there any harmful effects that can come from always having a parent with you (as a child)? Let me know what you think. As a female this issue has always been hanging over my head, and one day it will probably be a reality for my life... ------------------ Isabel,clutchcity.net lurker since 1996 All your base are belong to Heypartner.
I just found it ironic that she is upset about someone complaining about sacrificing her career for her child (which, by the way, I find completely and totally ridiculous - I am in total agreement with Freak that she didn't HAVE to have a kid) and saying that she wouldn't choose career over family when she obviously DOESN'T HAVE TO. I'm not decrying her right to do what she wants. I'm not even complaining about her opinion. What bugs me is that she is using a lousy argument to poke at feminism. At least address the REAL issues at work in staying at home and working like healthcare, support of mother's in the workplace, etc. I think there is just as much backlash against women who DON'T stay at home with young children as there is against women who choose to. Both arguments are ridiculous because women have to choose what is best for them whatever the circumstance. ------------------ I don't get mad. I get stabby.
No, actually, they believe the rules should apply EXACTLY THE SAME. I don't know what feminists you know, but the one's I know are VERY supportive of women who decide to stay home. In fact, I haven't met a woman who thinks staying at home with the kids isn't a good idea. Now, that isn't to say that some don't think the father should stay at home if the mother's career is more valuable to the family. Feminists just want the same opportunities afforded the men. I have a good friend who is a stay-at-home dad because his wife makes $100K per year as an attorney. He works from home as a consultant part time and enjoys it. I have another good friend whose wife is nearing the end of her career in PR so that she can stay home with their two children. She is happy to leave and my friend is happy she wants to. Different situations work for different people. ------------------ I don't get mad. I get stabby.
This is good stuff... Is it necessary for one parent to stay home? I don't think it is necessary so much as it is positive. The issue is whether it is possible, not whether it is necessary. A single mother of two can't stay at home with the kids unless she makes a lot of money in the home and that usually isn't the case. Should that always be the female parent? I would hope not. I would think that it would be preferable for the mother to spend the first year of two with the child for the purposes of breast feeding and early-child nurturing. Studies have shown that children respond best to mothers in the earliest years. However, I don't see a reason why women and men can't share the responsibilities in the home. Kids need their dad's as much as they need their mom's. What is best for the child, or can each family work it out their own way? Every situation is different, IMO, and everyone has to decide for themselves. There is no way to answer what is best without taking into account the needs of the parents and children. If the parents are unhappy, the child will be as well. Is it reasonable to work part-time? I wouldn't think that would be a problem. There are quite a few parents who have formed companies around their desire to stay at home with their kids. Also, it depends on what the family needs. If that part-time income is the difference between keeping the lights on or having them shut off, I would say the part-time job is a necessity. Are there any harmful effects that can come from always having a parent with you (as a child)? Not unless the parent creates the issues. Just being around a parent is good for a child unless the parent is abusive or creates other issues for the child. Studies have shown that children actually develop stronger self-esteem and better people skills when they have more time with their parents as they grow up. Good questions! ------------------ I don't get mad. I get stabby.
But with this particular book that this column was responding to, as well as with several statements from some feminists that support the same view that have been hyped up by conservative elements, some women apparently feel they have to defend themselves from those opinions and try to set the record straight. Personally, I think we're seeing a battle of fringe elements being played out in this column here. I wouldn't attribute either attitude (the small feminist element that resents children vs. the small conservative element that feels a need to respond to the small feminist element) expressed here to a wide variety of people (Well, I would say that most people find it perfectly acceptable for a parent to stay home with her child when possible, but that's not the part of the column that anyone had trouble with 'round here). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
No, feminists, like any lobbyists, want the rules changed to favor them at every turn. They could care less about what is fair for everyone. They're in it to further their own agendas. That's why they call them feminists. If they wanted equal treatment for everyone they'd be humanists or something. I don't know how you get the idea there is some unfairness in how men and women with powerful careers are forced to sacrifice parenting time. You cannot be in two places at one time. A man sacrifices no less than a woman with a comparable career. You'll have to explain that one to me. There may be some unfairness in how young male/female professionals out of college are promoted with regard to future family considerations but that's not what we're talking about here. ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
I'm not sure that is what she meant Jeff. I think her point was that feminist groups, who blast women for staying at home and taking care of their children are wrong. That a woman can be a "house wife" or what have you, and still have a strong self-esteem, and a strong sense of purpose. I've actually heard some feminist groups say that women who stay at home have low self-esteem. I think that is mostly wrong. Plus I think she is showing that just because you stay at home to raise a child doesn't mean you can't work either. A lot of feminist, at least from her view, think there are two choices, go out and have a career, or "throw away" your career and raise your child, and that there is no middle ground. I think that column was showing that not only is there middle ground, but if you decide to not concentrate solely on a career while raising a child that that doesn't make you bad or lacking in self-esteem. ------------------ See the three, be the three.
Men who have high powered careers often have to sacrifice time with their kids in order to "climb the corporate ladder" so to speak. I'm sure many would love to be able to spend plenty of time with their children and be able to keep up the pace required to "get ahead" but that's not reality. You have to make those types of choices in this day and age. Feminists think that those rules shouldn't apply to them for some reason. Go figure! ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
It is BETTER if one person can stay home, but each case is different. My wife and I are fortunate in that she can stay home and raise our son. However, I am not going to judge someone else in a different situation. I just think if you can afford it, one of the parents should do it. DaDakota ------------------ If you like RTS games, check out this one. www.frontierwars.com coming soon to a PC near you.
Sorry I must have misinterpreted. In that case I completely agree. It's completely unfair to bestow a responsibility or bias on women to do the majority of child rearing in our country. Male and female parents should have equal opportunity to explore the market. BTW, have any of you heard of the Governor in New England who is very pregnant. It's caused quite an uproar from what I've read. ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
I did read that. People are telling her to resign because she shouldn't be governor if she is pregnant. It's wierd. She hasn't made it easy on herself, though, because she's used the private helicopter to fly herself to doctor's appointments and the like. Very wierd. ------------------ I don't get mad. I get stabby.
That's not what I meant. What I meant was that women should have the right to pursue a fast-track career just as men do and that having a child should have an equal impact on them. That may mean they stay at home or that may mean the husband stays at home or neither. What I was saying is that a woman having a child shouldn't automatically preclude her from continuing her career. ------------------ I don't get mad. I get stabby.
Hey, here is an idea, why not sit down and discuss it with your wife or husband BEFORE you have a child. It is amazing, you need a license to do anything important, except be a parent, arguably the single most important thing a human being can do. DaDakota ------------------ If you like RTS games, check out this one. www.frontierwars.com coming soon to a PC near you.
This thread should have ended the minute Mr. Paige posted this. I mean, talk about perfect. That's your answer, period-- Mrs. Malkin was addressing the feminist political and intellectual leadership in America, not the esteemed Mother Balke (or my mom for that matter).
I read this article this weekend...my wife read it as well. I'm in agreement that is highly preferable for a child to be at home with one parent. I don't think it matters which one, except, as pointed out by Jeff, that it might be best to be mom in the early years. I do read articles and hear statements from feminists that do reflect the feelings Ms. Malkin is responding to. I mean Hillary Clinton once made a condescending statement about stay at home moms while serving as First Lady. Obviously this book is another example. And Patricia Ireland is the master of statements like this. The problem with the feminist movement is that their leadership in the NOW is so inconsistent and their positions seem contradictory. They argue vehmently against over-assuming male bosses having sexual relations with female employees...but defend Bill Clinton's actions in the White House as a "consensual encounter." They typically take very anti-capitalistic approaches to issues, favoring government regulation above the profit-motive. Yet, they bemoan the money they could have made had they not raised their children at home. These positions are so inconsistent it's funny. These political groups have lost a lot of their integrity, in my humble opinion. ------------------
Most people don't even know what a real Feminist is... and yes, that includes NOW. If you read ABOUT feminism, you find it to be considerably different than what pop culture and the media portrays it as. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
