Welcome to the Commenting Pixie Party!
Phantom, I double heart you! How are you so awesome all the time?
Is the only measure of the success of feminism the number of women who are in high-powered jobs and who work 80 hours a week? I admit to only skimming the article, but that seems to be the main criteria.
As I wrote the last time this came up, for me feminism is about having choices....choices which include staying home to be a mama if that is what you're called to do. It means to me that women can become priests/rabbis, professors, doctors, lawyers, CEOs, construction workers, engineers, etc. and be paid and treated on an equal basis as their male counterparts.It's also about men having choices--to be fuller participants in the life of their families, however that may be defined for that particular family.
Perhaps I am naive and unsophisticated, but if feminism is about transforming women into full players in the patriarchy, adopting male behaviors to be accepted, and buying into the dominant culture,then we're sadly off the mark.
I am far more interested in transforming the culture to be less oriented to the type A, 80 hour work week power hungry life that some hold up as the ideal of 'making it'. Money and power are not what it's all about. Consuming all available resources in the name of capitalism is not what it's all about.
Yes, call me naive. But that's what I think.
Yet again, Phantom, your ability to turn your wrath into brilliant prose astounds me. All I can do is froth at the mouth as to how much such articles piss me off, not come up with really cogent arguments about WHY.
I take your point about not giving her any more publicity, but could you please think about writing a letter to the editor of the American prospect in response?
God, you're awesome. And South Park's underpants gnomes were just the icing on the cake.
Back to work for me -- because, apparently, I only count if I make partner. The fact that I:
a) graduated from college
b) graduated from law school
c) had a child
d) work full-time
don't mean dick.
Yeah. Yeah. Once again, you take how I feel and turn it into elegant and eloquent prose. Thank you, PS.
Wow. Remind me not to piss you off. Righteous anger topped off with, as APL already noticed, the pure genius of the Underpants Gnomes business model. Is it any wonder this is my favorite place on the internets. I've said it before and I'll say it again - You. So. Totally. Rock.
I also agree with Kate. The American Prospect needs to see a version of this.
I'm with corndog - I don't ever want to get on your bad side. Also, this is an incredibly eloquent, articulate assessment of the corruption of the concept of feminism into "be more like a man in every way" instead of "be treated equally and get to make the choices that are best for you". You GO, Phantom. You GO!
Kate, do you think the American Prospect would let me cite the underpants gnomes as a source? They don't make for quite as significant "anecdata" (I loved your comment, Casey!) as three whole weeks' worth of the "Sunday Styles" section, but they really do provide compelling evidence, I think.
Phantom, you are awesome!
And in my book, anyone who tries to use feminism to dis-empower women who are making their own choices about what to do with their lives...that person ain't no feminist!
Yup...that was it....my only coherent comment, and now I just go back to frothing.....
This is the best place on the web, for many reasons, but this post may be the best one. I love how you say exactly what needs to be said, and back it up, and make it sound intelligent and sensible--as opposed to the way I'd do it, with lots of ranting and frothing and not much else.
Thanks, PS!
Yay PS! To think, feminism might be about choices -- for men AND women? Crazy bitches.
Phantom, this is an awesome post. You are amazing!
This thing is unbelievable, dear. Sing it! Sing it for those of us who are raising daughters into the patriarchy! Sing it for all of us who would love to sing it ourselves but, uh, can't find the words! (Or, in my case, the brilliant thoughts!)
Congratulations on probably your all-time most stellar post, although that is a VERY tough call.
Love you lots!
Maybe we should all just move to France. Even though their economy isn't growing, they seem to be happy with having work weeks capped at 30 hrs. We need mediocrity (sorry, loaded term) built into the system, because what's making it all suck so much is the perception that we have to work 80 hours a week just to be contributing to society. Personally, I'd be pretty happy if some higher authority (and by this I mean the government) took the decision out of my hands and gave me back about 30 hours a week of a personal life.
I'll be glad when these trend stories burn themselves out, personally.
I think I'm with Rev. Dr. Mom and her "naivete." Yes, it is about choice. I choose to work outside the home, not in order to "do it like a man" i.e. 80 hours a week, but actually to provide a counter-testimony, if you will, an alternate vision of what constitutes productivity and success. Granted I'm not in corporate law, but I am in a male-dominated profession with demands that can easily add up to 80+ hours a week. So part of my job as a clergymom is to be damn good at what I do while also saying, NO. No I will not be there for every last meeting. No there is a limit to how available I am to you. And no, it is insane for you to give me a paltry maternity leave so I can leave my own brand-new baby in the care of others so I can come to work and care for *your* families before we're ready. No, no, no.
And there's no doubt in my mind that the more of us who are out there saying NO, the sooner society will start to get the message. And that's what I hear from *some* of the more moderate voices in this debate (yes they are out there, they just don't get written up in the NYT)--not that women should feel compelled to do something they don't feel called to do, but a general awareness that if my fellow clergywomen (in my case) start leaving ministry in droves, well, it's just going to take that much longer for NO to sink in.
Excellent post, Phantom.
And Ianqui makes an excellent point that the fetishization of the 16 hr workday (only 11-1/2 if you work 7 days a week?) is ridiculous.
Right on the money on the 'be more like men' thing. Bizarre, right down to the marriage partner selection criteria...
You're so awesome, Phantom. My criticism was pretty much limited to 'isn't the aphorism "the plural of anecdote is NOT data"?'
It's almost been too easy at my current church. Everyone there expects my family to come first. When I go visit someone in the hospital at 5 p.m., they worry that i am not home "getting supper" yet. They get it.
The tricky part will be making the transition to a bigger church some day, a place with more of an office culture and a corporate attitude. Because they are certainly out there, and my own personal demon is named Importance.
I'm with you, Songbird. I had someone from my congregation apologize profusely for calling me last night at home during "the dinner hour." (Of course she didn't know about the root canal, which was the real reason I had to get off the phone quickly, but that's another subject.)
And like RM, I don't do this like a man. Most of the time, the fact that I am in a male-dominated profession doesn't register to me. I'm too busy trying to be faithful to my calling.
Great post, PS, as usual. Really really great.
This whole trend of bashing women, no matter what they do, is getting so so so tired. Unfortunately, I guess it's been going on for decades. Probably hundreds of decades. Ugh.
I love Rev. Dr. Mom's comment too. Why isn't there more focus on men in this choices discussion? I mean, I KNOW why men aren't in the discussion, but still, I'd like to see more of it. 80 hours a week is unacceptable for EVERYONE. If only everyone refused to do it, then we'd be fine.
My only agreement with the article was that sometimes the choice argument just isn't true. In many professions, with many employers. I've often seen women around me who just don't have the choice to keep working unless they are willing to let go of all family life. And maybe that is a problem more with the demands of the profession than with women and their opportunities. I'm envious of those women who say they can do it all, or that their employers are totally understanding, because I haven't seen it, and I've worked in 4 law firms since I started law school.
If I'm entirely truthful, I guess I do wish I had loads of women around me demanding some balance between work and family, because it would make it easier for me. But that doesn't mean that I blame those who do what works for their family and what makes them happy, even if that means that they leave my office. More power to them.
Anyway, you're brilliant as always, PS.
Just. Grr.
Well said.
Of course, the rebuttal to the "its all about choice" comment would be, from those folks, an attack on "choice feminism" and how to choose to be prefeminist is not to be feminist.
But I digress.
Underpants gnomes and Wal-Mart discrimination claims in one post. I (heart) this post!
I can't remember the name of the author who made the rounds last year with her book about these "elite women" in the workforce - teh CEOs and Partners and Full Professors -- who had discovered that many/most of them had not had children.
And it's my observation that female bosses without children are *not* out there trying to make the workplace a better place for all people, or struggling for family-friendly policies. Nope, they're the ones saying "I succeeded under this godforsaken paradigm of success; don't expect any favors from me."
Phantom, I heart you too. Please keep writing, because especially as a non-mom I learn so much reading your stuff.
For some reason i didn't write the part about how much I loved your post, Phantom, even though this topic makes me hot under the collar. I loved it. You should be writing a newspaper column.
You bring up a great point, Sara. Amanda at Pandagon has a great post on choice, feminism, and patriarchy (via Geeky Mom. There are plenty of issues to be raised about "choice feminism," but I think Amanda is spot-on when she argues that the locus of these issues is "women are bound by the patriarchy in complex, inextricable ways that constrain every path available," not "stupid rich bitches make selfish choices to drag the sisterhood down." Which seems to more or less be Hirshman's ultimate take on it.
Halloweenlover, it is a good point to make that you and other women in your position would be better off if more women were to stay and demand balance. It would be even better if men were to start demanding it, too, so that women didn't have to do all the heavy lifting!
The thought of men demanding it too made me chuckle. How sad, no?
Wow, PS! WOW!
Marry me?
But Jessica! What would David Sedaris do without you?
Fabulous post, PS. Ianqui is right; when do we leave for France?
To paraphrase the sage: Does the phrase "Escape From Freedom" ring a familiar bell?
I have found meaningful part-time work so there is a balance in my life. It doesn't pay well, it's for a non-profit. I however am treated with respect, my obligations as a parent aren't looked down on. But it's in a female run, child centered world -education. I feel no need to prove myself or be a good example for a cause. I am a feminist, and anyone who questions that can read my "Bite Me..." t-shirt.
Thank you for this post. It's the only thing that stopped my apoplectic sputtering after reading that article. Why, why, why on earth does anyone still think that living in a Dilbert cartoon is progress?
Did you see on Ann Bartow's blog that Hirshman said she would not answer "hysterical internet commenters" since their thinking would not sharpen her own? Charming. Not that I want her emailing me, but I hope someone tells her that, yes, there are ways to determine how many anecdotes amount to data. It's called an effing power analysis, and anyone in an elementary stats class can tell you how to do it. Ah, stats. Now that's some hysterical shi'itake.
I was going to make some witty remark involving Scott Adams and the ID/creationists being the reason, Chan S., but I'm just too tired. Too many nights spent being a tool for the patriarchy, I guess. But welcome to the commenting pixie party!
We're hysterical! Of course we are! Because we're women, don't you know!
Anyone want to take a stab at what kind of thinking would, in fact, sharpen Hirshman's?
Those hysterical internets, giving voice to the untouchables. Down, masses! Down!
I'm with halloweenlover. I want more women in my position--female associates with children that are planning to stay on a partner-tract. I'm not sure I'm doing it all or my employer is doing the best they can. I'm doing ok and they are trying to improve. What is pushing them to improve is the attrition of female associates at the time that they are most profitable for the firm and the reason most of them leave is not because they don't like their job, or because they have always had the plan to leave employment once they have kids, but because the demands of job are not allowing the flexiblity they need for their lives with children. I think my firm is starting to realize that they have to come up with ways to keep these women because they are valuable. While I wish they were rethinking policies because they want to make it better for women out of the goodness of their hearts, it is essentially a monetary decision. Right now in large busy firms I think women have more leverage than they think and need to use that.
While I am participating in firm intiatives to institute better policies to help people balance work and family, I think the benefit I bring to my firm is simply being here and staying on track and being a parent and showing partners that it can be done. I don't vocalize demands for flexibility, but just do it--I have days I'm home with a sick kid and that is the way it is, and I try not to schedule conference calls after 5 or 6 (and my partners generally won't either if they want me around), I try not to work weekends, but sometimes it has to be done. I don't know how it will work in the long run, but I don't think the type or quality of work I'm given has suffered at all and I think I'm balancing home life relatively well (some months better than others). I just want more women like me here so I can learn from them and commiserate with them.
Phantom, I wish more men were pushing for better policies, but they don't. We recently instituted a paternity policy (allows a secondary caregiver, generally the father, to take up to 3 weeks of paid leave after the birth or adoption of a child) and I think it was a gay female that had adopted that started pushing for the policy. It is about a good a policy as you get in a law firm. Problem is that no one really thinks people (men) will really use it. Most of the men I know here take at most 3 or 4 days off when they have kids and don't really expect to change that with the institution of this policy when what they need to do is take full advantage of the policy so it is a given that when someone's wife has a kid they are going to be out a few weeks because it is important.
Thanks for those points, lawmom. And you're right: the policies don't make any difference until the expectations have changed, as well. You are doing everything you can on your end to make sure that those expectations and social norms will change. But what will it take to get more people to join you? Why *don't* the men take advantage? My husband "gets" being an active father; so does yours. Why don't more dads? They have something to lose here, too. (Again with my story about my male corporate lawyer relative whose marriage fell apart because he was never home to help deal with kid crises.) Is it just that male corporate lawyers tend to marry non-feminist women who give them a pass on these issues? Is it fear of falling behind in the race for partner?
Forgive my ignorance. I honestly don't know very much about the way the corporate law world works -- mostly because the people I know who went into it disappeared into a vortex of busyness. I was just saying to somebody (you know who you are, somebody) that I wish we heard more from women like you who are trying to make it work in the corporate world, and succeeding. If we're going to use anecdotes as data, I'd love them to be anecdotes that actually shed some light on the issue, as yours do.
You ask: Is it just that male corporate lawyers tend to marry non-feminist women who give them a pass on these issues?
What is strange is that a huge number of lawyers are married to other lawyers. The male lawyers are married to female lawyers that started their careers expecting to have a career in law. Most of these women would probably describe themselves as feminist. If not, they went to law school thinking they were as smart and capable as any male student there and the same when they showed up at some big firm. Sure, some of these women leave and go in house or part time or to a smaller firm, but most leave to be a sahm. I realize why it happens. The road to partnership is long and grueling and two people on that road (especially with kids) would never make it. They would all have breakdowns. So there has to be some give. From what I see, it is always the woman that gives. You can't know what goes on in these homes, but I wonder about the dynamics--is there a real choice on the woman's part that they want to be home with kids, do both parties (or one party) have a strong attachment to traditional gender roles, do they look at the statistics for females making partner and figure the husband has the better chance.
I'm late on this, but PS, NICE POST! You said everything I felt about this piece, and then some.
I am reading this, little by little, in visits between conferencing. But I really don't know how you do it, with BB and LG, and everything else. My mind does some fun and wacky stuff, but this, this is rock solid ferocity.
Hah - I'm just now seeing your response to my comment...you're cute, lady!
You are BRILLIANT.
(Blushing.) Thanks, elswhere. And welcome to the commenting pixie party!
Commenting by HaloScan
