Some questions, because I am a bit unclear on a few things...
(1) How is "selfishness" defined? In this case, it seems to me that the women who opt out of the workforce in order to raise their children are sacrificing personal goals. This sacrifice is in the name of other people (their children). I'm assuming that the basic idea is that it is their own children, rather than a public good - yet this would have to be the result of the chosen definition of selfish rather than the origin of one.
(2) Am I correct in assuming that selfish behavior is to be avoided? Can selfish behavior be "good" behavior in certain circumstances, while still being selfish?
(3) Let's say our parents in question are working professionals. The male makes considerably more money than the female - as a result, the parents decide that the female should be the one to give up her job (even if only for a few yearS). The parents are worried that without the added income, they will struggle to put their child through college. What options does this family have? Does "elite women" refer only to economic power? If so, this example might not apply - but many educated people, men and women alike, go into occupations that pay poorly.
Uncle Ban said it;
I detect a marxist thread in your entry. Everything boils down to class or sexist warfare. It is us against them. Can you join us Friday?
Asp,
With respect, does "The feminist movement isn't getting what they want because YOU chose to stay home" sound altrusistic to you?
Justme
It could not be selfishness when the action is completely other directed. Children are people not possessions. They are little, albeit only partially autonomous, humans, not objects owned by their parents. The mothers are not thinking of themselves, they are thinking about someone else -- their children. You may argue that it violates the principle of utility, why is your child more important than the entire group of lower-class working women; but when I teach ethical theory, this is exactly the example I use to illustrate the poverty of utilitarianism:
"Suppose you are at a swimming pool and you see on one end of the pool two children drowning. On the other side of the pool you see one child drowning. You can only reach one side in time. Which do you pick?" Of, course you save the two. Then comes the twist. "Suppose the one child was yours."
When you have chldren, you take on a special sort of moral responsibility. It is a care-based relationship that, all things being equal, trumps most other moral responsibilities most of the time. Although their actions may not be in the best interest of fighting this particular injustice which does need to be fought, these mothers are not being selfish, they are honoring their responsibility to others.
"when they make that decision, they fail to see how their own choices are bound up with the lack of opportunities for less advantaged women to make the same choice."
Nope. Many of them are perfectly aware of it. It is simply less important. That's not to say that social justice is not important, but you are clearly someone who does not have kids.
You come home from the delivery and suddenly there is this little being who came from your body, whose life depends upon the milk from your breasts and who will literally die without you. This baby could grow up to be a wonderful, caring, loving person who will make the place better for all who live there or could turn out a screwed up maladjusted, sociopath if you really mess up. You have never been so much in love with anyone in your life and you not only want the best for this person, but you are completely obligated to care for her in every way. Left to her own, she cannot eat, will sit in her own feces, cannot roll off of her face to breathe. You are responsible for the physical, emotional, and intellectual health and development of another person...and you feel completely ill-equiped for the job. It is the strangest feeling in th world being home with your newborn after all the hectiness and activity and joy and pain and drama and family and midwives from the delivery to the absolute silence of your home with a brand new life and no one is there to tell you what to do, but you know it is the most important thing you will ever do -- no matter what your job title in the capitalist work-a-day world happens to be. If someone determined that she needs to be home to satisfy this moral responsibility is not selfishness.
Do we need to completely overhaul the structure to actually give a damn about real family values? Yeah, we do. But thinking about ones children is not to be selfish, it is to be entirely other directed.
BTW -- Last night at the dinnertable Erin asked what a feminist is. My wife began her explanation with, "you remember when we were talking about how women didn't used to be able to do a lot of the things men could do, like wear pants?" Erin's response was "Oh yeah, back with Elizabeth Cady Stanton." The conversation then went on to cover much of the worries that concern you, rephrased for a bright 5 year old, of course. My guess is that if she were in daycare and asked the question, she would have received a very different answer.
SteveG,
Absolutely, positively, outstanding.
Justme
The force of my criticism is directed at how these elite women's actions affect other women. You are focusing on the children. I am stressing how their choices impact, or rather, curtail the choices of lower class women.
Asp,
Again, does "The feminist movement isn't getting what they want because YOU chose to stay home" sound altrusistic to you?
justme
Asp,
While I sympathize with a lot of what you are talking about in terms of class wars, I share other posters' concerns about the label of "selfishness," though not for the reason they state. The "selfish mommy" argument reminds me of arguments made that Blacks had some special responsibility to continue to live in Harlem, or other ghettoes, once they were successful, because the fact that they left for greener pastures deprived Black children of interacting with successful members of their race. Successful African-Americans who chose to prioritize their own lives over the success of "The Black Community" were deemed selfish.
So, why do I think that argument is flawed? Identity politics, on the one hand, and it exonerates white people, on the other, for continued injustice and oppression. Why should a white person be free to live, shop, and work wherever he or she likes, while a Black person must have some special obligation to put off their own happiness for the sake of the group? Either everyone has the obligation to sacrifice personal choices for the sake of the community or no one does. Similarly, I would argue that it is in men's interest to improve the economic power of women. Those 60+ women are (at least potentially) some man's mother or sister or (certainly) daughter. To single out successful women who choose to stay home with the kids as being particularly selfish because they do not help women of different classes, unintentionally exonerates men from being concerned about these issues. "Why should I care about women's economic power? I'm not a woman." It's that kind of atomistic thinking that you are trying to do away with in your argument, but you are only blaming the women, which is a form of sexism.
The only way to transform the workplace and make it better accomodate all parents (not just women) is to get more women into positions of power.
. . . If these women believe that their actions are indeed the fulfillment of the feminism dream, then indeed the neo-cons are right: feminists do want to become just like men.
I'm absolutely speechless. Do you really think such blatant sexism is acceptable? Do you think it lends any credibility to your arguments?
What is the "feminism dream?"
"The force of my criticism is directed at how these elite women's actions affect other women. You are focusing on the children. I am stressing how their choices impact, or rather, curtail the choices of lower class women."
Then I am a bit confused. The claim in your post seems to be considerably stronger than that. After all, you are labelling these women with the title "selfish." Your argument was not that the act had selfish implications, but rather that it is a selfish act that makes these women selfish. This carries the claim that the selfishness of the act from the social justice standpoint outweighs the unselfish character of raising children.
The purely descriptive, and much weaker claim at stake seems to be:
(A) When elite women opt out of the work force it stunts the feminist movement (to some degree x - a source of disagreement here already) because it prevents change from the top helping lower class women.
But, the language of your post seems to imply the stronger, normative claim:
(B) Because of (A), these women are therefore selfish. (Implied premise, selfish acts are to be shunned/avoided).
If (B) is your real claim, then the angle that looks at the children is of critical importance because for you to make the selfish claim involves putting the value of social justice above the value of individual child rearing for elite mothers.
Why do I suspect you wouldn't lob the same description at a man who opted to stay home so that his wife could have a high-powered job and their children could still be raised without daycare?
Of course, I thought that the goal of feminism was to allow women and men to have the same range of choices at their disposal -- not to trade in looking-down-on-women-who-have-jobs for looking-down-on-women-who-don't-have-jobs -- so what do i know?
Something it strikes me is also missing from this discussion thus far is how classist and condescending your argument is. You and your high powered litigator friend seem to be assuming many things about the support staff at her lawfirm and extrapolating that to encompass ALL middle class and working class women. You know what they say about what happens when you ASSUME.
First, you assume that the "secretaries" at her firm would rather stay at home with thier children and are only working out of economic necessity. (BTW... didn't feminism teach us to use less dissmissive labels for jobs, like PARALEGAL and ASSISTANT?) Not necessarily so, my dear. Many women choose to work because they prefer to maintain a professional identity that is separate from thier role as mothers, because they enjoy and are intellectually stimulated by thier jobs... even (gasp) "blue collar" jobs. Often the economic hardship they face is caused by thier choice to work, not the other way around.
Secondly, you appear to assume that "elite" women are all doctors and lawers and that all "secretaries" are underprivileged. Again, not very accurate. I have known many a "secretary" with a rich husband and many a blueblooded Harvard grad who became waitress because they liked the mney and the time it allowed for pursuing other interests in thier lives. How bold you are to paint us all in such broad strokes.
Third (and truly, it seems I could go on and on), you suggest that "elite" women who DO stay on thier high powered career trajectory (or choose it in the first place) are doing it for altruistic reasons. How convenient for your friend and her colleagues. So they get the social status, the six digit income AND warm fuzzy feelings of doing it all the good of womankind. But if it helps them feel better about other people raising thier kids, then hey, whatever works....
Basically, your arument isn't just offensive and ill informed - it's overly simplistic and self indulgent. But I guess that's what diatribes, oh excuse me "blogs" are all about, right?
peace
Asp.
Ok - if one of your goals was to get me all jacked up today....WELL DONE!!
Please help me out with the following, if time permits...
"women over 60 are the poorest segment of our population" - Can you provide some data to support this comment?
"they rate the worth of mothers by extrapolating from blue collar jobs" - Can you provide some data to support this comment?
"The workplace is still unforgiving to mothers. It punishes women who miss work for a sick child, and it doesn't adjust its hours to school hours." - Can we consider adjusting school hours to work hours? I challenge you to find me a documented case since 2000 where a business punished an employee who missed work for a sick child.
"Plato duly noted in the Republic that the problem with nuclear families is that it focuses the attention of parents to their children only, and therefore they care less about the well-being of all children." With all due respect to Plato - and I will speak for myself - I acknowledge a great deal of my effort is focuesed on my child - but since his birth I believe my bride and I have become much more focused on the well-being of all children. Frankly, as far as I am concerned, Plato blew this one.
"Feminism is about empowering all women and challenging all institutions that assume or prescribe what women should do or be" That statement makes no sense to me - how can you on one hand advocate empowering "all" women while at the same time criticizing "some" women for a choice they've made?
See - it worked! 
mizScarlet (really?)
"Basically, your arument isn't just offensive and ill informed - it's overly simplistic and self indulgent. But I guess that's what diatribes, oh excuse me "blogs" are all about, right?
peace"
Speaking of self-indulgent diatribes...and what on earth makes you follow that highly aggressive attack with a word like "peace?" Do you really think it counteracts your mean-spirited, derisive, and sarcastic post? One can certainly disagree with Aspazia's argument without being deliberately obnoxious.
Ok, I was in meetings all day and look! This is good fun. I thought this post would get the juices flowing. Now, let me try to respond.
First of all, I am clearly using the word "selfish" in a provocative manner. I particularly chose that word to force some interesting discussion. Selfishness is on first blush absolutely opposed to the unselfishness of putting the well-being of children ahead of your own self-interests. I am aware of this seeming contradiction. I was trying to capture the inherent flaw with what "I" rightly calls atomistic thinking. If feminism has indeed lead to the opt-out problem (something which is not likely--which I reported in my blog), then feminism was about maximizing my the self-interest of upper class women. This is the criticism that women of color and working class women have made against 2nd wavers.
Sean called me sexist and perhaps many other commenters here agree with that assessment. And, again, I purposely end the post by twisting the neo-con criticisms of feminism against themselves. When they criticize women for trying to be like men, they are in fact making an implicit claim about how men are. Furthermore, the structure of the workplace has not been produced by women, right? Men are the ones who have built institutions in such a way that they deprive those in the workforce from any meaningful contact with their children. Plus the flight from cities and creation of suburbs has forced these upper middle class folks from to spend most of their time in cars to and fro work, which deprives them even more from spending time with children. We have built a world that is not organized around raising children well. Unless, of course, you think that raising children well means that the mother stays home.
Let me address something Jeff brought up in his scenario of making the decision between who stays home when one spouse makes more money than the other. Of course, in his example, the man makes more money. This example is not a hypothetical. It is exactly the kind of real choices that couples face and if they can live on one salary, they do. It is the man who keeps working, which does very little to change the institutions in a way that would not make the decision inevitable.
I will end here and start another strand . . .
SteveG--
First of all, I don't need a lecture on care ethics. Although, if you are posting this for others, I understand. I am quite familiar with the ethical reasoning you are promoting here and, as usual, I don't subscribe to it.
You also write: "That's not to say that social justice is not important, but you are clearly someone who does not have kids."
Sorry, but that totally irks me. Why on earth do I need to have that particular experience to make any meaningful claims about the fucked up nature of insitutions in our country and how poorly the help families (men and women) raise children? I don't think something mystical happens when you have children that makes you all of sudden less focused on issues of social justice. I have plenty of hard core activist friends with children, who do not see the tension. But, what really bugs me is that the real response I get to my provocative argument is: you just don't get it, you don't have children.
Of course, there are profound reasons why I don't have children, that have to do with balancing responsibilities. I have chosen thus far to not raise children because (1) I cannot afford it and (2) I cannot have children and have done half the job I did to get tenure. I am also aware of the intense and immediate responsibilities that go with raising children, which is another reason why I have postponed having them.
But, I honestly don't get why you have chosen to read my post the way you did. I am criticizing women who drop out of their profession forever to raise children because they can afford to. Does that at all resonate with your life? I don't think so. I am talking about women who attended Law School or MBA programs at Ivy League colleges (the same segment that Linda Hirshman is talking about), who are working toward partner and then leave the workforce forever. These were the women poised to make a major impact on institutions. They might make these institutions more family friendly. "I" is right to point out how men should be pushing for these workplace changes too. It serves their interest. Why don't they?
I think that the fact I haven't had children and made it this far in my profession is a benefit to women who do. I am committed to reforming institutions when I can, and now I have more power to do so.
hehe
nope, I just say it to be cool. I noticed however that most of the folks replying here aremen. Maybe that's why you see my response as meanspirited but not the post that inspired it... since it wasn't actually attacking YOU.
"I"--
Hmmmm, I hadn't really thought of this as a form of identity politics, nor as sexist. First the latter claim. Why is is sexist to criticize women who turned away from a chance to do a great public service for all families by opting out of the professions? Criticizing these women is not the same thing as blaming the institutional problem on them.
Everytime I write on this issue I point out that I understand why women would choose this path and that I think it is often very ethical to do so. But, if indeed the segment of female population most likely to institute change are dropping out (which is not likely, but a fiction of the NYTimes), then we have a problem that I think needs to be debated.
Now, am I falling into the trap of identity politics by embracing a sort of communitarian critique of the atomistic individual (some views of liberalism)? Perhaps. This is a danger of thought that looks to criticize a view of the polis as individuals who seek their own self-interest (interest of their family) over and above the interest of the common good. THe trick is making a criticism of this uber-libertarian form of the polis without then demanding that some generations of women sacrifice for the "team" (obviously being sarcastic here) to make for a better world later on. Tough balancing act.
On balance, my "diatribe" is to force some honest discussion about the libertarian elements that have crept into the thinking of some well-placed beneficiaries of feminism (who may be feminists themselves).
Jeff:
"If (B) is your real claim, then the angle that looks at the children is of critical importance because for you to make the selfish claim involves putting the value of social justice above the value of individual child rearing for elite mothers."
I don't think this does capture my claim. In fact, I find it interesting that my post has been turned into this either/or choice. I don't think that the point is to sacrifice individual children for social justice or vice versa. In an ideal situation, men and women would be agitating to transform the workplace in such a way that both parents can live without one of them having to choose between time with a child or continued health care benefits. These awful choices will only go away when people care enough and invest enough to fight for change.
Anyone who wants to be meaningfully involved in their child's life benefits from institutional change. Some neo-cons don't want institutional change. They are happy with the structure of our institutions as is. I am attacking, utlimately, the neocon praise of the opting out phenomenon.
Someone else:
"Why do I suspect you wouldn't lob the same description at a man who opted to stay home so that his wife could have a high-powered job and their children could still be raised without daycare."
I think this is a really good point.
If you tone down the harshness of my message, the more muted point I am making is that class differences make it possible for us to make choices that seem utterly ethical (staying home, opting out) that turn out to really harm other women without that choice.
"I" picked up a real flaw with my argument, namely, that I put a special burden on these elite women to stay in the workforce for the benefit of all women. This is a flaw in the argument that I am thankful she has highlighted.
I also don't think that women who opt out are consciously or maliciously being selfish. Jeff is ultimately right that it is not so much their action that is selfish, but the outcome of their action. That is a welcomed nuance.
(Digression: btw, this tough post has been great at generating some good discussion, which my more balanced and nuance posts don't.)
I think it is easy for us to make "ethical" decisions independent from political context because of the way that those with more resources are shielded from the lives of those with less resources.
mizscarlet--
"First, you assume that the "secretaries" at her firm would rather stay at home with thier children and are only working out of economic necessity. (BTW... didn't feminism teach us to use less dissmissive labels for jobs, like PARALEGAL and ASSISTANT?) Not necessarily so, my dear. Many women choose to work because they prefer to maintain a professional identity that is separate from thier role as mothers, because they enjoy and are intellectually stimulated by thier jobs... even (gasp) "blue collar" jobs. Often the economic hardship they face is caused by thier choice to work, not the other way around."
Yes, both of these points are excellent. Certainly non-professional women (ugh, what is a better way to phrase this) are as likely to choose a professional identity over staying at home. And, yes, this can cost them alot. No doubt. I am not sure that I assume that all non-elite women are working out of necessity. I do think that is more likely in this economy and especially if they are single mothers.
"Secondly, you appear to assume that "elite" women are all doctors and lawers and that all "secretaries" are underprivileged. Again, not very accurate. I have known many a "secretary" with a rich husband and many a blueblooded Harvard grad who became waitress because they liked the mney and the time it allowed for pursuing other interests in thier lives. How bold you are to paint us all in such broad strokes."
I am not sure who you are identifying with? What broad strokes. My post is a continuation of thinking out loud about the articles that depict "elite" women as opting out of the workforce. I using the word elite the way the "reporters" do and pointing out the problems with how libertarian thought has crept into their thinking, if indeed this is how they think. You would have a hard time convincing me that I am paint all people in such broad strokes and do so out of condescension.
Perhaps you are a bit guilty of making a rather sweeping and broad judgment of me here without enough nuace.
I also don't see myself, at all, in the "elite" class. Hell no. I simply cannot afford to have children. I cannot afford not to work.
You also write: "That's not to say that social justice is not important, but you are clearly someone who does not have kids."
Sorry, but that totally irks me. Why on earth do I need to have that particular experience to make any meaningful claims about the fucked up nature of insitutions in our country and how poorly the help families (men and women) raise children?
Many feminists I've read use a similar argument. I heard it quite often from those who said Bush should pick a woman for the Supreme Court. Something along the lines of "Men don't have uteruses, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to rule on abortion cases."
Does that usage of the argument irk you as well, Lily?
(Digression: btw, this tough post has been great at generating some good discussion, which my more balanced and nuance posts don't.)
So overt sexism and harsh language are OK so long as they generate "good discussion?"
Taking a page out of the conservative talk radio playbook, are we?
Sean:
"Many feminists I've read use a similar argument. I heard it quite often from those who said Bush should pick a woman for the Supreme Court. Something along the lines of "Men don't have uteruses, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to rule on abortion cases."
Does that usage of the argument irk you as well, Lily?"
First of all, who is Lily?
Secondly, YES, it does irk me when people make that argument in the case of abortion as well.
"So overt sexism and harsh language are OK so long as they generate "good discussion?"
Taking a page out of the conservative talk radio playbook, are we?"
EXCUSE ME?
This post might not add much to the discussion, but I wanted to put it out there to help clear up issues for myself, and potentially anyone else thinking the way I am...
I think the reason I see it as an either/or question goes right back to the question I started with. What does selfish mean? I can imagine one, rather weak definition of it, in which acts come in shades of selfishness. This is typically what people mean when they say "even charitable acts are selfish" - as they have a selfish element (self-gratification). Or perhaps selfish is a threshold concept (which is how I would interpret it), in which, irregardless of any shades of selfishness - the selfishness must be the predominant trait for an act to be selfish. (Yikes, talk about overusing the word selfish). I (as in myself), interpreted your claim in the second way as I find the first claim too weak to capture the ordinary meaning of "selfish."
I think the threshold concept idea is central to my response, and I suspect to other peoples as well. Your more muted claim, that there are unethical consequences avoids that issue. I would agree that there are negative consequences to that decision - regardless of which direction one turns. If the woman in question opts out of the workforce, the result is the consequences you described. If they stay in the workforce, they are likely to have to choose daycare over parental care.
I think the modest claim is considerably more amenable precisely because it avoids this worry about a threshold - wherein one and only one of those decisions could be labeled selfish.
Reminds me the of an argument I heard the other day that Native Americans who stay on the rez are hurting all other Native Americans. Unfortunately, the argument disregards the fact that many traditional Natives live in a fundamentally different reality than relocated Natives do. Likewise, mothers sometimes live a different realty than non-mothers do. Cows live a different reality than humans do, and so on. Make all the "claims" you like, but don't assume you can really see things from the Other's perspective, when you're in a different location.
First of all, who is Lily?
I guess you don't read the old comment threads. Isn't "Lily" the proper English translation of the Greek "Aspazia?" Or maybe you don't speak Greek and chose the name randomly...
Taking a page out of the conservative talk radio playbook, are we?"
EXCUSE ME?
Using overly strong language to make a point, thus encouraging people to call in to the show, is the hallmark of conservative talk radio. Isn't that exactly what you've done with this post, as evidenced by the digression I previously quoted?
Pita--
"Make all the "claims" you like, but don't assume you can really see things from the Other's perspective, when you're in a different location."
This is quite true. I cannot disagree at all with your careful reminder that we should not assume we know the Other's perspective when we are in a different location.
However, I don't think we are totally disconnected from any way to understand the other, to communicate with the other, or to empathize. We can also judge the Other. I am not sure being Other protects any of us from criticism.
"Isn't "Lily" the proper English translation of the Greek "Aspazia?""
I didn't know that. Cool.
I'm sorry Sean, but I don't agree with your assessment that I have used "overt sexist language" or that I have used "harsh language."
You might find it more fruitful to actually pick on the conservative pundits who, you say, do this.
What exactly is your goal here?
Asp,
I apologize for the cheap shots. You are indeed the last person I would lecture on care ethics. The child comment, while one of those ad hominems for which again I humbly apologize, is not without content. The reason is that your argument strongly under-represents the moral requirements of parenthood which is something not unusual for people who have not been in that particular driver's seat. I know of no one who has not had the moral weight of parenthood hit them like a ton of bricks -- even those with very thoughtful, well-trained minds. It's an "Oh sh-t" moment that rivals very few others. The amount and degree of commitment is astounding -- you quickly realize why there are so many bad parents. I know more than a few "elite" women who fully intended to go back to their high-powered jobs after their six weeks of maternity leave only to try for a couple weeks then say, "No, I have a commitment to that little person that I cannot fulfill from the office." These women are not turncoats and they are not selfish. Perhaps some can fulfill this role, but as someone with a stay-at-home feminist mom for his children, I cannot express how important it is.
I fully agree that the system needs to be changed in all the ways you do. This culture puts quarterly corporate profits over the health and well-being of its people, especially its children. That is immoral and needs to be changed. I just think that this is going to take several generations and having a smart, insightful woman actively shaping the next generation is every bit as powerful an agent for social change as her putting back on the pre-maternity powersuit and going back to work for The Man.
SteveG--
Why don't fathers feel the pull of the moral requirements of parenthood to the same degree then? Why don't fathers realize they can't keep going to work everyday in their powersuit, and instead "opt out" to stay home?
What has interested me the most in this discussion is how meaningless ethical questions are outside of the political context they are considered. You cannot simply reduce the decision down to: I feel an immediate pull to take care of this child--"oh sh-t"--and therefore all my work life seems ridiculous--from the persistent and pervasive cultural messages that tell women they are horrible, horrible parents if they don't put all their time into their children. Men don't get that sort of cultural pressure, nor do they get judged harshly if they return to work right after having a child. Moreover, if women decide to opt out, they will find it rather rough to make it back into the profession they left, thanks to the instransigency of institutions to adapt to parents. The law firm doesn't relax standards for partner if you become a parent, nor do tenure requirements get relaxed if you choose to have a child.
If you fall behind in your career path because of this, and you end up divorced from your husband, you are likely to be in a pretty precarious situation financially.
My post is less a reflection on the ethics of parenting and more of an indictment of the poor strategies of realizing institutional change. While sure you can argue that opting out is ethical, again something that I have said, you cannot ignore the risk the women put themselves in by relying on others to support them when they raise children.
I have become a realist. And the fact is, no one is going to change institutions in a way that cares more for parents but feminists. And, they won't have the power to do so if they opt out.
I appreciate your humble apology, btw. I really do. I also hope you realize that this post is not about you. It is about the "elite" women that Hirshman studied for her book. These are the uber educated, ivy league Manhattanite women.
I'm sorry Sean, but I don't agree with your assessment that I have used "overt sexist language" or that I have used "harsh language."
Sorry, I accidentally substituted "harsh language" where you actually wrote "tough post." Same difference. And if the last paragraph of your post isn't overt sexism, I guess I don't know what is.
What exactly is your goal here?
I was hoping to show how utterly ridiculous and absurd this post was. I guess I failed. Don't worry, I won't be bothering to comment any more. I give up.
Sean--
What exactly are you giving up on? Were looking for honest debate? Or, were you looking to try and persuade me that feminism is foul? I just don't know what your intentions are in commenting on my blogs. I don't mind your comments, but i am not sure what you think the long term effect of our discussion will be.
Asp,
"Why don't fathers feel the pull of the moral requirements of parenthood to the same degree then?
I do. Do you think men relish getting u pand going to work every day? Do you think we relish missing first steps, first "dada's", etc. If you don't believe me when I say that - ask my wife. Point blank. You know her. Do it. See what response you get. I'd bet my last nickel Steve G. feels that pull also - and he and I disagree on just about everything else. And I'm just going to guess that he and I (while acknowledging we're probably two of the most outstanding men in the universe 
) are mutually exclusive from every other father in the world.
"Why don't fathers realize they can't keep going to work everyday in their powersuit, and instead "opt out" to stay home? "
Uh, how about two people in an incredible relationship with each other and their child have a long discussion about what they believe to be best for themselves and their child and come to the conclusion mom takes a break from her career and Dad goes back to work? Is it the best? Heck, I don't know - and I never will. Steve's comment about the "moral weight of parenthood" is right. We'd like to think we make good decisions, but we'll never know. Ever. That's weighty stuff when you let it sink in. Every decision, every interaction with your child weighs on you.
And frankly, in my opinion, if more parents took more of a moral responsibility for their children, all sorts of issues you and I BOTH wish to solve become less of a problem.
"you cannot ignore the risk the women put themselves in by relying on others to support them when they raise children."
Asp, everything we do, every day, involves risks. In situations where perceived risk outweighs possible reward, we take the risk (like, driving a the car or stepping in a wet tub)- and obviously the opposite is true. If a woman makes a decision that the risk of being destitute (which still hasn't been proven, but I can get some numbers together if you'd like) is outweighed by the possible reward of being a mother to her child and all the good may come of that, where do you feel you get the authority to challenge that?
Aspaz:
Thanks for the response. I fully agree with you about your "criticism" pt. Indeed, scholarship would have little value, in my mind, if we couldn't critique the Other. We simply have to consider the issues of context and perspective (or maybe I should say ontlogy and epistemology) when we do. In other words, we need to consider that other people inhabit the world very differently than we do. As much as I wish we could all make some sort of deontologized claim, we can't.
"Why don't fathers feel the pull of the moral requirements of parenthood to the same degree then? Why don't fathers realize they can't keep going to work everyday in their powersuit, and instead "opt out" to stay home?"
One word -- patriarchy. By in large, men do feel it less, but I do strongly believe that the case is radically different than it was even a generation ago. Purely anecdotal, but my brother (a bit like your brother: well-off businessman) sold his quite successful software business and took a consulting job when his second child was born so that he could stop traveling and work from home to be with his family. It is one carefully selected story, but I believe that it is becoming much more common. Fathers are much more involved now than they were three or two generations ago. There are certainly still lasting remnants of our patriarchal structure, but I think that things are changing and I do believe that active parenting on either or preferably both sides only helps the cause. I do think that you are underestimating the power of the parent on the next generation and it is with each new generation that the oppressive system needs to be taken apart brick by brick.
Steve,
Does it also frighten you when we agree?
Well said.
justme
I'm not sure anyone's even reading this anymore, but as Aspazia is off interviewing in CA, I just wanted to point out something interesting about the flurry of responses to Spaz's admittedly provocative claim. Aside from mine (correct me if I'm wrong) all the denials that "opting out" is selfish focused on the belief that doing so is the most selfless thing a woman can do, she is sacrificing her own selfish interests for those of her children. (at least it doesn't read "family" anymore...do we finally assume the man is capable of doing his own laundry?) I believe Spaz was trying to challenge that very deeply ingrained assumption in all of us that motherhood is selfless and being a career woman is self-interested. You may not approve of her methods, and I have mixed feelings about them, but she raises a good point about applying these same assumptions to men. Men may feel the same pull, but would we (read: "society") say the same thing about the man who chose to quit (NOT cut back on) a professional career in which he was highly successful to care full time for his children and do volunteer work at the local church or PTA? Would we say, "what a selfless man, putting aside his selfish desire for a career to devote himself to his children?" I believe the first instinct would be to criticize him for failing to provide for his children and for allowing himself to be "kept" by his wife. We might applaud him if he compromised his career (cut back, worked from home), and this is progress, but if a man became a full-time house husband, I bet it would set off all kinds of different reactions in us than it does when a woman opts out. And gentlemen, those of you feeling the "pull" of your children when you reluctantly go off to work in the morning...should we critize you for being selfish in putting the demands of work before that pull? Of course not. But women still are criticized for that. If she works she's being self-interested, if she stays home she's being selfless. It's that kind of thinking Aspazia was trying to invert.
You,
Respectfully, I disagree.
My respect for Asp, her thoughtfulness, her intellect, her writing ability and her genuine concern for her causes is very high. I trust that she writes and conveys what she wants to write and convey until she tells us differently. When she writes "what I want to write about today is the inherent selfishness of elite women who "opt-out" of the workforce to stay at home and raise children because they can" I take her at her word.
Relating to the second part of your comment, I'll refer you to Steve's well written words earlier. Some may respond in the manner you've described, but I too believe it is a substantially smaller group than it would have been twenty years ago and will be smaller still twenty years from now.
Be well,
justme
PS - Apparently i'm still reading it.....
Well, I'll let Aspazia respond for herself when she reads this...no sense getting into an argument about what she meant...except to note that she DID assert in these comments that she did mean to be deliberately provocative, and I know her very well and have also talked with her about this post offline.
As to Steve's comments, I read 'em and was responding to them. You, however, did not respond to me except to refer me back to the very post I was responding to. I agree with Steve that it's progress that we don't immediately criticize a man for *cutting* back on his career to spend time with his kids, and I certainly agree that it's patriarchy that propogates the belief that stay-at-home mommies are selfless and stay-at-home daddies are selfish. But do you really believe that we have made such a turn in our collective attitudes that we would have no qualms about a professional man quitting his job completely to raise children and engage in the type of volunteer work common to those on the mommy track? I had no idea Central PA was so progressive. Finally, you also don't address my point that there is an implicit assumption (and also an explicit statement in these comments) that a woman who works is being self-interested (pursuing her personal fulfillment at the expense of others) while a man who works is seen as providing for his family and contributing to society.
Respectfully disagreeing, and continuing to read....!
You,
"But do you really believe that we have made such a turn in our collective attitudes that we would have no qualms about a professional man quitting his job completely to raise children and engage in the type of volunteer work common to those on the mommy track?"
Yes.
"Finally, you also don't address my point that there is an implicit assumption (and also an explicit statement in these comments) that a woman who works is being self-interested (pursuing her personal fulfillment at the expense of others) while a man who works is seen as providing for his family and contributing to society."
I guess I'll have to say that from my frame of reference your implicit assumption/explicit statement is inappropriate. Implying she is being selfish (self-interested) FOR working would be no better than implying she would be selfish for NOT working. I trust that individual to make decisions for herself.
I acknowledge that response is more likely than not part of my personal belief that it is not my responsibility to question other's motives for decisions they have made when I do not find those motives and/or the associated actions offensive or illegal.
justme
Justyou--Point taken that these are your personal responses to my questions, but I originally posed them as a question of how society tends to generally react to these sorts of choices. You may well be the most progressive and egalitarian individualist on the planet, but these sorts of questions also involve broad societal assumptions on which arguments and social/legal policies are often based. In other words, these assumptions shape what is found to be generally offensive (whether or not to you, personally) and often legal or illegal.
Commenting by HaloScan
