My, my. It’s tough having a “pair” these days.
Of XXs, that is. Chromosomes. You know what I mean. To define a woman. The right kind of woman.
And isn’t this at the heart of the War on Women – whether it’s XYs or XXs dealing the blows?
Oh, you say to yourself, That’s not all it takes to be a woman.
True that.
And apparently, the ongoing womanly warfare is persisting, insisting we define who can claim the prize when it comes to being the better woman – she who works (for pay), she who mothers (in tiger fashion or gently attached at the bountiful breast), and she who approves (or disapproves) of choices of all sorts.
Cutting to the chase, a spate of articles has appeared on the scene, and they include an inflammatory piece in the Atlantic by Prozac Nation author Elizabeth Wurtzel on how the 1% women are killing feminism, a well-reasoned article (also in the Atlantic) by Princeton Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter on why we can’t have it all, a follow-up to Professor Slaughter’s article on Motherlode in the New York Times, featuring a Q & A between KJ Dell’Antonia and Professor Slaughter – not to mention any number of commentaries, which will no doubt continue.
Time for a little Fun with Feminism?
And since X marks the spot – or in this case, XX – yes, I’m going to add my two cents, first to Ms. Wurtzel’s (odd) piece, and then to Professor Slaughter’s.
Feminism: Fact, Fantasy, or Free-for-All?
Ms. Wurtzel’s article, 1% Wives are Helping Kill Feminism and Make the War on Women Possible, cuts straight to the bone.
The author sticks it to her reading audience immediately, with the following lament on what feminism has become – as she sees it. She writes:
Most of all, feminism is pretty much a nice girl who really, really wants so badly to be liked by everybody — ladies who lunch, men who hate women, all the morons who demand choice and don’t understand responsibility — that it has become the easy lay of social movements. I am going to smack the next idiot who tells me that raising her children full time — by which she really means going to Jivamukti classes and pedicure appointments while the nanny babysits — is her feminist choice. Who can possibly take feminism seriously when it allows everything, as long as women choose it? The whole point to begin with was that women were losing their minds pushing mops and strollers all day without a room or a salary of their own.
Let’s please be serious grown-ups: real feminists don’t depend on men. Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.
Where do I begin with exactly how much is wrong with this picture, as Ms. Wurtzel has just laid it out? Born in 1967, I don’t think she was living the same experience of “feminism” that I was, born 10 years earlier.
And how long has she spent in the trenches of motherhood – of the stay-at-home variety – or the work-for-pay outside the home version, while juggling all balls in the air and hoping you don’t stumble?
To the extent that Ms. Wurtzel is addressing the 1% wives – those with an excess of wealth that essentially removes the drudgery of childcare from the picture – I will agree, these particular spouses (Ann Romney among them) don’t live the way the rest of us do. Then again, as Jennifer Ross at The Gloss points out, Ann Romney’s job (paid or otherwise) is about being Mitt Romney’s seemingly perfect spouse (and yes, mother to their five children, with all the assistance that money can buy).
But when Ms. Wurtzel writes that feminism cannot be taken seriously when it “allows everything,” and furthermore, “that women were losing their minds pushing mops and strollers all day without a room or a salary of their own,” she’s both right – and very wrong – while touching on a fundamental truth.
The heart of feminism is about choice, and I don’t believe Ms. Wurtzel (or anyone else, male or female) has a right to say “which” choices are acceptable and which are not. Beyond choice, the backbone of feminism is about economics.
And to the extent that Ms. Wurtzel’s article pursues that line, I couldn’t agree more.
Survival is a Matter of Money
Once upon a time, marriage was a social contract that “compensated” women for their domestic role by providing a roof, food on the table, and other amenities. Women stayed home, kept things running smoothly (ideally), raised children, smiled dutifully alongside their husbands, shared the marital bed, and accepted innumerable compromises because they had no economic independence.
Were women frustrated with this situation?
Some surely were – because they wanted something more in terms of their own interests, education, and ambitions; and others, for the very real constraints that kept them tethered to men whom they would otherwise leave.
Were women dealt impossible survival issues if husbands took off for greener pastures, or for that matter – died?
Yes, on both fronts.
The bottom line is the bottom line. Money. Economic independence – or at least – survival. And as our families and other communities have weakened or disintegrated in the past 30+ years, without economic independence, women are… let’s just say it… in deep shit.
So when Ms. Wurtzel comes around to this statement – I agree, but conditionally. She writes:
… real feminists don’t depend on men. Real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own.
Yes, no, and not exactly.
Independence may be the hallmark of adulthood, but none of us is entirely independent.
Interdependence and compromise are also the hallmarks of adulthood – for both sexes.
To wag a judgmental finger – particularly at “educated women” who do not exclusively and singlemindedly scale the corporate ladder, saying to hell with everything else – is divisive, unrealistic, and paints a woefully incomplete picture of Our Real 21st Century Nation.
Real Feminists? Say What?
“Real feminists” as Ms. Wurtzel calls them – are just as likely to fall victim to illness or accident, to corporate restructures which send them out into the Big Bad Unemployment Universe, not to mention – to give birth.
“Real feminists” understand that women have babies and if the planet is to perpetuate the human species, we will continue to do so.
“Real feminists” and loving partners are not mutually exclusive.
“Real feminists” and engaged mothers are not mutually exclusive.
“Real feminists” frequently care for aging parents, whether or not they have children of their own.
And when Ms. Wurtzel makes this statement, that “motherhood” isn’t a job?
… something becomes a job when you are paid for it — and until then, it’s just a part of life.
I would say – wrong.
We may pay our teachers and our nurses, our bus drivers and our babysitters, our cooks and our housekeeping assistants, but the fact that millions of women perform all these duties daily does not eliminate the notion that they comprise a job – and a job that also involves extraordinary measures to do with moving our children through their developmental stages, and teaching them the life skills needed to succeed as healthy adults.
Is volunteering not a job? It’s an unpaid job.
I would say the same about mothering.
Women Warring on Women
Sadly, where we find ourselves today is in an increasingly (and visibly) misogynistic society in which men and women are angry and afraid because so much of our society, or what we believed it to be – appears to be crumbling: “the family” as we once imagined it; “jobs” as we once envisioned them; “the American Dream” as we bought into it.
We don’t need women warring on other women, damning their choices, or dismissing their parenting job because it isn’t “selective” according to Ms. Wurtzel.
And none of this changes the fact that the days of one income and a social contract between wife and husband are virtually gone. Some still benefit from this arrangement, and simply put – they’re lucky. On that score, I quite agree with the sentiments expressed in the article. Staying home to raise children (if that’s your choice) is a privilege.
But it may also be more fiscally responsible option – in lieu of affordable childcare, and lack of flexible job opportunities. In other words, not really a choice at all.
Moreover, gone are the days of any married woman (safely?) relying on her husband to provide – even if he makes a good income. (A wise woman finds a way to carve out her own money for that proverbial rainy day; we have a 50% chance, more or less, that it will come.)
So, to the extent that Ms. Wurtzel associates feminism with economics – I’m there. And I mean – I’m there.
But to whip up more frenzy which, in my opinion, does nothing but obscure the highest priority issues for this nation – which are about the economy and health care? Ms. Wurtzel does women no favors – those she would label as Feminist and the “others” she so readily dismisses or chides.
My Sense, My Common Sense
I don’t know Elizabeth Wurtzel. She is a writer I respect, a woman who has fought her own battles, a woman who speaks her mind. My sense – and common sense – tell me that she recognizes that we haven’t made sufficient strides in the past generation. If anything, women have been treading water, and at times, it feels as though we’re sinking – fast.
If Ms. Wurtzel sees those women who have benefited from education and work experience that would enable them – us – to make a difference, the sort of difference that could help all women, I can only imagine her frustration. And that frustration exists when seeing careers cut short, female policy makers stuck in a perpetual set of conflicts and contradictions, and waves of legislation that seem to be taking us back to some dark age of Woman By Definition which has little to do with anyone’s choice – except perhaps some zealous legislators who – again, in my opinion – are distracting us from the most serious issues in this nation.
And those are issues of employment, infrastructure, health care, education. Issues that thoughtful women – and men – are trying to understand and address.
So while I’m miffed at this Atlantic article (and admittedly, a bit baffled by its accusatory fervor), I can’t help but applaud the directness of saying that we have a problem here. A big problem. And it comes down to dollars and cents, and women being able to stand on their own.
Anne-Marie Slaughter on Having it All
I would be remiss if I didn’t address Professor Anne-Marie Slaughter’s intelligent and pointed cover story in the July-August issue of the Atlantic, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All.”
And we can’t.
Not because it’s impossible, as Professor Slaughter explains, but because we do not have the social systems in place to accommodate it.
Ms. Slaughter begins her article by referring to an evening mingling with State Department dignitaries, and yet she writes:
I could not stop thinking about my 14-year-old son, who had started eighth grade three weeks earlier and was already resuming what had become his pattern of skipping homework, disrupting classes, failing math, and tuning out any adult who tried to reach him.
And this, as she goes on to explain, with a supportive husband at home, and a growing sense that despite her feminist principles and attaining her professional objectives, she was coming to the conclusion that a “woman can’t have it all.”
As a mother, Ms. Slaughter was legitimately concerned about her teenager. (As the sole caretaking parent of two sons at the tail-end of the teenage adventure, and one of Ms. Wurtzel’s “educated women,” may I say that I understand the worry, the impossible conflict, and the realization that “having it all” is so much mythology?)
What woman with a family doesn’t feel like she’s carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders? Ah, perhaps the 1% wives – and a few more – that Ms. Wurtzel addresses.
Women Judging Other Women
When Ms. Slaughter left her State Department job in Washington, D. C. and returned to teaching at Princeton, she was met by reactions that were, to say the least, judgmental. She writes of her reasons for returning to academia, including a desire to be with her family:
… and my conclusion that juggling high-level government work with the needs of two teenage boys was not possible. I have not exactly left the ranks of full-time career women: I teach a full course load; write regular print and online columns on foreign policy; give 40 to 50 speeches a year; appear regularly on TV and radio; and am working on a new academic book. But I routinely got reactions from other women my age or older that ranged from disappointed (“It’s such a pity that you had to leave Washington”) to condescending (“I wouldn’t generalize from your experience. I’ve never had to compromise, and my kids turned out great”).
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t?
Mothers who pursue their careers – whatever that means – continue to take the brunt of societal blame for Everything That Is Wrong With Kids Today.
Mothers who struggle with as many paying jobs as they can find, to keep their households going, often fall through the cracks in our “positive attitude” culture, which insists that if you cannot succeed, it must be your own fault.
Where Ms. Wurtzel offers criticism, Professor Slaughter offers substance and recognition: we do not live in a country which provides structural support for families in terms of consistent policies, programs, and employment flexibility to take full advantage of the contributions that women could make, while still providing for their families – economically and emotionally.
And we do not have sufficient voice in the political process, or leadership roles.
But no matter what, for women, compromise remains part of the picture.
American Propensity for Fiction Over Fact
Professor Slaughter writes of a lecture she gave at Oxford, in which she spoke frankly about her decision to leave government service, at least for the duration of raising her sons. She seemed surprised at the (less judgmental) responses she received from an audience she describes as career-minded and in their mid-twenties:
… almost all assumed and accepted that they would have to make compromises that the men in their lives were far less likely to have to make.
Compromise.
There’s that slice of adulthood that was missing from Ms. Wurzel’s definition.
She goes on to say:
I still strongly believe that women can “have it all” (and that men can too). I believe that we can “have it all at the same time.” But not today, not with the way America’s economy and society are currently structured.
She further acknowledges that millions of American women have problems which are far more pressing, and I applaud her for stating – straight out – the reality that so many of us live with.
And I will state my own belief which I have previously: a woman’s issues are human issues. They affect not only us (and our best interests), but our children, the men we love and who love us, and the health of a nation that too readily disregards necessary (female) skills, not to mention the health problems that are worsened by economic and familial stress.
Women in Leadership; Futures With Fewer Labels
Professor Slaughter writes:
I am well aware that the majority of American women face problems far greater than any discussed in this article. I am writing for my demographic—highly educated, well-off women who are privileged enough to have choices in the first place. We may not have choices about whether to do paid work, as dual incomes have become indispensable. But we have choices about the type and tempo of the work we do. We are the women who could be leading, and who should be equally represented in the leadership ranks.
Millions of other working women face much more difficult life circumstances. Some are single mothers; many struggle to find any job; others support husbands who cannot find jobs. Many cope with a work life in which good day care is either unavailable or very expensive; school schedules do not match work schedules; and schools themselves are failing to educate their children. Many of these women are worrying not about having it all, but rather about holding on to what they do have.
The best hope for improving the lot of all women… is to close the leadership gap: to elect a woman president and 50 women senators; to ensure that women are equally represented in the ranks of corporate executives and judicial leaders. Only when women wield power in sufficient numbers will we create a society that genuinely works for all women. That will be a society that works for everyone.
To those words, I say hallelujah, and applaud coverage of complex issues without resorting to simplistic rhetoric. I echo Anne-Marie Slaughter’s sentiments that more women in leadership means “a society that works for everyone.”
I would urge you to read these two Atlantic articles in entirety, and then the Motherlode Q & A as well. In particular, Professor Slaughter’s words may have you nodding, as they did in my case. Let her moderate and informed position act as a practical guide for your own situation: to set realistic expectations, to understand the necessity of political action, to include in your definition of adulthood – perhaps as I include in mine – not only independence, but interdependence and compromise.
We are, none of us, in this alone.
TheKitchenWitch says
You won’t believe this, but just this morning I read that article in the Atlantic during my daughter’s swimming lesson. I found myself nodding along as I read it.
BigLittleWolf says
It is indeed a nod-worthy article, Kitch. (See if you can read the other one as well. There are many valid points; I don’t understand why the writer took the slant she did. Would welcome thoughts on that one.)
Lisa says
Sometimes I wonder if we (women) are our own (women’s) worst enemies. It seems that sometimes the most judgmental of women’s life choices are other women. I would disagree that we can have it all…all at the same time. I guess it depends on what you consider all. I believe Anne-Marie Slaughter may be a perfect example. It’s been my experience that something always is compromised when trying to have/do it all.
Definitely food for thought and a great article.
BigLittleWolf says
Thanks for reading and commenting, Lisa. I know it’s a long piece of writing (mine, here), and Professor Slaughter’s is longer – but impeccably written and worth every word. She has wisdom and practical experience to share that pertains to all of us, in my opinion.
Kate says
Why is it that the burden of compromise often sits so fully on the women of the world? I think it boils down to status. We are still lower. And to me that is what feminism is about – not how we work or parent. It is the struggle we must fight, we must win, to be seen as fully equal.
A little lighter reading on that, which none the less hits the nail on the head — http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/13286685-452/are-women-funny-thats-the-wrong-question.html
BigLittleWolf says
I think you just hit the nail on the head, Kate. And thank you for the link!
Gale @ Ten Dollar Thoughts says
Yes. Yes. Yes. To all of it. You said everything I was thinking as I read both “Atlantic” articles. Such an important topic and an amazing post. Thanks for this.
Mutant Supermodel says
I’m actually in agreement with Wurtzel’s assertion that motherhood is not a job. I actually HATE that. Is everything a job then? Is fatherhood a job? Is sisterhood a job? Is daughterhood a job? Is husbandry a job? Is wifery? What about girlfriendhood and boyfriendhood?
Of course not, they are roles and they have unpaid responsibilities attached to them. I think we’re the only country who would do something so base as to reduce these precious roles to “jobs”.
I don’t think volunteering is a job either. It is simply volunteering. When I crochet something, am I doing a job? No I’m crocheting. Even if that gift is given to someone other than me, it’s not a job. Some things are better left simple and the term “job” is one of them. If you get paid for work you do, you did a job. That’s it.
All that being said, I do agree with you that feminism is about ALL choices including the choice to not be a feminist. And that’s where my issue comes in with the judgment calls. You shouldn’t look down on a woman because she chooses to not have a job. There’s nothing wrong with that. Even if she didn’t have kids. There’s nothing wrong with it. Where things do go wrong is when women can’t do things, not when they choose not to do things.
BigLittleWolf says
Hi Supermodel. Glad you joined the discussion!
I understand your perspective, but I politely disagree.
When you are crocheting, you are not doing a “job.” You are performing an activity which serves a purpose, yes, and which you (presumably) enjoy. When you cook for yourself, you are not performing a “job.” You are engaging in a task with an outcome, in order to take care of yourself.
A job is a function or group of related tasks performed in exchange for compensation. Ideally, you enjoy your job, or parts of it. Before we had money, we exchanged goods and services for the performance of these tasks. Domestic tasks performed by a woman were previously compensated by her income-generating spouse via food & shelter, and for some, much more. There are plenty of problems with that model, not the least of which is, as I mentioned, what happens when a woman is stuck in an abusive (or destructive) marriage, with no economic independence, or what happens if a man becomes disabled, dies, leaves, or loses his job.
So, I would say that the “job” of wife and mother, which was once compensated by the other spouse (though not directly in dollars), has become no less of a job, but even more demanding than it once was – and generally, uncompensated. That doesn’t eliminate the very real “work” involved that is outwardly directed, extremely valuable (to our own families and ultimately, society), and sadly – no longer respected as it once was.
I’ll add that I disagree that volunteering isn’t a job. Again – if I volunteer at the local retirement community assisting with residents and providing pro bono marketing services, I am performing functions that are needed. In fact, I’m performing functions that someone else might be paid for, but possibly, the organization is unable to do so.
We put volunteer work (and skills acquired) on our resumes, don’t we?
My son, currently working as an (unpaid) intern, is performing job functions at an architecture firm. He is working, though his compensation (experience) will not result in dollars.
The dilemma for many (not all) women is the demands of both paying work (inside or outside the home), and non-paying work (inside the home, ie mothering). If I have to pay $$$ to someone to drive my kids, to feed my kids, to help with homework for my kids, to bathe my kids, to nurse my kids – those tasks, that driving-feeding-teaching-bathing-nursing job is compensated in dollars. If I have family or community to assist (usually trading off for assistance I would provide to them) – there is still work to be done, but it is unpaid work.
That doesn’t mean that all the tedium of it aside, that we don’t love parts of it. It doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t continue to do it out of love – and also responsibility – with or without compensation. But I hold to my opinion that it meets the criteria of a job, and a damn difficult one, particularly when not shared by parents or supported by the “village” concept.
I agree with you completely on your definition of feminism as encompassing choice, and on this point: “You shouldn’t look down on a woman because she chooses to not have a job… Even if she didn’t have kids.”
Among other things, in some instances, the costs of “outsourcing” the parenting job so you can go out and “work for pay” or pursue a higher education are prohibitive, which results in the woman staying home, at least during the first four or five years of her children’s lives, because it’s the best economic solution, if there is a partner to “compensate” and provide food, shelter, healthcare, etc.
My two cents. OK. Two dollars…
Heather in Arles says
From the first moment I read your blog, it stopped being a Daily Plate of Crazy and became a Daily Plate of Hard Worn Truths. This post was really hard for me to read. Born in 1969 (and I realize that even those two years make our experiences different), with a wonderful Mom who chose to stay home but who raised us with all of the thoughts of the time, I find myself now to be one of those women who rely entirely on the income of her companion. It is surprising. Well, certainly to me.
In France, I am not treated poorly for this but rather I am in this case without ‘even having had children’. At 42, I am still finding my way after having already had two other careers and I worry enormously for my financial future, all while feeling completely equal with my honey. So where is the Feminism in that? It is there somewhere, believe it or not.
Thank you for all you do…
BigLittleWolf says
Heather, first, let me say thank you for your very gracious words. Second, you raise an issue which is yet another in the tendency of judging women for their choices and non-choices. I believe there is a hierarchy of marital status in this country (and elsewhere?), and there is also an expectation-condemnation around a woman’s parenting choices. Specifically, a woman without children is seen as someone to feel sorry for, or disapprove of. We feel sorry for her (“she’s unfulfilled as a woman”) if she wished to become a mother and wasn’t able to. We look down our noses at her if she chooses not to become a mother. We consider her selfish.
(Hmmm. We don’t do that with men, now do we…)
Worse, those with one child (and “holding”) are often badgered about having a second. Those who have more than three (or want a large family) are lectured about having too many children.
We seem to be bound to this odd set of determinants of a woman’s value.
Returning to Carol’s comment (on today’s writing), shouldn’t an individual’s value be a function of their character, their relationships, their actions and words, their contributions? Why is it tied to decisions to marry or not, to a defined number of children (one is too few, three is too many), or any other aspect of one’s intimate life?
We tend not to judge our men in this way, and perpetually judge our women first and foremost by these standards.
Gale @ Ten Dollar Thoughts says
Mutant Supermodel – Did you miss the part in the post where BLW commented that nanny, chef, housekeeper, chauffeur, laundress, arbitrator, and educator are all paid positions? What of the school teacher/sales clerk/secretary whose economics dictate that she can provide greater economic value doing those “non-jobs” in the home than she could doing her original profession in the workforce? To hire all those jobs done would be grossly expensive (which is why Wurtzel pretends to point her argument at the 1%). And what of executives who forego salaries when companies are in dire straits. Are they then not doing a job? This is far too nuanced an issue to paint it in the black and white categories of paid versus unpaid.
Gale @ Ten Dollar Thoughts says
One more comment as a follow up to my first…
In the era of “marriage as domestic contract” most men were of the mindset that as the breadwinners their votes counted most. But with the feminist movement there are now at least two generations of young men who were raised in an era when women were expected (at least to some extent) to be treated equally. They have been influenced by a culture that is imperfect in practice, but in which it is at least no longer socially acceptable to be blatantly sexist.
I work as a marketing professional now, but will likely step back from the work force in a couple of years when we adopt our third child. But by the time that happens my husband and I will have been married for 10 years during which we both worked full time. (Correction: for the first 2 years I was the primary breadwinner while he finished grad school.) So by the time I elect to stay home, our equality will be well-established and I have no concerns that my lack of a paid job will in any way diminish my share of authority within our household.
I guess what I’m saying here is that while the “man earns the living while and woman keeps the home” paradigm doesn’t necessarily represent the same power imbalance today that it did 30, 40, or 50 years ago.
BigLittleWolf says
Gale, Thanks for jumping in, and for pointing out that some things have evolved for the better – at least for some segments of the population. As you say, to be blatantly sexist is no longer acceptable, and in your own marriage and family, you and your husband exhibit the sort of comprehensive “division of labor” that applies to both paid and unpaid aspects of what keeps a family going.
And just as important (if not more?), there is clear respect and appreciation for what each of you brings to the relationship and family unit as individuals. Kate mentioned this yesterday – the respect issue (directly or indirectly).
One of the losses of the past generation is the societal respect we gave to those who are wives and mothers. We could argue over whether or not it was veneer or substance, but it seems to me that either way, that respect mattered.
Wolf Pascoe says
“. . . we do not live in a country which provides structural support for families in terms of consistent policies, programs, and employment flexibility to take full advantage of the contributions that women could make, while still providing for their families – economically and emotionally . . . ”
If a man may comment, it seems to me that the above always was, remains, and will remain the crux of it. The issues are equal pay and opportunity for work, and adequate childcare.
BigLittleWolf says
Anyone of any gender (etc.) is more than welcome to comment here, Wolf…
I agree on the crux. And dreadful, when you think about that, that we’re aiming for “adequate” childcare.
Rudri Bhatt Patel @ Being Rudri says
Important topic and discussion. I am grateful that we can even have a discourse on this subject. In many places across the world, choice is not an option for many women. Their identity is insignificant.
absence of alternatives says
What you said, “We are, none of us, in this alone.” So true.